Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of Fluorinated GHGs, 74774-74861 [2010-28803]
Download as PDF
74774
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 98
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927; FRL–9226–8]
RIN 2060–AQ00
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases: Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is issuing a regulation to
require monitoring and reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions from
additional sources of fluorinated
greenhouse gases, including electronics
manufacturing, fluorinated gas
production, electrical equipment use,
electrical equipment manufacture or
refurbishment, as well as importers and
exporters of pre-charged equipment and
closed-cell foams. This rule requires
monitoring and reporting of greenhouse
gases for these source categories only for
sources with carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions, imports, or exports above
certain threshold levels. This rule does
not require control of greenhouse gases.
DATES: The final rule is effective on
December 31, 2010. The incorporation
SUMMARY:
by reference of certain publications
listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of
December 31, 2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA established a single
docket under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0927 for this rule. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at EPA’s Docket Center, Public
Reading Room, EPA West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20004. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
1742.
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; e-mail address:
GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For
technical information and
implementation materials, please go to
the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
Web site https://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/
ghgrulemaking.html. To submit a
question, select Rule Help Center,
followed by Contact Us.
Regulated
Entities. The Administrator determined
that this action is subject to the
provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 307(d). See CAA section
307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of CAA
section 307(d) apply to ‘‘such other
actions as the Administrator may
determine.’’). This final rule affects
owners and operators of electronics
manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas
production facilities, electric power
systems, and electrical equipment
manufacturing facilities, as well as
importers and exporters of pre-charged
equipment and closed-cell foams.
Regulated categories and entities
include those listed in Table 1 of this
preamble.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY
Category
NAICS
Electronics Manufacturing ...................................
334111
334413
334419
334419
325120
221121
33531
Examples of affected facilities
423730
333415
336391
423620
443111
423730
326150
335313
423610
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Fluorinated Gas Production ................................
Electrical Equipment Use ....................................
Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment.
Importers and Exporters of Pre-charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams.
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. Table 1 of this preamble lists the
types of facilities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially affected by the
reporting requirements. Other types of
facilities and companies not listed in
the table could also be subject to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
Microcomputers manufacturing facilities.
Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities.
Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) unit screens manufacturing facilities.
Micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) manufacturing facilities.
Industrial gases manufacturing facilities.
Electric bulk power transmission and control facilities.
Power transmission and distribution switchgear and specialty transformers
manufacturing facilities.
Air-conditioning equipment (except room units) merchant wholesalers.
Air-conditioning equipment (except motor vehicle) manufacturing.
Motor vehicle air-conditioning manufacturing.
Air-conditioners, room, merchant wholesalers.
Household appliance stores.
Automotive air-conditioners merchant wholesalers.
Polyurethane foam products manufacturing.
Circuit breakers, power, manufacturing.
Circuit breakers merchant wholesalers.
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 and the relevant
criteria in the subparts related to
electronics manufacturing facilities,
fluorinated gas production facilities,
electric power transmission or
distribution facilities, electrical
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
equipment manufacturing or
refurbishment facilities, and importers
and exporters of pre-charged equipment
and closed-cell foams. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular facility,
consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER GENERAL
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Many facilities that are affected by the
final rule have greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from multiple source
categories listed in 40 CFR part 98.
Table 2 of this preamble has been
developed as a guide to help potential
reporters in the source categories subject
to this reporting rule identify the source
categories (by subpart) that they may
need to (1) consider in their facility
applicability determination, and/or (2)
include in their reporting. The table
74775
should only be seen as a guide.
Additional subparts in 40 CFR part 98
may be relevant for a given reporter.
Similarly, not all listed subparts are
relevant for all reporters.
TABLE 2—SOURCE CATEGORIES AND RELEVANT SUBPARTS
Source category (and main applicable subpart)
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Electricity Generation ......................
Electronics Manufacturing ...............
Fluorinated Gas Production ............
Electrical Equipment Use ................
Imports and Exports of Fluorinated
GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture
or Refurbishment.
Subparts recommended for review to determine applicability
Electrical Equipment Use.
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
General Stationary Fuel Combustion Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases.
General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases.
Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs from Electrical Equipment Manufacture and Refurbishment.
General Stationary Fuel Combustion Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams.
What is the effective date? The final
rule is effective on December 31, 2010.
Section 553(d) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter
5, generally provides that rules may not
take effect earlier than 30 days after they
are published in the Federal Register.
EPA is issuing this final rule under
section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
which states: ‘‘The provisions of section
553 through 557 * * * of Title 5 shall
not, except as expressly provided in this
section, apply to actions to which this
subsection applies.’’ Thus, section
553(d) of the APA does not apply to this
rule. EPA is nevertheless acting
consistently with the purposes
underlying APA section 553(d) in
making this rule effective on December
31, 2010. Section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)
allows an effective date less than 30
days after publication ‘‘as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause
found and published with the rule.’’ As
explained below, EPA finds that there is
good cause for this rule to become
effective on or before December 31,
2010, even if this results in an effective
date fewer than 30 days from date of
publication in the Federal Register.
While this action is being signed prior
to December 1, 2010, there is likely to
be a significant delay in the publication
of this rule as it contains complex
diagrams, equations, and charts, and is
relatively long in length. As an example,
EPA signed a shorter technical
amendments package related to the
same underlying reporting rule on
October 7, 2010, and it was not
published until October 28, 2010, 75 FR
66434, three weeks later.
The purpose of the 30-day waiting
period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is
to give affected parties a reasonable time
to adjust their behavior and prepare
before the final rule takes effect. Where,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
as here, the final rule will be signed and
made available on the EPA Web site
more than 30 days before the effective
date, but where the publication is likely
to be delayed due to the complexity and
length of the rule, that purpose is still
met. Moreover, through June 30, 2011,
facilities covered by this rule may use
Best Available Monitoring Methods
(BAMM) for any parameter for which it
is not reasonably feasible to acquire,
install, or operate a required piece of
monitoring equipment in a facility, or to
procure measurement services from
necessary providers. This will provide
facilities a substantial additional period
to adjust their behavior to the
requirements of the final rule.
Accordingly, we find good cause exists
to make this rule effective on or before
December 31, 2010, consistent with the
purposes of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).1
Judicial Review.
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial
review of this final rule is available only
by filing a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by January 31, 2011.
Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only
an objection to this final rule that was
raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review.
This section also provides a mechanism
for EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to EPA
that it was impracticable to raise such
1 We recognize that this rule could be published
at least 30 days before December 31, 2010, which
would negate the need for this good cause finding,
and we plan to request expedited publication of this
rule in order to decrease the likelihood of a printing
delay. However, as we cannot know the date of
publication in advance of signing this rule, we are
proceeding with this good cause finding for an
effective date on or before December 31, 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such
objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of this rule.’’ Any person
seeking to make such a demonstration to
EPA should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel
Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a
copy to the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20004. Note, under CAA section
307(b)(2), the requirements established
by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The
following acronyms and abbreviations
are used in this document.
ASTM American Society for Testing and
Materials
BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI confidential business information
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
DE destruction efficiency
DRE destruction or removal efficiency
ECD electron capture detector
EFC emission factor for the valve-hose
combination
EIA Economic Impact Analysis
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74776
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
F–GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas
FTIR fourier transform infrared
(spectroscopy)
FID flame ionization detector
GC gas chromatography
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HFE hydrofluoroether
HTF heat transfer fluid
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
kg kilograms
LCD liquid crystal displays
LED light-emitting diode
MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems
MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon
dioxide equivalent
MRR mandatory greenhouse gas reporting
rule
MS mass spectrometry
MVAC motor vehicle air conditioner
N2O nitrous oxide
NACAA National Association of Clean Air
Agencies
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NERC North American Energy Reliability
Corporation
NESHAP National Emissions Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NMR nuclear magnetic resonance
NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFC perfluorocarbon
POHC principal organic hazardous
constituent
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PSEF process-vent-specific emission factor
PV photovoltaic cells
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QMS Quadrapole Mass Spectroscopy
R&D research and development
RF radio frequency
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RPS remote plasma source
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
TCR The Climate Registry
TSD technical support document
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
WCI Western Climate Initiative
Table of Contents
I. Background
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
A. Organization of this Preamble
B. Background on the Final Rule
C. Legal Authority
II. Requirements for Specific Source
Categories
A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program
B. Overview of Confidentiality
Determination for Data Elements in the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules
C. Summary of Changes to the General
Provisions of the General Provisions of
40 CFR Part 98 Related to the Addition
of Subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS
D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)
E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L)
F. Electrical Transmission and Distribution
Equipment Use (Subpart DD)
G. Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated
GHGs Inside Pre-Charged Equipment or
Closed-Cell Foams (Subpart QQ)
H. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or
Refurbishment (Subpart SS)
III. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule
A. How were compliance costs estimated?
B. What are the costs of the rule?
C. What are the economic impacts of the
rule?
D. What are the impacts of the rule on
small businesses?
E. What are the benefits of the rule for
society?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
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
K. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
A. Organization of This Preamble
This preamble is broken into several
large sections, as detailed in the Table
of Contents. The paragraphs below
describe the layout of the preamble and
provide a brief summary of each section.
The first section of this preamble
contains the basic background
information about the origin of this rule,
including a brief discussion of the
rationale for revising the initially
proposed requirements for subparts L,
DD, and SS. This section also discusses
EPA’s use of our legal authority under
the CAA to collect the required data,
and the benefits of collecting the data.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The second section of this preamble
provides a brief summary of the key
design elements for each subpart. For
each subpart, this section includes
(1) The definition of the source category,
(2) GHGs to report,
(3) GHG emission calculating and
monitoring methods,
(4) data reporting requirements, and (5)
records that must be retained. Each
subpart also includes a summary of
major changes since proposal and a
summary of comments and responses.
Please refer to the specific source
category of interest for more details.
The third section provides the
summary of the cost impacts, economic
impacts, and benefits of this rule from
the Economic Analysis. Finally, the last
section discusses the various statutory
and executive order requirements
applicable to this rule.
B. Background on the Final Rule
This action finalizes monitoring and
reporting requirements for the following
five source categories: Electronics
manufacturing, fluorinated gas
production, electrical equipment use,
electrical equipment manufacture and
refurbishment, and importers and
exporters and pre-charged equipment
and closed-cell foams.
EPA initially proposed reporting
requirements for electronics, fluorinated
GHG production, and electrical
equipment use on April 12, 2009 (74 FR
16448) as part of a larger rulemaking
effort to establish a GHG reporting
program for all sectors of the economy.
In that proposal, EPA also requested
comment on requiring reporting of the
quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported
and exported inside pre-charged
equipment and foams. However, EPA
did not include requirements for these
source categories in the Final
Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (Part
98) (40 CFR part 98), which was signed
by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on
September 22, 2009 and published in
the Federal Register on October 30,
2009 (74 FR 56260).
EPA deferred action on these source
categories because EPA received a
number of lengthy, detailed comments
regarding the proposed requirements for
these source categories. These
comments, which are described in more
detail in the discussions of the
individual source categories in the April
12, 2010 proposed rule, raised concerns
about the costs and technical feasibility
of implementing subparts I and L as
initially proposed, requested
clarification of how ‘‘facility’’ should be
interpreted under subpart DD, and both
favored and opposed a requirement to
report fluorinated GHGs contained in
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
imported and exported pre-charged
equipment and closed-cell foams.
EPA recognized the concerns raised
by stakeholders, and decided to repropose significant pieces of these
subparts. The revised proposed rule was
published in the Federal Register on
April 12, 2010. A public hearing on the
proposed rule was held on April 20,
2010 in Washington, DC, and the 60-day
public comment period ended on June
11, 2010.
For subparts I and L this rule
incorporates a number of technical
changes including, but not limited to,
the addition of different methodologies
that provide improved emissions
coverage at a lower cost burden to
facilities as compared to the initial April
2009 proposal. Where aspects of the
initial proposals for subparts I and L are
retained in this rule, such as in the basic
mass-balance methodology for subpart L
(as an option for some facilities) and in
many of the equations for subpart I, this
rule adds more flexibility in how and
how frequently the underlying data are
gathered. In addition, EPA is requiring
facilities to report emissions from
manufacture or refurbishment of
electrical equipment and to report the
quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported
and exported inside pre-charged
equipment and foams.
We have concluded that the
monitoring approaches required in this
rule, which combine direct
measurement and facility-specific
calculations, effectively balance
accuracy and costs, and that they are
warranted because the resulting data
will enable EPA to analyze and develop
a range of potential CAA GHG policies
and programs. A consistent and accurate
data set is crucial to serve this intended
purpose.
Under this rule, facilities and
suppliers will begin data collection in
2011 following the methods outlined in
this rule and will submit data to EPA by
March 31, 2012. EPA is allowing
facilities and suppliers to use the Best
Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM)
through June 30, 2011 without
submitting a petition to EPA. EPA is
also allowing facilities to request an
extension for the use of BAMM beyond
the initial 6-month period. For details
on BAMM extension requests, including
their due dates and required contents,
refer to the Monitoring and QA/QC
Requirements section of each subpart
and to the preamble discussions for
subparts I and L.
C. Legal Authority
EPA is finalizing requirements for five
source categories (electronics
manufacturing, production of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
fluorinated gases, use of electrical
transmission and distribution
equipment, manufacture or
refurbishment of electrical equipment,
and imports and exports of pre-charges
equipment and closed cell-foams) under
its existing CAA authority; specifically,
authorities provided in CAA section
114. As discussed in detail in Sections
I.C and II.Q of the preamble to the 2009
final rule (74 FR 56260, October 30,
2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) provides
EPA with broad authority to require
emissions sources, persons subject to
the CAA, manufacturers of process or
control equipment, or persons whom
the Administrator believes may have
necessary information to monitor and
report emissions and provide such other
information the Administrator requests
for the purposes of carrying out any
provision of the CAA. Further
information is available in ‘‘Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s
Response to Public Comments, Legal
Issues’’ (available in EPA–HQ–OAR–
2008–0508)
II. Requirements for Specific Source
Categories
A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program
On October 30, 2009, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a rule for the mandatory
reporting of greenhouse gases (GHG)
(also referred to as 40 CFR part 98) from
large GHG emissions sources in the
United States. Implementation of 40
CFR Part 98 is referred to as the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
(GHGRP).
The rule requires reporting of GHG
emissions and supply from certain
sectors of the economy, and apply to
certain downstream facilities that emit
GHGs, as well as to certain upstream
suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial
GHGs. The regulations require annual
reporting of GHGs including carbon
dioxide (CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), and other
fluorinated compounds (e.g.,
hydrofluoroethers (HFEs)).
Part 98 regulations require only that
source categories subject to the rule
monitor and report GHGs in accordance
with the methods specified in the
individual subparts. In this action, EPA
is adding five source categories to part
98. For a list of the specific GHGs to be
reported and the GHG calculation
procedures, monitoring, missing data
procedures, recordkeeping, and
reporting required for facilities subject
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74777
to subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS see the
relevant subpart description below.
B. Overview of Confidentiality
Determination for Data Elements in the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules
This action does not address whether
data reported under subparts I, L, DD,
QQ, or SS will be treated as confidential
business information (CBI). EPA
published a proposed confidentiality
determination on July 7, 2010 (75 FR
39094) which addressed this issue. In
that action, EPA proposed which
specific data elements would be treated
as CBI and which data elements must be
available to the public under CAA
section 114. EPA has received several
comments on the proposal, and is in the
process of considering these comments.
A final determination will be issued
before any data is released, and the final
determination will include all of the
data elements under these subparts.
C. Summary of Changes to the General
Provisions of the General Provisions of
40 CFR Part 98 Related to the Addition
of Subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS
Changes to Applicability. We are
making changes to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5) to
be consistent with previous revisions
that were made on July 12, 2010. On
July 12, 2010 (75 FR 39736), we made
a number of conforming changes to the
General Provisions (subpart A to part
98) to accommodate the addition of new
source categories that were being added
to Part 98. In the July 12, 2010 notice,
we added Tables A–3 through A–5 to
replace the list of source categories and
supplier categories in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1),
(a)(2), and (a)(4), respectively. Under
this revised approach, as new subparts
are adopted, a new row is added to the
appropriate table for the year in which
reporting is required to commence for
the new source category or supplier
category. As a conforming change, the
text of 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) was reworded
to refer to ‘‘Table A–3 and Table A–4’’
instead of ‘‘subparts C–JJ.’’
In this action, we are amending
Tables A–3, A–4, and A–5 to subpart A
to add entries for five subparts: DD, SS,
I, L, and QQ. Because we are now
adding a new supplier category to the
reporting requirements, we are also
making a conforming change to 40 CFR
98.3(c)(5)(i) and (ii) to replace the
reference to ‘‘subparts KK through PP’’
with a reference to ‘‘Table A–5.’’ This
conforming change does not alter any
reporting requirements.
The following source categories have
been added to the list of source
categories in Table A–3 to subpart A
because they have a production capacity
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74778
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
or gas consumption threshold rather
than a CO2e emission threshold.
• Electric power transmission or
distribution facilities that include the
total nameplate capacity located within
the facility, when added to the total
nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC
containing equipment that is not located
within the facility but is under common
ownership or control, exceeds 17,820
pounds of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)or
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (subpart DD).
• Electric power equipment
manufacturing or refurbishing facilities
with total annual SF6 and PFC
purchases (combined) that exceed
23,000 pounds per year (subpart SS).
The following source categories are
subject to the rule if facility emissions
are equal to or greater than 25,000
metric tons CO2e per year. Therefore,
these source categories have been added
to the list of emission threshold source
categories referenced in Table A–4 to
subpart A.
• Fluorinated gas production
facilities whose emissions would exceed
25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control
technologies (subpart L).
• Electronics manufacturing facilities
whose emissions would exceed 25,000
mtCO2e in the absence of control
technologies (subpart I).
For all of these facilities, whether they
are listed in Table A–3 or A–4 to
subpart A, the annual GHG report must
cover stationary fuel combustion
sources, miscellaneous uses of
carbonates, and all applicable source
categories listed in Table A–3 and Table
A–4 to subpart A.
Importers and exporters of certain
types of pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foam products containing
fluorinated GHGs, N2O, or CO2 (subpart
QQ) have been added to Table A–5 to
subpart A because they are suppliers of
GHGs.
As is true for the source categories
covered by the final Part 98, a facility
or supplier in any of these source
categories may cease reporting if their
emissions are less than 25,000 mtCO2e
per year for five consecutive years or
less than 15,000 mtCO2e per year for
three consecutive years, subject to the
procedures at 40 CFR 98.2(i).
Reporting CO2e emissions. EPA is
adding a paragraph to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)
to clarify that facilities that emit
fluorinated GHGs are required to
calculate and report CO2e emissions
only for those fluorinated GHGs that are
listed in Table A–1 of this subpart, not
for other fluorinated GHGs. However, it
is important to note that fluorinated
GHG emitters are still required to report
all fluorinated GHGs emitted under 40
CFR 98.3(c)(4)(iii) (in metric tons of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
GHG). This change clarifies that emitters
are not required to develop GWPs for
fluorinated GHGs that are not listed in
Table A–1 and ensures consistent
reporting of such fluorinated GHGs
among different reporters. The change is
being made in parallel with a similar
change to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5) through a
separate rulemaking.
Definitions. EPA is revising one
definition in 40 CFR part 98 subpart A
and is adding a number of definitions
applicable to specific source categories
to the corresponding subparts. The
definition that is being revised in
subpart A is the definition of
‘‘destruction efficiency,’’ which is being
revised to be expressed in tons of
specific greenhouse gases rather than
tons of CO2e. This revision and the
rationale for it are discussed in more
detail in Section II.E of this preamble.
The definitions that are applicable to
specific source categories are not being
added to the definitions section in 40
CFR part 98 subpart A because they do
not have broader applicability to part
98. EPA has sought to avoid any conflict
between these subpart-specific
definitions and the definitions in
Subpart A. In one instance, for electric
power systems, EPA is applying a
category-specific definition of facility
rather than the general definition of
facility in the General Provisions. The
reasons for this source-category-specific
definition of facility are set forth in
Section II.G of this preamble. The
remaining definitions are intended as
supplements to the definitions section
in the General Provisions. EPA does not
expect these definitions to create
conflicts with the General Provisions.
To the extent regulated entities are in
doubt as to which definition applies,
they should assume that the categoryspecific definitions are controlling.
Incorporation by Reference (IBR). We
are amending 40 CFR 98.7
(incorporation by reference) to include
standard methods used in the subparts.
In particular, for subpart I, we are
adding the following three standards:
the 2006 International SEMATECH
Manufacturing Initiative’s Guideline for
Environmental Characterization of
Semiconductor Process Equipment
(International SEMATECH
#06124825A–ENG), the 2001
International SEMATECH’s Guidelines
for Environmental Characterization of
Semiconductor Equipment
(International SEMATECH
#01104197A–XFR), and EPA’s Protocol
for Measuring Destruction or Removal
Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment
in Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1,
EPA 430–R–10–003. These standards
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
are referenced in 40 CFR 98.94
(Monitoring and QA/QC requirements
for subpart I), 40 CFR 98.96 (Data
reporting requirements for subpart I), 40
CFR 98.97 (Records that must be
retained for subpart I), and 40 CFR 98.98
(Definitions for subpart I).
In addition, for subpart L, we are
revising the paragraphs listing several
ASME standards and one ASTM
standard that are already contained in
40 CFR 98.7 to indicate that these
standards are also referenced by 40 CFR
98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements in 40 CFR part 98, subpart
L, fluorinated gas production). We are
also adding the following seven
standards: ASTM D2879–97
(Reapproved 2007) Standard Test
Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature
Relationship and Initial Decomposition
Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope;
ASTM D7359–08 Standard Test Method
for Total Fluorine, Chlorine and Sulfur
in Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Their
Mixtures by Oxidative Pyrohydrolytic
Combustion followed by Ion
Chromatography Detection (Combustion
Ion Chromatography-CIC); Tracer Gas
Protocol for the Determination of
Volumetric Flow Rate Through the Ring
Pipe of the Xact Multi-Metals
Monitoring System (also known as
Other Test Method 24); Approved
Alternative Method 012: An Alternate
Procedure for Stack Gas Volumetric
Flow Rate Determination (Tracer Gas);
the Emission Inventory Improvement
Program, Volume II: Chapter 16,
Methods for Estimating Air Emissions
from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities;
Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission
Estimates; and EPA’s Protocol for
Measuring Destruction or Removal
Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment
in Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1,
EPA 430–R–10–003. These are
referenced in 40 CFR 98.123
(Calculating GHG emissions for subpart
L), 40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and QA/
QC requirements for subpart L), and 40
CFR 98.128 (Definitions for subpart L).
D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)
1. Summary of the Final Rule
Source Category Definition. The
electronics manufacturing source
category consists of any of the following
five production processes. Facilities that
use these processes include, but are not
limited to, those facilities that
manufacture micro-electro-mechanical
systems (MEMS), liquid crystal displays
(LCDs), photovoltaic cells (PV), and
semiconductors (including lightemitting diodes).
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
74779
Facilities must determine if they meet
the applicability criteria in the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.2(a)(2)) by using
the methods in 40 CFR 98.91 and
summarized as follows:
• Semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD
manufacturing facilities are required to
use gas specific emission factors and
100 percent of annual manufacturing
capacity. Because heat transfer fluids
are widely used in semiconductor
manufacturing, to account for emissions
from heat transfer fluids, semiconductor
manufacturing facilities are required to
add 10 percent of total clean and etch
emissions at a facility to their total
estimate. For semiconductor and LCD
manufacturing facilities, the gas specific
emission factors are consistent with the
2006 IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. For
MEMS manufacturing facilities, because
there is no IPCC factor available, the
emission factor was developed by EPA
and is based on the IPCC Tier 2b SF6
emission factor for semiconductors.3
• PV manufacturing facilities are
required to multiply annual fluorinated
GHG purchases or consumption by the
gas-appropriate 100-year GWPs
(provided in Table A–1 to subpart A of
this part).
It is important to clarify that these
methods for determining whether a
manufacturer exceeds the threshold are
different from those used to calculate
and report annual GHG emissions. The
methods for calculating GHG emissions
and consumption for reporting purposes
are provided in the following
paragraphs.
GHGs to Report. Each facility must
calculate and report the following GHG
emissions and consumption:
• Fluorinated GHG emissions from
plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and
wafer cleaning.
• N2O emissions from chemical vapor
deposition and other electronics
manufacturing processes.
• Fluorinated GHG emissions from
heat transfer fluid use.
• Consumption for all fluorinated
GHGs and N2O including gases used for
manufacturing processes other than
those listed above.
• CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion
emissions from stationary combustion
units by following the requirements of
40 CFR part 98, subpart C (General
Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources).
GHG Emissions Calculation and
Monitoring. To calculate fluorinated
GHG and N2O emissions from
electronics manufacturing, reporters
must use the following methods, as
appropriate for each electronics
manufacturing facility (depending on
the product manufactured, i.e., MEMS,
LCD, PV, or semiconductors).
2 For purposes of calculating and reporting
emissions for this subpart, facilities may report
controlled emissions if they abide by provisions in
40 CFR 98.94(f) of this rule.
3 For a more detailed explanation of the MEMS
default factor, please refer to the Electronics
Manufacturing TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
Fluorinated GHG Emissions
All electronics manufacturing
facilities are required to calculate
fluorinated GHG emissions from etch
and clean processes by estimating
emissions of input fluorinated GHGs
and of by-product fluorinated GHGs.
This is done by applying utilization
factors and by-product formation factors
(collectively referred to as ‘‘emission
factors’’ below) to the consumption of
each fluorinated GHG by each process
type, process sub-type or recipe, as
appropriate. However, the methods
prescribed for use by different types of
electronics manufacturing facilities
differ in the values of these emission
factors, the level of aggregation to which
the factors are applied (process type,
process sub-type, or recipe), and
whether defaults or recipe-specific
factors are applied. This framework is
discussed in detail in the following
paragraphs.
To calculate and report fluorinated
GHG emissions, reporters must adhere
to the typology shown in Figure 1 of this
preamble.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.000
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
• Electronics manufacturing
production processes in which the
etching process uses plasma-generated
fluorine atoms and other reactive
fluorine-containing fragments, which
chemically react with exposed thinfilms (e.g., dielectric, metals) or
substrate (e.g., silicon) to selectively
remove portions of material.
• Electronics manufacturing
production processes in which
chambers used for depositing thin films
are cleaned periodically using plasmagenerated fluorine atoms and other
reactive fluorine-containing fragments.
• Electronics manufacturing
production process in which wafers are
cleaned using plasma generated fluorine
atoms or other reactive fluorinecontaining fragments to remove residual
material from wafer surfaces, including
the wafer edge.
• Electronics manufacturing
production processes in which the
chemical vapor deposition process
(CVD) or other manufacturing processes
use N2O.
• Production processes which use
fluorinated GHGs as heat transfer fluids
to cool process equipment, to control
temperature during device testing, to
clean substrate surfaces and other parts,
and for soldering (e.g., vapor phase
reflow). Heat transfer fluids commonly
used in electronics manufacturing
include those sold under the trade
names ‘‘Galden®’’ and ‘‘Fluorinertsu.TM’’
Reporting Threshold. Electronics
manufacturing facilities that meet the
applicability criteria in the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.2) must report
GHG emissions. Electronics
manufacturing facilities covered by
subpart I are those that have emissions
equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e.
For electronics manufacturing, EPA is
requiring that uncontrolled emissions be
used for purposes of determining
whether a facility’s emissions are equal
to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e.2
74780
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
At the top of the typology figure are
process types, which consist of plasma
etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer
cleaning. The second level in the figure
consists of process sub-types, which are
identified for only the chamber cleaning
process type. As explained in Section
II.D.2 of this preamble (Summary of
Major Changes Since the Proposal) and
Section II.D.3 of this preamble
(Summary of Comments and
Responses), EPA is only establishing
sub-types for the chamber cleaning
process type because sufficient
information was available for these subtypes to establish default emission
factors. The three chamber cleaning
process sub-types are in-situ plasma,
remote plasma, and in-situ thermal
cleans. The bottom of the figure displays
production process recipes. Definitions
are provided in the paragraphs below.
Process Type. EPA is defining a
process type as a broad group of
manufacturing steps used at a facility
associated with substrate (e.g., wafer)
processing during device manufacture
for which fluorinated GHG emissions
and fluorinated GHG usages are
calculated and reported. The process
types are plasma etching, chamber
cleaning, and wafer cleaning.4
Process Sub-type. EPA is defining a
process sub-type as a set of similar
manufacturing steps, more closely
related within a broad process type. (For
clarity, EPA is referring to what was
previously termed process categories in
the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR
18652) as process sub-types).
In situ plasma process sub-type
consists of the cleaning of thin-film
production chambers, after processing
substrates, with a fluorinated GHG
cleaning reagent that is dissociated into
its cleaning constituents by a plasma
generated inside the chamber where the
films are produced.
Remote plasma process sub-type
consists of the cleaning of thin-film
production chambers, after processing
substrates, with a fluorinated GHG
cleaning reagent dissociated by a
remotely located (e.g., upstream) plasma
source.
In situ thermal process sub-type
consists of the cleaning of thin-film
production chambers, after processing
substrates, with a fluorinated GHG
cleaning reagent that is thermally
dissociated into its cleaning
constituents inside the chamber where
one or more thin films are produced.
Production Process Recipe (Recipe).
EPA has included definitions of
‘‘individual recipe’’ and ‘‘similar’’ with
respect to recipes in this final rule as an
aid to understanding the portions of the
rule where a facility is required or
allowed to calculate emissions on a
recipe-specific basis. The final rule uses
the term ‘‘individual recipe’’ to refer to
a specific combination of gases, under
specific conditions of reactor
temperature, pressure, flow, radio
frequency (RF) power and duration,
used repeatedly to fabricate a specific
feature on a specific film or substrate.
EPA is also introducing the term
‘‘similar,’’ with respect to recipes, to
refer to recipes that are composed of the
same set of chemicals and have the
same flow stabilization times and where
the documented differences, considered
separately, in reactor pressure,
individual gas flow rates, and applied
RF power are less than or equal to plus
or minus 10 percent. For purposes of
comparing and documenting recipes
that are similar, facilities may use either
the best known method provided by an
equipment manufacturer or the process
of record, for which emission factors for
either have been measured (see the
Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2009–0927) for supporting
information). Generally, where facilities
develop recipe-specific utilization and
by-product formation rates, they may
apply the utilization and by-product
formation rates developed for an
individual recipe to any ‘‘similar
recipe.5 ’’
Electronics manufacturing facilities
must calculate and report emissions of
each fluorinated GHG used at the
facility by adhering to typologies
discussed and defined earlier in this
section, as appropriate, and using the
following methods based on the use of
(1) Gas consumption, and (2) emission
factors for fluorinated-GHG utilization
and by-product formation rates. Where
facilities are required to estimate and
calculate emissions for sub-types or
recipes, they are also required to report
those emissions in aggregate by process
type.
The required methods are
summarized in Table 3 of this preamble.
EPA is naming the methodologies
described below using a format similar
to that used in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. While EPA’s methodologies
may be viewed generally as an
extension from and building upon the
IPCC’s methods, EPA’s approach is
distinct in terms of its applicability and
level of detail.
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF FINAL PROVISIONS FOR ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING FACILITIES TO ESTIMATE AND REPORT
FLUORINATED GHG EMISSIONS FROM ETCHING AND CLEANING PROCESSES
Manufactured
wafer size
Annual capacitya
Required methodology
Optional methodology
PV, MEMS,
LCDs.
NA .....................
NA .....................
Modified Tier 2b—Use EPA default emission factorsb for plasma etching and chamber cleaning
process types.c
Semiconductors
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Product manufactured
300 mm and
smaller.
Less than or
equal to
10,500 m2 of
substrate.
Tier 2c—Use EPA default emission factors for
plasma etching, chamber cleaning (including insitu plasma cleaning, remote plasma cleaning,
in-situ thermal cleaning sub-types), and wafer
cleaning process types.c
Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all production
processes that use fluorinated
GHGs.
Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all production
processes that use fluorinated
GHGs.
4 As defined in the final rule, the plasma etching
process type consists of any production process
using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively
remove materials that have been deposited on a
substrate during electronics manufacturing. Also as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
defined in the final rule, the wafer cleaning process
type consists of any production process using
fluorinated GHG reagents to clean wafers at any
step during production.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
5 To be included in a set of similar recipes for the
purposes of this subpart, a recipe must be similar
to the recipe in the set for which recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation rates have
been measured.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
74781
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF FINAL PROVISIONS FOR ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING FACILITIES TO ESTIMATE AND REPORT
FLUORINATED GHG EMISSIONS FROM ETCHING AND CLEANING PROCESSES—Continued
Product manufactured
Manufactured
wafer size
Annual capacitya
Semiconductors
300 mm and
smaller.
Greater than
10,500 m2 of
substrate.
Semiconductors
Larger than 300
mm.
NA .....................
Required methodology
Optional methodology
Tier 2d—Use EPA default emission factors for
chamber cleaning (including in-situ plasma
cleaning, remote plasma cleaning, in-situ thermal cleaning sub-types), and wafer cleaning
process types, and recipe-specific emission factors for plasma etching.c
Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all
production processes that use fluorinated GHG.
Tier 3—Use recipe-specific emission factors for all production
processes that use fluorinated
GHGs.
None.
a Manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.
b These emission factors are consistent with emission factors published in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
c Where default emission factors are not provided in Tables I–3, I–4, I–5, I–6, or I–7 for a particular fluorinated GHG and process type or subtype combination, a facility must either use utilization and by-product formation rates of 0 or use directly measured recipe-specific emission factors using the procedures of this subpart.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Gas Consumption
Electronics manufacturing facilities
must use the following methods to
calculate and apportion fluorinated
GHG consumption:
• Total annual gas consumption, for
all fluorinated GHGs, calculated using
the facility’s purchase records,
disbursements, gas container
inventories, and gas- and facilityspecific heel factors.
• Total annual gas consumption
apportioning factors developed using
facility-specific engineering models
based on quantifiable metrics (i.e., a
metric that is proportional to gas usage)
of fluorinated GHG-using activity.
Facilities must document these models
in their site GHG Monitoring Plans (as
required under 40 CFR 98.3) and verify
them. At a minimum, facilities must
verify and document the information
listed in 40 CFR 98.94(c) and 40 CFR
98.97(c), respectively. This information
must be updated each reporting year.
Fluorinated GHG Utilization and ByProduct Formation Rates (Emission
Factors)
Electronics manufacturing facilities
must use the following methods for
applying (and in some cases,
developing) fluorinated GHG emission
factors, as appropriate. Where a facility
uses less than 50 kg of a fluorinated
GHG in one reporting year, rather than
calculate emissions using an emission
factor, they may report the emissions of
that gas as equal to consumption.
Facilities That Manufacture MEMS,
LCDs, and PV
Facilities that manufacture MEMS,
LCDs, and PV are required to calculate
and report their fluorinated GHG
emissions from two process types:
Plasma etching and chamber cleaning.
These facilities are required to use
default emission factors presented in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
Tables I–5, I–6, or I–7 to subpart I for
MEMS, LCDs, PV, respectively. EPA is
using the term ‘‘Modified Tier 2b
Method’’ to refer to this methodology.
A facility may use directly measured
recipe-specific emission factors in lieu
of defaults for all production processes
that use fluorinated GHGs only if the
recipe-specific emission factors are
measured using the 2006 ISMI
Guidelines, International SEMATECH
#06124825A–ENG, with limited
exceptions.6 The facility must develop
recipe-specific factors for each
individual recipe except that a factor
developed for one individual recipe
may be applied to similar recipes. In a
given reporting year, a facility must
develop new recipe-specific emission
factors only for recipes which are not
similar to any recipe used in a previous
reporting year. Facilities that choose the
recipe-specific approach must also
aggregate the recipe-specific emissions
and report the total emissions by
process type (plasma etching and
chamber cleaning). In addition, where a
facility reports using recipe-specific
emission factors, they are required to
report the film or substrate that was
etched/cleaned and the feature type that
was etched.
A facility that is using a method based
on default emission factors, but uses a
fluorinated GHG for a particular process
type for which default emission factors
are not provided in Tables I–5, I–6, or
I–7, must either use utilization and byproduct formation rates of 0 or, in that
particular instance, use directly
measured recipe-specific emission
factors measured using the 2006 ISMI
6 EPA is permitting facilities to use emission
factors measured using the 2001 ISMI Guidelines,
International SEMATECH #01104197A–XFR,
provided the emissions factors were measured prior
to January 1, 2007. Documentation for the
measurements is required.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Guidelines, International SEMATECH
#06124825A–ENG, with limited
exceptions.7 The facility must develop
and report the recipe-specific emission
factors using the same procedures as
discussed in the paragraph above.
With the exception of where default
emission factors are not provided in
Tables I–5, I–6, or I–7 for a particular
process type, EPA is prohibiting a
facility from creating and using a hybrid
method to ensure consistent methods of
calculating and reporting emissions.
This means that a single facility must
choose between using only default
emission factors or using recipe-specific
emission factors for all process types;
hybrid methods using both default
emission factors and recipe-specific
factors within the same reporting year
are not permitted. This restriction will
enable EPA to analyze emissions and
trends using a consistent set of data.
Facilities That Manufacture
Semiconductors
EPA is requiring facilities that
manufacture semiconductors to use a
method to calculate and report their
fluorinated GHG emissions which varies
depending on the size of wafers that the
facility is manufacturing (i.e., whether
the facility manufactures wafers
measuring 300 mm and less or greater
than 300 mm). This distinction was
proposed in the April 2010 proposed
rule (75 FR 18652). For facilities that
manufacture wafers measuring 300 mm
and less, EPA is requiring the use of one
of two following methods for calculating
and reporting emissions, depending on
the facility’s manufacturing capacity:
(1) A method for facilities that have an
annual manufacturing capacity that is
less than or equal to 10,500 m2 of
substrate, and (2) a method for those
7 See
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
footnote 6.
01DER2
74782
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
that have an annual manufacturing
capacity greater than 10,500 m2 of
substrate. A facility’s manufacturing
capacity (as calculated using Equation
I–5 of subpart I) is 100 percent of the
maximum designed substrate starts,
expressed as surface area, for the
reporting year. This distinction in
manufacturing capacity was part of
EPA’s initial April 2009 proposed rule
(74 FR 16448).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities
That Fabricate Devices on Wafers
Measuring 300 mm or Less in Diameter
and That Have an Annual
Manufacturing Capacity of Less Than or
Equal to 10,500 m2 of Substrate
Semiconductor manufacturing
facilities that fabricate devices on wafers
measuring 300 mm or less in diameter
and that have an annual manufacturing
capacity of less than or equal to 10,500
m2 of substrate 8 must calculate and
report their fluorinated GHG emissions
using the following five process types
and sub-types, and the corresponding
default emission factors presented in
Tables I–3 and I–4 to subpart I:
• Plasma etching process type.
• Chamber cleaning process type which
includes the following three process
sub-types:
—In-situ plasma chamber cleaning
process sub-type.
—Remote plasma chamber cleaning
process sub-type.
—In-situ thermal chamber cleaning
process sub-type.
• Wafer cleaning process type.
Default emission factors are
differentiated by 150/200 mm and 300
mm wafer technologies. The default
emission factors were developed using
the data provided in Table 5 of the
report Draft Emission Factors for
Refined Semiconductor Manufacturing
Process Categories (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2009–0927–0073). EPA is using the term
‘‘Tier 2c Method’’ to refer to this
methodology.
A facility may use directly measured
recipe-specific emission factors for each
individual recipe or recipe that is not a
similar recipe in lieu of defaults only if
the recipe-specific emission factors are
measured using the 2006 ISMI
Guidelines, International SEMATECH
#06124825A–ENG, with limited
exceptions.9 The facility must develop
recipe-specific factors for each
individual recipe except that factors
8 As calculated in Equation I–5 of subpart I,
manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual
manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined
by summing the area of maximum designed
substrate starts of a facility per month over the
reporting period.
9 See footnote 6.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
developed for one individual recipe
may be applied to similar recipes. In a
given reporting year, a facility must
develop recipe-specific emission factors
only for new recipes which are not
similar to any recipe used in a previous
reporting year. Facilities that choose the
recipe-specific approach must also
aggregate the recipe-specific emissions
and report the total emissions by
process type (plasma etching, chamber
cleaning, and wafer cleaning). In
addition, where a facility reports using
recipe-specific emission factors, they are
required to report the film or substrate
that was etched/cleaned and the feature
type that was etched.
A facility that is using a method based
on default emission factors, but uses a
fluorinated GHG for a particular process
type or sub-type for which default
emission factors are not provided in
Tables I–3 and I–4, must either use
utilization and by-product formation
rates of 0 or, in that particular instance,
use directly measured recipe-specific
emission factors measured using the
2006 ISMI Guidelines, International
SEMATECH #06124825A–ENG, with
limited exceptions.10 The facility must
develop and report the recipe-specific
emission factors using the same
procedures as discussed in the
paragraph above.
With the exception of where default
emission factors are not provided in the
Tables I–3 and I–4 for a particular
process type or sub-type, a facility must
use either default emission factors only,
or recipe-specific emission factors only
for all process types and sub-types;
creating and using a hybrid method is
not permitted for the reasons discussed
earlier in this section.
Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities
That Fabricate Devices on Wafers
Measuring 300 mm or Less in Diameter
and That Have an Annual
Manufacturing Capacity of Greater Than
10,500 m2 of Substrate
Semiconductor manufacturing
facilities that fabricate devices on wafers
measuring 300 mm or less in diameter
and that have an annual manufacturing
capacity greater than 10,500 m2 of
substrate (the ‘‘largest’’ semiconductor
manufacturing facilities) 11 must
calculate and report their emissions
using a combination of default emission
factors and directly measured recipespecific emission factors.
10 See
footnote 6.
estimates that the largest semiconductor
facilities comprise 29 facilities out of 175 total
semiconductor facilities. See the Electronics
Manufacturing TSD available in the docket (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2009–0927) for EPA’s analysis.
11 EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
For the following four process types
and sub-types, facilities must calculate
emissions using only the default
emission factors in Tables I–3 and I–4
of subpart I:
• Chamber cleaning process type:
—In-situ plasma chamber cleaning
process sub-type.
—Remote plasma chamber cleaning
process sub-type.
—In-situ thermal chamber cleaning
process sub-type.
• Wafer cleaning process type.
Default emission factors are
differentiated by 150/200 mm and 300
mm wafer technologies. These emission
factors, which are the same emission
factors as specified for the Tier 2c
method, were developed using the data
provided in Table 5 of the report Draft
Emission Factors for Refined
Semiconductor Manufacturing Process
Categories (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927–
0073). EPA is using the term ‘‘Tier 2d
Method’’ to refer to this methodology.
For the plasma etching process type,
facilities must calculate emissions using
only directly measured recipe-specific
emission factors. The facility must
develop recipe-specific factors for each
individual recipe except that factors
developed for one individual recipe
may be applied to similar recipes. In a
given reporting year, a facility must
develop new recipe-specific emission
factors only for recipes which are not
similar to any recipe used in a previous
reporting year. Plasma etching recipespecific emission factors must be
measured using the 2006 ISMI
Guidelines, International SEMATECH
#06124825A–ENG, with limited
exemptions.12 Facilities must also
aggregate the recipe-specific emissions
and report the total emissions by plasma
etching process type. In addition, the
facility is required to report the film or
substrate that was etched/cleaned and
the feature type that was etched for
recipes used.
A facility also has the option of using
directly measured recipe-specific
emission factors in lieu of default
emission factors for the chamber and
wafer cleaning process types, but only if
the recipe-specific factors are measured
using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines,
International SEMATECH #06124825A–
ENG, with limited exceptions.13 The
facility must develop recipe-specific
factors for each individual recipe except
that factors developed for one
individual recipe may be applied to
similar recipes. In a given reporting
year, a facility must develop new recipe12 See
13 See
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
footnote 6.
footnote 6.
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
specific emission factors only for
recipes which are not similar to any
recipe used in a previous reporting year.
Facilities that choose the recipe-specific
approach for the chamber and wafer
cleaning process types must also
aggregate the recipe-specific emissions
and report the total emissions by those
process types. In addition, where a
facility reports using recipe-specific
emission factors, they are required to
report the film or substrate that was
etched/cleaned and the feature type that
was etched.
A facility that is using a method based
on default emission factors, but uses a
fluorinated GHG for a particular process
type or sub-type for which default
emission factors are not provided in
Tables I–3 and I–4, must either use
utilization and by-product formation
rates of 0 or, in that particular instance,
use directly measured recipe-specific
emission factors measured using the
2006 ISMI Guidelines, International
SEMATECH #06124825A–ENG, with
limited exceptions.14 The facility must
develop and report the recipe-specific
emission factors using the same
procedures as discussed in the
paragraph above.
With the exception of where default
emission factors are not provided in the
Tables I–3 and I–4 for a particular
process type or sub-type, a hybrid
method using both default emission
factors and recipe-specific factors for the
chamber cleaning and wafer cleaning
process types within the same reporting
year is not permitted for reasons
discussed earlier in this section.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Semiconductor Facilities That Fabricate
Devices on Wafers Measuring Greater
Than 300 mm in Diameter
Semiconductor manufacturing
facilities that fabricate devices on wafers
measuring greater than 300 mm in
diameter, regardless of capacity, must
calculate and report all of their
emissions from processes that use
fluorinated GHGs (including plasma
etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer
cleaning process types) using directly
measured recipe-specific emission
factors (i.e., an approach consistent with
the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 methodology). EPA
is using the term ‘‘Tier 3 Method’’ to
refer to this methodology. In a given
reporting year, a facility must develop
new recipe-specific emission factors
only for recipes which are not similar to
any recipe used in a previous reporting
year. Emission factors must be measured
using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines,
International SEMATECH #06124825A–
14 See
footnote 6.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
ENG, with limited exceptions.15
Facilities must also aggregate the recipespecific emissions and report the total
emissions by process type (plasma
etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer
cleaning). In addition, each facility is
required to report the film or substrate
that was etched/cleaned and the feature
type that was etched for recipes used.
N2O Emissions: Electronics
manufacturing facilities must calculate
emissions of N2O using:
• Requirements for calculating and
apportioning gas consumption as
outlined above for ‘‘Fluorinated GHG
Emissions.’’
• Production process emission factors
for chemical vapor deposition and other
electronics manufacturing processes
using either defaults provided in Table
I–8 to subpart I or facility-specific N2O
emission factors based on facility
measurements of N2O. Emission factors
must be measured using the 2006 ISMI
Guidelines, International SEMATECH
#06124825A–ENG, with limited
exceptions.16 Where a facility uses less
than 50 kg of N2O in one reporting year,
rather than calculate emissions using an
emission factor, they may report the
emissions as equal to consumption.
Heat Transfer Fluid Emissions:
Electronics manufacturing facilities
must calculate and report emissions
from heat transfer fluids using a mass
balance approach.
Reporting Controlled Emissions from
Abatement Systems: Electronics
manufacturing facilities that wish to
calculate and report controlled
fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions
from the use of abatement systems must
certify that their abatement systems are
installed, operated, and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturers’
specifications, as well as account for
uptime of abatement systems.17
Facilities must calculate controlled
emissions from abatement systems using
either:
• Destruction or removal efficiencies
based on a default value of 60 percent.
This approach requires certification that
the abatement system is specifically
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O
abatement. A facility must support its
certification that the abatement system
is specifically designed for fluorinated
GHG and N2O abatement by
documenting the suppliers
specifications; or
• Directly measured destruction or
removal efficiencies measured in
15 See
footnote 6.
footnote 6.
17 In the final rule, EPA is defining controlled
emissions as the quantity of emissions that are
released to the atmosphere after application of an
emission control device (e.g., abatement system).
16 See
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74783
accordance with EPA’s Protocol for
Measuring Destruction or Removal
Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse
Gas Abatement Equipment in
Electronics Manufacturing (EPA’s DRE
Protocol), Version 1, EPA 430–R–10–
003. These destruction or removal
efficiencies must be measured at a
frequency specified by EPA’s random
sampling abatement system testing
program (RSASTP).
Best Available Monitoring Methods.
EPA is allowing electronics
manufacturing facilities to use Best
Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM)
through June 30, 2011 for this source
category without submitting a request.
The owner or operator must use the
calculation methodologies and
equations in the Calculating GHG
Emissions section of subpart I (40 CFR
98.93), but may use BAMM for any
parameter for which it is not reasonably
feasible to acquire, install, or operate a
required piece of monitoring equipment
in a facility, or to procure measurement
services from necessary providers. EPA
is allowing facilities to use BAMM for
6 months based on EPA’s experience
implementing the Final MRR issued in
October 2009 and because it has
determined that some electronics
manufacturing facilities may need
additional time to comply with the
requirements in the final rule.
Facilities wishing to extend the use of
BAMM beyond the initial 6-month
period, but no later than December 31,
2011, must submit a petition to EPA by
February 28, 2011. Requests for BAMM
extensions must include detailed
explanations and supporting
documentation to describe why it is not
reasonably feasible for the facility to
comply with the required provisions. In
general, extension requests must
include detailed descriptions and
evidence that it is not reasonably
feasible to acquire, install, or operate a
required piece of monitoring equipment
in a facility, or to procure necessary
measurement services from providers by
July 1, 2011.
Where a facility is required to
estimate emissions using recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation
rates for the plasma etching process type
(i.e., the Tier 2d method) and they are
unable to develop those factors, EPA is
requiring the facility to provide reasons
why it is not reasonably feasible to
obtain, install, or operate the needed
equipment, or to procure necessary
measurement services, before December
31, 2011 (in lieu of July 1, 2011) because
recipe-specific emission factors may be
measured at any time during the
reporting year. These facilities must
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74784
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
submit a petition to EPA by June 30,
2011.
BAMM extension requests must also
document the facility’s efforts to comply
with the requirements and explain the
best available monitoring method that
the facility will use, should EPA
approve the request.
EPA is requiring that if a facility is
allowed to use BAMM in 2011 the
facility must recalculate and resubmit
2011 emissions with their report for the
2012 reporting year (to be submitted in
2013). For example, such a facility
having been granted BAMM may use a
default etch emission factor to calculate
and report its 2011 emissions. This
facility must then recalculate and report
its 2011 emissions with its 2012 report.
Where a facility is allowed to use
BAMM for apportioning gas
consumption it is not required to verify
its 2011 engineering model with its
recalculated report.
EPA does not anticipate approving the
use of BAMM beyond December 31,
2011; however, EPA reserves the right to
approve any such requests submitted by
June 30, 2011 for unique and extreme
circumstances which include safety,
technical infeasibility, or inconsistency
with other local, State or Federal
regulations. Facilities requesting BAMM
past December 31, 2011 would have to
submit similar documentation to
support the request as was required for
BAMM requests in 2011. In addition,
these facilities would be required to
describe the unique and extreme
circumstances which necessitate the
extended use of BAMM. Facilities
allowed to use BAMM through 2012
would be required to recalculate and
resubmit their 2012 emissions. The
recalculated emissions must be reported
with the 2013 report (submitted in
2014). Where a facility is allowed to use
BAMM for apportioning gas
consumption it is not required to verify
its 2012 engineering model with its
recalculated report.
Data Reporting. In addition to the
information required to be reported by
the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)),
reporters must annually submit
additional data used to calculate GHG
emissions and consumption. A list of
the specific data to be reported for this
source category is contained in 40 CFR
98.96.
Recordkeeping. In addition to the
records required by the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters
must keep records of additional data
used to calculate GHG emissions and
consumption. A list of specific records
that must be retained for this source
category is included in 40 CFR 98.97.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
2. Summary of Major Changes Since
Proposal
The major changes in this rule since
the April 2010 proposal are identified in
the following list. The rationales for
these, and the identification of and
rationale for other significant changes to
the proposed rule can be found below
or in ‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to
Public Comments, Subpart I: Electronics
Manufacturing’’ (available in the docket,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927). Relevant
comments on EPA’s initial April 2009
proposal for electronics manufacturing
are included below or in the Response
to Comment Document. In addition to
the changes identified below, EPA
reorganized sections of the proposed
regulatory text and made editorial
changes to improve clarity and
readability.
Definition of the source category:
• EPA has clarified that
semiconductors include, among others,
light-emitting diodes (LEDs). As
explained in more detail in ‘‘Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s
Response to Public Comments, Subpart
I: Electronics Manufacturing,’’ (available
in the docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0927), LEDs are a semiconductor light
source. When a LED is switched on,
electrons are able to recombine with
holes within the device, releasing
energy in the form of light whose color
is governed by the nature of the
semiconductor. Many LEDs are
manufactured on a wafer (usually
different than silicon) using methods
that are similar to the manufacture of
integrated circuits.
Reporting threshold:
• EPA has clarified what
manufacturing capacity of a facility
means by providing a new equation
(Equation I–5 of this rule) in the final
rule that specifies manufacturing
capacity is 100 percent of annual
manufacturing capacity of a facility as
determined by summing the area of
maximum designed substrate starts of a
facility per month over the reporting
period. EPA has also provided a
definition of maximum designed
substrate starts.
Calculating GHG emissions:
• EPA has revised the requirements
for semiconductor manufacturing
facilities that fabricate devices on wafers
measuring 300 mm or less in diameter
to calculate and report fluorinated GHG
emissions from etching and cleaning
process types. In the final rule, EPA is
requiring these facilities to use one of
two different methodologies, depending
on the manufacturing capacity of the
facility.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• EPA has modified the requirement
for semiconductor manufacturing
facilities that fabricate devices on wafers
measuring 300 mm or less in diameter
to require those facilities that have an
annual manufacturing capacity of less
than or equal to 10,500 m2 of substrate
to calculate and report fluorinated GHG
emissions based on five process types
and sub-types, as opposed to nine
emitting process sub-types as proposed
in the April 2010 rule. These facilities
must calculate and report fluorinated
GHG emissions from the etching process
type, the chamber cleaning process type
and its associated sub-types (in-situ
plasma, remote plasma, in-situ thermal),
and the wafer cleaning process type.
The five process types and sub-types are
differentiated by two wafer technologies
(150/200 mm and 300 mm wafer size).
EPA is using the term ‘‘Tier 2c’’ to refer
to this methodology. EPA is combining
default emission factors for 150 mm and
200 mm wafer technologies because
EPA did not have sufficient measured
emissions data to establish different
factors for these two technologies. For
each of these process types and
associated sub-types, EPA provides
default emission factors accounting for
(1) The mass fraction of the input gas
that is utilized during manufacturing
(i.e., not emitted from the process type
or sub-type), and (2) the mass of each
reportable fluorinated GHG by-product
formed as a fraction of the mass of the
fluorinated GHG input gas with the
largest mass flow used.
• EPA has added provisions to
require the largest semiconductor
facilities (defined as facilities with
annual capacities of greater than 10,500
m2 of substrate) to calculate and report
their emissions from the plasma etching
process type using directly measured
recipe-specific emission factors, while
using EPA’s default emission factors for
chamber cleaning sub-types, and for the
wafer cleaning process type. EPA is
using the term ‘‘Tier 2d’’ to refer to this
hybrid methodology. All emission
factors (utilization and by-product
formation rates) for the etch processes
are required to be measured using the
2006 ISMI Guidelines, with limited
exceptions.18
The requirement for semiconductor
manufacturing facilities to calculate
their emissions using process-specific
process utilization and by-product
formation rates (i.e., recipe-specific
emission factors) was originally
proposed in EPA’s initial April 2009
proposal (74 FR 16448). In that
proposed rule, EPA proposed to require
the large semiconductor manufacturing
18 See
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
footnote 6.
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
facilities to calculate and report
emissions from all fluorinated GHG
using processes using such an approach.
Further, in EPA’s April 2010 proposal
(75 FR 18652), EPA proposed, as an
alternative to the Refined Method, to
require all semiconductor
manufacturing facilities to estimate and
report using recipe-specific emission
factors.19
• EPA clarified the requirement for
recipe-specific measurements to
facilitate the implementation of the Tier
2d and Tier 3 methods. EPA provided
definitions of ‘‘individual recipe’’ and
‘‘similar’’ with respect to recipes. For
recipe-specific emission factors, rather
than requiring each and every
individual recipe to be measured, EPA
is permitting a facility to apply one
measured recipe-specific emission
factor to a group of ‘‘similar recipes.’’ In
a given reporting year, a facility must
develop new recipe-specific emission
factors only for recipes which are not
similar to any recipe used in a previous
reporting year. In addition, where a
facility reports using recipe-specific
emission factors, EPA is requiring that
they report the film or substrate that was
etched/cleaned and the feature type that
was etched.
Monitoring and QA/QC requirements:
• EPA has modified the procedures
by which facilities must develop gas
consumption apportioning factors. In
the final rule, facilities must apportion
gas consumption using facility-specific
engineering models based on
quantifiable metrics of activity.
Facilities must verify these models as
specified by EPA in 40 CFR 98.96(c) and
document them in their site GHG
Monitoring Plans (as required under 40
CFR 98.3). EPA will permit the use of
facility-specific gas apportionment
models based on quantifiable metrics,
such as wafer pass or wafer starts,
provided the facility documents and
verifies the model. As part of these new
requirements, EPA has added
definitions for actual gas consumption,
modeled gas consumption, repeatable,
and wafer starts. Further, EPA has
clarified that all electronics
manufacturing facilities must apportion
consumption of fluorinated GHGs and
N2O used at a facility using the
apportioning methods outlined in the
final rule.
• EPA has revised the requirement to
recalculate gas- and facility-specific heel
19 EPA’s ‘‘Refined Method’’ as proposed in April
2010 (75 FR 18652) is based on nine process subtypes under the etching, chamber cleaning, and
wafer cleaning process types (four etching process
sub-types, three chamber cleaning process subtypes, and two wafer cleaning process sub-types)
and EPA-published default emission factors.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
factors. EPA is requiring facilities to
recalculate gas- and facility-specific heel
factors if the trigger point for change out
used to establish a gas- and facilityspecific heel factor differs by more than
5 percent, expressed as a percent of the
previously used trigger point for change
out. To clarify requirements to develop
gas- and facility-specific heel factors,
EPA has added a definition for trigger
point for change out.
EPA made this revision in response to
comments received on its proposal. EPA
agrees with commenters that asserted
the proposed requirement to recalculate
the heel factor when the percentage
change from the original trigger point
exceeded 1 percent was too
burdensome. Please refer to ‘‘Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s
Response to Public Comments, Subpart
I: Electronics Manufacturing’’ (available
in the docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0927) for additional information on
EPA’s rationale.
• EPA has added equations specifying
how to calculate uptime and how to
account for uptime in DREs for
abatement systems where a facility is
calculating and reporting controlled
emissions. EPA has also modified how
uptime is calculated by defining an
‘‘operational mode’’ for abatement
systems and removing the reference to
SEMI Standard E–10–0304E,
Specification for Definition and
Measurement of Equipment Reliability,
Availability, and Maintainability.
• EPA has modified the Best
Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM)
provisions for subpart I to allow
electronics manufacturing facilities to
use BAMM through June 30, 2011
without submitting a request to EPA.
Facilities wishing to extend the use of
BAMM beyond the initial 6-month
period, but no later than December 31,
2011, must submit a petition to EPA by
February 28, 2011 (or June 30, 2011
where a facility is requesting the use of
BAMM for recipe-specific emission
factors for the plasma etching process
type). EPA anticipates facilities will
need to use best available monitoring
methods only under limited
circumstances. See Section II.D.1 of this
preamble for additional information
about the BAMM provisions.
Based on comments received on
EPA’s proposed rules (i.e., EPA’s April
2009 and April 2010 proposed rules for
electronics manufacturing) regarding the
complexities perceived in implementing
the methods contained in the final rule,
EPA has concluded that some
electronics manufacturing facilities may
need additional time to fully meet the
requirements finalized in this rule.
However, EPA expects all electronics
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74785
manufacturing facilities will be
prepared to fully comply with this rule’s
requirements no later than year-end
2011. Therefore, extension of BAMM
provisions beyond 2011 would only be
granted in unique and extreme
circumstances which include safety,
technical infeasibility, or inconsistency
with other local, State or Federal
regulations. For a more detailed
discussion on EPA’s rationale, see
‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule: EPA’s Response to Public
Comments, Subpart I: Electronics
Manufacturing’’ (available in the docket,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927).
3. Summary of Comments and
Responses
This section contains a brief summary
of major comments and responses. A
large number of comments were
received on this subpart covering
numerous topics. Responses to
additional significant comments
received can be found in ‘‘Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s
Response to Public Comments, Subpart
I: Electronics Manufacturing’’ (available
in the docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0927).
Comment: EPA received a broad range
of comments stating that the initial and
revised methodologies for calculating
GHG emissions in subpart I were overly
burdensome and costly. For example,
with respect to EPA’s revised proposal
(75 FR 18652, April 2010), commenters
asserted that the requirements for
apportioning of gas usage without the
use of ‘‘engineering judgment’’ would
require the development of complex
software systems and monitoring of
activity data at a level of detail that
would be costly and time-intensive. In
another example, in regards to EPA’s
initial proposal (74 FR 16448, April
2009), commenters argued that the
direct measurement requirement would
result in high costs associated with the
development of process-specific gas
utilization and by-product formation
factors for the largest semiconductor
manufacturing facilities.
Response: EPA considered all of these
comments, and evaluated alternative
methods for calculating GHG emissions
for electronics manufacturing,
controlled and uncontrolled. EPA
considered alternative methods that
would result in reduced burden on
industry while maintaining or
improving the quality and breadth of
reported data. EPA also considered the
gaps in the available emission factor
knowledge base and has implemented a
method to gain additional data to
improve EPA’s efforts to characterize
the sector’s GHG emissions.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74786
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
EPA has made every effort to reduce
burden to the industry while
maintaining requirements that it has
determined are necessary to obtain
facility-specific emission estimates. For
example, based on comments received,
EPA has revised the gas apportioning
method to allow for the use of
quantifiable metrics other than wafer
passes. In the final rule, facilities will be
allowed to develop apportioning factors
based on other quantifiable metrics
provided the method is described in
writing, is repeatable, and is verified
through comparison with actual gas
consumption. This approach provides
facilities flexibility in the choice of
apportioning methods and assures a
high degree of data quality. Additional
details on the gas apportioning method
are described in this Section II.D.3
(Summary of Comments and Responses)
of the preamble.
As another means to reduce burden to
the industry, EPA is only requiring the
largest semiconductor manufacturing
facilities to calculate and report
emissions using directly measured
recipe-specific emission factors,
ensuring that burden is commensurate
with potential to emit. The largest
semiconductor manufacturing facilities
account for nearly two-thirds of
uncontrolled emissions while
accounting for less than 20 percent of all
facilities expected to report under
subpart I. In addition, the largest
semiconductor manufacturing facilities
are only required to directly measure
etch process emissions. Etch processes
are the least understood of the
electronics manufacturing processes in
terms of GHG emissions, and EPA lacks
sufficient data to establish default
emission factors for multiple etch
processes. Lastly, in the final rule, EPA
is also allowing the use of ‘‘similar
recipe’’ emission factors to reduce the
number and burden of direct
measurements required.
Additional details on steps taken to
reduce the burden are described in this
section II.D.3 (Summary of Comments
and Responses) and in ‘‘Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s
Response to Public Comments, Subpart
I: Electronics Manufacturing’’ (available
in the docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0927).
In general, while commenters asserted
that EPA’s proposed requirements were
too burdensome and costly, comments
lacked sufficient quantitative detail or
substantiation. However, in response to
concerns that EPA did not fully account
for compliance costs in its economic
analysis, EPA did update its costs
estimates to reflect the costs associated
with the requirements finalized in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
rule. EPA has concluded that its final
cost estimates appropriately account for
the compliance burden under this rule.
For details on how EPA developed its
final costs for this rule, please see
Sections 4 & 5 of the Economic Impact
Analysis (EIA) (available in the docket,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927).
Method for Calculating GHG Emissions
Comment: While some commenters
supported EPA’s intent for the Refined
Method to gather representative and
accurate facility level emissions
estimates, they argued that the Refined
Method itself was not supported for
several reasons.20 Commenters asserted
that the Refined Method stemmed from
a technically flawed uncertainty
analysis and apparent
misunderstandings of current process
realities. Commenters also stated that
extending the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b etch
category (‘‘process type’’) from one to
four refined categories (‘‘sub-types’’) was
not justified given the limited data
available for developing emissions
factors. Several commenters suggested
that etch emission factors could be
developed through another process (i.e.,
not part of the rule) such as through the
existing Memorandum of Understanding
between EPA and the semiconductor
industry.21 As an alternative to EPA’s
Refined Method, many commenters
suggested an ‘‘Alternative Refined
Method,’’ that they argued would
achieve greater accuracy than the 2006
IPCC Tier 2b method and would avoid
uncertainty issues created by EPA’s
Refined Method.
The ‘‘Alternative Refined Method,’’ as
described in comments, would be
comprised of five process types and subtypes, which include: The three
chamber clean sub-types (remote plasma
clean, in-situ plasma clean, and in-situ
thermal clean), the wafer cleaning
process type, and one process type for
all etch processes. Commenters
suggested that this method would be
superior to EPA’s proposed Refined
Method in terms of accuracy and cost.
One commenter stated that the use of
EPA’s Refined Method to estimate
emissions would result in less accurate
emission data as compared to the 2006
IPCC Tier 3 Method. This commenter
encouraged EPA to require the use of
the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method for all
20 See
footnote 19.
1996, EPA has maintained a partnership
with the U.S. semiconductor industry, EPA’s PFC
Reduction/Climate Partnership for the
Semiconductor Industry. As part of the Partnership,
semiconductor facilities have committed to reduce
fluorinated GHG emissions by at least 10 percent
below the industry’s 1995 baseline level by yearend 2010.
21 Since
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
semiconductor facilities given the need
for accurate data and the significant
emissions from this sector, but argued
that at a minimum EPA should rely on
Tier 3 estimation for ‘‘large facilities,’’ as
it did in its initial proposal.
Response: In general, EPA agrees with
commenters that stated the available
data as of the proposal was sufficient to
establish default emissions factors for
multiple chamber clean process subtypes, but insufficient to support
establishing default emission factors for
multiple etch process sub-types. EPA
did not receive enough additional data
during the comment period to address
this insufficiency.22 Accordingly, EPA
is not establishing default emissions
factors for etch sub-types in this final
rule. EPA also agrees with the
commenter that stated an estimation
approach based on the IPCC Tier 3
method would result in the most
accurate data. However, EPA is mindful
of the burden that would be imposed by
requiring all covered facilities to use an
approach based on the 2006 IPCC Tier
3 method for all emissions.
In this final rule, EPA is requiring
semiconductor facilities to calculate and
report fluorinated emissions by
adhering to one of three different
emission estimation methodologies,
depending on the wafer size
manufactured and the facility’s
manufacturing capacity.23 These
requirements are presented in section
II.D.1 (Summary of the Final Rule) of
this preamble and summarized in Table
3 of this preamble. EPA has determined
that the requirements in the final rule
effectively balance EPA’s objectives
with an appropriate level of burden to
industry.
In response to comments received on
EPA’s proposed methodology for
semiconductor manufacturing facilities,
EPA undertook another analysis to
evaluate the uncertainty associated with
emission estimation methods. Specific
information on the analysis can be
22 In its proposed rule (75 FR 18652, April 2010),
for each emission factor for the nine proposed
process categories, EPA published a range of values.
EPA proposed a range of values because it had not
received sufficient data to select a specific value
within each range. Based on additional information
received after publication of the proposed rule, EPA
published a Notice of Data Availability where it
made available to the public draft default emission
factors for semiconductor manufacturing refined
process categories (75 FR 26904, May 2010). As of
publication of this final rule, EPA has not received
additional data (i.e., utilization and by-product
formation rates).
23 As calculated in Equation I–5 of this rule,
manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual
manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined
by summing the area of maximum designed
substrate starts of a facility per month over the
reporting period.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
found in the Electronics Manufacturing
TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927). In
summary, results from this exercise
showed (a) emissions estimated with a
Tier 2b method are understated, (b)
more facility-level, emissions-relevant
information would permit an
uncertainty analysis to be performed
with more meaningful and robust
results, and (c) moving from the use of
a default factor(s) for etch sub-types to
the use of recipe-specific measurements
appears to increase certainty in
emission calculations. These results
support the methodology finalized in
the final rule.
Given the current lack of available
facility-level gas usage and emission
information for etching in particular,
and EPA’s need for increased accuracy
in emission estimates relative to the
2006 Tier 2b method, EPA is requiring
that the largest semiconductor facilities
estimate and report recipe-specific
emission factors for all etch processes.
EPA views the generation of such data
as essential to improving future efforts
to characterize this sector’s GHG
emissions.
While EPA recognizes that more than
half of the gas consumed in
semiconductor manufacturing is for
chamber cleaning, EPA also recognizes
that most of the variability in gas
consumption, and hence emissions,
across many facilities is found for
recipes used under the plasma etch
process type. Etch recipes utilize many
gases (approximately six or more either
alone or in combination) with varying
GWPs. Process recipes vary between
facilities because they are a crucial part
of company competitiveness and
innovation.
While EPA is finalizing the Tier 2c
method for some semiconductor
facilities (i.e., not the largest
semiconductor manufacturing facilities)
and has determined that it is an
improvement over the 2006 IPCC Tier
2b method, EPA maintains that
estimating emissions based on process
sub-types for etch with robust default
factors would result in more accurate
facility-level emission estimates as
compared to estimating emissions using
a single broad etch process type. To this
end, in future years, EPA may evaluate
the recipe-specific emission factors
received through this final rule to
determine whether a sufficiently robust
data set exists to establish default
emission factors for plasma etching
process sub-types. In the future, EPA
may consider requiring the
semiconductor facilities that will be
using a default emission factor for the
etch process type under this final rule
to estimate and report emissions using
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
an approach based on multiple etch and
chamber clean process sub-types similar
to the Refined Method EPA proposed in
April 2010.
EPA is requiring only the largest
facilities to report recipe-specific
emission factors for etching processes,
rather than requiring all semiconductor
facilities to report all etch processes
regardless of capacity, or requiring the
largest facilities to report all process
emissions using recipe-specific
emission factors, because EPA has
concluded that this approach minimizes
burden to industry. Further, this
requirement ensures that the burden
associated with reporting is
proportional to the magnitude of a
facility’s potential emissions.
EPA selected 10,500 m2 of substrate
as the threshold for large facilities
because facilities above this threshold
are expected to account for nearly twothirds of uncontrolled emissions while
accounting for less than 20 percent of all
facilities expected to report under
subpart I. Based on EPA’s analysis, the
expected number of the ‘‘largest’’
facilities is 29 of the 175 total facilities.
EPA originally proposed this distinction
(i.e., facilities with an annual
manufacturing capacity of greater than
10,500 m2) in its initial proposal for
semiconductor manufacturing facilities
(75 FR 18652, April 2009). In response
to EPA’s proposal, some commenters
stated that in the semiconductor
industry, ‘‘large’’ facilities do not
inherently have higher emissions of
fluorinated GHGs. These commenters
noted that beginning with the second
generation of 200 mm facilities,
transitions to NF3 remote cleans and
deployment of point of use abatement
resulted in significantly lower emissions
as compared to older facilities. In
response, while EPA acknowledges
qualitative reports on second generation
200 mm wafer facilities adopting NF3
remote plasma cleans and point of use
abatement systems as presented in
comments, it is unaware of published
studies that quantitatively document the
market penetration of either NF3 remote
plasma source (RPS) or point of use
fluorinated GHG abatement systems in
those facilities.
In the final rule, EPA is also clarifying
what meets the requirement for recipespecific measurements to facilitate
implementation of the Tier 2d and Tier
3 methods. EPA recognizes a facility
may employ potentially hundreds of
recipes. Therefore, as a means to reduce
burden for facilities that are required or
elect to develop recipe-specific
measurements, EPA is permitting a
facility to apply the same emission
factor to a group of ‘‘similar recipes.’’ In
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74787
this regard, once a facility develops a
recipe-specific emission factor for an
individual recipe, it may apply that
emission factor to recipes that are
similar. This provision allows a facility
to measure fewer manufacturing
processes to develop the emission
factors required for Tier 2d and Tier 3,
thereby reducing burden in comparison
to a more stringent approach which
would require measurements for each
and every individual recipe used at a
facility. As another means to reduce
burden EPA is clarifying that in a given
reporting year, a facility must develop
new recipe-specific emission factors
only for recipes which are not similar to
any recipe used in a previous reporting
year.
EPA is defining an individual recipe
as a specific combination of gases,
under specific conditions of reactor
temperature, pressure, flow, RF power,
and duration, used repeatedly to
fabricate a specific feature on a specific
film or substrate. EPA is defining
similar, with respect to recipes, as those
recipes that are composed of the same
set of chemicals and have the same flow
stabilization times and where the
documented differences, considered
separately, in reactor pressure,
individual gas flow rates, and applied
RF power are less than or equal to plus
or minus 10 percent. For purposes of
comparing and documenting recipes
that are similar, facilities may use either
the best known method provided by an
equipment manufacturer or the process
of record, for which emission factors for
either have been measured (see the
Electronics Manufacturing TSD for
supporting information).
Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements
Comment: Many commenters voiced
concerns regarding the burden
associated with EPA’s proposed
requirement to measure DRE of
abatement equipment in accordance
with EPA’s DRE Protocol, (EPA 430–R–
10–003). Some commenters also argued
the required frequency of measurements
in the proposed random sampling
abatement system testing program
(RSASTP) is overly burdensome and
unnecessary.
With respect to EPA’s requirement to
measure DRE in accordance with EPA’s
Protocol, commenters noted few
facilities have characterized the DRE of
installed abatement systems using EPA’s
DRE Protocol because the Protocol was
published in 2010. One commenter
requested that EPA permit the use of
measurements made prior to the
publication of EPA’s DRE Protocol as
long as the facility can demonstrate the
measurements were based on test
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74788
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
methods substantially similar to those
outlined in EPA’s Protocol. In addition
to providing comments on the required
use of the DRE Protocol, commenters
also requested that EPA allow the use of
CF4 as a tracer to determine dilution
when an abatement system is in ‘‘low
fire’’ and that EPA permit the use of a
Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectroscopy (FTIR) without the
additional use of Quadrapole Mass
Spectroscopy (QMS).
In regards to EPA’s proposed
RSASTP, many commenters asserted
that the burden placed on facilities to
comply with the RSASTP is not
necessary. One commenter noted that
that RSASTAP is an excessive burden as
large facilities may have hundreds of
abatement systems. Further,
commenters argued that new abatement
systems should not be required to be
tested as long as the facility has
installed, operated, and maintained the
equipment properly. Some commenters
asserted that testing should be required
only for new models of abatement
systems that are not simply a variant of
an existing system used at a facility.
Other commenters also suggested
alternative testing regimes to the
RSASTP that would place most of the
DRE measurement burden in the early
years of testing.
Response: In general, EPA does not
agree with commenters and is finalizing
the requirements for measurement of
abatement DRE using EPA’s DRE
Protocol and for the testing frequency
described in the RSASTP.
EPA is finalizing the requirement that
facilities measure abatement system
DREs in accordance with EPA’s DRE
Protocol because it will ensure that
measured DREs are accurate through
properly accounting for dilution and by
meeting EPA’s established performance
standard (as specified in EPA’s DRE
Protocol). EPA’s DRE Protocol is the
only protocol (i.e., standard
measurement method, not guideline)
that exists to date for measuring DREs
of abatement equipment used in
electronics manufacturing. EPA’s DRE
Protocol is reliable because it was based
upon and validated by actual experience
and data collection in fully operational
manufacturing facilities during multiple
measurement studies performed by EPA
in collaboration with industry.24 EPA’s
24 For more information about the three studies,
please see the following reports: Developing a
Reliable Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F–GHG)
Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE)
Measurement Method for Electronics
Manufacturing: A Cooperative Evaluation with IBM
(EPA 430–R–10–004); Developing a Reliable
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F–GHG) Destruction
or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
DRE Protocol has been through two
public peer review processes over the
course of two years and is based on
input from national and international
industry experts. For documentation of
the comments received during these
peer reviews, and EPA’s response,
please refer to the docket (EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0927).
It is important to clarify that EPA is
not specifically prohibiting the use of
previously measured DREs; a facility
may use previously measured DREs
provided the facility can demonstrate
that the measurements were made in
accordance with EPA’s DRE Protocol.
EPA’s DRE Protocol permits flexibility
in measurement practices provided the
measurements achieve a performance
standard that, among other things,
ensures dilution is properly measured.
EPA does not wholly prohibit the use
of CF4 as a tracer in the DRE Protocol.
Specifically, with respect to measuring
systems that do not abate CF4 and/or
SF6, EPA’s DRE Protocol states, ‘‘In such
systems, CF4 or SF6 can be used in place
of an inert gas since their DREs are zero
percent. Table 2 of the Protocol provides
a list of acceptable gases for measuring
total abatement system flows, along
with their use conditions.’’ As discussed
in this excerpt, EPA’s DRE Protocol does
not permit the use of either CF4 or SF6
as tracer gases in abatement systems
designed to abate these gases.
Additionally, EPA prohibits use of CF4
as a tracer in fluorinated GHG
abatement systems operating in ‘‘low
fire’’ because reviewers of early drafts of
EPA’s DRE Protocol made repeated
claims that one could not be certain
some abatement was not occurring.
EPA does not agree with commenters
who suggested that the use of only an
FTIR and not a QMS to measure
dilution, and hence DREs, should
always be permitted. The DRE Protocol
permits the use of an FTIR in place of
a QMS when tracer gases, such as CF4
and SF6, are used in place of an inert gas
to measure dilution (provided the
abatement system which is being tested
does not abate the tracer gas (CF4 or
SF6)). The DRE Protocol does not
permit, however, the use of an FTIR in
place of a QMS for measuring dilution
with tracers that are inert because while
a method that uses FTIR-measurable
gases may become available, EPA is not
aware of robust measurements that
demonstrate such a method.
for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative
Evaluation with NEC Electronics, Inc. (EPA 430–R–
10–005); and Developing a Reliable Fluorinated
Greenhouse Gas (F–GHG) Destruction or Removal
Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for
Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative
Evaluation with Qimonda (EPA 430–R–08–017).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
With respect to EPA’s requirement to
measure DREs with the frequency
prescribed in the RSASTP, EPA does
not agree with commenters who
suggested the RSASTP is burdensome
and unnecessary. Commenters did not
provide EPA sufficient information or
data to support their claim that the
RSASTP is unnecessary. As described
below, the RSASTP provides a much
less burdensome device measurement
scheme when compared to requiring a
facility to test all abatement systems
used annually, but still allows EPA to
ensure a facility has measured DREs
accurately and at least once every five
years.
EPA considered commenters’
concerns about the RSASTP and EPA
does not agree with commenters who
state that new abatement systems
should not be required to be tested as
long as the facility has installed,
operated, and maintained the
equipment properly. Abatement
manufacturer specified installation,
operation and maintenance practices are
based upon the testing and development
of abatement systems in controlled
settings. When using these systems in
actual facility settings, ensuring the
proper installation, operation, and
maintenance of abatement systems may
not always be a means to guarantee that
the abatement system will run exactly as
abatement manufacturers intended, or
that the manufacturer supplied DRE will
be achieved. However, EPA is
maintaining the requirement for
facilities to properly install, operate,
and maintain abatement systems
according to system manufacturer
specifications. This practice is expected
to reduce the likelihood of inaccurate
estimations of DREs.
Even if abatement systems rely on the
same operating principle (e.g., thermal
oxidation) and are used to abate the
same gases, their performance can vary
depending on their operation and
maintenance. Thus, maintenance that is
adequate for abatement systems in some
applications may not be adequate for
abatement systems in others (e.g., those
that handle high volumes of etched or
cleaned material, which can be
deposited inside abatement equipment
and clog lines).
EPA has concluded that there is a
need for gradually testing all of the
abatement systems within a class, and
for retesting individual abatement
systems over time. As EPA stated in the
preamble to the April 2010 proposed
rule (75 FR 18652), some fluorinated
GHGs, such as CF4, are harder to destroy
than others; thus, the performance of
abatement systems with one fluorinated
GHG cannot necessarily be assumed to
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
apply to other fluorinated GHGs. It is
well known across the industry that
abatement system performance varies
greatly depending on a variety of
abatement device and process
parameters such as temperature, flow
and exhaust composition.25 As stated by
many commenters, facilities develop
and ultimately use new processes
potentially every year, and the
parameters of these processes vary. To
this end, by requiring the gradual testing
and retesting of abatement systems over
time through the RSASTP, EPA can
ensure properly measured DREs and
DRE class averages used at a facility will
accurately reflect controlled emissions.
In addition, through the use of the
RSASTP, EPA is reducing burden, for
instance, for facilities that continually
modify their processes. EPA is basing
the RSASTP around classes defined as
abatement systems grouped by
manufacturer model number(s) and by
the gas which the system is used to
abate; varying process parameters, such
as flows, temperature and exhaust
composition do not factor into the
requirements of the RSASTP.
Comment: In general, most
commenters supported the inclusion of
a default DRE value, but opposed EPA’s
proposed default DRE value of 60
percent. Commenters argued EPA’s
proposed default DRE factor of 60
percent was unreasonably low, in part
because the 60 percent default factor
was based on CF4 destruction data and
therefore, should not be applied to other
fluorinated GHGs. Commenters noted
that CF4 is the most stable compound
and the most difficult among all
fluorinated GHG to destroy and, as a
result, it should be addressed separately
to avoid significantly overestimating
emissions. Further, one commenter
asserted that the unreasonably low
value for the default DRE penalizes
semiconductor manufacturers who have
operated voluntarily and in good faith
under EPA’s MOU and other GHG
reduction programs to install and
maintain control devices.26
As an alternative, commenters
recommend that IPCC and/or abatement
system manufacturer default DREs
should be permitted, and potentially
discounted by 10 percent to account for
differences between field and lab
certification conditions. Commenters
also suggested that EPA provide
25 Beu, L. (2005). ‘‘Reduction of Perfluorocarbon
(PFC) Emissions: 2005 State-of-the-Technology
Report’’, TT#0510469AENG, International
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI),
December 2005. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/
highgwp/semiconductor-pfc/documents/
final_tt_report.pdf.
26 See footnote 21.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
additional default factors for C2F6 and
other fluorinated GHGs that are easier to
abate than CF4.
One commenter opposed EPA’s
default DRE value and asserted that
default DREs should not be permitted at
all because a default DRE does not
capture the potentially high variability
in DREs across different systems and
across similar systems installed at
different facilities. In addition, the
commenter noted that EPA’s default
value was based on only 11 actual
measured DRE values. The commenter
encouraged EPA to require only direct
measurement of DREs in accordance
with EPA’s DRE Protocol and disallow
any application of a default DRE.
Response: EPA disagrees with
commenters that asserted EPA should
permit electronics manufacturing
facilities to report controlled emissions
from abatement systems using 2006
IPCC default factors or the
manufacturer’s DRE values, with or
without applying a 10 percent discount.
As EPA stated in the proposal, EPA is
not permitting the use of the IPCC 2006
default factors or the manufacturer’s
DRE values because once installed,
abatement equipment may fail to
achieve the IPCC 2006 default or
supplier’s claimed DRE. DRE
performance claimed by equipment
suppliers and upon which the 2006
IPCC default factors were based may
have been incorrectly measured due to
a failure to account for the effects of
dilution (e.g., CF4 can be off by as much
as a factor of up to 10 (Burton, 2007).
This understanding is supported by
industry assessments as presented in
Beu, 2005. As EPA stated in the
proposal, the 60 percent default DRE
value was calculated using data from
measurements assured to properly
account for the effects of dilution. In
addition, the tested systems were
properly installed, operated, and
maintained.
EPA is including the option for
facilities to use a default DRE in the
final rule to permit those facilities that
have fluorinated GHG and N2O
abatement systems to calculate and
report controlled emissions using an
approach that is less burdensome than
directly measuring abatement systems
in accordance with EPA’s DRE Protocol.
The default DRE is based on EPA’s
practical experience measuring the
performance of abatement systems
during the development of the DRE
Protocol.27 Further, for a facility to use
the default DRE, they are required to
certify that their abatement systems are
installed, operated, and maintained in
27 See
PO 00000
footnote 24.
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
74789
accordance with the manufacturers’
specifications, and provide certification
that the abatement system is specifically
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O.
EPA is proud of its extensive
collaboration with the semiconductor
industry via the PFC Reduction/Climate
Partnership for the Semiconductor
Industry.28 EPA and its Partners have
investigated the origins and magnitude
of GHG emissions as well as
technologies to minimize this pollution.
EPA does not agree with one
commenter’s claim that the 60 percent
default DRE penalizes Partner’s
facilities. One of many important
lessons learned by the Partnership
concerns the challenge of properly
measuring and maintaining fluorinated
GHG abatement system performance. As
discussed above, the 60 percent default
DRE value is based upon EPA’s
technical experience studying
abatement systems, properly installed,
operated and measured in actual
production settings.
Further, EPA does not agree with
commenters’ suggestion to apply a 10
percent discount to the manufacturer’s
DRE values to account for differences
between field and lab certification
conditions. The 10 percent discount
appears arbitrary and was not
accompanied by any empirical data. To
this end, EPA is not permitting
electronics manufacturing facilities to
apply a 10 percent discount to
manufacturers’ DRE values.
EPA agrees with commenters, in
principle, that default DRE values could
be developed for specific fluorinated
GHGs, for example those that are easier
to abate than CF4. However, EPA does
not have sufficient DRE data for other
fluorinated GHGs that were measured
using EPA’s DRE Protocol and thus
assured to properly account for the
effects of dilution. Further, commenters
did not provide any such data in their
comments to the proposed rule. In
future years, EPA may consider
establishing default DRE values for
other fluorinated GHGs and N2O using
data received from DRE measurements
made in accordance with EPA’s DRE
Protocol.
Comment: Most commenters opposed
EPA’s proposed procedures to account
for abatement system uptime. Although
several commenters agreed that
accounting for uptime of abatement
systems used at a facility is reasonable,
some commenters asserted that EPA’s
proposed procedures may not reflect
actual practices at most facilities.
In some cases, commenters stated that
tools and abatement systems are
28 https://www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74790
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
interlocked (i.e., a tool can not be
operated if an abatement device is not
operating). As an alternative,
commenters suggested that EPA allow
facilities to monitor uptime by
documenting where abatement systems
and production tools are interlocked
and recording instances when
abatement systems fail.
One commenter asserted that EPA’s
inclusion, in the uptime calculation
procedures, of SEMI Standard E–10–
0304E, Specification for Definition and
Measurement of Equipment Reliability,
Availability, and Maintainability was
incorrect. The commenter noted that the
SEMI Standard E–10–0304E does not
include the concept of co-dependent
uptime of different equipment in any of
its metrics. As a result, the commenter
urged EPA to remove the reference to
the SEMI standard and to define the
appropriate calculation and its
individual terms in the regulation
unless EPA determines that one of the
SEMI E–10–0304E formulas may in fact
be used.
Response: EPA took into
consideration all concerns from
commenters about the methods by
which EPA proposed to calculate
uptime of abatement systems. In
response, EPA has modified the
procedures required for monitoring and
accounting for uptime by removing
reference to SEMI E–10–0304E because
EPA agrees with the commenter that
SEMI E–10–0304E does not fit
appropriately in this rule. To this end,
the final rule allows a facility to
calculate an abatement system’s uptime
by taking the ratio of (1) The total time
during which the abatement system is in
an operational mode with fluorinated
GHGs or N2O flowing through
production process tool(s) connected to
that abatement system, to (2) the total
time during which fluorinated GHGs or
N2O are flowing through production
process tool(s) connected to that
abatement system. Further, EPA has
defined operational mode as the time in
which an abatement system is being
operated within the range of parameters
as specified in the operations manual
provided by the system manufacturer.
For clarification purposes, EPA has also
added a discrete equation for calculating
uptime into this rule. Lastly, also for
clarification, EPA has added an
equation that provides direction for
facilities to account for uptime in
overall facility emissions calculations.
With respect to the commenter who
suggested that EPA allow facilities to
monitor and track uptime by
documenting that tools are interlocked
and instances in which abatement
systems have failed, EPA appreciates
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
the comment, but is not modifying the
uptime requirements as suggested by the
commenter. EPA expects facilities with
interlocked abatement systems should
be able to easily monitor and account
for uptime of abatement systems using
the methods provided in this rule. Also,
EPA is not permitting facilities to use
the method suggested by the commenter
as this would allow the use of multiple
methods to monitor and account for
uptime. Where feasible, EPA would like
to ensure that facilities are using
consistent methods as part of estimating
emissions because these methods will
create a consistent basis on which to
compare industry emissions and will
also reduce EPA’s administrative
burden. Lastly, EPA is requiring
detailed monitoring and reporting of
uptime because this information will
allow EPA to carry out emissions
verification to ensure the consistency
and accuracy of data collected under
this rule.
Comment: Many commenters
expressed concern with EPA’s proposed
method to apportion gas consumption to
the nine sub-types of the Refined
Method (previously referred to as
refined process categories in the April
2010 proposal) for semiconductor
facilities using a quantifiable metric.
According to commenters, the proposed
method of apportioning gas to the nine
process sub-types of the Refined Method
using a facility-specific engineering
model based on wafer passes is overly
burdensome and not currently feasible.
More specifically, commenters asserted
that because many facilities do not
currently track wafer passes, to do so
would impose a burden in the form of
capital costs for the software needed to
collect these data. Some commenters
argued that it is not feasible to apportion
gas to the nine proposed process subtypes solely based on wafer pass
information. For example, one
commenter noted that when one recipe
is used to etch multiple films in one
wafer pass, emissions from the use of
that one recipe would fall under
multiple process sub-types for etch
(which were based on film type). The
commenter further stated that because
tools do not, and can not, track how
much of each gas in the recipe was
specifically used for each film etched in
that one wafer pass, it is not feasible in
this situation to apportion gas based on
wafer pass.
In most cases, commenters provided
alternative methods for apportioning gas
consumption. For example, some
commenters suggested more flexible
methods in which the apportioning is
based on at least one quantifiable
indicator and engineering knowledge.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Commenters also asserted that
apportionment should be determined by
the facility and that EPA should not
prescribe specific quantifiable
indicators for apportioning gas
consumption in the final rule.
Response: EPA appreciates the
concerns raised by commenters about
EPA’s proposed method to apportion
facility gas consumption. EPA is
sensitive to the burden imposed by the
rule and seeks to minimize it when
possible without compromising the
accuracy of reported emission estimates.
Apportioning gas consumption to
process types, process sub-types, or
recipes, as defined in 40 CFR 98.98,
regardless of the type of electronics
manufacturing facility, is an essential
part of the emission estimation
methodology required by EPA in this
subpart. Apportionment is required
because emission factors are for specific
process types, process sub-types, or
recipes, and are based on knowledge of
the amount of gas consumed. Requiring
facilities to apportion gas consumption
based on a metric that is quantifiable
and measurable (a metric that is
proportional to gas usage) is necessary
for EPA to ensure that methods by
which gas is apportioned, and hence
emissions are estimated, are verifiable
and accurate.
In the final rule, to effectively balance
commenters’ concerns about burden and
feasibility with EPA’s objectives, EPA
has decided to permit the use of facilityspecific engineering models based on a
quantifiable metric selected by the
facility, (such as wafer passes or wafer
starts) to apportion gas consumption.
Under this final requirement, to develop
apportioning factors, facilities must
develop an engineering model that
utilizes measureable process
information.29 EPA is not specifying the
quantifiable metric that must be used in
these models; rather EPA is allowing
reporters the flexibility to select the
most appropriate quantifiable metric on
which to base the facility-specific
engineering model, provided model
documentation and verification
requirements as described below are
met.
Documentation: As part of
recordkeeping requirements, EPA is
requiring facilities to document, in their
site GHG Monitoring Plans (as required
under 40 CFR 98.3), specific
information about their facility-specific
engineering model, including
definitions of variables, derivations of
29 An apportioning factor denotes the amount of
a specific gas consumed during a specific
manufacturing process relative to the total amount
of that gas used during all processes at the facility.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
equations and formulas, and example
calculations to ensure apportioning
factors are repeatable. This information
must be updated annually in the
facility’s site GHG monitoring plan. EPA
is requiring this documentation as a
means to verify that facility-specific
engineering models are developed and
then verified and documented each year
for each facility, and that the
apportioning factors developed from
these models are based on a quantifiable
metric. EPA is requiring facilities to
update model documentation and
verification each year to account for
changes to tools or process at a facility
between reporting periods.
Verification: EPA is requiring
facilities to verify their engineering
models used to apportion gas
consumption by demonstrating that the
results from the model are repeatable 30
and by comparing the difference
between modeled gas usage and actual
gas usage. EPA is requiring this
comparison to be made yearly for two
different gases, one corresponding to the
gas used in the largest quantity for
etching on a mass basis, and one used
in the largest quantity for chamber
cleaning on a mass basis during a
reporting period, based on the total
amount of gas usage measured by a
facility. EPA would consider a model as
verified when the apportioned plasma
etching gas usage as modeled differs
from the actual gas usage by less than
or equal to 5 percent relative to actual
gas consumption, reported to one
significant figure using standard
rounding conventions. This verification
requirement only applies to the
comparison for the plasma etching gas,
and does not have to be completed for
the comparison for the chamber
cleaning gas.
EPA selected a verification standard
of 5 percent as a means for a facility to
demonstrate to EPA that the uncertainty
in modeled estimates of gas usage does
not appreciably affect the uncertainty in
that facility’s reported emissions.31 EPA
is focusing the verification of facilityspecific engineering models on etching
because information received in
comments 32 on the proposed rule and
from Partner reports from EPA’s PFC
Reduction/Climate Partnership for the
Semiconductor Industry show that
30 Repeatable means that the variables used in the
formulas for the facility’s engineering model for gas
apportioning factors are based on observable and
measurable quantities that govern gas consumption
rather than engineering judgment about those
quantities or gas consumption.
31 Please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing
TSD (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927) for more details
on the verification metric.
32 Refer to comment number EPA–HQ–OAR–
2009–0927–0131.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
reportable gases used for etching rank
second and third in total quantities of
usage industry-wide, and have the
highest emission factors, which together
make gas usage for etching process types
a significant contributor to total facility
emissions.33
To reduce burden associated with
verification, in the final rule, EPA is
requiring that gas usage data for
verification purposes be collected only
for a single 30-day period of operation
during which the capacity utilization
equals or exceeds 60 percent of the
design capacity. EPA selected a 30-day
period for model verification to
minimize disruptions to normal
manufacturing operations while, at the
same time, establishing a time period
that is sufficiently long and a utilization
that is sufficiently high to be
representative of facility operations.
E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart
L)
1. Summary of Final Rule
Source Category Definition.
• The fluorinated gas production
source category consists of processes
that manufacture a fluorinated gas from
any raw material or feedstock chemical,
except for processes that generate HFC–
23 during the production of HCFC–22.
Producing a fluorinated gas includes the
following:
—Producing a fluorinated GHG as
defined at 40 CFR 98.410(b).
—The manufacture of a
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) from
any raw material or feedstock chemical,
including the manufacture of a CFC or
HCFC as an isolated intermediate for
use in a process that will result in its
transformation either at or outside of the
production facility.
• Producing a fluorinated gas does
not include the following:
—The reuse or recycling of a
fluorinated gas.
—The creation of HFC–23 during the
production of HCFC–22.
—The creation of intermediates that
are created and transformed in a single
process with no storage of the
intermediates.
—The creation of fluorinated GHGs
that are released or destroyed at the
production facility before the
production measurement at 40 CFR
98.414(a). However, although such
release and destruction do not
themselves constitute fluorinated gas
production, they must be reported when
33 Although EPA understands that chamber
cleaning processes require the largest quantities of
gas usage, the emission factors for chamber cleaning
are low compared to etching emission factors.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74791
they occur during fluorinated gas
production.
Reporters must submit annual GHG
reports for facilities that meet
applicability criteria in the (General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.2)).
GHGs to Report. For facilities that
produce fluorinated gases, report the
following:
• CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion
emissions from each stationary
combustion unit
• The total mass of fluorinated GHG
emitted from:
—Each fluorinated gas production
process and all fluorinated gas
production processes combined.
—Each fluorinated gas transformation
process that is not part of a fluorinated
gas production process and all such
fluorinated gas transformation processes
combined.
—Each fluorinated gas destruction
process that is not part of a fluorinated
gas production process or a fluorinated
gas transformation process and all such
fluorinated gas destruction processes
combined.
—Venting of residual fluorinated
GHGs in containers (e.g., returned
heels).
GHG Emission Calculation and
Monitoring. Reporters must calculate
F–GHG emissions for each process as
follows:
• Initial Scoping speciation. Perform
an initial scoping speciation under 40
CFR 98.124(a) to identify all fluorinated
GHGs that occur in the process. The
deadline for completing the scoping
speciation is February 29, 2012.
• Estimating emissions. There are two
methods for estimating fluorinated GHG
emissions from fluorinated gas
production and transformation
processes: The mass balance method
and the emission factor method.
• Mass balance method.
—Accuracy and Precision
Requirements. Before using the massbalance approach to estimate emissions
from a process, you must ensure that the
process and the equipment and methods
used to measure it meet either the error
limits specified at 40 CFR 98.123(b) or
the requirements specified at 40 CFR
98.124(b)(8).
• Error limits. Based on one of the
approaches described in the rule,
determine the absolute error and the
relative error of using the mass balance
method to estimate emissions from the
process. If these calculations show that
use of the mass-balance approach to
estimate emissions from the process will
result in an absolute error less than or
equal to 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year
or a relative error less than or equal to
30 percent of the estimated emissions,
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74792
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
then you may use the mass-balance
approach to estimate emissions from the
process. Otherwise, you must either
comply with the alternative to the error
limits or use the emission factor (or
emission calculation factor) method.
• Alternative to error limits. You
must ensure that the process, and the
equipment and methods used to
measure it, meet the following
requirements:
• The process must have a total
annual throughput of 500,000 mtCO2e
or less, where the throughput is defined
as the sum of the CO2-weighted masses
of the fluorinated GHG reactants,
products, and by-products.
• You must measure the masses and
concentrations identified in the rule at
least weekly, and you must calculate
emissions at least weekly.
• You must measure the masses
identified in the rule with an accuracy
and precision of ±0.2 percent of full
scale or better.
• You must measure the
concentrations identified in the rule
using analytical methods with an
accuracy and precision of ±10 percent or
better.
—Mass-balance calculation. To
perform the mass balance calculation,
you must track and measure the
fluorine-containing compounds that are
added to or removed from the process,
including reactants, by-products and
products, to determine the emissions in
terms of fluorine. (Alternatively, you
may track the flows of another element,
such as carbon, as long as this element
is contained in all of the fluorinated
GHGs fed into or generated by the
process.) To track the fluorine removed
from the process and destroyed or
recaptured, you must either speciate the
contents of the streams removed from
the process or you must use analytical
methods that measure the total fluorine
in these streams.
—To characterize emissions (i.e.,
divide them among reactants, products,
and by-products), you must either
assume that all emissions consist of the
fluorinated GHG that has the highest
GWP among the fluorinated GHGs that
occur in more than trace concentrations
in the process, or you must possess
emission characterization
measurements. For process vents that
emit more than 25,000 mtCO2e per year,
these measurements must include
sampling and analysis of emitted
streams. For other process vents, these
measurements may also include
previous measurements, provided the
measurements are representative of the
current operating conditions of the
process, or bench-scale or pilot-scale
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
test measurements representative of the
process operating conditions.
• Emission factor (and emission
calculation factor) methods.
—For each continuous process vent,
perform a preliminary estimate of
emissions, considering any controls,
using one of the methods outlined
below. For any continuous process vent
with estimated emissions greater than or
equal to 10,000 mtCO2e, you must
conduct emissions testing to develop an
emission factor. For any batch process
vent, and for any continuous process
vent with estimated emissions less than
10,000 mtCO2e, you have the option to
use engineering calculations or
assessments to develop an emission
calculation factor.
—In the preliminary estimate, account
for the demonstrated destruction
efficiency and expected downtime of
the destruction device, if applicable.
Both the expected downtime of the
device and the expected activity level
for the process must be based on typical
recent values unless there is a
compelling reason to adopt a different
value. If there is such a reason (e.g.,
introduction of controls for a previously
uncontrolled vent), it must be
documented in the facility’s GHG
Monitoring Plan. If your process vent
emits one or more fluorinated GHGs
whose GWPs are not listed in Table A–
1 to subpart A, you may use a default
global warming potential (GWP) of
2,000 for these fluorinated GHGs, or you
may request to use provisional GWPs for
these fluorinated GHGs if:
• The fluorinated GHGs are emitted
in quantities that, with a default GWP
of 2,000, result in total calculated
annual emissions equal to or greater
than 10,000 mtCO2e for the vent, and
• You possess data and analysis that
indicate that the fluorinated GHGs have
GWPs that would result in total
calculated annual emissions less than
10,000 mtCO2e for the vent.
—For the preliminary estimate,
facilities may use the following
methods:
• Facilities may use the Emissions
Inventory Improvement Process,
Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for
Estimating Air Emissions from Chemical
Manufacturing Facilities. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
August 2007.
• Facilities may determine the
uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions
from any process vent within the
process using the procedures specified
in 40 CFR 63.1257(d)(2)(i), ‘‘National
Emission Standards for Pharmaceutical
Production,’’ except as specified in 40
CFR 98.123, paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(B)(1)
through (b)(1)(i)(B)(4).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• Facilities may use commercial
software products that follow chemical
engineering principles, including the
calculation methodologies in 40 CFR
98.123, paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B).
• Facilities may use previous test
results, bench scale, or pilot-scale data,
provided they are representative of the
current process operating conditions.
• Facilities may use design analysis
based on chemical engineering
principles, measurable process
parameters, or physical or chemical
laws or properties.
• Facilities may use maximum flow
rate, fluorinated GHG emission rate,
concentration, or other relevant
parameters specified or implied within
a permit limit applicable to the process
vent.
—Emission and emission calculation
factors for continuous processes: For
continuous process vents with
emissions, considering controls, that are
greater than or equal to 10,000 mtCO2e,
conduct emissions testing to determine
the site-specific, process vent-specific
emissions factor.
• If the vent is controlled and annual
emissions bypassing, i.e., not venting to,
the control device are less than 10,000
mtCO2e, then you may conduct
emissions testing after the control
device.
• Otherwise, conduct emissions
testing before the control device. You
may conduct emissions testing for
fluorinated GHG following an acid gas
scrubber, if there is no appreciable
fluorinated GHG reduction occurring.
—For batch process vents and for
continuous process vents with annual
emissions of less than 10,000 mtCO2e,
either conduct emissions testing or use
one of the engineering calculation or
assessment methods outlined above
(except the approach based on
maximum flow rates, concentrations,
etc.) to develop the site-specific,
process-vent specific emission
calculation factor. If and when
emissions from a continuous process
vent meet or exceed 10,000 mtCO2e
(e.g., due to activity increases, process
changes, or destruction device
malfunctions), you must conduct
emissions testing and develop an
emission factor for the vent by the end
of the following year.
—Emission and emission calculation
factors for batch processes: For process
vents from batch processes, either
perform emissions testing as described
above or use one of the engineering
calculation or assessment methods
outlined above (except the approach
based on maximum flow rates,
concentrations, etc.) to develop the site-
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
specific, process-vent specific emission
calculation factor.
—All processes: Determine the
emissions factor or the emissions
calculation factor using the fluorinated
GHG emission rate and the process
activity rate.
—The deadline for completing
development of emission factors and
emission calculation factors is February
29, 2012.
—Estimate annual fluorinated GHG
emissions from each process vent using
the emission factor or the emission
calculation factor and the actual activity
data along with the use and uptime of
the destruction device.
—Sum the fluorinated GHG emission
for all vents in the process.
—If using the emission factor or
emission calculation factor approach,
estimate emissions from equipment
leaks using EPA’s Protocol for
Equipment Leak Emission Estimates
(EPA–453/R–95–017). The equipment
leak emission estimates may include use
of Method 21 for appropriate fluorinated
GHGs. Alternatively, use a site-specific
leak detection method that you have
validated for the fluorinated GHGs (or
their surrogates) that occur in the
process.
• To establish the destruction
efficiency, conduct a performance test
or use the destruction efficiency
determined during a previous
performance test that meets the rule
requirements. For certain difficult-todestroy fluorinated GHGs such as CF4,
SF6, and saturated PFCs other than CF4,
a destruction efficiency must be
developed specifically for that
compound or for a more difficult-todestroy surrogate (e.g., CF4 may be used
as a surrogate for SF6). For other
fluorinated GHGs, the destruction
efficiency may be developed using any
Class 1 compound on the Thermal
Stability Rankings List.
• For destruction processes, estimate
emissions using the calculation methods
in the rule.
• To estimate emissions from venting
of container heels in cases where the
heels are not recaptured or destroyed,
either:
—Weigh each container upon its
return to the facility and before venting
or
—Develop a representative heel factor
for each fluorinated GHG and container
size and type and multiply it by the
number of containers of that gas and
size and type vented annually.
• Request to use a GWP other than
2,000 for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs
are not listed in Table A–1 to subpart A.
As noted above, for purposes of the
preliminary emissions estimate under
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
the emission factor approach, facilities
may request to use a GWP other than
2,000 for fluorinated GHGs that do not
have GWPs listed in Table A–1 to
subpart A. Facilities must submit this
request by February 28, 2011.
—For each fluorinated GHG that does
not have a GWP listed in Table A–1 to
subpart A and that constitutes more
than one percent by mass of the stream
emitted from the vent, the facility must
provide the identity of the fluorinated
GHG (including its chemical formula),
the estimated GWP of the fluorinated
GHG, the data and analysis that
supports the facility’s estimate of the
GWP of the fluorinated GHG, and the
engineering calculations or assessments
and underlying data that demonstrate
that the process vent is calculated to
emit less than 10,000 mtCO2e only
when the proposed provisional GWPs,
not the default GWP of 2,000, are used
for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are
not listed in Table A–1 to subpart A.
—If EPA makes a preliminary
determination that the request is
complete, that it substantiates each of
the provisional GWPs, and that it
demonstrates that the process vent is
calculated to emit less than 10,000
mtCO2e only when the provisional
GWPs, not the default GWP of 2,000, are
used for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs
are not listed in Table A–1 to subpart A,
then EPA will publish a notice
including a summary of the data and
analysis supporting the GWPs. If, after
review of public comment on the notice,
EPA finalizes its preliminary
determination, then EPA will permit the
facility to use the provisional GWPs for
the preliminary emissions calculations.
• Best available monitoring methods
(BAMM). We are allowing facilities to
use Best Available Monitoring Methods
(BAMM) for any parameter that cannot
reasonably be measured according to the
monitoring and QA/QC requirements of
subpart L. The owner or operator must
use the calculation methodologies and
equations in the ‘‘Calculating GHG
emissions’’ section of subpart L, but may
use the best available monitoring
method for any parameter for which it
is not reasonably feasible to achieve the
following by either July 1, 2011 or
March 1, 2012 (these dates are discussed
further below):
—Acquire, install, or operate a
required piece of monitoring equipment.
—Procure services from necessary
providers (e.g., contractors specializing
in stack testing to support the
development of emission factors).
—Gain physical access to make
required measurements (e.g., because a
measurement requires the installation of
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74793
a port and it is unsafe to install the port
during process operation).
• BAMM Deadlines. Facilities may
use BAMM to estimate emissions that
occur through June 30, 2011 without
submitting a request to EPA.
• Facilities wishing to use BAMM to
estimate emissions that occur
throughout 2011 for parameters other
than scoping speciations, emission
factors, and emission characterizations
must submit a request to EPA by
February 28, 2011.
• Facilities wishing to use BAMM to
estimate emissions that occur
throughout 2011 (or in unique or
extreme circumstances, until after that
date) for scoping speciations, emission
factors, and emission characterizations
must submit a petition to EPA by June
30, 2011.
• Contents of BAMM Extension
Requests. Requests for BAMM
extensions must include detailed
explanations and supporting
documentation to describe why it is not
reasonably feasible for the facility to
comply with the applicable monitoring
requirements. In general, extension
requests must include detailed
descriptions and evidence that it is not
reasonably feasible for the facility to
acquire, install, or operate a required
piece of monitoring equipment, to
procure services from necessary
providers, or to gain physical access to
make required measurements in a
facility before July 1, 2011 (for
parameters other than scoping
speciations, emission factors, and
emission characterizations) or March 1,
2012 (for scoping speciations, emission
factors, and emission characterizations).
BAMM extension requests must also
document the facility’s efforts to comply
with the requirements and explain the
BAMM that the facility will use, should
EPA approve the request. EPA does not
anticipate approving the use of BAMM
beyond December 31, 2011; however,
EPA reserves the right to approve any
such requests submitted by June 30,
2011 under unique and extreme
circumstances which include safety,
technical infeasibility, or inconsistency
with other local, State or Federal
regulations. Facilities requesting BAMM
past December 31, 2011 would have to
submit documentation to support the
request similar to that required for
BAMM requests in 2011. In addition,
these facilities would be required to
describe the unique and extreme
circumstances which necessitate the
extended BAMM.
• We anticipate that facilities will
need to use best available monitoring
methods only under limited
circumstances.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74794
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
• BAMM for facilities pursuing the
emission factor approach. For facilities
pursuing the emission factor approach
for a given process, we expect that most
activity data is already monitored using
measurement devices with an accuracy
and precision of ±1 percent of full scale
or better. However, where this is not the
case and where it is not reasonably
feasible to acquire, install, or operate the
measurement device by January 1, 2011
(or July 1, 2011), the facility would use
the currently installed device (or would
request to use it) through June 30, 2011
(or December 31, 2011).
• Facilities already have until
February 29, 2012 to develop emission
factors and emission characterizations;
thus, they would not need to use BAMM
for these parameters unless they could
not complete stack testing and
parameter development until after that
date. In this case, if the request for
extended BAMM were granted, the
facility would have until February 28,
2013 to complete emissions testing and
develop the emission factor or emission
characterization for the affected vent
and process. In the meantime, the
facility would use an emission
calculation factor or emission
characterization developed through
engineering calculations or assessments
to estimate 2011 emissions. As a
condition for any approval of 12-month
BAMM during the development of
emission factors and emission
characterizations, we are requiring
facilities to recalculate and re-submit
their 2011 emission estimates for the
affected processes to reflect the scoping
speciations, emission factors, and
emission characterizations that they
complete or develop for those processes
after February 29, 2012.
• We do not expect facilities to
require BAMM for estimating emissions
from equipment leaks because we are
already providing a great deal of
flexibility in how such leaks may be
estimated, including allowing the use of
default emission factors.
• BAMM for facilities pursuing the
mass-balance approach. For facilities
using the mass-balance approach for a
given process, we anticipate that the
main reason for using BAMM will be an
inability to meet the error limit due to
an inability to acquire, install, or
operate measurement devices with
sufficient accuracies and precisions by
January 1, 2011. In such cases, facilities
will have a choice regarding the
monitoring method they select to
estimate emissions from the process
under the BAMM provisions. They may
use engineering calculations or
assessments to develop emission
calculation factors, or they may apply
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
the mass-balance equations to the data
they acquire using their current
measurement devices. Before pursuing
the latter method, facilities must
estimate the relative and absolute errors
that would be associated with using the
mass-balance method to estimate
emissions based on their current
monitoring data. We anticipate
approving the use of BAMM with the
mass-balance method only if those
errors are less than 50 percent or less
than 2,500 mtCO2e for 6 months of
emissions from the process,
respectively. If facilities cannot meet
these error limits, they should use
engineering calculations or assessments
as their BAMM.
• BAMM for facilities pursuing either
approach. Facilities requesting BAMM
while they prepare to implement either
the emission-factor or the mass-balance
approach must explain and document
why it is not reasonably feasible for
them to apply the other approach to
estimate emissions from the relevant
process. Thus, facilities requesting
BAMM until January 1, 2012 while they
prepare to implement the mass-balance
approach must explain and document
why it is not reasonably feasible for
them to apply the emission factor
approach by July 1, 2011, and vice
versa.
• Destruction efficiencies. We do not
anticipate approving the use of BAMM
for destruction efficiencies for two
reasons. First, facilities have the option
of not reflecting, in their reporting, the
destruction of fluorinated GHGs for
which destruction efficiencies have not
been demonstrated. Second, it would be
difficult to select or justify the selection
of a provisional destruction efficiency
value if the destruction efficiency had
not been measured for the fluorinated
GHG at issue (or for a fluorinated GHG
that is more difficult to destroy
according to the hierarchy laid out at
§ 98.124(g)(1)).
Data Reporting. In addition to the
information required to be reported by
the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)),
reporters must submit additional data
that are used to calculate GHG
emissions. A list of the specific data to
be reported for this source category is
contained in 40 CFR 98.126.
Recordkeeping. In addition to the
records required by the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters
must keep records of additional data
used to calculate GHG emissions. A list
of specific records that must be retained
for this source category is included in
§ 98.127.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1. Summary of Major Changes Since
Proposal
The major changes since proposal are
identified in the following list. The
rationale for these and any other
significant changes can be found below
or in ‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to
Public Comments, Subpart L:
Fluorinated Gas Production Processes.’’
• We are adding a number of
clarifications to assist reporters in
determining when and how the initial
scoping speciation must be performed.
Specifically, the initial scoping
speciation applicability criteria are
applied on a process vent basis rather
than a process basis; facilities may
conduct sampling and analysis on
process vents or on process streams; and
testing methods specific to stack testing
do not have to be used. Other validated
industry sampling analysis standards
may be used.
• We have added more flexibility and
robustness to the mass-balance
approach by:
—Allowing use of the mass-balance
approach with processes that do not
produce fluorinated GHGs but may
nevertheless emit them (e.g., processes
that transform fluorinated GHGs). The
mass-balance equations no longer
assume that the mass that is lost from
the process is emitted in the form of the
product; instead, the equations express
losses as emissions of fluorine. To
divide emissions among reactants,
products, and by-products, facilities
either must assume that all emissions
consist of the fluorinated GHG that has
the highest GWP among the fluorinated
GHGs that occur in more than trace
concentrations in the process, or they
must use emission characterization
measurements.
—Incorporating process variability
into the error calculation.
—Providing an alternative to the error
limits for facilities that do not wish to
calculate these limits.
• We have added more flexibility to
the emission factor approach by:
—Allowing the use of engineering
calculations or assessments to develop
emission calculation factors for all batch
process vents, regardless of emissions.
—Changing the method for
determining whether the emissions of a
continuous process vent fall below the
10,000 mtCO2e cutoff that allows the
use of engineering calculations rather
than stack testing. First, we are allowing
the use of controlled rather than
uncontrolled emissions in this
determination and are consequently
eliminating the separate exemption for
vents that are 99.9 percent controlled.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Second, where one or more fluorinated
GHGs emitted from the vent do not have
a GWP listed in Table A–1 to subpart A,
we are allowing the use of a default
GWP of 2,000 for these GHGs in the
determination rather than setting a
cutoff of one ton of chemical. We are
also allowing facilities to request to use
a provisional GWP where the facility
believes that the fluorinated GHG’s
GWP is less than 2,000 and where the
difference would reduce the calculated
vent emissions from above the 10,000
mtCO2e cutoff to below it.
—Providing an additional two months
(until February 29, 2012) to develop
emission factors, emission calculation
factors, emission characterizations, and
destruction efficiencies.
—Allowing emissions testing after the
control device if the vent is controlled
and annual emissions bypassing (i.e.,
not vented to) the control device are less
than 10,000 mtCO2e. This change is
expected to reduce the number of
situations in which testing of hazardous
streams on the inlet side to the control
device may be required, to limit the
number of potential sampling ports that
may need to be installed, and to
increase the number of situations in
which testing of outlet emissions only
will be required, i.e., without need for
additional destruction efficiency testing.
—For vents from continuous
processes with emissions over 10,000
mtCO2e, summed across operating
scenarios, requiring testing of only the
largest-emitting operating scenario and
any other operating scenario that (1)
emits more than 10,000 mtCO2e through
the vent, and (2) has an emission
calculation factor that differs by 15
percent or more from the emission
calculation factor of the tested operating
scenario. (In the proposed rule, stack
testing would have been required for
each operating scenario.)
—Expanding the set of test methods
that can be used for emissions testing.
We are allowing industry standard
sampling and analytical methods that
have been validated using EPA Method
301 or other validation methods.
—Expanding the set of methods that
can be used for quantifying emissions
from equipment leaks. We are now
allowing use of the default average
emission factor approach in EPA’s
Protocol for Equipment Leaks and are
allowing facilities to implement their
own methods for detecting and
quantifying fluorinated GHG emissions
from equipment leaks. Site-specific leak
detection methods must be validated
and both the methods and their
validation must be documented in the
facility’s GHG Monitoring Plan.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
—For purposes of quantifying
emissions from equipment leaks,
defining ‘‘in fluorinated GHG service’’ as
containing or contacting a feedstock, byproduct, or product that contains 5
percent or more total fluorinated GHG
by weight.
• We are adding a requirement to
monitor and report fluorinated GHG
emissions from containers when the
residual fluorinated GHG (heel) is
vented to the atmosphere rather than
recaptured and reused or destroyed. As
discussed in the proposed rule and in
the technical support document, venting
of residual gas from containers can have
a significant impact on the overall
emission rate of a fluorinated GHG
production facility. Estimating such
emissions is straightforward and is not
expected to impose a significant burden
on facilities.
• We are adding a one-time
requirement to report existing data and
analysis regarding the formation of
products of incomplete combustion
(PICs) that are fluorinated GHGs during
the destruction of fluorinated gases.
Studies of high-energy processes in the
electronics industry indicate that PFC
PICs may form in significant quantities
during the destruction of fluorinated
GHGs. Once formed, such PICs are
likely to be very difficult to destroy. We
considered requiring regular reporting
of fluorinated GHG PIC generation and
emissions under this rule, but we
concluded that more information on the
nature and magnitude of such emissions
was needed to determine whether and
how to craft reporting requirements. The
one-time reporting requirement
regarding PICs is intended to begin
addressing this need.
• To clarify that PICs are excluded
from reporting under this rule (except
for the one-time reporting requirement),
we are amending the definition of
destruction efficiency in subpart A to
express it in terms of the tons of a
particular GHG that is fed into and
exhausted from the device, rather than
in terms of the tons of CO2e of all GHGs
fed into and exhausted from the device.
We are also deleting the phrase
‘‘including GHGs formed during the
destruction process’’ from the definition
of the quantity exhausted from the
device.
• We are modifying the proposed
BAMM provision to allow fluorinated
gas production facilities to use BAMM
to estimate emissions through June 30,
2011 without submitting a request to
EPA. In the proposal, facilities would
have been allowed to use BAMM to
estimate emissions only through March
31, 2011 without submitting a request.
We are also reserving the right to allow,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74795
in extremely limited circumstances,
facilities to use BAMM to estimate 2012
emissions. We are allowing facilities to
use BAMM for 6 months rather than
three and are potentially allowing the
use of BAMM beyond 2011 based on
comments received on the April 12,
2010 proposed rule and our experience
implementing the final reporting rule
issued in October 2009. For a more
detailed discussion on EPA’s rationale,
see ‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to
Public Comments, Subpart L:
Fluorinated Gas Production’’ (available
in the docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0927).
2. Summary of Comments and
Responses
This section contains a brief summary
of major comments and responses. A
number of comments on fluorinated
GHG production were received covering
numerous topics. Responses to
additional significant comments
received can be found in ‘‘Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s
Response to Public Comments, Subpart
L: Fluorinated Gas Production
Processes.’’
Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements
Comment: A number of commenters
argued against requiring emission
testing of vents from batch processes,
stating that the episodic and variable
nature of batch emissions make them
extremely difficult to measure
accurately. These commenters noted
that both the flow rates and fluorinated
GHG concentrations in batch emissions
can change rapidly, making them
difficult to characterize and quantify
correctly, and that vents often consist of
small diameter process piping where
traditional gas flow measurement
devices are not effective. Commenters
specifically cited depressurizations and
vapor displacements as batch events
whose emissions are hard to measure
because they are characterized by
varying and very low flows,
respectively. They also observed that
batch processes can last for days,
meaning that it could take weeks to
complete three test cycles, or even one
year or more if the process is run
infrequently. The commenters
concluded that due to these concerns,
other regulations that required
estimation of emissions from batch
processes allowed estimates to be based
on a broad range of engineering
calculations and assessments, which
yield accurate emission estimates for
batch processes. They recommended
that EPA provide similar flexibility for
batch processes in subpart L. Rather
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74796
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
than requiring stack testing for highemitting batch process vents, one
commenter suggested that EPA require
the verification of emission calculations
using ‘‘stack gas measurements that
characterize the major emission events.’’
Response: In response to comments
describing the technical issues
associated with emission testing for
batch processes, we have revised the
requirements for estimating fluorinated
GHG emissions from batch processes. In
the final rule, facilities with batch
process vents are required to develop
emission calculation factors rather than
conduct emission testing. As several
commenters noted, there are several
difficulties associated with conducting
emissions testing for batch processes.
Many batch processes have short to
moderate batch lengths, short emission
episode periods, low flow rates, and
intermittent flow rates, and these
characteristics make emissions from
batch processes difficult to measure
accurately. It is generally accepted that
emission calculations for batch
processes yield reasonably accurate
results. As commenters noted, certain
other rules for batch processes in the
chemical manufacturing industry
require emission calculations. Emission
calculations are required for batch
processes in the Pharmaceutical
NESHAP and in the Miscellaneous
Organic NESHAP, and emission
calculations for batch processes are also
laid out for industry in the Emissions
Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP)
guidance and in the Batch CTG
document. The Pharmaceutical
NESHAP and Miscellaneous Organic
NESHAP do not require emissions
testing to determine the emission rates
for individual process vents from batch
processes under these rules. (However,
emissions testing to demonstrate the
control efficiency achieved by an addon air pollution control device on batch
processes is conducted, based on the
worst-case scenario).
We considered requiring field
verification of emission estimates for the
largest batch emission episodes, but
determined that we did not have enough
information to finalize a requirement
that could be consistently applied
across different processes and facilities.
Follow-up discussions with the
commenter that suggested the
verification testing (as an alternative to
full emissions testing) indicated that the
methods used to verify emissions would
almost certainly vary from process to
process and would be difficult to
prescribe. Moreover, it was unclear
what the criteria for a successful
verification would be, and how a facility
would address an unsuccessful
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
verification. For example, if
measurements indicated that emissions
from a particular episode were
significantly lower than expected based
on engineering calculations, the
discrepancy could be due either to a
process-wide overestimate of emissions
(perhaps due to overestimated byproduct generation rates) or to a
misallocation of emissions among
emission episodes. Different responses
would be appropriate for addressing
these two possibilities. Thus, although
we strongly encourage facilities to test
large emissions episodes from batch
processes where feasible, we are not
requiring that they do so in this final
rule.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the proposed Process Vent
Threshold was too stringent,
particularly in conjunction with a
default GWP of 10,000 for compounds
not listed in Table A–1 to subpart A.
One commenter stated that by assigning
this default GWP to all unknown
fluorinated organic compounds, an
emphasis is being placed on compounds
that are not the focus of the rule.
Another commenter noted that since
many of their compounds are not
included in Table A–1 to subpart A,
they will not be able to use the 10,000
mtCO2e threshold. Several commenters
requested that they be allowed to
develop and use their own GWPs for
compounds that are not listed in Table
A–1 to subpart A, following the general
guidance presented in various IPCC
reports.
Multiple commenters expressed
concern regarding the proposed
destruction efficiency (DE) criterion of
99.9 percent for allowing use of
engineering calculations and
assessments. These commenters
requested that EPA allow post-control
efficiencies for vents that are controlled
by DEs of less than 99.9 percent.
Additionally, the commenter noted that
when a very low concentration of the
analyte of interest is present in a stream,
a 99.9 percent DE may not be
achievable.
One commenter recommended that
EPA modify the threshold to reflect a
sum of controlled and uncontrolled
emissions to allow for situations when
a destruction device is not in use. One
commenter suggested that EPA establish
a schedule that would require larger
sources (greater than 50,000 or 100,000mtCO2/year) to report for the first two
years, with smaller sources tested in
subsequent years as technologies
improve. Another commenter requested
that EPA implement the 10,000 mtCO2e
threshold and that it be applied as an
additive threshold amongst all portions
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of a facility that are covered under Part
98. This commenter also noted that the
10,000 mtCO2e threshold is in accord
with the requirements of many States
and the Western Climate Initiative.
Response: EPA appreciates the
comments and has modified the method
for determining whether the emissions
of a process vent fall below the 10,000
mtCO2e cutoff below which the facility
may use engineering calculations rather
than stack testing to estimate emissions.
As noted in the response to the previous
comment, we are allowing facilities to
use engineering calculations and
assessments to estimate emissions from
all batch processes, regardless of
emissions; thus, facilities must perform
the determination only for continuous
process vents.
First, we are allowing the use of
controlled rather than uncontrolled
emissions in the determination and are
consequently eliminating the separate
exemption for vents that are 99.9
percent controlled. Second, where one
or more fluorinated GHGs emitted from
the vent do not have a GWP listed in
Table A–1 to subpart A, we are allowing
the use of a default GWP of 2,000 for
these GHGs in the determination rather
than setting a cutoff of one ton of
chemical. Third, where facilities believe
that the default GWP overestimates the
actual GWP and where use of the
estimated actual GWP would lower the
calculated emissions from the vent from
above the 10,000 mtCO2e cutoff to
below it, we are allowing facilities to
request to use a GWP other than 2,000.
We believe that this revised approach
allows reasonable flexibility and
ensures that the rigor of emission
calculations is proportional to the likely
magnitude of the emissions. While the
proposed rule would have permitted the
use of engineering calculations and
assessments to estimate emissions from
vents that were always 99.9 percent
controlled, they would have required
stack testing for vents controlled below
the 99.9 percent level, even if the
emissions from these vents were
considerably below 10,000 mtCO2e.
This final rule establishes a more
consistent approach to accounting for
destruction by permitting the use of
engineering calculations and
assessments where controlled emissions
fall below 10,000 mtCO2e.
This final rule also allows for a more
sophisticated treatment of fluorinated
GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in
Table A–1 to subpart A. Under the
proposed rule, facilities would have
been required to perform stack testing
on fluorinated GHG streams that
exceeded one ton and that included any
fluorinated GHG that did not have a
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
GWP listed in table A–1 to subpart A,
even if this fluorinated GHG made up a
small fraction of the stream. Implicitly,
this assigned a GWP of 10,000 not only
to the GHG without a GWP in table A–
1 to subpart A, but to the rest of the
stream. Assigning a default GWP of
2,000 to GHGs without GWPs in table
A–1 to subpart A allows streams to be
evaluated based on a reasonable
estimate of the total CO2e rather than
just on total F–GHG tonnage.34 The
2,000 value was selected based on an
evaluation of all the known GWPs for
fluorocarbon F–GHGs as listed in Table
A–1 to subpart A.35 It is intended to be
a short-term default value. In the long
run, EPA intends to establish a broader
program for evaluating the GWPs of
fluorinated GHGs. However, such a
program will not be established in time
to evaluate all of the GWPs that must be
evaluated for purposes of determining
whether or not to perform stack testing
on process vents.
The option to request to use a
provisional GWP addresses situations
where the GWP of 2,000 would
significantly overestimate the CO2e
emissions from a process vent and
inappropriately trigger stack testing. In
general, we expect such situations to be
rare.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that the analytical
methods as proposed were too limited
or prescriptive. They argued that the set
of proposed methods, analytical
technologies, and detectors may not be
appropriate for all fluorinated
compounds. Commenters specifically
observed that the prescribed detectors
(e.g., ECD) do not work well with all
fluorinated compounds. Commenters
also expressed concern that the
proposed rule did not address the need
to adapt the methods to accommodate
34 This would avoid problematic situations that
could arise if facilities simply switched to a 5-ton
cut-off whenever part of an emissions stream lacked
a GWP. One of these would be having to use stack
testing on a 6-ton vent stream that consisted mostly
(e.g., 98%) of a fluorinated GHG with a GWP of 50,
but consisted slightly (e.g., 2%) of a fluorinated
GHG with an unknown GWP. Another problematic
situation would be NOT having to use stack testing
on a 4-ton vent stream that consisted mostly (98%)
of a fluorinated GHG with a GWP of 3000, but
slightly (2%) of a fluorinated GHG with an
unknown GWP.
35 The average for all of the fluorocarbons in this
list was 2,300. For purposes of estimating the GWPs
of fluorocarbons that do not appear in Table 1, this
average may actually be high because it includes
the GWPs of PFCs, which have an average GWP of
about 7,600. EPA believes that most PFCs whose
vapor pressures qualify them as fluorinated GHGs
already have their GWPs listed in Table A–1. The
average GWP of the fluorocarbons other than the
PFCs is approximately 1,600. (HFCs have an
average GWP of about 2,000, while HFEs have an
average GWP of about 1,200 to 1,400).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
site-specific issues or safety concerns.
The commenters recommended that
EPA increase the flexibility in the
testing section, include the same level of
flexibility as was proposed for subpart
OO, allow more methods as alternatives
for use in analysis, and rely heavily on
the facility GHG Monitoring Plan.
Response: EPA agrees that additional
flexibility is appropriate and is allowing
facilities to use alternative test methods
and procedures to identify and quantify
fluorinated GHGs in process and
emissions streams. These alternative
methods and procedures must be
validated and documented in the
facility’s GHG Monitoring Plan. EPA has
concluded that this change will provide
the flexibility necessary to allow
facilities to develop and apply new
analytical procedures that may be
required to identify and quantify all of
the fluorinated GHGs in process and
emissions streams. At the same time, the
quality assurance, validation, and
documentation requirements for
analytical procedures will assure that
facilities are able to obtain and report
accurate emissions measurements.
Comment: Several commenters
requested clarification of or changes to
the error test that facilities must perform
before applying the mass-balance
approach to estimate emissions from a
process. Some commenters requested
that EPA establish an error limit in
terms of the quantity of reactants fed
into the process, an option on which
EPA had requested comment. These
commenters were concerned that the
error limit that was presented in the
proposed regulatory text, which would
require the error to fall below either 30
percent of emissions or 3,000 mtCO2e,
would disadvantage fluorinated GHG
production processes with low
emissions for which facilities might
prefer to use the mass-balance approach.
Response: EPA has carefully
evaluated various options to ensure that
emissions estimates developed using the
mass-balance approach are reasonably
accurate while avoiding placing a
burden on facilities with low emissions.
In our deliberations, we have
considered the fact that for processes
that do not pass the error test for the
mass-balance approach, facilities may
use the site-specific, process-ventspecific emission factor approach
(PSEF), which is expected to have a
relative error of less than 30 percent.
The availability of the PSEF approach
argues against allowing use of the massbalance approach where relative and
absolute errors are large.
The approach that EPA proposed,
which would require the error to fall
below either 30 percent of emissions or
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74797
3,000 mtCO2e, limits the relative error of
large emissions and the absolute error of
small emissions. We anticipate that
processes that have large throughputs,
moderate to large emission rates (2
percent), and measurements with good
precisions and accuracies will pass this
error test, because the error will fall
under 30 percent of emissions. EPA also
anticipates that processes that have
small to medium throughputs, small to
medium emission rates, and
measurements with moderate to good
precisions and accuracies will pass the
error test, because the error will fall
either under 30 percent of emissions or
under 3,000 mtCO2e. However,
processes with large throughputs and
small emission rates may not pass the
error test even if their measurements are
highly accurate and precise, because the
error will exceed both 3,000 mtCO2e
and 30 percent of emissions.
The last set of processes described
might be able to use the mass-balance
approach if the error test were applied
to the ratio of the absolute error
(numerator) and the reactants or
products of the process (denominator).
In this case, the quantity to which the
error test was applied would remain
constant regardless of the emission rate
rather than increasing as emissions
decreased. However, while such an
approach would maintain the massbalance approach as an option for large
processes with small emission rates, it
would do so at the cost of reducing the
precision and accuracy of the resulting
emission estimates well below what
could be achieved using the emission
factor approach. For example, consider
a process producing 10 million mtCO2e
of product (well within the range for
HFCs) and emitting one percent of this,
or 100,000 mtCO2e. If error was limited
to 0.6 percent of the fluorinated GHG
product,36 the error of the emissions
estimate for this process could be 60
percent, or 60,000 mtCO2e. Using the
emission factor approach, the error of
the emissions estimate would be half
this, 30,000 mtCO2e. Thus, EPA is not
adopting the alternative error test.
Instead, EPA is adopting the error test
that was proposed.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the relative error associated with each
measurement is not necessarily known.
This commenter also requested
clarification on when the error test must
take place and how multiple
measurements should be handled in the
test. The commenter noted that over the
reporting year, at least 12 measurements
36 The 0.6 percent fraction was selected as an
example because it equates to a 30 percent error for
emissions of two percent of production.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74798
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
would be made of masses and
concentrations. If facilities waited until
the end of the year to perform the error
test and then found that the process
‘‘failed’’ it, they would not have time to
pursue the alternative of developing and
applying process-specific emission
factors.
Response: EPA agrees that there may
be multiple sources of error in the mass
and concentration measurements used
to estimate emissions under the mass
balance approach. However, while some
of these sources of error may not be
known or easily quantifiable, the most
important sources of error can be
assessed and quantified. These include
the error of the measurement devices
and the variability of the process. In
general, facilities would be expected to
know the accuracies and precisions of
their devices (e.g., flowmeters) for
measuring mass and their analytical
methods for measuring concentrations.
Facilities would also be expected to
know how variable their process is and,
in general, what drives that variability
(e.g., catalyst age). Since mass
measurements are cumulative (that is,
the monthly estimates of mass flowing
into or out of the process should be
totals for the month), process variability
will generally have much more of an
impact on the accuracy and precision of
the concentration measurements than
on those of the mass measurements.
If a facility has a record of
concentration measurements that are
representative of the current process
(including its full variability) and
analytical methods, then these
concentration measurements may be
used to assess the variability of the
process. The variability in these
measurements will also capture the
random error (imprecision) of the
analytical method. (The variability will
not capture the systematic error or
inaccuracy of the method, but this is
generally expected to be smaller than
the error associated with process
variability.) To incorporate this
variability into the error calculation,
facilities must consider the fact that at
least 12 concentration measurements
would be taken over the course of the
year.37 As explained further in the
revised technical support document,
37 Facilities are required to time their monthly (or
more frequent) concentration measurements so that
they obtain a representative set of these
measurements over the course of the year. For
example, if the catalyst is renewed on the first of
every month, facilities should take measurements at
the beginning, middle, and end of the month, even
if this means that three weeks or five weeks rather
than one month may elapse between measurements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
this can be accomplished using the
student’s distribution.
If a facility does not have a record of
concentration measurements that
capture the variability of the process,
the facility can assess this variability by
either (1) relying on engineering
calculations, or (2) taking several
measurements over the first month or
two of the reporting year. The facility
can then incorporate the results of these
measurements into the mass-balance
error calculation. Since these two
methods for assessing variability may be
less reliable than long-term monitoring,
the facility may wish to pursue the
process-vent-specific emission factor
approach if the results show that the
process barely passes the error test.
As discussed above, in response to
this and other comments regarding the
complexity of the mass-balance error
calculation, we are including in the
final rule an alternative set of
requirements that are designed to ensure
that emission estimates developed using
the mass-balance approach are
reasonably accurate and precise. Under
this alternative set of requirements,
which can only be used for processes
that have a total annual throughput of
500,000 mtCO2e or less of fluorinated
GHG reactants, products, and byproducts, facilities are required to
measure the masses identified in the
rule with an accuracy and precision of
±0.2 percent of full scale or better, to
measure the concentrations identified in
the rule using analytical methods with
an accuracy and precision of ±10
percent or better, and to conduct these
measurements at least weekly. The
rationale for this alternative approach is
discussed further in ‘‘Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s
Response to Public Comments, Subpart
L: Fluorinated Gas Production
Processes.’’
Comment: Commenters also
addressed the issue of the use of
surrogates in determining destruction
efficiency. They noted that in the
destruction and removal efficiency
(DRE) testing that is performed at
hazardous waste combustors pursuant
to 40 CFR 63.1219, facilities are allowed
to test any principal organic hazardous
constituent (POHC) within a thermal
stability class to establish the DRE of all
the other POHCs in that class. The
commenters argued that EPA should
take a similar approach in the
requirements for determining the
destruction efficiency (DE) for
fluorinated GHGs, clarifying that Class 1
POHCs, such as naphthalene, are
acceptable surrogates.
Response: We understand that in the
destruction and removal efficiency
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(DRE) testing that is performed at
hazardous waste combustors pursuant
to part 63, subpart EEE, facilities that
demonstrate 99.99 percent DRE for a
POHC within a thermal stability class
are allowed to assume that 99.99
percent DRE would also be achieved for
the other compounds in that class and
for compounds in other thermal stability
classes with lower thermal stability
rankings. This approach is based on the
general conclusion that, for POHCs that
are in the same class and that occur in
significant volumes, differences in DREs
tend to be small, and that compounds in
other thermal stability classes with
lower stability rankings are easier to
destroy.
However, it would be a
misapplication of the thermal stability
index to conclude that a combustor that
has demonstrated 99.99 percent DRE for
any Class 1 compound 38 would also
achieve 99.99 percent DRE for SF6, a
Class 1 compound, and for
perfluoromethane (CF4). While
achieving 99.99 percent DRE for SF6
ensures 99.99 percent DRE for other
Class 1 compounds, the converse may
not be true. As discussed below, SF6 is
substantially more thermally stable than
other Class 1 compounds (and CF4 is
substantially more thermally stable than
SF6). Note that this does not undermine
EPA’s policy of assuming for purposes
of the hazardous waste combustion
standards that achieving 99.99 percent
DRE for a Class 1 compound ensures
99.99 percent DRE for other Class 1
compounds (and, therefore, for all
POHCs). Given that SF6 is nontoxic and
is not a RCRA Part 261, Appendix VIII
organic compound for which 99.99
percent DRE would be required under
the hazardous waste combustion
standards, the fact that demonstrating
99.99 percent DRE for other Class 1
compounds may not ensure 99.99
percent DRE for SF6 is irrelevant to that
policy.
The theoretical considerations that
support the conclusion that fluorinated
GHGs are extremely thermally stable
relate to the high energies of the C–F
and S–F bonds. These energies make it
difficult to break the bonds through
reaction with oxygen, hydrogen, or the
hydroxyl radical, the typical means of
destroying other class 1 compounds.
Essentially, the only path available to
destroy these fully fluorinated
compounds in hazardous waste
combustors or thermal oxidizers is
through thermal decomposition at very
38 Class 1 is the group of POHCs and surrogates
with the highest thermal stability, meaning they are
the most difficult compounds to destroy.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
high temperatures.39 These
temperatures are significantly higher
than those required for the thermal
decomposition of most other class 1
compounds. For SF6, the thermal
stability index indicates that the
temperature to achieve 99 percent
destruction with a two-second residence
time is 1,090°C; for CF4, we project that
the temperature would be on the order
of 1,380°C.40 Researchers have
suggested that CF4 may break down only
in the flame zone.41
Experimental evidence supports the
idea that SF6 and CF4 are difficult to
destroy. Due in part to the theoretical
considerations outlined above, several
studies have evaluated the use of SF6 as
a possible surrogate for POHCs in
evaluating DREs. Most studies have
verified that the DRE measured for SF6
is likely to be lower than that for
POHCs, i.e., that it is likely to yield a
conservative estimate of the DREs for
POHCs under most conditions. In one
experiment at a full-scale hazardous
waste incinerator, the investigators
found that even at high-temperature
conditions, SF6 had a DRE that led to
emissions approximately an order of
magnitude higher than those of other
POHCs, including both class 1 and class
2 compounds. At lower-temperature
conditions, SF6 had a DRE that was over
100 times lower than those of other
POHCs.42 As noted above, CF4 is even
more difficult to destroy than SF6. This
has been confirmed in testing of pointof-use thermal abatement devices used
in electronics manufacturing, which
destroyed CF4 with an efficiency that
was significantly lower (sometimes
orders of magnitude lower) than the
efficiency with which they destroyed
SF6.43
39 W. Tsang et al make this case for
perfluoromethane in Tsang, W., Burgess Jr., D. R.,
and Babushok, V. (1998) ‘‘On the Incinerability of
Highly Fluorinated Organic Compounds,’’
Combustion Science and Technology, 139:1, 385–
402. An analogous argument can be made for sulfur
hexafluoride.
40 SF temperature is from Appendix VIII ranking
6
of POHCs; CF4 temperature is estimated based on
the rate constant provided in Tsang, p. 393.
41 Tsang, p. 387.
42 A. Trenholm, C. Lee, and H. Jermyn, ‘‘FullScale POHC Incinerability Ranking and Surrogate
Testing,’’ 17th Annual RREL Hazardous Waste
Research Symposium, EPA Office of Research and
Development, EPA/600/9–91/002 April, 1991, pp.
79–88.
43 USEPA, ‘‘Developing a Reliable Fluorinated
Greenhouse Gas (F–GHG) Destruction or Removal
Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method for
Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative
Evaluation with Qimonda,’’ March 2008, EPA 430–
R–08–017; USEPA, ‘‘Developing a Reliable
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F–GHG) Destruction
or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method
for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative
Evaluation with IBM,’’ June 2009, EPA 430–R–10–
004; and USEPA, ‘‘Developing a Reliable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
Sulfur hexafluoride is ranked fourth
in the POHC Thermal Stability Index;
CF4 is not ranked. Three compounds are
ranked higher than SF6 (i.e., ranked as
having higher thermal stability).
Hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen are
ranked first and second in the thermal
stability Index, but these POHCs are
rarely present at levels that qualify them
as POHCs. Benzene is ranked third, but
it frequently occurs as a product of
incomplete combustion (PIC) and is
therefore rarely selected as a POHC for
DRE testing. For these reasons, the
compounds above SF6 in the Index have
not been used to measure the
performance of most hazardous waste
combustors.44 45 However, at fluorinated
gas production sites that vent SF6, CF4,
or other perfluorocarbons to destruction
devices, these high-GWP compounds
have the potential to profoundly affect
the actual, CO2-weighted destruction
efficiencies of those devices. The long
atmospheric lifetimes of CF4 (50,000
years) and SF6 (3,000 years) amplify the
desirability of accurate measurements of
their destruction. Thus, using these
compounds themselves to measure their
DEs, rather than compounds that may
overestimate their DEs (and
underestimate their emissions) by an
order of magnitude or more, is critical.
Other fluorinated compounds are not
likely to be as stable as CF4 and SF6
because they can be dissociated at C–H
and C–C bonds (which are weaker than
C–F and S–F bonds). Nevertheless,
higher molecular weight
perfluorocarbons such as C2F6 are still
expected to be relatively difficult to
incinerate.46 As is true for CF4, the
mechanism of destruction is expected to
be thermal decomposition rather than
attack by radicals, although the
decomposition temperature will be
lower than for CF4 due to the fact that
the C–C bond is weaker than the C–F
bond.
For these reasons, EPA is requiring
that facilities that destroy CF4, SF6, and
other PFCs test the DE of their
destruction devices with the most
difficult-to-destroy compound in this set
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas (F–GHG) Destruction
or Removal Efficiency (DRE) Measurement Method
for Electronics Manufacturing: A Cooperative
Evaluation with NEC Electronics, Inc.,’’ December
2008, EPA 430–R–10–005.
44 Nonetheless, if a combustor has demonstrated
99.995 DRE for any of these three compounds, it is
reasonable to assume that it would also achieve
99.99% DRE for SF6.
45 If hydrogen cyanide or cyanogens were present
in a hazardous waste at levels high enough to
consider them as principal organic hazardous
compounds (POHCs), the regulatory authority
would likely ensue that they were tested as POHCs
given that they are substantially more thermally
stable than other Class 1 compounds.
46 Tsang, p. 401.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74799
that they actually destroy. (This
requirement applies if the facility
wishes to reflect the destruction in its
emissions estimates; the facility has the
option of forgoing testing if it does not
wish to reflect the destruction.)
Specifically, facilities that destroy CF4
must test the DE of their destruction
device with CF4 to be able to apply an
efficiency to this compound. Facilities
that destroy SF6 must test the DE of
their destruction device with SF6 or CF4
to be able to apply an efficiency to this
compound. Facilities that destroy higher
molecular weight PFCs must test the DE
of their destruction device with the
lowest molecular weight saturated PFC
that they destroy, a lower molecular
weight saturated PFC, or SF6 to apply an
efficiency to these compounds.
Facilities that destroy other fluorinated
GHGs, such as HFCs, may test the DE of
their destruction device using any class
1 compound in the POHC Thermal
Stability Index.
Comment: Commenters stated that the
methods proposed for detecting and
quantifying equipment leaks are
burdensome and as currently written,
are inappropriate for many fluorinated
GHGs. The commenters noted that, in
their experience in monitoring
emissions of VOCs or HAP from
equipment leaks, such leaks typically
make up only a small percentage of
facility emissions. Several commenters
noted that the proposed methods are
drawn from EPA’s Protocol for
Equipment Leak Estimates and would
be used in conjunction with Method 21.
Method 21 was developed to detect and
quantify emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from various
sources. The technologies that are
commonly used for quantifying leaks of
VOCs do not detect many fluorinated
GHGs at the sensitivity required by
Method 21, and detectors that are
capable of quantifying leaks of a range
of these fluorinated GHGs do not meet
all of the specifications for detectors set
forth in Method 21, including, for
example, probe diameter and sampling
rate.
Several commenters requested that
EPA allow the use of alternative
methods to detect and quantify
fluorinated GHG equipment leaks. Some
of these alternatives addressed the
inability of Method-21-compliant
technology to detect fluorinated GHGs.
Others addressed the cost of screening
large equipment sets for leaks, and some
addressed both. The alternative methods
included alternative detection
technologies that did not meet all of the
specifications of Method 21, any EPA
monitoring approach in use in
regulations, soap bubble testing either as
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74800
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
a screening approach to be followed up
with leak quantification or as a leak
designator in itself, pressure and
vacuum tests on batch process
equipment, various sampling regimens,
and alternative equipment counting
approaches (for example, approaches
that focus on rotating but not static
equipment). One commenter suggested
that EPA permit monitoring of room
exhaust to quantify leaks from process
equipment inside the room where the
facility successfully completes an EPA
Method 204 capture efficiency
demonstration. Commenters requested
that EPA allow facilities to establish and
modify their own methods to provide
appropriate equipment leak estimates
for fluorinated GHG emissions,
provided the methodology is
documented in the GHG Monitoring
Plan.
Response: EPA agrees that it is
appropriate to give facilities flexibility
in designing and conducting their leak
monitoring. In this final rule, we are
expanding the set of methods that can
be used for quantifying emissions from
equipment leaks. We are now allowing
use of the default Average Emission
Factor approach in EPA’s Protocol for
Equipment Leak Estimates and are
allowing facilities to implement their
own methods for detecting and
quantifying fluorinated GHG emissions
from equipment leaks. Site-specific leak
detection methods must be validated,
e.g., through comparison with other
methods, and both the methods and
their validation must be documented in
the facility’s GHG Monitoring Plan.
Three considerations have persuaded
us to allow this flexibility. First, the
equipment and methods for detecting
and quantifying emissions of fluorinated
GHGs from equipment leaks have not
advanced as far as those for monitoring
emissions of VOC from equipment
leaks. While some fluorinated GHGs can
be detected using instruments that meet
EPA Method 21 specifications, many
others cannot. Although instruments for
detecting leaks of HFCs and SF6 from
air-conditioning, refrigeration, and
electrical equipment have existed for
some time, most of these instruments do
not quantify emissions and/or detect
only one or two gases. In many cases,
therefore, these instruments are not
capable of quantifying emissions of the
broad range of fluorinated GHGs that
can leak from process equipment in
fluorinated gas production facilities. For
some fluorinated GHGs, the only
instruments that are capable of detecting
and quantifying emissions do not meet
all of the Method 21 specifications or
reach their maximum (‘‘peg’’) at
relatively low concentrations. Thus,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
EPA is permitting use of monitoring
equipment that departs from Method 21
specifications.
Second, information submitted by
several fluorinated gas producers
indicates that equipment leaks account
for a very small share of facility-wide
fluorinated GHG emissions. Although
this generalization is largely based on
experience with VOCs and HAP, two
fluorinated gas producers have surveyed
at least some of their process equipment
with detectors sensitive to fluorinated
GHGs and have found a similar, very
low, level of emissions. Consequently, if
some leak quantification methods used
to monitor equipment leak emissions
under this rule, despite initial
validation efforts, are later found to
have relatively poor precisions or
accuracies, these errors are unlikely to
have had a large impact on facility
emissions estimates in the meantime.
The potential costs of experimentation
in this area are relatively low.
Third, the goal of this rule is to
quantify fluorinated GHG emissions
from leaks rather than to regulate them.
Hence, leak quantification approaches
that yield unbiased, if imprecise,
estimates are preferable to approaches
that yield biased (e.g., conservatively
high) estimates (e.g., the Average
Emission Factor Approach). Also,
approaches that quantify leaks without
locating them (i.e., the room exhaust test
suggested by one commenter) are
acceptable in this context.
One area where we are setting a
quantitative monitoring standard is in
sampling fractions and frequencies. In
addition to requiring the sampled
equipment to be representative of the
equipment used in the process (e.g., in
terms of proportions of rotating
equipment, etc.), we are requiring that at
least one third of the equipment for each
process be monitored each year. (There
is an exception for equipment that is
difficult-to-monitor and unsafe-tomonitor.) This requirement sets a
consistent standard across facilities and
ensures that all equipment is sampled
over a three-year period.
One option that we considered and
rejected was to require facilities to use
the Average Emission Factor Approach
in the Protocol for Equipment Leak
Estimates.47 This approach requires
facilities to count the number of pieces
of equipment of each type in a process
and multiply the number of each type
by a default emission factor. Fluorinated
gas producers noted that this approach
tends to grossly overestimate emissions
47 This approach was not proposed but is less
burdensome than the other three methods in the
Protocol, which were proposed.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
from leaks, e.g., by a factor of 100 to
1000. As noted above, unbiased
estimates, even if they are imprecise, are
preferable to extremely conservative
estimates in the context of a reporting
rule. Thus, although we are giving
facilities the option to use the Average
Emission Factor Approach (which may
be desirable in a facility for which even
this approach will yield an equipment
leak estimate that is a tiny percentage of
overall facility emissions), we are not
requiring it.
We are requiring facilities to include
brief descriptions of their leak detection
methods in their annual GHG report.
After facilities have gained experience
designing and implementing leak
detection approaches, we may revisit
this issue to identify the approaches that
are most effective.
F. Electrical Transmission and
Distribution Equipment Use (Subpart
DD)
1. Summary of the Final Rule
Source Category Definition. The
electrical transmission and distribution
equipment use source category consists
of all electric transmission and
distribution equipment and servicing
inventory insulated with or containing
SF6 or PFCs used within electric power
systems. Such equipment includes all
gas-insulated substations, circuit
breakers, switchgear (including both
closed-pressure and hermetically
sealed-pressure equipment) electric
power transformers, gas-insulated lines
containing SF6 or PFCs, and new
equipment owned but not yet installed.
Servicing inventory includes
pressurized cylinders, gas carts, and
other containers of SF6 or PFC.
Reporting Threshold. EPA is
finalizing a reporting threshold based on
nameplate capacity of equipment.
Electric power systems must report if
the total nameplate capacity of SF6 and
PFC containing equipment located
within the facility, when added to the
total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC
containing equipment that is not located
within the facility but is under common
ownership or control, exceeds 17,820
pounds. Hermetically sealed-pressure
equipment is excluded from the
reporting threshold. Electricity
generating units that have SF6 and PFC
containing equipment onsite do not
need to report GHG emissions from this
source category unless the total
nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC
containing equipment located within
the Subpart D facility exceeds 17,820
pounds.
GHGs to Report. Electrical Equipment
Users must report the total SF6 and PFC
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emissions (including emissions from
fugitive equipment leaks, installation,
servicing, equipment decommissioning
and disposal, and from storage
cylinders) resulting from the
transmission and distribution
equipment and servicing inventory
listed in § 98.300(a). For equipment
installation, you must report emissions
from new equipment or equipment
being installed at your facility once the
title to the equipment is transferred to
the electric power transmission or
distribution entity.
GHG Emissions Calculation and
Monitoring. Reporters must calculate
emissions using the following systemlevel mass-balance approach:
• User Emissions = Decrease in SF6
Inventory + Acquisitions of SF6 +
Disbursements of SF6¥ Net Increase in
Total Nameplate Capacity of Equipment
Where:
—Decrease in SF6 Inventory is pounds
of SF6 stored in containers (but not
in equipment) at the beginning of
the year minus pounds of SF6
stored in containers (but not in
equipment) at the end of the year.
—Acquisitions of SF6 is pounds of SF6
purchased from chemical producers
or distributors in bulk + pounds of
SF6 purchased from equipment
manufacturers or distributors with
or inside of equipment, including
hermetically sealed-pressure
switchgear + pounds of SF6
returned to site after off-site
recycling.
—Disbursements of SF6 is pounds of SF6
in bulk and contained in equipment
that is sold to other entities +
pounds of SF6 returned to suppliers
+ pounds of SF6 sent off-site for
recycling + pounds of SF6 sent offsite for destruction.
–Net Increase in Total Nameplate
Capacity of Equipment is the
nameplate capacity of new
equipment, in pounds, including
hermetically sealed-pressure
switchgear, in pounds, minus
nameplate capacity of retiring
equipment, in pounds, including
hermetically sealed-pressure
switchgear. (Note that nameplate
capacity refers to the full and
proper charge of equipment rather
than to the actual charge, which
may reflect leakage.)
The same method must be used to
estimate emissions of PFCs.
Data Reporting. In addition to the
information required to be reported by
the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c))
and summarized in Section II.A of this
preamble, reporters must submit
additional data that are used to calculate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
GHG emissions. A list of the specific
data to be reported for this source
category is contained in § 98.306.
Recordkeeping. In addition to the
records required by the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)) and
summarized in Section II.A of this
preamble, reporters must keep records
of additional data used to calculate GHG
emissions. A list of specific records that
must be retained for this source category
is included in 40 CFR 98.307.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since
Proposal
Major changes in this source category
since proposal are identified in the
following list. The rationale for these
and other additional significant changes
can be found below or in ‘‘Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s
Response to Public Comments, Electric
Transmission and Distribution
Equipment Use—2009 proposal’’ and
‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule: EPA’s Response to Public
Comments, Electric Transmission and
Distribution Equipment Use—2010
proposal.’’
• We are providing a definition of
facility for subpart DD that is based on
the system-wide physical collection of
transmission and distribution
equipment between the point at which
electricity is obtained by an electric
power system and the point at which
electricity is provided to the customer
or another electric power transmission
or distribution entity not under common
ownership.
• We are clarifying that the term
operator, when applied to this source
category, does not include entities
whose sole responsibility is to balance
load or otherwise address electricity
flow. As specified in the General
Provisions for part 98, the term Operator
does include any other person who
operates or supervises an electric power
transmission or distribution facility.
• We are requiring scales to be
accurate within +/¥ 2 pounds of true
weight. This absolute accuracy
requirement is less stringent than the 1
percent relative accuracy requirement
that was originally proposed.
• We are requiring scales to be
recalibrated at the frequency
recommended by the manufacturer
rather than annually as originally
proposed.
3. Summary of Comments and
Responses
This section contains a brief summary
of major comments and responses. A
large number of comments on this
subpart were received covering
numerous topics. Responses to
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74801
significant comments received can be
found in ‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to
Public Comments, Subpart DD:
Electrical Transmission and Distribution
Equipment Use’’ (available in the
docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927).
Definition of Source Category.
Comment: Nearly all commenters
stated that the proposed definition of an
electric power transmission and
distribution facility was generally
appropriate and consistent with current
industry practice of system-wide
servicing equipment and tracking data.
Several commenters suggested that the
definition of a facility for this subpart
could be further modified to more
clearly define where an electric power
systems begins and ends as well as who
is responsible for reporting emissions
that occur from electrical equipment
that might be owned and serviced by
multiple entities.
A few commenters recommended that
the term ‘‘facility’’ for this source
category be defined on the basis of
corporate-level ownership. These
commenters stated that a corporatebased facility boundary would help
ensure that potential emitters of SF6 are
covered by the rule (by their aggregate
emissions falling above the threshold)
and ensure more accurate emissions
reporting while minimizing the burden
on owners and operators of electric
power systems in figuring out how to
define facility boundaries. One
commenter stated that a corporate-level
facility definition would allow the most
accurate and quickest determination of
whether an entity is above the reporting
threshold by enabling the entity to
review the service and maintenance
records for equipment that it owns. This
commenter also expressed concern over
who should be considered an operator
of an electric power transmission and
distribution facility, stating that the
‘‘operation’’ of an electric system relates
to entities that coordinate operations
across company lines to ensure
reliability, balance load, and address
congestion through generation dispatch
and system planning.
Two additional commenters from the
electric power industry were supportive
of defining the boundaries of a facility
on the basis of equipment operation and
thought this would be the most
straightforward method for determining
which equipment to include in their
emission estimates.
Response: In developing the proposed
definition of a facility for this source
category, EPA carefully considered
definitions based on numerous
concepts, including corporate-level
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74802
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
ownership as well as equipment
collectively operated by a single entity.
A definition of a facility that
mandated corporate-level boundaries
was not considered optimal in the
context of the facility definition for this
source category. First, there are many
non-corporate entities in the electric
power industry, including
municipalities and federal government
agencies, that do not fit into a corporatebased definition of a facility.
Second, a corporate-based facility
definition is not well-suited to cases
where there are multiple owners and
operators of equipment that is
interconnected or located within the
same substation. The monitoring
methods for subpart DD are designed to
measure system-wide emissions from
groups of equipment and SF6 storage
stocks that are serviced and maintained
together rather than emissions from
individual pieces of equipment or
individual cylinders. Some commenters
expressed that they service and
maintain equipment that they do not
own using their centralized SF6 gas
stocks, which are also used to service
equipment they do own. In this
example, a facility definition based on
corporate ownership would require
emissions for a few pieces of the
equipment to be estimated separately
from the rest of the equipment, which
would not be a good fit with the systemwide mass-balance monitoring methods
required by subpart DD.
Instead, EPA has defined facility for
this source category to mean the electric
power system, which comprises all
electric transmission and distribution
equipment insulated with or containing
SF6 or PFCs which is linked through
electric power transmission or
distribution lines, functions as an
integrated unit, is owned, serviced, or
maintained by a single electric power
transmission or distribution entity (or
multiple entities with a common
owner), and is located between: (1) The
point(s) at which electric energy is
obtained by the facility from an
electricity generating unit or a different
electric power transmission or
distribution entity that does not have a
common owner and (2) the point(s) at
which the customer(s) or another
electric power transmission or
distribution entity that does not have a
common owner receives the electric
energy. The facility also includes all
servicing inventory for this equipment
that contains SF6 or PFCs.
In addition, EPA has defined Electric
Power Transmission or Distribution
Entity as any entity that transmits,
distributes, or supplies electricity to a
consumer or other user, including any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
company, electric cooperative, public
electric supply corporation, a similar
Federal department (including the
Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of
Engineers), a municipally owned
electric department offering service to
the public, an electric public utility
district, or a jointly owned electric
supply project.
Per the General Provisions (40 CFR
98.2–98.4) summarized in Section II.A
of this preamble, although the reporting
requirements are applicable to both the
owners and operators of a facility, each
facility must have one and only one
designated representative who will be
responsible for certifying, signing, and
submitting GHG emissions reports to
EPA. The designated representative is to
be selected by an agreement binding on
the owners and operators of the facility.
Since the definition of operator in the
General Provisions (40 CFR 98.6) is
ambiguous in the context of the electric
transmission and distribution
equipment use source category, EPA has
provided a clarification of operator for
this source category, which is the
following: ‘‘Operator excludes entities
whose sole responsibility is to ensure
reliability, balance load or otherwise
address electricity flow.’’
Definition of Source Category.
Comment: EPA received comments
stating that electrical generating units
(EGUs) (Subpart D) should not be
required to report SF6 emissions from
electrical equipment located within the
boundary of their generating facilities as
part of the EGUs’ facility emission
reports. This comment is in reference to
the requirement in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1)
requirement that reports for facilities
that contain any source category (as
defined in subparts C through JJ) must
cover all source categories and GHGs for
which calculation methodologies are
provided in those subparts. Commenters
noted that since the mass-balance
monitoring methods in subpart DD are
designed to monitor emissions at the
system-wide level, it would be very
difficult and time-consuming for an
integrated electric power entity that
operates electrical equipment at both
generation facilities and across
transmission and distribution systems
(using the same SF6 gas stocks) to
estimate emissions only for the
generation facilities. Furthermore,
commenters noted that since the
definition of an electric power system
for subpart DD is already inclusive of
any equipment operated by the electric
power system at a generation facility,
there could be double-counting of
emissions for both the electric power
system and the electricity generation
facility.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Response: EPA considered the
potential for double-counting emissions
from Subpart D electricity generating
units and Subpart DD electrical
transmission and distribution
equipment use as well as the challenge
of estimating SF6 emissions solely from
an electricity generating unit that is part
of a larger integrated electric power
system. EPA is confirming that an
electricity generating unit would be
required to report emissions associated
with the Electric Transmission and
Distribution Equipment Use source
category, but only if SF6 and PFCinsulated equipment within the Subpart
D facility exceeded the reporting
threshold for Subpart DD. EPA expects
that in general, the Subpart DD facility
will not independently meet this
threshold and thus is unlikely to incur
the reporting obligation. Therefore, EPA
does not anticipate double counting as
a significant issue for electricity
generating units covered by other
subparts and Subparts DD Electrical
Transmission and Distribution
Equipment Use.
Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
Comment: Several commenters were
critical of the requirement for weighing
SF6 cylinders each time they enter and
leave storage (40 CFR 98.306(b)2)).
Commenters noted the high burden
associated with such frequent weighing
of cylinders and also the lack of a
perceived benefit since the cylinders
already must be weighed at the
beginning and end of each year for the
beginning and end-of-year storage
inventory.
Response: EPA agrees that the benefit
of weighing SF6 gas cylinders as they
enter and leave inventory does not
justify the costs of performing this
activity. EPA has removed this
requirement from 40 CFR 98.306(b)(2)
and clarified that the QA/QC
requirements for scale accuracy and
calibration apply to cylinders returned
to the gas supplier and cylinders
weighed at the beginning and end of
each year for the beginning and end-ofyear storage inventory.
Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
Comment: Commenters generally
expressed agreement that it was
excessively burdensome to require
scales used to weigh cylinders to be
accurate and precise to within 1 percent
of the true weight and to be recalibrated
at least annually or at the minimum
frequency specified by the
manufacturer, whichever is more
frequent (40 CFR 98.304(b)). Numerous
commenters stated that the recalibration
frequency specified by the manufacturer
would be sufficient, thereby making the
annual recalibration minimum
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
unnecessary. Some commenters also
stated that purchasing 1 percent
accuracy scales would be expensive.
One commenter suggested requiring
scales with accuracies of +/¥ 2 pounds
of full scale, which provides an
accuracy within or close to 1 percent for
the cylinder weights typically measured
by electric power entities (i.e., between
105 and 225 pounds including tare
weight).
Response: The 1 percent accuracy
requirement was proposed by EPA
because the mass-balance method for
measuring emissions requires accurate
inputs, and the overall uncertainty of
the emission estimate rises as the
potential inaccuracy of each input
increases. However, EPA also recognizes
that the price of scales does increase as
the accuracy of the scale increases and
that many facilities containing electrical
transmission and distribution
equipment use do not currently use
scales that are accurate to within 1
percent of the true weight.
In order to balance the reporting
burden with the need for accurate massbalance inputs, this final rule requires
the accuracy and precision of scales
used to weigh cylinders to be based on
pounds, specifically, to be within 2
pounds of true weight. In addition, scale
recalibration is required in accordance
with manufacturer specifications, with
no requirement that scale recalibration
occur at least annually. As discussed
further in EPA’s Response to Public
Comments for Subpart DD, EPA believes
these adjustments still provide data of
sufficient accuracy and certainty.
Data Reporting Requirements.
Comment: EPA received many
comments regarding the inclusion of
sealed-pressure equipment—which is
not intended to leak during its
lifetime—into the facility-wide
nameplate capacity estimates that must
be reported to EPA under 40 CFR
98.306(a). Commenters recommended
either (1) A minimum threshold be
established to exclude sealed-pressure
electrical equipment from the nameplate
capacity estimation or (2) alternative
methods should be allowed for
estimating the nameplate capacity of
sealed-pressure equipment (rather than
performing a bottom-up inventory of the
equipment). The most commonly cited
rationale for these recommendations
was the high burden associated with
determining the nameplate capacity for
each piece of sealed-pressure equipment
within electric power systems, which
can contain thousands of pieces of
sealed-pressure equipment. Most
commenters correctly acknowledged
that even if a minimum threshold was
established for reporting total facility-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
wide nameplate capacity, emissions
from sealed-pressure equipment would
still be captured in the mass-balance
monitoring methods in 40 CFR 98.304,
and therefore establishing a minimum
threshold for the nameplate capacity
inventory would not exclude sealedpressure equipment from reported
emissions.
Response: EPA agrees that the burden
associated with performing a bottom-up
assessment to determine the nameplate
capacity of each piece of sealed-pressure
equipment within an electric power
transmission and distribution facility is
unnecessarily high when compared to
the benefits of performing such an
assessment. As a result, EPA has
excluded sealed-pressure equipment
from the data reporting requirement for
total facility-wide nameplate capacity
existing as of the beginning of the year.
(Sealed-pressure equipment is also
excluded in the determination of the
reporting threshold.)
However, the potential for emissions
from sealed-pressure equipment due to
catastrophic events or equipment
disposal still makes it important to
document emissions from sealedpressure equipment, especially for
facilities that specialize in electricity
distribution. EPA has clarified that SF6
arriving inside newly acquired sealedpressure equipment must still be
considered as part of the SF6
acquisitions input of the mass-balance
equation, and sealed-pressure
equipment that is new or retired must
still be considered as a change to the
nameplate capacity in the mass-balance
equation. This will ensure that
emissions from sealed-pressure
equipment are still included in the
overall emissions estimate.
Since sealed-pressure equipment is no
longer required to be included in the
total facility-wide nameplate capacity
estimate, EPA is including distribution
miles in 40 CFR 98.306 Data Reporting
Requirements because distribution
miles provide an approximate
indication of how much sealed-pressure
equipment is within an electric power
transmission and distribution system.
74803
1. Summary of the Final Rule
closed-cell foams that contain a
fluorinated GHG.
Any importer or exporter of
fluorinated GHGs contained in precharged equipment or closed-cell foams
that meets the applicability criteria in
the General Provisions (40 CFR
98.2(a)(4)) must report their GHG
emissions.
GHGs to Report. Importers and
exporters of fluorinated GHGs inside
pre-charged equipment and closed-cell
foam report the quantity of each
fluorinated GHG contained in precharged equipment or closed-cell foams
imported or exported during the
calendar year. For importers and
exporters of closed-cell foams that are
not the manufacturers of the foams and
do not know the identity and mass of
the fluorinated GHG within the closedcell foams, the report may be limited to
the mass in CO2e of the fluorinated
GHGs imported or exported in closedcell foams.
GHG Emissions Calculation and
Monitoring. The total mass of each
fluorinated GHG imported and exported
inside equipment or foams must be
estimated by multiplying the mass of
flourinated GHG per unit of equipment
or foam type by the number of units of
equipment or foam type imported or
exported annually, as presented in
Equation QQ–1 in 40 CFR 98.433. For
importers and exporters of closed-cell
foams that do not know the identity and
mass of the fluorinated GHG within the
closed-cell foams, the mass in CO2e of
the fluorinated GHGs must be estimated
by multiplying the mass in CO2e of
flourinated GHGs per unit of equipment
or foam type by the number of units of
equipment or foam type imported or
exported annually, as presented in
Equation QQ–2 in 40 CFR 98.433.
Data Reporting. In addition to the
information required to be reported by
the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)),
reporters must submit additional data
that are used to calculate GHG
emissions. A list of the specific data to
be reported for this source category is
contained in 40 CFR 98.436.
Recordkeeping. In addition to the
records required by the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters
must keep records of additional data
used to calculate GHG emissions. A list
of specific records that must be retained
for this source category is included
under 40 CFR 98.437.
Source Category Definition. This
source category consists of any entity
that is importing or exporting precharged equipment that contains a
fluorinated GHG and also consists of
any entity that is importing or exporting
2. Summary of Major Changes Since
Proposal
The major changes in this rule since
the April 2010 proposal are identified in
the following list. The rationale for
these and any other significant changes
G. Importers and Exporters of
Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-Charged
Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams
(Subpart QQ)
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74804
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
to the proposed rule can be found below
or in ‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to
Public Comments, Subpart QQ:
Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated
GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment or
Closed-cell Foams (available in the
docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927).
• EPA has revised the reporting
requirements for closed-cell foams such
that, in cases where the importer or
exporter does not know the identity and
amount of fluorinated GHGs inside the
closed-cell foam, they can report the
amount of fluorinated GHGS imported
or exported on a Co2e basis, based on
information from the manufacturer.
• EPA has revised the definition of
closed-cell foams to exclude packaging
foam.
• EPA has revised the requirements
for importers such that the port of entry
and country of origin are no longer
listed under data reporting
requirements. These two data elements
are now listed under recordkeeping
requirements.
• EPA has revised the requirement for
exporters such that the port of exit and
countries to which items were exported
are no longer listed under data reporting
requirements. These are two data
elements are now listed under
recordkeeping requirements.
• EPA has clarified that importers
and exporters must report the number of
pieces of pre-charge equipment and
closed-cell foam imported with each
unique combination of charge size and
charge type. Importers and exporters
cannot report the average charge size or
most common fluorinated GHG used for
a particular type of equipment.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
3. Summary of Comments and
Responses
This section contains a brief summary
of major comments and responses. A
number of comments on this subpart
were received covering numerous
topics. Responses to additional
significant comments received can be
found in ‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to
Public Comments, Subpart QQ:
Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated
GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment or
Closed-cell Foams’’ (available in the
docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927).
Comment: Commenters stated that
data on fluorinated GHGs contained in
pre-charged equipment or closed-cell
foams does not constitute emissions
data and is thus outside EPA’s authority
to collect under this rulemaking.
Commenters also stated that any
emissions from these equipment types
would depend upon ‘‘the ultimate end-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
use and disposal’’ of the equipment,
activities beyond the reporter’s control.
Response: In this final rule, EPA is
issuing reporting requirements for
importers and exporters of fluorinated
GHGs inside pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foams. EPA notes that this
source category is added as a supplier
source category under 98.2(4).
As discussed in the preamble to the
October 2009 Final Part 98 (74 FR
56260), that rule (as well as this action)
responds to a specific request from
Congress to collect data on GHG
emissions from both upstream
production and downstream sources, as
appropriate. Therefore, EPA has
developed reporting requirements for
direct emitters of GHGs as well as for
suppliers of fuels and industrial gases.
For fluorinated GHGs in particular, the
U.S. supply is impacted by the
production, import, and export of
fluorinated GHGs in bulk as well as by
the import and export of fluorinated
GHGs in pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foams. EPA has already
finalized reporting requirements for
suppliers of industrial gases (40 CFR 98
Subpart OO) which include importers
and exporters of fluorinated GHGs in
bulk. This action supplements EPA’s
previous action by requiring reporting
from importers and exporters of
fluorinated GHGs in equipment and
closed-cell foams.
In many cases, the fluorinated GHGs
contained in equipment and closed-cell
foams are ultimately emitted by a large
number of small sources. To cover these
direct emissions would require
reporting by hundreds of thousands of
small entities, such as individual homes
with leaking air conditioning units. To
avoid this impact, the rule does not
include all of those emitters but instead
requires reporting by importers and
exporters of fluorinated GHGs in
equipment and closed-cell foams. For
further discussion of the need for
upstream reporting, see the preamble to
the October 2009 Final Part 98 (74 FR
56271).
EPA has the legal authority to collect
data from suppliers, including importers
and exporters of fluorinated GHGS
contained in equipment and closed-cell
foams. Section 114 of the CAA
authorizes EPA to gather information
from any person who is subject to a
requirement of the CAA (other than
engine manufacturers) or who may have
information the Administrator believes
is necessary for purposes of CAA
section 114(a) (which in turn references
carrying out any provision of the CAA).
Information from suppliers of industrial
greenhouse gases is relevant to
understanding the quantities and types
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of gases being supplied to the economy,
in particular those that could be emitted
downstream, which will aid in
evaluating action under CAA section
111, as well as various sections of title
VI (e.g., CAA sections 609 and 612) that
address substitutes to ozone depleting
substances. A complete discussion of
these issues, including a discussion of
EPA’s legal basis for collecting
information from upstream reporters,
can be found in Section I.C of the
preamble to the October 2009 Final Part
98 (74 FR 56271) and Volume 9 of the
Response to Comments to the
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases Rule (HQ–OAR–2008–0508).
EPA notes that some commenters
appear to associate comments on
whether EPA has authority to collect
subpart QQ data, comments on whether
subpart QQ data is ‘‘emission data,’’ and
comments on whether data collected
under QQ should be protected as CBI.
EPA’s authority to collect subpart QQ
data is addressed above. This action
does not address whether data reported
under this subpart are ‘‘emission data’’
or whether these data will be treated as
confidential business information (CBI).
EPA published a proposed
confidentiality determination on July 7,
2010 (75 FR 39094) which addressed
these issues. See Section II.B of this
preamble for more information.
Comment: Some commenters stated
that this subpart is a minor source of
GHG emissions. These commenters
stated that the quantities of fluorinated
GHGs inside individual pieces of
equipment are small, ranging from
ounces to pounds, and that emissions
from such equipment are ’’de minimis’’
because the systems are hermetically
sealed.
Response: In this final rule, EPA is
issuing reporting requirements for
importers and exporters of fluorinated
GHGs inside pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foams. Despite small charge
sizes, the quantities of fluorinated GHGs
imported in pre-charged equipment and
closed-cell foams are significant because
of the high GWP (up to 12,000) of these
refrigerants. EPA estimates that
approximately 22 MMTCO2e are
imported by entities subject to this
subpart, which together comprise the
eleventh most significant source of
GHGs (in carbon dioxide equivalent
terms) covered under the Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Program. (More
information on these estimates can be
found in subpart QQ TSD, EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0927). Imports of
fluorinated GHGs from entities subject
to this subpart are estimated to account
for seven to 10 percent of the U.S.
fluorinated GHG supply, while exports
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
are estimated to account for one to two
percent.
A portion of fluorinated GHGs
consumed in the U.S. are eventually
emitted into the atmosphere, as these
gases leak from the equipment or are
vented during service and disposal
events. By accounting for all chemical
flows into and out of the U.S., including
in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell
foams, EPA’s approach results in an
estimate of consumption and ultimately
emissions that is more accurate than are
estimates that do not account for these
flows. As commenters note, these
equipment are purchased and used by a
diffuse variety of entities. Upstream data
gathering is thus the most effective and
accurate method to obtain this
important data. For further discussion of
the need for upstream reporting, see the
preamble to the October 2009 Final Part
98 (74 FR 56271).
Comment: EPA received comments
from an association representing some
motor vehicle manufacturers concerning
the reporting of fluorinated GHGs
contained in motor vehicle air
conditioners (MVACs). The commenter
recommended delaying the reporting
requirements for MVACs or exempting
them altogether. The commenter noted
that the Final Rule on Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards (75 FR 25324) (light
duty vehicle rule) includes incentives
for low-GWP refrigerants. The
commenter also noted that
manufacturers are contemplating the
use of lower GWP refrigerants in
MVACs due to the ability to voluntarily
generate credits under the light duty
vehicle rule and EU regulations.
Commenters stated that exempting or
delaying the applicability of the
reporting requirements would conserve
public resources and harmonize existing
incentives. The commenter also stated
that EPA should modify reporting
requirements for MVAC imports and
exports to allow reporting of data by
model year, that reporting of certain
data elements would require
reconfiguration of existing systems, and
that these particular reporting
requirements should be developed offline for verification purposes.
Response: In this final rule, EPA is
not exempting importers and exporters
of MVACs or delaying the applicability
of the reporting requirements to them.
MVACs are a significant source of
fluorinated GHGs; EPA estimates that
currently approximately 18 percent of
fluorinated GHGs (in carbon dioxide
equivalent terms) imported under this
subpart are contained within MVACs.
EPA recognizes there is significant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
interest and research into new low-GWP
refrigerants; however, the timing and
the extent of the MVAC market to make
such a transition are uncertain. Under
CAA section 612, EPA has proposed to
find the low-GWP refrigerant HFO–
1234yf acceptable, subject to use
conditions, in MVACs (75 FR 53445);
however, this rule has not been
finalized. In addition, although the light
duty vehicle rule allows automakers to
earn additional leakage credits if they
use a low GWP refrigerant, EPA actually
predicted that automakers would meet
the standards in the Model Year 2012
through 2016 timeframe by reducing
refrigerant leakage, not by switching to
lower-GWP alternatives (see the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final
Rule on Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards, EPA–
HQ–OAR–2009–0472). Based on these
factors, EPA concluded there is not
sufficient evidence that the transition to
low GWP refrigerants in MVACs is
underway such that the importers and
exporters of MVACs should be exempt
or that the reporting requirements
should be delayed.
Reporting imports and exports of
MVACs on a model year basis would be
inconsistent with the reporting
requirements for all other subparts
under 40 CFR Part 98 where EPA is
collecting information on a calendar
year basis. EPA plans to use data
collected under Part 98 to support
analyses of various GHG policy options;
therefore, EPA requires the data on a
calendar year basis to allow meaningful
comparison of data across and within
subparts. Model year reporting for new
vehicle and engine manufacturers was
included under the Final Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule,
but those reporting requirements were
not developed to fit into Part 98.
Instead, they were created to fit into the
existing reporting framework for longestablished EPA vehicle and engine
programs as discussed in Section V.QQ
of the preamble to the April 2009
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases Proposed Rule (74 FR 16586). The
data collected under subpart QQ of part
98 is needed on a calendar year basis,
in particular, because EPA intends to
analyze and compare the data on
imports and exports of fluorinated
GHGs in MVACs with data on
fluorinated GHGs imported and
exported in other types of pre-charged
equipment and closed-cell foams. EPA
also intends to compare this data with
data on fluorinated GHGs collected
under other subparts, all of which is
collected on a calendar year basis.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74805
In developing these requirements,
EPA recognized that some reporting
requirements may require the
reconfiguration of existing tracking
systems or the development of new
tracking systems. In fact, EPA included
the development of tracking system as
an implementation cost in the
‘‘Economic Impact Analysis for the
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions F–Gases: Subparts I, L, QQ,
SS Draft Report’’ (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0927). EPA did not receive any
comments related to these
implementation costs for subpart QQ
developed under the Economic Impact
Analysis. This commenter, in particular,
did not provide specific information
related to the burden of reporting data
on a calendar year basis. Therefore,
given the utility of the data and the need
for meaningful annual analysis, EPA is
finalizing the requirement to report the
imports and exports of fluorinated
GHGs within pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foams on an annual basis.
Finally, the commenter suggested that
the port of entry (or exit), the country
from which (or to which) items were
shipped, and the date of import (or
export) could be developed off-line for
verification purposes. These three
reporting requirements are similar to
those for importers and exporters of
industrial gases under 40 CFR subpart
OO, which involves imports and exports
of bulk chemicals. However this subpart
involves more detailed reporting
requirements regarding the contents of
each particular shipment (such as the
number of units, charge size, and charge
type) and not just the amount of the
particular industrial gas imported and
exported. Some types of equipment,
such as refrigerators, may hold a
refrigerant charge of fluorinated GHGs
and include fluorinated GHG within the
closed-cell foams, which will further
complicate reporting on this shipment.
Given these additional reporting
requirements under this subpart, EPA
agrees that the port of entry (or exit) and
the country from which (or to which)
items were shipped can be maintained
as records and has therefore moved
these two items to record keeping
requirements. However, EPA is
maintaining the date of import (or
export) as a reporting requirement as the
date of import (or export) is necessary
for verification activities. EPA can use
the date of import or export in
combination with other information to
conduct verification activities. For
example, EPA can crosswalk
information collected under this rule
with records maintained by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74806
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
ensure importers and exporters are
properly reporting imports and exports
of pre-charged equipment and closedcell foams.
Comment: EPA received comments
regarding the calculation of fluorinated
GHGs within closed-cell foams. One
commenter stated that fluorinated GHGs
are emitted from closed-cell foams at
varying rates, and therefore, the best
way to determine the amount of
fluorinated GHGs contained in closedcell foams is to require reporting on the
total amount of fluorinated GHGs
consumed by the foreign manufacture at
the point of manufacture. One
commenter stated that the proposed
reporting requirements would result in
a cumbersome process between
appliance manufacturers and foam
suppliers where the foam suppliers
would be required to disclose
proprietary information on the closedcell foam composition to equipment
manufacturers. The commenter stated
that EPA should therefore allow
reporting on a C02e basis.
Response: EPA has finalized the
requirement to report only the amount
of fluorinated GHGs imported or
exported within closed-cell foams. EPA
has added an alternative reporting
method for instances when the type and
mass of fluorinated GHGs within the
closed-cell foams are not known by the
importers and exporters.
The intent of this rule is to better
understand U.S. GHG emissions in
order to inform policy decisions. This
rule does not attempt to quantify
emissions that occur during the
production of materials that are
eventually imported into the U.S. such
as emissions that occur during the
manufacture of closed-cell foams.
Therefore, EPA is finalizing the
requirement to report only the amount
of fluorinated GHGs contained in the
closed-cell foams that are imported or
exported, not the total amount of
fluorinated GHGs consumed during the
manufacture of these products. EPA
notes that the identity and mass of the
fluorinated GHGs within closed-cell
foams impact the foams’ ability to
insulate and that these parameters are
known to the entities that manufacture
and market these products.
EPA recognizes the unique situation
that may arise when an importer of
closed-cell foams is not the same entity
that manufactured the closed-cell foam.
In such cases, the importer may not
know the mass and identity of the
fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell
foam. Therefore, EPA has added an
alternative reporting provision that
allows reporting by CO2e basis for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
closed-cell foams under these
circumstances.
EPA is requiring importers and
exporters to report the identity and mass
of the fluorinated GHG within closedcell foams when it is known. This is
consistent with EPA’s approach for precharged equipment, where EPA requires
importers and exporters to report the
identity and amount of fluorinated
GHGs within equipment. EPA will use
this information to better understand
the types and amounts of fluorinated
GHGs imported and exported into the
U.S. This information will support
analysis under this subpart as well as
analysis across subparts, particularly
subparts that collect data on fluorinated
GHGs.
For importers and exporters that are
unable to obtain detailed information on
the closed-cell foams from the
manufacturer, EPA is requiring that the
importers and exporters identify the
foam manufacturer and to certify that
they were unable to obtain this
information from them. These importers
and exporters are also required to
document the communications with the
foam manufacturer and retain the
information in their records. When
verifying data collected under this rule,
EPA may contact foam manufacturers
independently to obtain more detailed
information on the identity and mass of
the fluorinated GHGs contained within
these closed-cell foams.
Further discussion of issues related
reporting requirements for closed-cell
foams can be found in the ‘‘Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s
Response to Public Comments, Subpart
QQ: Importers and Exporters of
Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-charged
Equipment or Closed-cell Foams’’ (EPA–
HQ–OAR–2009–0927).
Comment: EPA also received
comments as to whether packaging
foams would be included under this
subpart.
Response: EPA has excluded
packaging foam from this subpart. EPA’s
original analysis of this source category
identified only imports and exports of
closed-cell foams used to insulate, such
as closed-cell foams used in
refrigeration equipment, as a significant
source of fluorinated GHGs. In
subsequent conversation with industry,
EPA learned that closed-cell foams can
sometimes be used in general packaging.
EPA never intended to include these
sources. Packaging foams are widely
used when shipping materials, and EPA
anticipates it would be too burdensome
for entities to ascertain the type of
packaging foam and the blowing agent
used in that foam when shipping
materials, particularly as the packaging
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
foam is incidental to the items being
imported or exported. Therefore, EPA
has clarified the definition of closed-cell
foams to explicitly exclude packaging
foam.
H. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or
Refurbishment (Subpart SS)
1. Summary of the Final Rule
Source Category Definition. This
source category consists of electrical
equipment manufacturers and
refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated
closed-pressure equipment and sealedpressure equipment including gasinsulated substations, circuit breakers
and other switchgear, gas-insulated
lines, or power transformers containing
sulfur-hexafluoride (SF6) or
perfluorocarbons (PFCs).
Reporting Threshold. Reporters must
submit annual GHG reports for facilities
that meet the applicability criteria in the
General Provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1).
Facilities undertaking electrical
equipment manufacturing and
refurbishing are covered by this rule if
total annual purchases of SF6 and PFCs
exceed 23,000 pounds.
GHGs to Report. For electrical
equipment manufacturers and
refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated
closed-pressure equipment and sealedpressure equipment, report the
following emissions:
• SF6 and PFC emissions from
electrical equipment manufacturing.
• SF6 and PFC emissions from
electrical equipment refurbishing.
• SF6 and PFCs emissions from
electrical equipment testing.
• SF6 and PFCs emissions from
electrical equipment decommissioning
and disposal.
• SF6 and PFCs emissions from
storage cylinders and other containers.
• SF6 and PFC emissions from
electrical equipment installation that
occurs before title to the equipment is
transferred to the customer.
In addition, report GHG emissions for
other source categories at the facility for
which calculation methods are provided
in the rule, as applicable. For example,
report CO2, N2O and CH4 combustionrelated emissions from each stationary
combustion unit on site under 40 CFR
part 98, subpart C (General Stationary
Fuel Combustion Sources).
GHG Emissions Calculation and
Monitoring. Reporters must calculate
SF6 and PFC emissions using a massbalance approach, which includes the
following inputs (For brevity, the inputs
refer only to SF6; however, the method
also applies PFCs):
• The decrease in SF6 Inventory must
be determined by subtracting SF6, in
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
pounds, stored in containers at the end
of the year from SF6, in pounds, stored
in containers at the beginning of the
year.
• Acquisitions of SF6 must be
determined by summing pounds of SF6
purchased from chemical producers or
distributors in bulk, pounds of SF6
returned by equipment users or
distributors with or inside equipment,
and pounds of SF6 returned to site after
off-site recycling.
• Disbursements of SF6 must be
determined by summing pounds of SF6
contained in new equipment delivered
to customers, pounds of SF6 delivered to
equipment users in containers, pounds
of SF6 returned to suppliers, pounds of
SF6 sent off-site for recycling, and
pounds of SF6 sent off-site for
destruction.
Reporters also must calculate SF6 and
PFC emissions from the equipment
being installed on the electric power
system’s premises when the installation
occurs before the title to the equipment
is transferred to the electric power
entity. Reporters may use a massbalance approach or an engineering
calculation to estimate installation
losses.
Data Reporting. In addition to the
information required to be reported by
the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c))
and summarized in Section II.A of this
preamble, reporters must submit
additional data that are used to calculate
GHG emissions. A list of the specific
data to be reported for this source
category is contained in 40 CFR 98.456.
Recordkeeping. In addition to the
records required by the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)) and
summarized in Section II.A of this
preamble, reporters must keep records
of additional data used to calculate GHG
emissions. A list of specific records that
must be retained for this source category
is included in 40 CFR 98.457.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since
Proposal
The major changes in this rule since
the proposal are identified in the
following list. The rationale for
additional significant changes to subpart
SS can be found below or in ‘‘Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s
Response to Public Comments, Subpart
SS: Sulfur Hexafluoride and
Perfluorocarbons from Electrical
Equipment Manufacture or
Refurbishment.’’
• EPA is modifying the accuracy and
precision requirements for scales and
flowmeters used to measure mass for the
mass-balance equation. Specifically,
rather than requiring flowmeters and
scales to have an accuracy and precision
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
of ±1 percent of the true mass or weight,
we are requiring them to have an
accuracy and precision of ±1 percent of
either full scale (for flowmeters) or the
maximum weight of the containers
typically weighed on the scale (for
scales). For scales that are used to weigh
cylinders containing 115 pounds of gas
when full, this equates to ±1 percent of
the sum of 115 pounds and
approximately 120 pounds tare, or
slightly more than ±2 pounds. This
absolute accuracy requirement,
expressed as a percentage of the filled
weight of the container that is weighed
on the scale, is less stringent than the 1
percent (of true weight) relative
accuracy requirement in the proposed
rule.
• To reduce burden and increase
flexibility, EPA is allowing use of a
calculated emission factor for
determining emissions downstream of
the flow meter measuring the mass of
SF6 being transferred from the storage
container to the equipment being filled.
A value must be determined for each
combination of hose and valve of a
given sized diameter. The calculated
emission factor must be multiplied by
the number of annual fill operations that
uses the hose and valve combination.
The calculation must be performed
annually to account for changes to the
specifications of the valves or hoses that
may occur throughout the year.
• To increase flexibility, EPA is
providing an additional option for
determining the mass of SF6 or the PFCs
disbursed to customers in new
equipment. EPA is allowing the
equipment’s nameplate capacity or, in
cases where equipment is shipped with
a partial charge, the equipment’s partial
shipping charge to be assumed as equal
to the disbursement. A sufficiently
precise estimate of the nameplate
capacity for each make and model of
equipment must be determined through
a number of measurements. The number
of measurements required must be
calculated to achieve a precision of one
percent of the true mean, using a 95
percent confidence interval.
• To improve data accuracy, the
quantity of gas charged into delivered
equipment and added during
installation by the manufacturer must be
certified by the manufacturer and
expressed in pounds of SF6 or PFC.
• To clarify the reporting boundary
between subparts DD and SS, EPA is
requiring electrical equipment
manufacturers to estimate and report the
annual SF6 and PFC emissions from the
equipment being installed on the
electric power system’s premises until
the title of the equipment has
transferred to the electric power
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74807
transmission or distribution entity. An
equipment installation mass balance
equation must be used.
3. Summary of Comments and
Responses
This section contains a brief summary
of major comments and responses. A
small number of comments which
covered several topics were received on
this subpart. Responses to additional
significant comments received can be
found in ‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to
Public Comments, Subpart SS: Electrical
Equipment Manufacture or
Refurbishment’’ (available in the docket,
EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927).
Selection of Reporting Threshold
Comment: EPA received comment
that gas cylinders which are sealed and
unused should not count toward the
reporting threshold. These cylinders are
purchased by the electrical equipment
manufacturer for shipment to
customers. According to the commenter,
since these cylinders are never opened
and their seals remain intact, no
leakages can occur. The commenter
explained that the 10 percent leak rate
used to determine the threshold is based
upon losses during testing,
manufacturing, and commissioning.
Activities such as storage should not
count toward the leak rate.
Response: EPA disagrees that sealed
and unused cylinders should not count
toward the reporting threshold. EPA
recognizes that sealed cylinders are
unlikely to be a major source of
emissions and that it has been the
standard practice by some
manufacturers to deliver sealed
cylinders with new equipment.
However, EPA is concerned that not
including these cylinders could
introduce complications in tracking gas
in cylinders and other containers
because of the need to differentiate
those cylinders that are sealed and
destined for the customer and those
cylinders that are sealed and destined
for use by the electrical equipment
manufacturer. Further it would be
virtually impossible for an audit of
threshold and cylinder record keeping
requirements to distinguish the different
use of cylinders at the beginning and
end of the year. Therefore, EPA is
finalizing the requirement that sealed
and unused cylinders count toward the
determination of the reporting
threshold.
Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements
Comment: EPA received comment
that measuring residual gas amounts to
within 1 percent of accuracy is not
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74808
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
attainable in practice. Scales currently
in use have an accuracy of ± 2 pounds;
a 1 percent measurement of ‘‘new or
residual gas amounts’’ would require a
scale with an accuracy of ± 0.1 pounds,
or 200 times more precise than currently
in use. The commenter suggested that
the required accuracy be no stricter than
10 percent for residual gas amounts.
Response: EPA has reviewed this
commenter’s concern as well as similar
concerns of several commenters on the
accuracy requirement of scales for
Subpart DD, Electric Transmission and
Distribution Equipment Uses.
After further evaluation of the types of
scales available, the range of accuracies
and precisions, and the effect of those
accuracies and precisions on the
accuracy and precision of facility-level
emissions estimates, we have eased the
requirements for scale accuracy and
precision. As noted above, we proposed
that scales be accurate and precise to
within ± 1 percent of the true mass or
weight or better. When the mass being
weighed on the scale is small, as is the
case for the residual gas being returned
to the supplier, this requires a very good
absolute precision and accuracy, e.g.,
better than ± 0.1 pounds. EPA
conducted an analysis that examined
the impact of different scale accuracies
on the relative uncertainty of emission
estimates from two hypothetical
electrical equipment manufacturer
facilities; the findings indicate that the
incremental increase in relative
uncertainty from a requirement of ± 1
percent of true mass or weight scale
accuracy to ± 2 pounds scale accuracy
was not enough to justify a more
stringent accuracy of 1 percent and its
associated burden.
This final rule requires the accuracy
and precision of scales used to weigh
cylinders to be ± 1 percent of full scale
or better of the filled weight (gas plus
tare) of the containers of SF6 or PFCs
that are weighed on the scale. This
absolute error would be allowed for
container heels as well as for the full
container. For scales that are generally
used to weigh cylinders containing 115
pounds of gas when full, this equates to
± 1 percent of the sum of 115 pounds
and approximately 120 pounds tare, or
slightly more than ± 2 pounds. EPA
concluded this change will lower the
burden on reporters without significant
compromise to data quality.
Comment: EPA received comment
regarding the administrative burden of
the proposed method to determine
emissions downstream of the flowmeter
measuring the mass of SF6 (or PFC)
being transferred from the storage
container to the equipment being filled.
The commenter asserted that accurately
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
determining emissions downstream of
the flowmeter (to subtract from the
disbursement total) could require an
inordinate administrative burden
associated with recording the numerous
parameters for individual fill
operations. The commenter suggested
that the entity be explicitly permitted to
apply a statistical calculation to a subset
of individual fill operations, such as a
midpoint or average loss rates, to use as
the loss rates associated with all fill
operations. The statistical calculation
would be based on the factors outlined
in the proposed rule, but the proposed
approach would relieve the burden of
rerecording the measurements for each
individual operation.
Response: EPA recognizes that
developing a representative loss factor
that can be used for all filling events is
more practical than performing
measurements for each individual fill
operation. EPA agrees with the
commenters that direct measurement is
unnecessarily burdensome.
Consequently, rather than requiring
actual measurements as proposed, EPA
is allowing reporters to account for
variability in the diameters and fittings
of hoses supplied by various
manufacturers and applied under
varying conditions and requiring an
emission factor be calculated for each
hose and valve, or fitting, combination.
For each hose-valve combination, the
calculated emission factor must be
multiplied by the number of annual fill
operations that use that hose-valve
arrangement. The calculation must be
recalculated annually to account for
changes to the specifications of the
valves or hoses that may occur
throughout the year. In addition, EPA is
requiring electrical equipment
manufacturers to account for SF6 or PFC
emissions that occur as a result of
unexpected events or accidental losses,
such as a malfunctioning hose or leak in
the flow line, during the filling of
equipment or containers for
disbursement. If there is a sudden rise
in the quantity of SF6 or PFC gas that
is needed to fill a certain make and
model to its shipping charge, or
nameplate capacity, this may be
indicative of a leak in the lines. It is
good practice to note unusual changes
to the quantities used to fill equipment.
Comment: Several entities provided
comment as to whether manufacturers
should be required to certify to
equipment users the actual quantity of
SF6 or PFCs charged into equipment at
the manufacturing facility as well as the
actual quantity of SF6 or PFCs charged
into equipment at installation. In
general, users of electric power
equipment supported both certifying
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requirements as they would provide
more accurate acquisitions inputs
needed for the mass-balance method
required for estimating emissions from
electric power equipment use.
Response: EPA had requested
comment on whether manufacturers
should be required to certify the actual
quantity (mass) of SF6 or PFCs charged
into equipment at installation. EPA
concludes that the electrical equipment
manufacturer should certify the quantity
of gas provided in delivered equipment
as it represents two inputs to two mass
balance equations—the disbursements
input (i.e., sales of SF6 to other entities,
including gas in equipment that is sold)
of the mass-balance equation used by
manufacturers and the acquisitions
input (i.e., gas with or alongside
equipment) of the mass-balance
equation used by electric power
systems. Additionally, EPA concludes
that the electrical equipment
manufacturer should certify the quantity
of gas charged into the equipment at
installation as it represents the
acquisition input to the electric power
systems’ mass balance equation. The
validity of the mass-balance approach is
dependent on precise inputs,
consequently, inaccuracies of even two
or three percent could lead to
unacceptably large inaccuracies in
emissions estimates. The final rule
includes a requirement for electrical
equipment manufacturers to maintain
such certifications as records and to
express the quantity in pounds of SF6 or
PFC gas. Electrical equipment
manufacturers should provide copies of
the certifications to electric power
systems upon request.
Installation of Electrical Equipment at
Electric Power Systems
Comment: EPA received comments
from electric power systems and
electrical equipment manufacturers
regarding whether the manufacturer
should be responsible for emissions
during installation or whether those
emissions should become the
customer’s responsibility. Equipment
manufacturers and electric power
systems commented that the reporting
requirement should be the
responsibility of the electric power
system at the point in time when the
equipment title is transferred.
Response: EPA recognizes that some
equipment, namely gas insulated
substations, is typically manufactured
by the manufacturer onsite and can take
several months to complete assembly,
inspection, and final acceptance and
commissioning. For these projects, gas
accounting is best done by the
manufacturer that is assembling the
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74809
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
equipment and handling the gas that
will be installed into the equipment.
Based on EPA’s review of these
comments, the final rule specifies that
the responsibility of reporting emissions
from installation practices is dependent
upon the point at which the title is
transferred to the electric power
transmission or distribution entity. In
instances when the title to the
equipment has not yet been transferred
even though the equipment is at the
electric power transmission or
distribution facility, the equipment
manufacturer must estimate and report
emissions from equipment installation
using the equipment installation mass
balance equation or an engineering
calculation. In instances when the title
of the equipment has been transferred to
the electric power transmission or
distribution facility, the electric power
transmission or distribution facility
must estimate and report emissions
during installation by accounting for the
amount of gas inside the equipment,
upon the date of the title transfer to the
electric power transmission or
distribution entity, in the mass balance
acquisition input. If the title is
transferred to the electric power
transmission or distribution entity and
the installation is conducted by a third
party, the electric power transmission or
distribution facility would be required
to report emissions during installation.
The role and responsibility of reporters
with respect to use of contractors or
third parties is elaborated in more detail
in the Response to Comment Document
for this subpart.
III. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule
This section of the preamble examines
the costs and economic impacts of this
• Monitoring (private): Staff hours to
operate and maintain emissions
monitoring systems.
• Recordkeeping and Reporting
(private): Staff hours to gather and
process available data and report it to
EPA through electronic systems.
• Assuring and releasing data
(public): Staff hours to quality assure,
analyze, and release reports.
Staff activities and associated labor
costs will potentially vary over time.
Thus, cost estimates are developed for
start-up and first-time reporting, and
subsequent reporting. Wage rates to
monetize staff time are obtained from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Equipment Costs. Equipment costs
include both the initial purchase price
and any facility modification that may
be required. Based on expert judgment,
the engineering costs analyses
annualized capital equipment costs with
appropriate lifetime and interest rate
assumptions. One-time capital costs are
amortized over a 10-year cost recovery
period at a rate of 7 percent.
rule and the estimated economic
impacts of the rule on affected entities,
including estimated impacts on small
entities. Complete detail of the
economic impacts of the rule can be
found in the text of the economic
impact analysis (EIA) in the docket for
this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0927).
A number of comments on economic
impacts of the rule were received
regarding the estimation of compliance
costs for subparts covered by the rule.
A summary of burden related comments
can be found in the preamble for each
subpart. Complete responses to
significant comments received can be
found in ‘‘Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to
Public Comments, Additional Sources
of Fluorinated GHGs (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2009–0927).
A. How were compliance costs
estimated?
1. Summary of Method Used To
Estimate Compliance Costs
EPA used available industry and EPA
data to characterize conditions at
affected sources. Incremental
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting activities were then identified
for each type of facility and the
associated costs were estimated. The
annual costs are reported in 2006$.
EPA’s estimated costs of compliance are
discussed below and in greater detail in
Section 4 of the economic impact
analysis (EIA).
Labor Costs. The vast majority of the
reporting costs include the time of
managers, technical, and administrative
staff in both the private sector and the
public sector. Staff hours are estimated
for activities, including:
B. What are the costs of the rule?
1. Summary of Costs
The total annualized costs incurred
under the fluorinated GHG reporting
rule will be approximately $6.8 million
in the first year and $7.4 million in
subsequent years ($2006). This includes
a public sector burden estimate of
$384,000 for program implementation
and verification activities. Table 12 of
this preamble shows the first year and
subsequent year costs by subpart. In
addition, it presents the cost per ton
reported, and the relative share of the
total cost represented by each subpart.
TABLE 12—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED MANDATORY REPORTING COSTS ESTIMATES (2008$): SUBPARTS I, L, OO AND SS
First year
Subpart
Millions
2006$
Subsequent years
Share
(percent)
$/ton
Millions
2006$
$/ton
Share
(percent)
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Subpart I—Electronics Industry ...................................
Subpart L—Fluorinated Gas Production ......................
Subpart DD—Electric Transmission and Distribution
Equipment Use .........................................................
Subpart QQ—Imports and Exports of Fluorinated
GHGs ........................................................................
Subpart SS—Electrical Equipment Manufacture and
Refurbishment and Manufacturing of Electrical
Components .............................................................
$2.9
3.0
$0.33
0.28
38
40
$5.4
0.2
$0.33
0.02
76
2
0.6
0.19
7
0.6
0.05
8
0.7
0.03
9
0.6
0.02
9
0.02
0.01
0.3
0.02
0.01
0
Private Sector, Total .............................................
7.2
....................
95
6.8
....................
95
Public Sector, Total ..............................................
0.4
....................
5
0.4
....................
5
Total ...............................................................
7.6
....................
100
7.2
....................
100
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74810
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
C. What are the economic impacts of the
rule?
1. Summary of Economic Impacts
EPA prepared an economic analysis to
evaluate the impacts of this rule on
affected industries. To estimate the
economic impacts, EPA first conducted
a screening assessment, comparing the
estimated total annualized compliance
costs by industry, where industry is
defined in terms of North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code, with industry average revenues.
Average cost-to-sales ratios for
establishments in affected NAICS codes
are typically less than 2 percent.
These low average cost-to-sales ratios
indicate that the rule is unlikely to
result in significant changes in firms’
production decisions or other
behavioral changes, and thus unlikely to
result in significant changes in prices or
quantities in affected markets. Thus,
EPA followed its Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses (EPA,
2002, p.124–125) and used the
engineering cost estimates to measure
the social cost of the rule, rather than
modeling market responses and using
the resulting measures of social cost.
Table 13 of this preamble summarizes
cost-to-sales ratios for affected
industries.
TABLE 13—ESTIMATED COST-TO-SALES RATIOS FOR AFFECTED ENTITIES
[First Year, 2006$]
2007 NAICS
334413
334413
334119
325120
221121
326140
326150
333415
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
335313 ..............
336391 ..............
423610 ..............
423620 ..............
423720 ..............
423730 ..............
423740 ..............
443111 ..............
443112 ..............
422610 ..............
33361 ................
33531 ................
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing ..................................
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing ..................................
Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing .............................
Industrial Gas Manufacturing .....................................................................
Electrical Power Systems ..........................................................................
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing ................................................
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing.
Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.
Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing ...........................
Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing ..........................................
Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related
Equipment Merchant Wholesalers.
Electrical and Electronic Appliance, Television, and Radio Set Merchant
Wholesalers.
Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant
Wholesalers.
Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers.
Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers .................
Household Appliance Stores .....................................................................
Radio, Television and Other Electronics Stores .......................................
Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers
Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing .....
Electrical Equipment Manufacturing ..........................................................
I (Semis) ...........
I (Non-Semis) ...
I (Non-Semis) ...
L .......................
DD ....................
QQ ....................
QQ ....................
QQ ....................
$19,980
16,046
16,046
126,523
2,213
3,364
3,364
3,364
0.03
0.02
0.06
1.08
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.01
QQ ....................
QQ ....................
QQ ....................
3,364
3,364
3,364
0.02
0.01
0.05
QQ ....................
3,364
0.02
QQ ....................
3,364
0.05
QQ ....................
3,364
0.07
QQ ....................
QQ ....................
QQ ....................
QQ ....................
SS .....................
SS .....................
3,364
3,364
3,364
3,364
2,213
2,213
0.09
0.24
0.14
0.03
0.00
0.02
1. Summary of Impacts on Small
Businesses
As required by the RFA and Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA assessed
the potential impacts of the rule on
small entities (small businesses,
governments, and non-profit
organizations). (See Section IV.C of this
preamble for definitions of small
entities.)
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
All enterprises
(percent)
Sub-part
D. What are the impacts of the rule on
small businesses?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Average cost
per entity
($/entity)
NAICS description
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
EPA conducted a screening
assessment comparing compliance costs
for affected industry sectors to industryspecific receipts data for establishments
owned by small businesses. This ratio
constitutes a ‘‘sales’’ test that computes
the annualized compliance costs of this
rule as a percentage of sales and
determines whether the ratio exceeds
some level (e.g., 1 percent or 3 percent).
The cost-to-sales ratios were
constructed at the establishment level
(average reporting program costs per
establishment/average establishment
receipts) for several business size
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ranges. This allowed EPA to account for
receipt differences between
establishments owned by large and
small businesses and differences in
small business definitions across
affected industries. The results of the
screening assessment are shown in
Table 14 of this preamble.
As shown, the cost-to-sales ratios are
typically less than 1 percent for
establishments owned by small
businesses that EPA considers most
likely to be covered by the reporting
program (e.g., establishments owned by
businesses with 20 or more employees).
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74811
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 14—ESTIMATED COST-TO-SALES RATIOS BY INDUSTRY AND ENTERPRISE SIZE (FIRST YEAR, 2006$) a
SBA
Size
standard
(effective
March
11,
2008)
Average
cost per
entity
($/entity)
All enterprises
(percent)
Owned by Enterprises with:
1 to 20
Employees
(percent)
20 to 99
Employees
(percent)
100 to
499 Employees
(percent)
500 to
749 Employees
(percent)
750 to
999 Employees
(percent)
1,000 to
1,499
Employees
(percent)
NAICS
NAICS Description
Sub-part
334413 .....
Semiconductor and Related Device
Manufacturing.
Semiconductor and Related Device
Manufacturing.
Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing.
Industrial Gas Manufacturing ...........
Electrical Power Systems ................
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing.
Urethane and Other Foam Product
(except Polystyrene).
Manufacturing ..................................
Air-Conditioning and Warm Air
Heating Equipment.
and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration.
Equipment Manufacturing ................
Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing.
Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing.
Electrical Apparatus and Equipment,
Wiring Supplies,.
and Related Equipment Merchant
Wholesalers.
Electrical and Electronic Appliance,
Television, and.
Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers ....
Plumbing and Heating Equipment
and Supplies.
(Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers ..
Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment.
and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant.
Wholesalers .....................................
Household Appliance Stores ...........
Radio, Television and Other Electronics Stores.
Plastics Materials and Basic Forms
and Shapes.
Merchant Wholesalers .....................
Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing.
Electrical Equipment Manufacturing
I (Semis) .....
500
$19,980
0.03
1.16
0.22
0.07
0.04
0.01
0.02
I (NonSemis).
I (NonSemis).
L .................
DD ..............
QQ ..............
500
16,046
0.02
0.94
0.18
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.02
500
16,046
0.06
0.92
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.01
1,000
(c)
500
126,523
2,213
3,364
1.08
0.00
0.03
23.19
0.10
0.25
0.77
0.01
0.06
3.19
0.01
0.04
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.01
QQ ..............
500
3,364
0.03
0.19
0.05
0.02
0.02
NA
NA
QQ ..............
750
3,364
0.01
0.22
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
QQ ..............
750
3,364
0.02
0.24
0.05
0.02
NA
NA
NA
QQ ..............
750
3,364
0.01
0.33
0.07
NA
NA
NA
NA
QQ ..............
100
3,364
0.05
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.03
QQ ..............
100
3,364
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
QQ ..............
100
3,364
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.09
QQ ..............
100
3,364
0.07
0.13
0.05
0.06
0.10
0.03
NA
QQ ..............
100
3,364
0.09
0.16
0.05
0.10
0.08
0.04
NA
QQ ..............
QQ ..............
$9 M
$9 M
3,364
3,364
0.24
0.14
0.42
0.53
0.09
0.15
0.07
0.23
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
QQ ..............
100
3,364
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05
SS ..............
500–
1,000
750–
1,000
2,213
0.00
0.17
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
2,213
0.02
0.19
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
334413 .....
334119 .....
325120 .....
221121 .....
326140 .....
326150 .....
333415 .....
335313 .....
336391 .....
423610 .....
423620 .....
423720 .....
423730 .....
423740 .....
443111 .....
443112 .....
422610 .....
33361 .......
33531 .......
SS ..............
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
a The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control. The enterprise and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each multi-establishment company forms one enterprise—the enterprise employment and annual payroll are summed from the associated establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the summed employment of
all associated establishments. Since the SBA’s business size definitions (https://www.sba.gov/size) apply to an establishment’s ultimate parent company, we assume in
this analysis that the Census Bureau definition of enterprise is consistent with the concept of ultimate parent company that is typically used for Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) screening analyses.
b The 2002 SUSB data uses 1997 NAICS codes. For this industry, the relevant code is NAICS 422610.
c <4 Million MWh.
EPA acknowledges that several
enterprise categories have ratios that
exceed this threshold (e.g., enterprise
with one to 20 employees). The
Industrial Gas Manufacturing industry
(NAICS 325120) has sales test results
over 1 percent for all enterprises and for
most size categories. The following
enterprise categories have sales test
results over 1 percent and for entities
with less than 20 employees: Industrial
Gas Manufacturing (325120) and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
Semiconductor and Related Device
Manufacturing (334413).
EPA took a more detailed look at the
categories noted above as having sales
test ratios above 1 percent. EPA
collected information on the entities
likely to be covered by the rule as part
of the expert sub-group process.
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
(325120). Subpart L covers facilities
included in NAICS codes for Industrial
Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120).
Within this subpart, EPA identified 13
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ultimate parent company names covered
by this action. Using publicly available
sources (e.g., Hoovers.com), we
collected parent company sales and
employment data and found that only
one company could be classified as a
small entity. Using the cost data for a
representative entity (see Section 4 of
the EIA), EPA determined the small
entity’s cost-to-sales ratio is below one
percent.
Electronic Computer Manufacturing
(334111) and Semiconductor and
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74812
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Related Device Manufacturing (334413).
Data on the number of electronics
facilities comes from the World Fab
Watch and the Flat Panel Display Fabs
on Disk datasets. The census data
categories cover more establishments
than just those facilities covered in the
rule. Subpart I covers facilities included
in NAICS codes for Semiconductor and
Related Device Manufacturing (334413)
and Other Computer Peripheral
Equipment Manufacturing (334119).
The World Fab Watch dataset includes
216 facilities (94 of which exceed the
25,000 ton threshold), while the sum of
the two NAICS codes include 1,903
establishments. Covered facilities with
emissions greater than 25,000 mtCO2e
per year are unlikely to be included in
the 1 to 20 employee size category.
Emissions are roughly proportional to
production, and establishments with 1
to 20 employees total only 1.6 percent
of total receipts, while the threshold
excludes 6 percent of industry
emissions from the least-emitting
facilities.
Although this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless took several steps to
reduce the impact of this rule on small
entities. The first and most important
step is the establishment of reporting
thresholds. As described in Sections II.D
through II.H of this preamble, these
thresholds exclude hundreds of small
entities from the reporting requirements.
In addition, EPA is allowing
semiconductor manufacturing facilities
whose emissions exceed the reporting
threshold but whose capacity is equal to
or less than 10,500 m2 of substrate to
use default emission factors for their
etch processes rather than measuring
those factors. Moreover, EPA is
requiring annual reporting instead of
more frequent reporting.
In addition to the public hearing that
EPA held, EPA has an open door policy,
similar to the outreach conducted
during the development of the proposed
and final Part 98. Details of these
meetings are available in the docket
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
E. What are the benefits of the rule for
society?
1. Benefits of the Rule for Society
EPA examined the potential benefits
of the Fluorinated GHG Reporting Rule.
EPA’s previous analysis of the GHG
reporting rule discussed the benefits of
a reporting system with respect to
policy making relevance, transparency
issues, and market efficiency. Instead of
a quantitative analysis of the benefits,
EPA conducted a systematic literature
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
review of existing studies including
government, consulting, and scholarly
reports.
A mandatory reporting system will
benefit the public by increased
transparency of facility emissions data.
Transparent, public data on emissions
allows for accountability of polluters to
the public stakeholders who bear the
cost of the pollution. Citizens,
community groups, and labor unions
have made use of data from Pollutant
Release and Transfer Registers to
negotiate directly with polluters to
lower emissions, circumventing greater
government regulation. Publicly
available emissions data also will allow
individuals to alter their consumption
habits based on the GHG emissions of
producers.
The greatest benefit of mandatory
reporting of industry GHG emissions to
government will be realized in
developing future GHG policies.
Benefits to industry of GHG emissions
monitoring include the value of having
independent, verifiable data to present
to the public to demonstrate appropriate
environmental stewardship, and a better
understanding of their emission levels
and sources to identify opportunities to
reduce emissions. Such monitoring
allows for inclusion of standardized
GHG data into environmental
management systems, providing the
necessary information to achieve and
disseminate their environmental
achievements.
Standardization will also be a benefit
to industry: Once facilities invest in the
institutional knowledge and systems to
report emissions, the cost of monitoring
should fall and the accuracy of the
accounting should improve. A
standardized reporting program will
also allow for facilities to benchmark
themselves against similar facilities to
understand better their relative standing
within their industry.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because it
may raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Executive
Order 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs associated with this
action. This analysis is contained in the
Economic Impact Analysis (EIA),
Economic Impact Analysis for the
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions F-Gases Subparts I, L, DD,
QQ, and SS (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0927). A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action
and the analysis is briefly summarized
here. In this report, EPA has identified
the regulatory options considered, their
costs, the emissions that will likely be
reported under each option, and
explained the selection of the option
chosen for the rule. Overall, EPA has
concluded that the costs of the F-Gases
Rule are outweighed by the potential
benefits of more comprehensive
information about GHG emissions. The
total annualized cost of the rule will be
approximately $7.6 million (in 2006$)
during the first year of the program and
$7.2 million in subsequent years
(including $0.4 million of programmatic
costs to the Agency).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document prepared by
EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number
2373.02.
EPA has identified the following goals
of the mandatory GHG reporting system:
• Obtain data that is of sufficient
quality that it can be used to analyze
and inform the development of a range
of future climate change policies and
potential regulations.
• Balance the rule’s coverage to
maximize the amount of emissions
reported while excluding small emitters.
• Create reporting requirements that
are, to the extent possible and
appropriate, consistent with existing
GHG reporting programs in order to
reduce reporting burden for all parties
involved.
The information from fluorinated
GHG facilities will allow EPA to make
well-informed decisions about whether
and how to use the CAA to regulate
these facilities and encourage voluntary
reductions. Because EPA does not yet
know the specific policies that will be
adopted, the data reported through the
mandatory reporting system should be
of sufficient quality to inform policy
and program development. Also,
consistent with the Appropriations Act,
the reporting rule covers a broad range
of sectors of the economy.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
This information collection is
mandatory and will be carried out under
CAA section 114. Information identified
and marked as Confidential Business
Information (CBI) will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures
set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. However,
emission information collected under
CAA section 114 generally cannot be
claimed as CBI and will be made
public.48
The projected cost and hour
respondent burden in the ICR, averaged
over the first three years after
promulgation, is $6.87 million and
76,701 hours per year. The estimated
average burden per response is 183.93
hours; the frequency of response is
annual for all respondents that must
comply with the rule’s reporting
requirements; and the estimated average
number of likely respondents per year is
417. The cost burden to respondents
resulting from the collection of
information includes the total capital
and start-up cost annualized over the
equipment’s expected useful life
(averaging $2.70 million per year), a
total operation and maintenance
component (averaging $9.5 thousand
per year), and a labor cost component
(averaging $4.15 million per year).
Burden is defined at 5 CFR Part
1320.3(b).
These cost numbers differ from those
shown elsewhere in the EIA because
ICR costs represent the average cost over
the first three years of the rule, but costs
are reported elsewhere in the EIA for the
first year of the rule. Also, the total cost
estimate of the rule in the EIA includes
the cost to the Agency to administer the
program. The ICR differentiates between
respondent burden and cost to the
Agency, estimated to be $384,000.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
this ICR is approved by OMB, the
Agency will publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
Federal Register to display the OMB
control number for the approved
74813
information collection requirements
contained in the final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of the Fluorinated GHG Reporting Rule
on small entities, small entity is defined
as a small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration’s
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
according to these size standards,
criteria for determining if ultimate
parent companies owning affected
facilities are categorized as small vary
by NAICS. Table 15 of this preamble
presents small business criteria for
affected NAICS.
TABLE 15—SMALL BUSINESS CRITERIA FOR AFFECTED NAICS
NAICS Description
Subpart
SBA Size
standard
(effective
August 22, 2008)
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing .......................................................................
Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing ..................................................................
Industrial Gas Manufacturing ..........................................................................................................
Electrical Power Systems ...............................................................................................................
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing ......................................................................................
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing ......................................
Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration
Equipment Manufacturing.
Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing .................................................................
Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning Manufacturing ...............................................................................
Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant
Wholesalers.
Electrical and Electronic Appliance, Television, and Radio Set Merchant Wholesalers ................
Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers ...................
Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers ............
Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers ......................................................
Household Appliance Stores ...........................................................................................................
Radio, Television and Other Electronics Stores .............................................................................
Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers ......................................
Engine, Turbine, and Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing ..........................................
Electrical Equipment Manufacturing ...............................................................................................
I ...........
I ...........
L ..........
DD .......
QQ ......
QQ ......
QQ ......
500
1,000
1,000
(1)
500
500
750
QQ ......
QQ ......
QQ ......
750
750
100
2007
NAICS
334413
334119
325120
221121
326140
326150
333415
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
335313 ..............
336391 ..............
423610 ..............
423620 ..............
423720 ..............
423730 ..............
423740 ..............
443111 ..............
443112 ..............
422610 ..............
33361 ................
33531 ................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
14
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
QQ
SS
SS
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.......
.......
100
100
100
100
$9 M
$9 M
100
500–1,000
750–1,000
Million MWh.
EPA assessed the potential impacts of
this rule on small entities using a sales
test, defined as the ratio of total
annualized compliance costs to firm
sales. Details are provided in Section 5.3
of the EIA. These sales tests compare the
average establishment’s total annualized
mandatory reporting costs to the average
establishment receipts for enterprises
within several employment categories.49
The average entity costs used to
compute the sales test are the same
across all of these enterprise size
categories. As a result, the sales test will
overstate the cost-to-sales ratio for
48 Although CBI determinations are usually made
on a case-by-case basis, EPA has issued guidance
in an earlier Federal Register notice on what
constitutes emission data that cannot be considered
CBI (956 FR 7042–7043, February 21, 1991). As
discussed in Section II.B of this preamble, EPA has
initiated a separate notice and comment process to
make CBI determinations for the data collected
under this rule. See 75 FR 39094.
49 For the one to 20 employee category, we
exclude SUSB data for enterprises with zero
employees. These enterprises did not operate the
entire year.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74814
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
establishments owned by small
businesses, because the reporting costs
are likely lower than average entity
estimates provided by the engineering
cost analysis.
The results of the screening analysis
show that for most NAICS, the costs are
estimated to be less than 1 percent of
sales in all firm size categories. For two
NAICS, however, some size categories
(especially those with 1–20 employees)
show costs exceeding 1 percent of sales.
These sectors are Industrial Gas
Manufacturing (NAICS 325120) and
Semiconductor and Related Device
Manufacturing (NAICS 334413). A more
careful examination of impacts on small
firms in these NAICS codes was
conducted.
Analysis of firms in NAICS 334413
shows that firms with fewer than 20
employees produce less than 2 percent
of output; firms below the 25,000 Mt
CO2e threshold release approximately 6
percent of emissions. Because emissions
and production levels are highly
correlated, firms fewer than 20
employees are generally not expected to
be affected by the final rule; if they are,
their costs are likely to be lower than
the overall average costs used in the
screening analysis. Thus, EPA does not
expect the final rule to impose
significant costs to a substantial number
of small entities in NAICS 334413.
Subpart L covers facilities included in
NAICS codes for Industrial Gas
Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). Within
this subpart, EPA identified 13 ultimate
parent company names covered by the
final rule. Using publicly available
sources (such as Hoovers.com), EPA
collected parent company sales and
employment data and found that only
one company could be classified as a
small entity. Using the cost data for a
representative entity (see Section 4 of
the EIA), EPA determined the small
entity’s cost-to-sales ratio is below 1
percent.
After considering the economic
impacts of this action on small entities,
I therefore certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Although this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
Agency nonetheless tried to reduce the
impact of this rule on small entities,
including seeking input from a wide
range of private- and public-sector
stakeholders. When developing the rule,
the Agency took special steps to ensure
that the burdens imposed on small
entities were minimal. The Agency
conducted several meetings with
industry trade associations to discuss
regulatory options and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
corresponding burden on industry, such
as recordkeeping and reporting. The
Agency investigated alternative
thresholds and analyzed the marginal
costs associated with requiring smaller
entities with lower emissions to report.
Through comprehensive outreach
activities after proposal of the rule, EPA
held meetings and/or conference calls
with representatives of the primary
audience groups. After proposal, EPA
posted a general fact sheet for the rule,
information sheets for every source
category, and an FAQ document. We
continued to meet with stakeholders
and entered documentation of all
meetings into the docket. One public
hearing was held on April 12, 2010,
which included three speakers from
industry and one non-governmental
environmental group. In addition, 20
outreach meetings were held. We
considered public comments in
developing the final rule.
During rule implementation, EPA will
maintain an ‘‘open door’’ policy for
stakeholders to ask questions about rule
or provide suggestions to EPA about the
types of compliance assistance that
would be useful to small businesses.
EPA intends to develop a range of
compliance assistance tools and
materials and conduct extensive
outreach for the final rule.
Facilities subject to the rule include
electronics manufacturers, fluorinated
gas producers, electric power systems,
electrical equipment manufacturers and
refurbishers, as well as importers and
exporters of pre-charged equipment and
closed-cell foams. None of the facilities
currently known to undertake these
activities are owned by small
government.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for final rules with ‘‘federal
mandates’’ that may result in
expenditures to State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year.
This rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any
one year. Overall, EPA estimates that
the total annualized costs of this rule are
approximately $7.6 million in the first
year, and $7.2 million per year in
subsequent years. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections
202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR
22951, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
Tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Tribal
implications.’’
This action does not have Tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). This regulation applies to
facilities that manufacture electronic
devices, produce fluorinated gases, use
electrical equipment in electric power
systems, import or export fluorinated
GHGs inside pre-charged equipment
and closed-cell foams, or manufacture
electrical equipment. The only facilities
among these that might be owned by
Tribal governments are facilities that
use electrical equipment in electric
power systems. EPA contacted the
National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (NRECA) and asked
whether any electric power systems
owned or operated by Tribal
governments were likely to exceed the
threshold for reporting emissions from
electrical equipment use. NRECA stated
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This regulation
applies to electronics manufacturing,
fluorinated gas production, electrical
equipment use, electrical equipment
manufacture or refurbishment, as well
as importers and exporters of precharged equipment and closed-cell
foams. Few State or local government
facilities will be affected. This
regulation also does not limit the power
of States or localities to collect GHG
data and/or regulate GHG emissions.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
that they did not expect any Triballyowned or operated electric power
systems would trip the threshold.
(There are a small number of
distribution cooperatives owned by
tribes but no transmission or
generation.) Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
Although Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule, EPA sought
opportunities to provide information to
Tribal governments and representatives
during development of the MRR rule. In
consultation with EPA’s American
Indian Environment Office, EPA’s
outreach plan included tribes. During
the proposal phase, EPA staff provided
information to tribes through conference
calls with multiple Indian working
groups and organizations at EPA that
interact with tribes and through
individual calls with two Tribal board
members of TCR. In addition, EPA
prepared a short article on the GHG
reporting rule that appeared on the front
page of a Tribal newsletter—Tribal Air
News—that was distributed to EPA/
OAQPS’s network of Tribal
organizations. EPA gave a presentation
on various climate efforts, including
Part 98, at the National Tribal
Conference on Environmental
Management in June, 2008. In addition,
EPA had copies of a short information
sheet distributed at a meeting of the
National Tribal Caucus. EPA
participated in a conference call with
Tribal air coordinators in April 2009
and prepared a guidance sheet for Tribal
governments on the proposal. It was
posted on the MRR Web site and
published in the Tribal Air Newsletter.
For a complete list of Tribal contacts,
see the ‘‘Summary of EPA Outreach
Activities for Developing the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,’’ in the
Docket for the initial proposed Part 98
(April, 2009) (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–
0508–055).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5–501 of the Executive
Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does
not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety
risks.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that this rule is not
likely to have any adverse energy
effects. This rule relates to monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping at facilities
that manufacture, sell, use, import, or
export fluorinated GHG related products
and does not impact energy supply,
distribution or use. Therefore, we
conclude that this rule is not likely to
have any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to
use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This rule involves technical
standards. EPA will use voluntary
consensus standards from at least three
different voluntary consensus standards
bodies, including the following: ASTM,
ASME, and International SEMATECH
Manufacturing Initiative. These
voluntary consensus standards will help
facilities monitor, report, and keep
records of GHG emissions. No new test
methods were developed for this rule.
Instead, from existing rules for source
categories and voluntary greenhouse gas
programs, EPA identified existing
means of monitoring, reporting, and
keeping records of greenhouse gas
emissions. The existing methods
(voluntary consensus standards) include
a broad range of measurement
techniques, such as methods to measure
gas or liquid flow and methods to
identify the contents of vented or
exhausted streams. The test methods are
incorporated by reference into the rule
and are available as specified in 40 CFR
98.7.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74815
By incorporating voluntary consensus
standards into this rule, EPA is both
meeting the requirements of the NTTAA
and presenting multiple options and
flexibility in complying with this rule.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this rule will
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income
populations because it does not affect
the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment. This
rule does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment because it is a rule
addressing information collection and
reporting procedures.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the U.S.
prior to publication of the rule in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective December 31, 2010.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by
reference, Suppliers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: November 8, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
§ 98.3 What are the general monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping and
verification requirements of this part?
*
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
■
PART 98—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 98
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A—[Amended]
2. Section 98.3 is amended as follows:
a. By adding paragraph (c)(4)(vi).
■ b. By revising paragraphs(c)(5)(i) and
(c)(5)(ii).
■
■
Where:
DE = Destruction Efficiency
tGHGiIN = The mass of GHG i fed into the
destruction device
tGHGiOUT = The mass of GHG i exhausted
from the destruction device
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 98.7 is amended as follows:
■ a. By revising paragraphs (d)(1)
through (d)(8) and paragraph (e)(30).
■ b. By adding paragraph (e)(46) and
(e)(47).
■ c. By adding paragraphs (m)(3)
through (m)(7).
■ d. By adding paragraph (n).
■
§ 98.7 What standardized methods are
incorporated by reference into this part?
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) ASME MFC–3M–2004
Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes
Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi,
incorporation by reference (IBR)
approved for § 98.34(b), § 98.124(m)(1),
§ 98.244(b), § 98.254(c), § 98.324(e),
§ 98.344(c), § 98.354(d), § 98.354(h), and
§ 98.364(e).
(2) ASME MFC–4M–1986 (Reaffirmed
1997) Measurement of Gas Flow by
Turbine Meters, IBR approved for
§ 98.34(b), § 98.124(m)(2), § 98.244(b),
§ 98.254(c), § 98.324(e), § 98.344(c),
§ 98.354(h), and § 98.364(e).
(3) ASME MFC–5M–1985 (Reaffirmed
1994) Measurement of Liquid Flow in
Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time
Ultrasonic Flowmeters, IBR approved
for § 98.34(b), § 98.124(m)(3),
§ 98.244(b), and § 98.354(d).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(vi) When applying paragraph (c)(4)(i)
of this section to fluorinated GHGs,
calculate and report CO2e for only those
fluorinated GHGs listed in Table A–1 of
this subpart.
(5) * * *
(i) Total quantity of GHG aggregated
for all GHG from all applicable supply
categories in Table A–5 of this subpart
and expressed in metric tons of CO2e
calculated using Equation A–1 of this
subpart.
(ii) Quantity of each GHG from each
applicable supply category in Table A–
5 of this subpart, expressed in metric
tons of each GHG. For fluorinated GHG,
(4) ASME MFC–6M–1998
Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes
Using Vortex Flowmeters, IBR approved
for § 98.34(b), § 98.124(m)(4),
§ 98.244(b), § 98.254(c), § 98.324(e),
§ 98.344(c), § 98.354(h), and § 98.364(e).
(5) ASME MFC–7M–1987 (Reaffirmed
1992) Measurement of Gas Flow by
Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles,
IBR approved for § 98.34(b),
§ 98.124(m)(5), § 98.244(b), § 98.254(c),
§ 98.324(e), § 98.344(c), § 98.354(h), and
§ 98.364(e).
(6) ASME MFC–9M–1988 (Reaffirmed
2001) Measurement of Liquid Flow in
Closed Conduits by Weighing Method,
IBR approved for § 98.34(b),
§ 98.124(m)(6), and § 98.244(b).
(7) ASME MFC–11M–2006
Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of
Coriolis Mass Flowmeters, IBR
approved for § 98.124(m)(7), § 98.244(b),
§ 98.254(c), § 98.324(e), § 98.344(c), and
§ 98.354(h).
(8) ASME MFC–14M–2003
Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small
Bore Precision Orifice Meters, IBR
approved for § 98.124(m)(8), § 98.244(b),
§ 98.254(c), § 98.324(e), § 98.344(c),
§ 98.354(h), and § 98.364(e).
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(30) ASTM D6348–03 Standard Test
Method for Determination of Gaseous
Compounds by Extractive Direct
Interface Fourier Transform Infrared
(FTIR) Spectroscopy (ASTM D6348),
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
report emissions of all fluorinated GHG,
including those not listed in Table A–
1 of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 98.6 is amended by revising
the definition of ‘‘Destruction efficiency’’
to read as follows:
■
§ 98.6
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Destruction efficiency means the
efficiency with which a destruction
device reduces the mass of a greenhouse
gas fed into the device. Destruction
efficiency, or flaring destruction
efficiency, refers to the fraction of the
gas that leaves the flare partially or fully
oxidized. The destruction efficiency is
expressed in Equation A–2 of this
section:
IBR approved for § 98.54(b),
§ 98.124(e)(2), and § 98.224(b).
*
*
*
*
*
(46) ASTM D2879–97 (Reapproved
2007) Standard Test Method for Vapor
Pressure-Temperature Relationship and
Initial Decomposition Temperature of
Liquids by Isoteniscope (ASTM D2879),
approved May 1, 2007, IBR approved for
§ 98.128.
(47) ASTM D7359–08 Standard Test
Method for Total Fluorine, Chlorine and
Sulfur in Aromatic Hydrocarbons and
Their Mixtures by Oxidative
Pyrohydrolytic Combustion followed by
Ion Chromatography Detection
(Combustion Ion Chromatography-CIC)
(ASTM D7359), approved October 15,
2008, IBR approved for § 98.124(e)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(m) * * *
(3) Protocol for Measuring Destruction
or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement
Equipment in Electronics
Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA–430–R–
10–003, March 2010 (EPA 430–R–10–
003), https://www.epa.gov/
semiconductor-pfc/documents/
dre_protocol.pdf, IBR approved for
§ 98.94(f)(4)(i), § 98.94(g)(3),
§ 98.97(d)(4), § 98.98, and § 98.124(e)(2).
(4) Emissions Inventory Improvement
Program, Volume II: Chapter 16,
Methods for Estimating Air Emissions
from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities,
August 2007, Final, https://www.epa.gov/
ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume02/
index.html, IBR approved for
§ 98.123(c)(1)(i)(A).
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.001
74816
74817
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(5) Protocol for Equipment Leak
Emission Estimates, EPA–453/R–95–
017, November 1995 (EPA–453/R–95–
017), https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/
efdocs/equiplks.pdf, IBR approved for
§ 98.123(d)(1)(i), § 98.123(d)(1)(ii),
§ 98.123(d)(1)(iii), and § 98.124(f)(2).
(6) Tracer Gas Protocol for the
Determination of Volumetric Flow Rate
Through the Ring Pipe of the Xact
Multi-Metals Monitoring System, also
known as Other Test Method 24 (Tracer
Gas Protocol), Eli Lilly and Company
Tippecanoe Laboratories, September
2006, https://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/
prelim/otm24.pdf, IBR approved for
§ 98.124(e)(1)(ii).
(7) Approved Alternative Method 012:
An Alternate Procedure for Stack Gas
Volumetric Flow Rate Determination
(Tracer Gas) (ALT–012), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Measurement Center, May 23,
1994, https://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/
approalt/alt-012.pdf, IBR approved for
§ 98.124(e)(1)(ii).
*
*
*
*
*
(n) The following material is available
from the International SEMATECH
Manufacturing Initiative, 2706
Montopolis Drive, Austin, Texas 78741,
(512) 356–3500, https://
ismi.sematech.org.
(1) Guideline for Environmental
Characterization of Semiconductor
Process Equipment, International
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative
Technology Transfer #06124825A–ENG,
December 22, 2006 (International
SEMATECH #06124825A–ENG), IBR
approved for § 98.94(d), § 98.94(d)(1),
§ 98.94(e), § 98.94(e)(1), § 98.94(g)(1),
§ 98.96(f)(4), and § 98.97(b)(1).
(2) Guidelines for Environmental
Characterization of Semiconductor
Equipment, International SEMATECH
Technology Transfer #01104197A–XFR,
December 4, 2001 (International
SEMATECH #01104197A–XFR), IBR
approved for § 98.94(d), § 98.94(d)(1),
§ 98.94(e), § 98.94(e)(1), § 98.94(g)(2),
§ 98.96(f)(4), and § 98.97(b)(1).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Table A–3 to subpart A is amended
by adding entries for ‘‘Electrical
Transmission and Distribution
Equipment Use’’ and ‘‘Electrical
Transmission Distribution Equipment
Manufacture or Refurbishment’’ to read
as follows:
TABLE A–3 TO SUBPART A—SOURCE CATEGORY LIST FOR § 98.2(a)(1)
Source Categories a Applicable in 2010 and Future Years
*
*
*
Additional Source Categories a Applicable in 2011 and Future Years
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Electrical transmission and distribution equipment use (subpart DD).
Electrical transmission and distribution equipment manufacture or refurbishment (subpart SS).
*
*
a Source
*
categories are defined in each applicable subpart.
6. Table A–4 to subpart A is amended
by adding entries for ‘‘Electronics
■
manufacturing’’ and ‘‘Fluorinated gas
production’’ to read as follows:
TABLE A–4 TO SUBPART A—SOURCE CATEGORY LIST FOR § 98.2(a)(2)
Source Categories a Applicable in 2010 and Future Years
*
*
*
Additional Source Categoriesa Applicable in 2011 and Future Years
*
*
*
*
*
*
Electronics manufacturing (subpart I)
Fluorinated gas production (subpart L)
*
*
*
*
a Source
*
categories are defined in each applicable subpart.
7. Table A–5 to subpart A is amended
by adding entries for ‘‘Importers and
■
exporters of fluorinated greenhouse
gases contained in pre-charged
equipment or closed-cell foams’’ to read
as follows:
TABLE A–5 TO SUBPART A—SUPPLIER CATEGORY LIST FOR § 98.2(a)(4)
Supplier Categories a Applicable in 2010 and Future Years
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
Additional Supplier Categories a Applicable in 2011 and Future Years
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Importers and exporters of fluorinated greenhouse gases contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams (subpart QQ):
(A) Importers of an annual quantity of fluorinated greenhouse gases contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams that is equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more.
(B) Exporters of an annual quantity of fluorinated greenhouse gases contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams that is equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more.
a Suppliers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
are defined in each applicable subpart.
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74818
■
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
8. Add subpart I to read as follows:
Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing
Sec.
98.90 Definition of the source category.
98.91 Reporting threshold.
98.92 GHGs to report.
98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
98.95 Procedures for estimating missing
data.
98.96 Data reporting requirements.
98.97 Records that must be retained.
98.98 Definitions.
Tables
Table I–1 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default
Emission Factors for Threshold
Applicability Determination
Table I–2 to Subpart I of Part 98—
Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by
the Electronics Industry
Table I–3 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default
Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas
Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product
Formation Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor
Manufacturing for 150 mm and 200 mm
Wafer Sizes
Table I–4 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default
Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas
Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product
Formation Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor
Manufacturing for 300 mm Wafer Size
Table I–5 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default
Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas
Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product
Formation Rates (Bijk) for MEMS
Manufacturing
Table I–6 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default
Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas
Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product
Formation Rates (Bijk) for LCD
Manufacturing
Table I–7 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default
Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas
Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product
Formation Rates (Bijk) for PV
Manufacturing
Table I–8 to Subpart I of Part 98— Default
Emission Factors (1–UN2O,j) for N2O
Utilization (UN2O,j)
Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing
§ 98.90
Definition of the source category.
(a) The electronics manufacturing
source category consists of any of the
production processes listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this
section that use fluorinated GHGs or
N2O. Facilities that may use these
processes include, but are not limited
to, facilities that manufacture microelectro-mechanical systems (MEMS),
liquid crystal displays (LCDs),
photovoltaic cells (PV), and
semiconductors (including lightemitting diodes (LEDs)).
(1) Any electronics production
process in which the etching process
uses plasma-generated fluorine atoms
and other reactive fluorine-containing
fragments, that chemically react with
exposed thin-films (e.g., dielectric,
metals) or substrate (e.g., silicon) to
selectively remove portions of material.
(2) Any electronics production
process in which chambers used for
depositing thin films are cleaned
periodically using plasma-generated
fluorine atoms and other reactive
fluorine-containing fragments.
(3) Any electronics production
process in which wafers are cleaned
using plasma generated fluorine atoms
or other reactive fluorine-containing
fragments to remove residual material
from wafer surfaces, including the wafer
edge.
(4) Any electronics production
process in which the chemical vapor
deposition (CVD) process or other
manufacturing processes use N2O.
(5) Any electronics manufacturing
production process in which fluorinated
GHGs are used as heat transfer fluids to
cool process equipment, to control
temperature during device testing, to
clean substrate surfaces and other parts,
and for soldering (e.g., vapor phase
reflow).
§ 98.91
Reporting threshold.
(a) You must report GHG emissions
under this subpart if electronics
manufacturing production processes, as
defined in § 98.90, are performed at
your facility and your facility meets the
requirements of either § 98.2(a)(1) or
(a)(2). To calculate total annual GHG
emissions for comparison to the 25,000
metric ton CO2e per year emission
threshold in § 98.2(a)(2), follow the
requirements of § 98.2(b), with one
exception. Rather than using the
calculation methodologies in § 98.93 to
calculate emissions from electronics
manufacturing production processes,
calculate emissions of each fluorinated
GHG from electronics manufacturing
production processes by using
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this
section, as appropriate, and then sum
the emissions of each fluorinated GHG
by using paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(1) If you manufacture
semiconductors or MEMS you must
calculate annual production process
emissions of each input gas i for
threshold applicability purposes using
the default emission factors shown in
Table I–1 to this subpart and Equation
I–1 of this subpart.
(2) If you manufacture LCDs, you
must calculate annual production
process emissions of each input gas i for
threshold applicability purposes using
the default emission factors shown in
Table I–1 to this subpart and Equation
I–2 of this subpart.
Where:
Ei = Annual production process emissions of
input gas i for threshold applicability
purposes (metric tons Co2e).
S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing
capacity of a facility as calculated using
Equation I–5 of this subpart (m2).
EFi = Emission factor for input gas i (g/m2).
GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in
Table A–1 to subpart A of this part.
0.000001 = Conversion factor from g to
metric tons.
i = Input gas.
(3) If you manufacture PVs, you must
calculate annual production process
emissions of each input gas i for
threshold applicability purposes using
gas-appropriate GWP values shown in
Table A–1 to subpart A of this part and
Equation I–3 of this subpart.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.003
EFi = Emission factor for input gas i (kg/m2).
GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in
Table A–1 to subpart A of this part.
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric
tons.
i = Input gas.
ER01DE10.002
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Where:
Ei = Annual production process emissions of
input gas i for threshold applicability
purposes (metric tons CO2e).
S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing
capacity of a facility as calculated using
Equation I–5 of this subpart (m2).
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Where:
Ei = Annual production process emissions of
input gas i for threshold applicability
purposes (metric tons Co2e).
Ci = Annual fluorinated GHG (input gas i)
purchases or consumption (kg). Only
gases used in PV manufacturing that
have listed GWP values in Table A–1 to
subpart A of this part must be considered
for threshold applicability purposes.
GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP as provided in
Table A–1 to subpart A of this part.
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric
tons.
i = Input gas.
i = Input gas.
(b) You must calculate annual
manufacturing capacity of a facility
using Equation I–5 of this subpart.
combustion unit. You must calculate
and report these emissions under
subpart C of this part (General
Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by
following the requirements of subpart C
of this part.
§ 98.93
Where:
S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing
capacity of a facility (m2).
Wx = Maximum designed substrate starts of
a facility in month x (m2 per month).
x = Month.
74819
Calculating GHG emissions.
Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from
recipe, process sub-type, or process type
j as calculated in Equation I–8 of this
subpart (metric tons).
N = The total number of recipes or process
sub-types j that depends on the
electronics manufacturing facility and
emission calculation methodology. If Eij
is calculated for a process type j in
Equation I–8 of this subpart, N = 1.
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.
Where:
ProcesstypeBEk = Annual emissions of byproduct gas k from the processes type
(metric tons).
BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product gas
k formed from input gas i used for
recipe, process sub-type, or process type
j as calculated in Equation I–9 of this
subpart (metric tons).
N = The total number of recipes or process
sub-types j that depends on the
electronics manufacturing facility and
emission calculation methodology. If
BEkij is calculated for a process type j in
Equation I–9 of this subpart, N = 1.
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.
k = By-product gas.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.005
ER01DE10.006
GHGs to report.
ER01DE10.004
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Where:
ET = Annual production process emissions of
all fluorinated GHGs for threshold
applicability purposes (metric tons
Co2e).
d = Factor accounting for heat transfer fluid
emissions, estimated as 10 percent of
total annual production process
emissions at a semiconductor facility.
Set equal to 1.1 when Equation I–4 of
this subpart is used to calculate total
annual production process emissions
from semiconductor manufacturing. Set
equal to 1 when Equation I–4 of this
subpart is used to calculate total annual
production process emissions from
MEMS, LCD, or PV manufacturing.
Ei = Annual production process emissions of
input gas i for threshold applicability
purposes (metric tons Co2e), as
calculated in Equations I–1, I–2 or I–3 of
this subpart.
§ 98.92
ER01DE10.008
Where:
ProcesstypeEi = Annual emissions of input
gas i from the processes type (metric
tons).
(4) You must calculate total annual
production process emissions for
threshold applicability purposes using
Equation I–4 of this subpart.
ER01DE10.007
(a) You must report emissions of
fluorinated GHGs (as defined in § 98.6)
and N2O. The fluorinated GHGs that are
emitted from electronics manufacturing
production processes include, but are
not limited to, those listed in Table I–
2 to this subpart. You must individually
report, as appropriate:
(1) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from
plasma etching.
(2) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from
chamber cleaning.
(3) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from
wafer cleaning.
(4) N2O emitted from chemical vapor
deposition and other electronics
manufacturing processes.
(5) Fluorinated GHGs emitted from
heat transfer fluid use.
(6) All fluorinated GHGs and N2O
consumed, including gases used in
manufacturing processes other than
those listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(5) of this section.
(b) CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion
emissions from each stationary
(a) You must calculate total annual
facility-level emissions of each
fluorinated GHG used in electronics
manufacturing production processes at
your facility, for each process type,
using Equations I–6 and I–7 of this
subpart according to the procedures in
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4),
(a)(5), or (a)(6) of this section, as
appropriate. Facilities to which the
procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) of this
section or (a)(2) of this section apply
may elect to use the procedures in
paragraph (a)(3) as an alternative. If your
facility uses less than 50 kg of a
fluorinated GHG in one reporting year,
you may calculate emissions as equal to
your facility’s annual consumption for
that specific gas as calculated in
Equation I–11 of this subpart. Where
your facility is required to perform
calculations using default emission
factors for gas utilization and byproduct formation rates according to the
procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2)
of this section, and default values are
not available for a particular input gas
and process type or sub-type
combination in Tables I–3, I–4, I–5, I–
6, or I–7, you must follow the
procedures in paragraph (a)(6) of this
section.
74820
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
paragraphs (a)(ii)(A) through (a)(ii)(C) of
this section.
(A) You must calculate annual
facility-level emissions of each
fluorinated GHG used for the plasma
etching process type using recipespecific utilization and by-product
formation rates determined as specified
in § 98.94(d), and by using Equations I–
8 and I–9 of this subpart. You must
develop recipe-specific utilization and
by-product formation rates for each
individual recipe or set of similar
recipes as defined in § 98.98. Recipespecific utilization and by-product
formation rates must be developed each
reporting year only for recipes which
are not similar to any recipe used in a
previous reporting year, as defined in
§ 98.98.
(B) You must calculate annual
facility-level emissions of each
fluorinated GHG used for each of the
process sub-types associated with the
chamber cleaning process type,
including in-situ plasma chamber clean,
remote plasma chamber clean, and insitu thermal chamber clean, using
default utilization and by-product
formation rates as shown in Table I–3 or
I–4 to this subpart, and by using
Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart.
(C) You must calculate annual
facility-level emissions of each
fluorinated GHG used for the wafer
cleaning process type using default
utilization and by-product formation
rates as shown in Table I–3 or I–4 to this
subpart, and by using Equations I–8 and
I–9 of this subpart.
(3) If you do not adhere to procedures
as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section, you must calculate
annual facility-level emissions of each
fluorinated GHG for all fluorinated
GHG-emitting production processes
using recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates determined as
specified in § 98.94(d) and by using
Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart.
You must develop recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation
rates for each individual recipe or set of
similar recipes as defined in § 98.98.
Recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates must be
developed each reporting year only for
recipes which are not similar to any
recipe used in a previous reporting year,
as defined in § 98.98.
(4) If you manufacture
semiconductors on wafers measuring
greater than 300 mm in diameter, you
must calculate annual facility-level
emissions of each fluorinated GHG used
for all fluorinated GHG emitting
production processes using recipespecific utilization and by-product
formation rates as specified in
§ 98.94(d), and by using Equations I–8
and I–9 of this subpart. You must
develop recipe-specific utilization and
by-product formation rates for each
individual recipe or set of similar
recipes as defined in § 98.98. Recipespecific utilization and by-product
formation rates must be developed each
reporting year only for recipes that are
not similar to any recipe used in a
previous reporting year, as defined in
§ 98.98.
(5) To be included in a set of similar
recipes for the purposes of this subpart,
a recipe must be similar to the recipe in
the set for which recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation
rates have been measured.
(6) Where your facility is required to
perform calculations using default
emission factors for gas utilization and
by-product formation rates according to
the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) or
(a)(2) of this section, and default values
are not available for a particular input
gas and process type or sub-type
combination in Tables I–3, I–4, I–5, I–
6, or I–7, you must follow the
procedures in either paragraph (a)(6)(i)
or (a)(6)(ii) of this section and use
Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart.
(i) You must use utilization and byproduct formation rates of 0.
(ii) You must develop recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation
rates determined as specified in
§ 98.94(d) for each individual recipe or
set of similar recipes as defined in
§ 98.98. Recipe-specific utilization and
by-product formation rates must be
developed each reporting year only for
recipes that are not similar to any recipe
used in a previous reporting year, as
defined in § 98.98.
Where:
Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from
recipe, process sub-type, or process type
j (metric tons).
Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for
recipe, process sub-type, or process type
j, as calculated in Equation I–13 of this
subpart (kg).
Uij = Process utilization rate for input gas i
for recipe, process sub-type, or process
type j (expressed as a decimal fraction).
aij = Fraction of input gas i used in recipe,
process sub-type, or process type j with
abatement systems (expressed as a
decimal fraction).
dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed or
removed in abatement systems
connected to process tools where recipe,
process sub-type, or process type j is
used, as calculated in Equation I–14 of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.009
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
(1) If you manufacture MEMS, LCDs,
or PVs, you must, except as provided in
§ 98.93(a)(3), calculate annual facilitylevel emissions of each fluorinated GHG
used for the plasma etching and
chamber cleaning process types using
default utilization and by-product
formation rates as shown in Table I–5,
I–6, or I–7 of this subpart, as
appropriate, and by using Equations I–
8 and I–9 of this subpart.
(2) If you manufacture
semiconductors on wafers measuring
300 mm or less in diameter, except as
provided in § 98.93(a)(3), you must
adhere to the procedures in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) If your facility has an annual
manufacturing capacity, as calculated
using Equation I–5 of this subpart, of
less than or equal to 10,500 m2 of
substrate, you must adhere to the
procedures in paragraphs (a)(i)(A)
through (a)(i)(C) of this section.
(A) You must calculate annual
facility-level emissions of each
fluorinated GHG used for the plasma
etching process type using default
utilization and by-product formation
rates as shown in Table I–3 or I–4 of this
subpart, and by using Equations I–8 and
I–9 of this subpart.
(B) You must calculate annual
facility-level emissions of each
fluorinated GHG used for each of the
process sub-types associated with the
chamber cleaning process type,
including in-situ plasma chamber clean,
remote plasma chamber clean, and insitu thermal chamber clean, using
default utilization and by-product
formation rates as shown in Table I–3 or
I–4 of this subpart, and by using
Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart.
(C) You must calculate annual
facility-level emissions of each
fluorinated GHG used for the wafer
cleaning process type using default
utilization and by-product formation
rates as shown in Table I–3 or I–4 of this
subpart and by using Equations I–8 and
I–9 of this subpart.
(ii) If your facility has an annual
manufacturing capacity of greater than
10,500 m2 of substrate, as calculated
using Equation I–5 of this subpart, you
must adhere to the procedures in
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
k = By-product gas.
(b) You must calculate annual facilitylevel N2O emissions from each chemical
vapor deposition process and other
electronics manufacturing production
processes using Equation I–10 of this
subpart and the methods in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. If your
facility uses less than 50 kg of N2O in
one reporting year, you may calculate
emissions as equal to your facility’s
annual consumption for N2O as
calculated in Equation I–11 of this
subpart.
(1) You must use a factor for N2O
utilization for chemical vapor
deposition processes pursuant to either
paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(i) You must develop a facilityspecific N2O utilization factor averaged
over all N2O-using chemical vapor
deposition processes determined as
specified in § 98.94(e).
(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific
N2O utilization factor for chemical
vapor deposition processes, you must
use the default utilization factor as
shown in Table I–8 to this subpart for
N2O from chemical vapor deposition
processes.
(2) You must use a factor for N2O
utilization for other manufacturing
processes pursuant to either paragraph
(b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) You must develop a facilityspecific N2O utilization factor averaged
over all N2O-using electronics
manufacturing production processes
other than chemical vapor deposition
processes determined as specified in
§ 98.94(e).
(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific
N2O utilization factor for manufacturing
production processes other than
chemical vapor deposition, you must
use the default utilization factor in as
shown in Table I–8 to this subpart for
N2O from manufacturing production
processes other than chemical vapor
deposition.
Where:
E(N2O)j = Annual emissions of N2O for N2Ousing process j (metric tons).
CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed for N2Ousing process j, as calculated in Equation
I–13 of this subpart and apportioned to
N2O process j (kg).
UN2O,j = Process utilization factor for N2Ousing process j (expressed as a decimal
fraction).
aN2O,j = Fraction of N2O used in N2O-using
process j with abatement systems
(expressed as a decimal fraction).
dN2O,j = Fraction of N2O for N2O-using
process j destroyed or removed in
abatement systems connected to process
tools where process j is used, as
calculated in Equation I–14 of this
subpart (expressed as a decimal fraction).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric
tons.
j = Type of N2O-using process, either
chemical vapor deposition or other N2Ousing manufacturing processes.
(c) You must calculate total annual
input gas i consumption for each
fluorinated GHG and N2O using
Equation I–11 of this subpart. Pursuant
to § 98.92(a)(6), for all fluorinated GHGs
and N2O used at your facility for which
you do not calculate emissions using
Equations I–6, I–7, I–8, I–9, and I–10 of
this subpart, calculate consumption of
these fluorinated GHGs and N2O using
Equation I–11 of this subpart.
Where:
Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i (kg
per year).
IBi = Inventory of input gas i stored in
containers at the beginning of the
reporting year, including heels (kg). For
containers in service at the beginning of
a reporting year, account for the quantity
in these containers as if they were full.
IEi = Inventory of input gas i stored in
containers at the end of the reporting
year, including heels (kg). For containers
in service at the end of a reporting year,
account for the quantity in these
containers as if they were full.
Ai = Acquisitions of input gas i during the
year through purchases or other
transactions, including heels in
containers returned to the electronics
manufacturing facility (kg).
Di = Disbursements of input gas i through
sales or other transactions during the
year, including heels in containers
returned by the electronics
manufacturing facility to the chemical
supplier, as calculated using Equation I–
12 of this subpart (kg).
i = Input gas.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Where:
BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product gas
k formed from input gas i from recipe,
process sub-type, or process type j
(metric tons).
Bijk = By-product formation rate of gas k
created as a by-product per amount of
input gas i (kg) consumed by recipe,
process sub-type, or process type j (kg).
Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed for
recipe, process sub-type, or process type
j, as calculated in Equation I–13 of this
subpart (kg)).
aij = Fraction of input gas i used for recipe,
process sub-type, or process type j with
abatement systems (expressed as a
decimal fraction).
djk = Fraction of by-product gas k destroyed
or removed in abatement systems
connected to process tools where recipe,
process sub-type, or process type j is
used, as calculated in Equation I–14 of
this subpart (expressed as a decimal
fraction).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric
tons.
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(d) You must calculate disbursements
of input gas i using facility-wide gasspecific heel factors, as determined in
§ 98.94(b), and by using Equation I–12
of this subpart.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.012
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.
ER01DE10.011
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric
tons.
ER01DE10.010
this subpart (expressed as a decimal
fraction).
74821
74822
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Nil = Number of containers of size and type
l returned to the gas distributor
containing the standard heel of input gas
i.
Fil = Full capacity of containers of size and
type l containing input gas i (kg).
Xi = Disbursements under exceptional
circumstances of input gas i through
sales or other transactions during the
year (kg). These include returns of
containers whose contents have been
weighed due to an exceptional
circumstance as specified in
§ 98.94(b)(4).
i = Input gas.
Where:
Ci,j = The annual amount of input gas i
consumed for recipe, process sub-type,
or process type j (kg).
fi,j = Recipe-specific, process sub-typespecific, or process type-specific input
gas i apportioning factor (expressed as a
decimal fraction), as determined in
accordance with § 98.94(c).
Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i as
calculated using Equation I–11 of this
subpart (kg).
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.
(f) If you report controlled emissions
pursuant to § 98.94(f), you must
calculate the fraction of input gas i
destroyed in abatement systems for each
individual recipe (including those in a
set of similar recipes) process sub-type,
or process type j by using Equation I–
14 of this subpart.
Where:
dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed or
removed in abatement systems
connected to process tools where recipe,
process sub-type, or process type j is
used (expressed as a decimal fraction).
Cijp = The amount of input gas i consumed
for recipe, process sub-type, or process
type j fed into abatement system p (kg).
dijp = Destruction or removal efficiency for
input gas i in abatement system p
connected to process tools where recipe,
process sub-type, or process type j is
used (expressed as a decimal fraction).
This is zero unless the facility adheres to
requirements in § 98.94(f).
up = The uptime of abatement system p as
calculated in Equation I–15 of this
subpart (expressed as a decimal fraction).
i = Input gas.
j = Recipe, process sub-type, or process type.
p = Abatement system.
(g) If you report controlled emissions
pursuant to § 98.94(f), you must
calculate the uptime by using Equation
I–15 of this subpart.
tp = The total time in which abatement
system p is in an operational mode when
fluorinated GHGs or N2O are flowing
through production process tool(s)
connected to abatement system p
(hours).
Tp = Total time in which fluorinated GHGs
or N2O are flowing through production
process tool(s) connected to abatement
system p (hours).
p = Abatement system.
Where:
up = The uptime of abatement system p
(expressed as a decimal fraction).
(h) If you use fluorinated heat transfer
fluids, you must report the annual
emissions of fluorinated GHG heat
transfer fluids using the mass balance
approach described in Equation I–16 of
this subpart.
Where:
EHi = Emissions of fluorinated GHG heat
transfer fluid i, (metric tons/year).
Densityi = Density of fluorinated heat transfer
fluid i (kg/l).
IiB = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer
fluid i in containers other than
equipment at the beginning of the
reporting year (in stock or storage) (l).
The inventory at the beginning of the
reporting year must be the same as the
inventory at the end of the previous
reporting year.
Pi = Acquisitions of fluorinated heat transfer
fluid i during the reporting year (l),
including amounts purchased from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
l = Size and type of gas container.
M = The total number of different sized
container types. If only one size and
container type is used for an input gas
i, M=1.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.016
ER01DE10.015
ER01DE10.014
chemical suppliers, amounts purchased
from equipment suppliers with or inside
of equipment, and amounts returned to
the facility after off-site recycling.
Ni = Total nameplate capacity (full and
proper charge) of equipment that uses
fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that
ER01DE10.017
(e) You must calculate the amount of
input gas i consumed for each
individual recipe (including those in a
set of similar recipes) process sub-type,
or process type j, using Equation I–13 of
this subpart.
ER01DE10.013
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Where:
Di = Disbursements of input gas i through
sales or other transactions during the
reporting year, including heels in
containers returned by the electronics
manufacturing facility to the gas
distributor (kg).
hil = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for
input gas i and container size and type
l (expressed as a decimal fraction), as
determined in § 98.94(b). If your facility
uses less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG
or N2O in one reporting year, you may
assume that any hil for that fluorinated
GHG or N2O is equal to zero.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
is newly installed during the reporting
year (l).
Ri = Total nameplate capacity (full and
proper charge) of equipment that uses
fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that
is removed from service during the
reporting year (l).
IiE = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer
fluid i in containers other than
equipment at the end of the reporting
year (in stock or storage)(l).
Di = Disbursements of fluorinated heat
transfer fluid i during the reporting year,
including amounts returned to chemical
suppliers, sold with or inside of
equipment, and sent off-site for verifiable
recycling or destruction (l).
Disbursements should include only
amounts that are properly stored and
transported so as to prevent emissions in
transit.
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric
tons.
i = Heat transfer fluid.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
§ 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements.
(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring,
you may follow the provisions in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this
section for best available monitoring
methods.
(1) Best available monitoring
methods. From January 1, 2011 through
June 30, 2011, owners or operators may
use best available monitoring methods
for any parameter that cannot
reasonably be measured according to the
monitoring and QA/QC requirements of
this subpart. The owner or operator
must use the calculation methodologies
and equations in § 98.93, but may use
the best available monitoring method for
any parameter for which it is not
reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or
operate a required piece of monitoring
equipment in a facility, or to procure
necessary measurement services by
January 1, 2011. Starting no later than
July 1, 2011, the owner or operator must
discontinue using best available
monitoring methods and begin
following all applicable monitoring and
QA/QC requirements of this part, except
as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3),
or (a)(4) of this section. Best available
monitoring methods means any of the
following methods specified in this
paragraph:
(i) Monitoring methods currently used
by the facility that do not meet the
specifications of this subpart.
(ii) Supplier data.
(iii) Engineering calculations.
(iv) Other company records.
(2) Requests for extension of the use
of best available monitoring methods in
2011 for parameters other than recipespecific utilization and by-product
formation rates for the plasma etching
process type. With respect to any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
provision of this subpart except
§ 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), the owner or
operator may submit a request to the
Administrator under this paragraph
(a)(2) to use one or more best available
monitoring methods to estimate
emissions that occur between July 1,
2011 and December 31, 2011.
(i) Timing of request. The extension
request must be submitted to EPA no
later than February 28, 2011.
(ii) Content of request. Requests must
contain the following information:
(A) A list of specific items of
monitoring instrumentation and
measuring services for which the
request is being made and the locations
where each piece of monitoring
instrumentation will be installed and
where each measurement service will be
provided.
(B) Identification of the specific rule
requirements for which the
instrumentation or measurement service
is needed.
(C) A description of the reasons why
the needed equipment could not be
obtained, installed, or operated or why
the needed measurement service could
not be provided before July 1, 2011.
(D) If the reason for the extension is
that the equipment cannot be
purchased, delivered, or installed before
July 1, 2011, include supporting
documentation such as the date the
monitoring equipment was ordered,
investigation of alternative suppliers,
and the dates by which alternative
vendors promised delivery or
installation, backorder notices or
unexpected delays, descriptions of
actions taken to expedite delivery or
installation, and the current expected
date of delivery or installation.
(E) If the reason for the extension is
that service providers were unable to
provide necessary measurement
services, include supporting
documentation demonstrating that these
services could not be acquired before
July 1, 2011. This documentation must
include written correspondence to and
from at least three service providers
stating that they will not be available to
provide the necessary services before
July 1, 2011.
(F) A detailed description of the
specific best available monitoring
methods that the facility will use in
place of the required methods.
(G) A description of the specific
actions the owner or operator will take
to comply with monitoring
requirements by January 1, 2012.
(iii) Approval criteria. To obtain
approval, the owner or operator must
demonstrate to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that by July 1, 2011, it is not
reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74823
operate the required piece of monitoring
equipment, or procure necessary
measurement services to comply with
the requirements of this subpart. As a
condition for allowing the use of best
available monitoring methods through
December 31, 2011, facilities must
recalculate and resubmit their 2011
estimated emissions using the
requirements of this subpart. Where a
facility is allowed to use best available
monitoring methods for apportioning
gas consumption under § 98.94(c), it is
not required to verify its 2011
engineering model with its recalculated
report. The facility’s recalculated
emissions must be reported with its
report for the 2012 reporting year (to be
submitted in 2013) unless the facility
receives an additional extension under
paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(3) Requests for extension of the use
of best available monitoring methods in
2011 for recipe-specific utilization and
by-product formation rates for the
plasma etching process type under
§ 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A). The owner or
operator may submit a request to the
Administrator under this paragraph
(a)(3) to use one or more best available
monitoring methods to estimate
emissions that occur between July 1,
2011 and December 31, 2011 for recipespecific utilization and by-product
formation rates for the etching process
type under § 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A).
(i) Timing of request. The extension
request must be submitted to EPA no
later than June 30, 2011.
(ii) Content of request. Requests must
contain the following information:
(A) The information outlined in
paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through
(a)(2)(ii)(F) of this section, substituting
December 31, 2011 for July 1, 2011.
(B) A description of the specific
actions the owner or operator will take
to comply with monitoring
requirements by January 1, 2012.
(iii) Approval criteria. To obtain
approval, the owner or operator must
demonstrate to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that by December 31, 2011
it is not reasonably feasible to acquire,
install, or operate the required piece of
monitoring equipment or procure
necessary measurement services to
comply with the requirements of this
subpart. As a condition for allowing the
use of best available monitoring
methods through December 31, 2011,
facilities must recalculate and resubmit
their 2011 estimated emissions using
the requirements of this subpart. The
facility’s recalculated emissions must be
reported with its report for the 2012
reporting year (to be submitted in 2013)
unless the facility receives an additional
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74824
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
engineering model with its recalculated
report. The facility’s recalculated
emissions must be reported with its
report for the 2013 reporting year (to be
submitted in 2014).
(b) For purposes of Equation I–12 of
this subpart, you must estimate facilitywide gas-specific heel factors for each
container type for each gas used, except
for fluorinated GHGs or N2O which your
facility uses in quantities less than 50 kg
in one reporting year, according to the
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(5) of this section.
(1) Base your facility-wide gasspecific heel factors on the trigger point
for change out of a container for each
container size and type for each gas
used. Facility-wide gas-specific heel
factors must be expressed as the ratio of
the trigger point for change out, in terms
of mass, to the initial mass in the
container, as determined by paragraphs
(b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section.
(2) The trigger points for change out
you use to calculate facility-wide gasspecific heel factors in § 98.94(b)(1)
must be determined by monitoring the
mass or the pressure of your containers.
If you monitor the pressure, convert the
pressure to mass using the ideal gas law,
as displayed in Equation I–17 of this
subpart, with the appropriate Z value
selected based upon the properties of
the gas.
out, you must determine if an
exceptional circumstance has occurred
based on the net weight of gas in the
container, excluding the tare weight of
the container.
(5) You must re-calculate a facilitywide gas-specific heel factor if you use
a trigger point for change out for a gas
and container type that differs by more
than 5 percent from the previously used
trigger point for change out for that gas
and container type.
(c) You must develop apportioning
factors for fluorinated GHG and N2O
consumption to use in Equation I–13 of
this subpart for each input gas i, as
appropriate, using a facility-specific
engineering model that is documented
in your site GHG Monitoring Plan as
required under § 98.3(g)(5). This model
must be based on a quantifiable metric,
such as wafer passes or wafer starts. To
verify your model, you must
demonstrate its precision and accuracy
by adhering to the requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
section.
(1) You must demonstrate that the
fluorinated GHG and N2O apportioning
factors are developed using calculations
that are repeatable, as defined in
§ 98.98.
(2) You must demonstrate the
accuracy of your facility-specific model
by comparing the actual amount of
input gas i consumed and the modeled
amount of input gas i consumed for the
plasma etching and chamber cleaning
process types, as follows:
(i) You must analyze at least a 30-day
period of operation during which the
capacity utilization equals or exceeds 60
percent of its design capacity. In the
event your facility operates below 60
percent of its design capacity during the
reporting year, you must use the period
during which the facility experiences its
highest 30-day average utilization for
model verification.
(ii) You must compare the actual gas
consumed of input gas i to the modeled
gas consumed of input gas i for one
fluorinated GHG reported under this
subpart under the plasma etching
process type and the chamber cleaning
(3) The initial mass you use to
calculate a facility-wide gas-specific
heel factor in § 98.94(b)(1) may be based
on the weight of the gas provided to you
in gas supplier documents; however,
you remain responsible for the accuracy
of these masses and weights under this
subpart.
(4) If a container is changed in an
exceptional circumstance, you must
weigh that container or measure the
pressure of that container with a
pressure gauge, in place of using a heel
factor to determine the residual weight
of gas. An exceptional circumstance is
a change out point that differs by more
than 20 percent from the trigger point
for change out used to calculate your
facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for
that gas and container type. When using
mass-based trigger points for change
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.018
(D) A detailed explanation and
supporting documentation of how and
when the owner or operator will receive
the required data and/or services to
comply with the reporting requirements
of this subpart in the future.
(E) A detailed description of the
specific best available monitoring
methods that the facility will use in
place of the required methods.
(F) The Administrator reserves the
right to require that the owner or
operator provide additional
documentation.
(iii) Approval criteria. To obtain
approval, the owner or operator must
demonstrate to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that by December 31, 2011
(or in the case of facilities that are
required to calculate and report
emissions in accordance with
§ 98.93(a)(2)(ii)(A), December 31, 2012),
it is not reasonably feasible to acquire,
install, or operate the required piece of
monitoring equipment according to the
requirements of this subpart. As a
condition for allowing the use of best
available monitoring methods through
December 31, 2012, facilities must
recalculate and resubmit their 2012
estimated emissions using the
requirements of this subpart. Where a
facility is allowed to use best available
monitoring methods for apportioning
gas consumption under § 98.94(c), it is
not required to verify its 2012
Where:
p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa).
V = Volume of the gas (m3).
Z = Compressibility factor.
n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles).
R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole).
T = Absolute temperature (K).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
extension under paragraph (a)(4) of this
section.
(4) Requests for extension of the use
of best available monitoring methods
beyond 2011. EPA does not anticipate
approving the use of best available
monitoring methods beyond December
31, 2011; however, EPA reserves the
right to approve any such requests
submitted for unique and extreme
circumstances, which include safety,
technical infeasibility, or inconsistency
with other local, State or Federal
regulations.
(i) Timing of request. The extension
request must be submitted to EPA no
later than June 30, 2011.
(ii) Content of request. Requests must
contain the following information:
(A) A list of parameters for which the
owner or operator is seeking use of best
available monitoring methods beyond
2011.
(B) A description of the specific rule
requirements that the owner or operator
cannot meet, including a detailed
explanation as to why the requirements
can not be met.
(C) Detailed description of the unique
circumstances necessitating an
extension, including specific data
collection issues that do not meet safety
regulations, technical infeasibility, or
specific laws or regulations that conflict
with data collection.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
process type. You must certify that the
fluorinated GHGs selected for
comparison correspond to the largest
quantities, on a mass basis, of
fluorinated GHGs used at your facility
during the reporting year for the plasma
etching process type and the chamber
cleaning process type.
(iii) You must demonstrate that the
comparison performed for the largest
quantity of gas, on a mass basis,
consumed under the plasma etching
process type in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of
this section, does not result in a
difference between the actual and
modeled gas consumption that exceeds
five percent relative to actual gas
consumption, reported to one
significant figure using standard
rounding conventions.
(d) If you use factors for fluorinated
GHG process utilization and by-product
formation rates other than the defaults
provided in Tables I–3, I–4, I–5, I–6, and
I–7 to this subpart, you must use
utilization and by-product formation
rates that are developed with
measurements made using the
International SEMATECH #06124825A–
ENG (incorporated by reference, see
§ 98.7). You may use recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation
rates that were measured using the
International SEMATECH #01104197A–
XFR (incorporated by reference, see
§ 98.7) provided the measurements were
made prior to January 1, 2007. You may
use recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates measured by a
third party, such as a manufacturing
equipment supplier, if the conditions in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this
section are met.
(1) The third party has measured
recipe-specific utilization and byproduct formation rates using the
International SEMATECH #06124825A–
ENG (incorporated by reference, see
§ 98.7,) or the International SEMATECH
#01104197A–XFR (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7) provided the
measurements were made prior to
January 1, 2007.
(2) Measurements made by a third
party to develop recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation
rates must have been made for recipes
that are similar recipes to those used at
your facility, as defined in § 98.98.
(e) If you use N2O utilization factors
other than the defaults provided in
Table I–8 to this subpart, you must use
factors developed with measurements
made using the International
SEMATECH #06124825A–ENG
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7).
You may use measurements made using
the International SEMATECH
#01104197A–XFR (incorporated by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
reference, see § 98.7) provided the
measurements were made prior to
January 1, 2007. You may use N2O
utilization factors measured by a third
party, such as a manufacturing
equipment supplier, if the conditions in
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this
section are met.
(1) The third party has measured N2O
utilization factors using the
International SEMATECH #06124825A–
ENG (incorporated by reference, see
§ 98.7,) or the International SEMATECH
#01104197A–XFR (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7) provided the
measurements were made prior to
January 1, 2007.
(2) The conditions under which the
measurements were made are
representative of your facility’s N2O
emitting production processes.
(f) If your facility employs abatement
systems and you wish to reflect
emission reductions due to these
systems in calculations in § 98.93, you
must adhere to the procedures in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this
section. If you use the default
destruction or removal efficiency of 60
percent, you must adhere to procedures
in paragraph (f)(3) of this section. If you
use either a properly measured
destruction or removal efficiency as
defined in § 98.98, or a class average of
properly measured destruction or
removal efficiencies during a reporting
year, you must adhere to procedures in
paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
(1) You must certify and document
that the abatement systems are properly
installed, operated, and maintained
according to manufacturers’
specifications by adhering to the
procedures in paragraphs (1)(i) and
(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) You must certify and document
proper installation by verifying your
systems were installed in accordance
with the manufacturers’ specifications.
(ii) You must certify and document
your systems are operated and
maintained in accordance with the
manufacturers’ specifications.
(2) You must calculate and report the
uptime of abatement systems using
Equation I–15 of this subpart.
(3) To report emissions using the
default destruction or removal
efficiency of 60 percent, you must
certify and document that the abatement
systems at your facility are specifically
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O
abatement.
(4) If you do not use the default
destruction or removal efficiency value
to calculate and report controlled
emissions, you must use either a
properly measured destruction or
removal efficiency, or a class average of
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74825
properly measured destruction or
removal efficiencies, determined in
accordance with procedures in
paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (f)(4)(v) of
this section.
(i) A properly measured destruction
or removal efficiency value must be
determined in accordance with EPA
430–R–10–003 (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7).
(ii) You must annually select and
properly measure the destruction or
removal efficiency for a random sample
of abatement systems to include in a
random sampling abatement system
testing program (RSASTP) in
accordance with procedures in
paragraphs (f)(4)(ii)(A) and (f)(4)(ii)(B) of
this section.
(A) Each reporting year for each
abatement system class a random
sample of three or 20 percent of
installed abatement systems, whichever
is greater, must be tested. If 20 percent
of the total number of abatement
systems in each class does not equate to
a whole number, the number of systems
to be tested must be determined by
rounding up to the nearest integer.
(B) You must select the random
sample each reporting year for the
RSASTP without repetition of
previously-measured systems in the
sample, until all systems in each class
are properly measured in a 5-year
period.
(iii) If you have measured the
destruction or removal efficiency of a
particular abatement system during the
previous 2-year period, you must
calculate emissions from that system
using the most recently measured
destruction or removal efficiency for
that particular system.
(iv) If the destruction or removal
efficiency of an individual abatement
system has not been properly measured
during the previous 2-year period, you
may use a simple average of the
properly measured destruction or
removal efficiencies for systems of that
class, in accordance with the RSASTP.
Your facility must maintain or exceed
the RSASTP schedule if you wish to
apply class average destruction or
removal efficiency factors to abatement
systems that have not yet been properly
measured.
(v) If your facility uses redundant
abatement systems, you may account for
the total abatement system uptime
calculated for a specific exhaust stream
during the reporting year.
(g) You must adhere to the QA/QC
procedures of this paragraph when
calculating fluorinated GHG and N2O
emissions from electronics
manufacturing production processes:
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74826
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Follow the QA/QC procedures in
the International SEMATECH
#06124825A–ENG (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7) when measuring
and calculating facility-specific, recipespecific fluorinated GHG and N2O
utilization and by-product formation
rates.
(2) Where you use facility-specific,
recipe-specific fluorinated GHG and
N2O utilization and by-product
formation rates measured prior to
January 1, 2007, verify that the QA/QC
procedures in the International
SEMATECH #01104197A–XFR
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7)
were followed during measurement and
calculation of the factors.
(3) Follow the QA/QC procedures in
accordance with those in EPA 430–R–
10–003 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 98.7) when calculating abatement
systems destruction or removal
efficiencies.
(4) Demonstrate that as part of normal
facility operations the inventory of gas
stored in containers at the beginning of
the reporting year is the same as the
inventory of gas stored in containers at
the end of the previous reporting year.
(h) You must adhere to the QA/QC
procedures of this paragraph (h) when
calculating annual gas consumption for
each fluorinated GHG and N2O used at
your facility and fluorinated GHG
emissions from heat transfer fluid use.
(1) Review all inputs to Equations I–
11 and I–16 of this subpart to ensure
that all inputs and outputs are
accounted for.
(2) Do not enter negative inputs into
the mass balance Equations I–11 and I–
16 of this subpart and ensure that no
negative emissions are calculated.
(3) Ensure that the inventory at the
beginning of one reporting year is
identical to the inventory reported at the
end of the previous reporting year.
(4) Ensure that the total quantity of
gas i in containers in service at the end
of a reporting year is accounted for as
if the in-service containers were full for
Equation I–11 of this subpart. Ensure
also that the same quantity is accounted
for in the inventory of input gas i stored
in containers at the beginning of the
subsequent reporting year.
(i) All flowmeters, weigh scales,
pressure gauges, and thermometers used
to measure quantities that are monitored
under this section or used in
calculations under § 98.93 must have an
accuracy and precision of one percent of
full scale or better.
§ 98.95
data.
Procedures for estimating missing
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, a complete record of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
all measured parameters used in the
fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions
calculations in § 98.93 and § 98.94 is
required.
(b) If you use heat transfer fluids at
your facility and are missing data for
one or more of the parameters in
Equation I–16 of this subpart, you must
estimate heat transfer fluid emissions
using the arithmetic average of the
emission rates for the reporting year
immediately preceding the period of
missing data and the months
immediately following the period of
missing data. Alternatively, you may
estimate missing information using
records from the heat transfer fluid
supplier. You must document the
method used and values used for all
missing data values.
§ 98.96
Data reporting requirements.
In addition to the information
required by § 98.3(c), you must include
in each annual report the following
information for each electronics
manufacturing facility:
(a) Annual manufacturing capacity of
your facility as determined in Equation
I–5 of this subpart.
(b) For facilities that manufacture
semiconductors, the diameter of wafers
manufactured at your facility (mm).
(c) Annual emissions of:
(1) Each fluorinated GHG emitted
from each process type for which your
facility is required to calculate
emissions as calculated in Equations I–
6 and I–7 of this subpart.
(2) Each fluorinated GHG emitted
from each individual recipe (including
those in a set of similar recipes), or
process sub-type as calculated in
Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart, as
applicable.
(3) N2O emitted from each chemical
vapor deposition process and from other
N2O-using manufacturing processes as
calculated in Equation I–10 of this
subpart.
(4) Each heat transfer fluid emitted as
calculated in Equation 1–16 of this
subpart.
(d) The method of emissions
calculation used in § 98.93.
(e) Annual production in terms of
substrate surface area (e.g., silicon, PVcell, glass).
(f) When you use factors for
fluorinated GHG process utilization and
by-product formation rates other than
the defaults provided in Tables I–3, I–
4, I–5, I–6, and I–7 to this subpart and/
or N2O utilization factors other than the
defaults provided in Table I–8 to this
subpart, you must report the following,
as applicable:
(1) The recipe-specific utilization and
by-product formation rates for each
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
individual recipe (or set of similar
recipes) and/or facility-specific N2O
utilization factors.
(2) For recipe-specific utilization and
by-product formation rates, the film or
substrate that was etched/cleaned and
the feature type that was etched, as
applicable.
(3) Certification that the recipes
included in a set of similar recipes are
similar, as defined in § 98.98.
(4) Certification that the
measurements for all reported recipespecific utilization and by-product
formation rates and/or facility-specific
N2O utilization factors were made using
the International SEMATECH
#06124825A–ENG (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7), or the
International SEMATECH #01104197A–
XFR (incorporated by reference, see
§ 98.7) if measurements were made prior
to January 1, 2007.
(5) Source of the recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation
rates and/or facility-specific-N2O
utilization factors.
(6) Certification that the conditions
under which the measurements were
made for facility-specific N2O
utilization factors are representative of
your facility’s N2O emitting production
processes.
(g) Annual gas consumption for each
fluorinated GHG and N2O as calculated
in Equation I–11 of this subpart,
including where your facility used less
than 50 kg of a particular fluorinated
GHG or N2O during the reporting year.
For all fluorinated GHGs and N2O used
at your facility for which you have not
calculated emissions using Equations I–
6, I–7, I–8, I–9, and I–10 of this subpart,
the chemical name of the GHG used, the
annual consumption of the gas, and a
brief description of its use.
(h) All inputs used to calculate gas
consumption in Equation I–11 of this
subpart, for each fluorinated GHG and
N2O used.
(i) Disbursements for each fluorinated
GHG and N2O during the reporting year,
as calculated using Equation I–12 of this
subpart.
(j) All inputs used to calculate
disbursements for each fluorinated GHG
and N2O used in Equation I–12 of this
subpart, including all facility-wide gasspecific heel factors used for each
fluorinated GHG and N2O. If your
facility used less than 50 kg of a
particular fluorinated GHG during the
reporting year, facility-wide gas-specific
heel factors do not need to be reported
for those gases.
(k) Annual amount of each fluorinated
GHG consumed for each recipe, process
sub-type, or process type, as
appropriate, and the annual amount of
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
N2O consumed for each chemical vapor
deposition and other electronics
manufacturing production processes, as
calculated using Equation I–13 of this
subpart.
(l) All apportioning factors used to
apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O
consumption.
(m) For the facility-specific
apportioning model used to apportion
fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption
under § 98.94(c), the following
information to determine it is verified in
accordance with procedures in
§ 98.94(c)(1) and (2):
(i) Identification of the quantifiable
metric used in your facility-specific
engineering model to apportion gas
consumption.
(ii) The start and end dates selected
under § 98.94(c)(2)(i).
(iii) Certification that the gases you
selected under § 98.94(c)(2)(ii)
correspond to the largest quantities
consumed on a mass basis, at your
facility in the reporting year for the
plasma etching process type and the
chamber cleaning process type.
(iv) The result of the calculation
comparing the actual and modeled gas
consumption under § 98.94(c)(2)(iii).
(n) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG
or N2O fed into a recipe, process subtype, or process type that is fed into
tools connected to abatement systems.
(o) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG
or N2O destroyed or removed in
abatement systems connected to process
tools where recipe, process sub-type, or
process type j is used, as well as all
inputs and calculations used to
determine the inputs for Equation I–14
of this subpart.
(p) Inventory and description of all
abatement systems through which
fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your
facility, including the number of devices
of each manufacturer, model numbers,
manufacturer claimed fluorinated GHG
and N2O destruction or removal
efficiencies, if any, and records of
destruction or removal efficiency
measurements over their in-use lives.
The inventory of abatement systems
must describe the tools with model
numbers and the recipe(s), process subtype, or process type for which these
systems treat exhaust.
(q) For each abatement system
through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O
flow at your facility, for which you are
reporting controlled emissions, the
following:
(1) Certification that each abatement
system has been installed, maintained,
and operated in accordance with
manufacturers’ specifications.
(2) All inputs and results of
calculations made accounting for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
uptime of abatement systems used
during the reporting year, in accordance
with Equations I–14 and I–15 of this
subpart.
(3) The default destruction or removal
efficiency value or properly measured
destruction or removal efficiencies for
each abatement system used in the
reporting year.
(4) Where the default destruction or
removal efficiency value is used to
report controlled emissions,
certification that the abatement systems
for which emissions are being reported
were specifically designed for
fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement.
You must support this certification by
providing abatement system supplier
documentation stating that the system
was designed for fluorinated GHG and
N2O abatement.
(5) Where properly measured
destruction or removal efficiencies or
class averages of destruction or removal
efficiencies are used, the following must
also be reported:
(i) A description of the class,
including the abatement system
manufacturer and model number and
the fluorinated GHG(s) and N2O in the
effluent stream.
(ii) The total number of systems in
that class for the reporting year.
(iii) The total number of systems for
which destruction or removal efficiency
was properly measured in that class for
the reporting year.
(iv) A description of the calculation
used to determine the class average,
including all inputs to the calculation.
(v) A description of the method used
for randomly selecting class members
for testing.
(r) For heat transfer fluid emissions,
inputs to the heat transfer fluid mass
balance equation, Equation I–16 of this
subpart, for each fluorinated GHG used.
(s) Where missing data procedures
were used to estimate inputs into the
heat transfer fluid mass balance
equation under § 98.95(b), the number
of times missing data procedures were
followed in the reporting year, the
method used to estimate the missing
data, and the estimates of those data.
(t) A brief description of each ‘‘best
available monitoring method’’ used
according to § 98.94(a), the parameter
measured or estimated using the
method, and the time period during
which the ‘‘best available monitoring
method’’ was used.
§ 98.97
Records that must be retained.
In addition to the information
required by § 98.3(g), you must retain
the following records:
(a) All data used and copies of
calculations made as part of estimating
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74827
gas consumption and emissions,
including all spreadsheets.
(b) Documentation for the values used
for fluorinated GHG and N2O utilization
and by-product formation rates. If you
use facility-specific and recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation
rates, the following records must also be
retained, as applicable:
(1) Complete documentation and final
report for measurements for recipespecific utilization and by-product
formation rates demonstrating that the
values were measured using
International SEMATECH #06124825A–
ENG (incorporated by reference, see
§ 98.7) or, if the measurements were
made prior to January 1, 2007,
International SEMATECH #01104197A–
XFR (incorporated by reference, see
§ 98.7).
(2) Documentation that recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation
rates developed for your facility are
measured for recipes that are similar to
those used at your facility, as defined in
§ 98.98. The documentation must
include, at a minimum, recorded to the
appropriate number of significant
figures, reactor pressure, flow rates,
chemical composition, applied RF
power, direct current (DC) bias,
temperature, flow stabilization time,
and duration.
(3) Documentation that your facility’s
N2O measurements are representative of
the N2O emitting processes at your
facility.
(4) The date and results of the initial
and any subsequent tests to determine
utilization and by-product formation
rates.
(c) Documentation for the facilityspecific engineering model used to
apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O
consumption. This documentation must
be part of your site GHG Monitoring
Plan as required under § 98.3(g)(5). At a
minimum, you must retain the
following:
(1) A clear, detailed description of the
facility-specific model, including how it
was developed; the quantifiable metric
used in the model; all sources of
information, equations, and formulas,
each with clear definitions of terms and
variables; and a clear record of any
changes made to the model while it was
used to apportion fluorinated GHG and
N2O consumption across individual
recipes (including those in a set of
similar recipes), process sub-types, and/
or process types.
(2) Sample calculations used for
developing a recipe-specific, process
sub-type-specific, or process typespecific gas apportioning factors (fij) for
the two fluorinated GHGs used at your
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74828
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
facility in the largest quantities, on a
mass basis, during the reporting year.
(d) For each abatement system
through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O
flow at your facility, for which you are
reporting controlled emissions, the
following:
(1) Documentation to certify the
abatement system is installed,
maintained, and operated in accordance
with manufacturers’ specifications.
(2) Abatement system calibration and
maintenance records.
(3) Where the default destruction or
removal efficiency value is used,
documentation from the abatement
system supplier describing the
equipment’s designed purpose and
emission control capabilities for
fluorinated GHG and N2O.
(4) Where properly measured DRE is
used to report emissions, dated
certification by the technician who
made the measurement that the
destruction or removal efficiency is
calculated in accordance with methods
in EPA 430–R–10–003 (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7), complete
documentation of the results of any
initial and subsequent tests, and the
final report as specified in EPA 430–R–
10–003 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 98.7).
(e) Purchase records for gas
purchased.
(f) Invoices for gas purchases and
sales.
(g) Documents and records used to
monitor and calculate abatement system
uptime.
(h) GHG Monitoring Plans, as
described in § 98.3(g)(5), must be
completed by April 1, 2011. You must
update your GHG Monitoring Plan to
comply with § 98.94(c) consistent with
the requirements in § 98.3(g)(5)(iii).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
§ 98.98
Definitions.
Except as provided in this section, all
of the terms used in this subpart have
the same meaning given in the Clean Air
Act and subpart A of this part. If a
conflict exists between a definition
provided in this subpart and a
definition provided in subpart A, the
definition in this subpart takes
precedence for the reporting
requirements in this subpart.
Abatement system means a device or
equipment that destroys or removes
fluorinated GHGs and N2O in waste
streams from one or more electronics
manufacturing production processes.
Actual gas consumption means the
quantity of gas used during wafer/
substrate processing over some period
based on a measured change in gas
container weight or gas container
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
pressure or on a measured volume of
gas.
By-product formation means the
creation of fluorinated GHGs during
electronics manufacturing production
processes or the creation of fluorinated
GHGs by an abatement system. Byproduct formation is the ratio of the
mass of the by-product formed to the
mass flow of the input gas, where, for
multi-fluorinated-GHG recipes, the
denominator corresponds to the
fluorinated GHG with the largest mass
flow.
Chamber cleaning is a process type
that consists of the process sub-types
defined in paragraphs (1) through (3) of
this definition.
(1) In situ plasma process sub-type
consists of the cleaning of thin-film
production chambers, after processing
substrates, with a fluorinated GHG
cleaning reagent that is dissociated into
its cleaning constituents by a plasma
generated inside the chamber where the
film is produced.
(2) Remote plasma process sub-type
consists of the cleaning of thin-film
production chambers, after processing
substrates, with a fluorinated GHG
cleaning reagent dissociated by a
remotely located plasma source.
(3) In situ thermal process sub-type
consists of the cleaning of thin-film
production chambers, after processing
substrates, with a fluorinated GHG
cleaning reagent that is thermally
dissociated into its cleaning
constituents inside the chamber where
thin films are produced.
Class means a category of abatement
systems grouped by manufacturer model
number(s) and by the gas that the
system abates, including N2O and
carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) direct
emissions and by-product formation,
and all other fluorinated GHG direct
emissions and by-product formation.
Classes may also include any other
abatement systems for which the
reporting facility wishes to report
controlled emissions provided that class
is identified.
Controlled emissions means the
quantity of emissions that are released
to the atmosphere after application of an
emission control device (e.g., abatement
system).
Destruction or removal efficiency
(DRE) means the efficiency of an
abatement system to destroy or remove
fluorinated GHGs, N2O, or both. The
destruction or removal efficiency is
equal to one minus the ratio of the mass
of all relevant GHGs exiting the
abatement system to the mass of GHG
entering the abatement system. When
GHGs are formed in an abatement
system, destruction or removal
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
efficiency is expressed as one minus the
ratio of amounts of exiting GHGs to the
amounts entering the system in units of
CO2-equivalents (CO2e).
Gas utilization means the fraction of
input N2O or fluorinated GHG converted
to other substances during the etching,
deposition, and/or wafer and chamber
cleaning processes. Gas utilization is
expressed as a rate or factor for specific
electronics manufacturing recipes,
process sub-types, or process types.
Heat transfer fluids are fluorinated
GHGs used for temperature control,
device testing, and soldering in certain
types of electronic manufacturing
production processes. Heat transfer
fluids used in the electronics sector
include perfluoropolyethers,
perfluoroalkanes, perfluoroethers,
tertiary perfluoroamines, and
perfluorocyclic ethers. Electronics
manufacturers may also use these same
fluorinated chemicals to clean substrate
surfaces and other parts.
Heel means the amount of gas that
remains in a gas container after it is
discharged or off-loaded; heel may vary
by container type.
Individual recipe means a specific
combination of gases, under specific
conditions of reactor temperature,
pressure, flow, radio frequency (RF)
power and duration, used repeatedly to
fabricate a specific feature on a specific
film or substrate.
Maximum designed substrate starts
means the maximum quantity of
substrates, expressed as surface area,
that could be started each month during
a reporting year if the facility were fully
equipped as defined in the facility
design specifications and if the
equipment were fully utilized. It
denotes 100 percent of annual
manufacturing capacity of a facility.
Modeled gas consumed means the
quantity of gas used during wafer/
substrate processing over some period
based on a verified facility-specific
engineering model used to apportion gas
consumption.
Nameplate capacity means the full
and proper charge of chemical specified
by the equipment manufacturer to
achieve the equipment’s specified
performance. The nameplate capacity is
typically indicated on the equipment’s
nameplate; it is not necessarily the
actual charge, which may be influenced
by leakage and other emissions.
Operational mode means the time in
which an abatement system is being
operated within the range of parameters
as specified in the operations manual
provided by the system manufacturer.
Plasma etching is a process type that
consists of any production process using
fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74829
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
remove materials from a substrate
during electronics manufacturing. The
materials removed may include SiO2,
SiOx-based or fully organic-based thinfilm material, SiN, SiON, Si3N4, SiC,
SiCO, SiCN, etc. (represented by the
general chemical formula, SiwOxNyXz
where w, x, y and z are zero or integers
and X may be some other element such
as carbon), substrate, or metal films
(such as aluminum or tungsten).
Process sub-type is a set of similar
manufacturing steps, more closely
related within a broad process type. For
example, the chamber cleaning process
type includes in-situ plasma chamber
cleaning, remote plasma chamber
cleaning, and in-situ thermal chamber
cleaning sub-types.
Process types are broad groups of
manufacturing steps used at a facility
associated with substrate (e.g., wafer)
processing during device manufacture
for which fluorinated GHG emissions
and fluorinated GHG usages are
calculated and reported. The process
types are Plasma etching, Chamber
cleaning, and Wafer cleaning.
Properly measured destruction or
removal efficiency means destruction or
removal efficiencies measured in
accordance with EPA 430–R–10–003
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7).
The Random Sampling Abatement
System Testing Program (RSASTP)
means the required frequency for
measuring the destruction or removal
efficiencies of abatement systems in
order to apply properly measured
destruction or removal efficiencies to
report controlled emissions.
Redundant abatement systems means
a system that is specifically designed,
installed and operated for the purpose
of destroying fluorinated GHGs and N2O
gases. A redundant abatement system is
used as a backup to the main fluorinated
GHGs and N2O abatement system during
those times when the main system is not
functioning or operating in accordance
with design and operating
specifications.
Repeatable means that the variables
used in the formulas for the facility’s
engineering model for gas apportioning
factors are based on observable and
measurable quantities that govern gas
consumption rather than engineering
judgment about those quantities or gas
consumption.
Similar, with respect to recipes,
means those recipes that are composed
of the same set of chemicals and have
the same flow stabilization times and
where the documented differences,
considered separately, in reactor
pressure, individual gas flow rates, and
applied radio frequency (RF) power are
less than or equal to plus or minus 10
percent. For purposes of comparing and
documenting recipes that are similar,
facilities may use either the best known
method provided by an equipment
manufacturer or the process of record,
for which emission factors for either
have been measured.
Trigger point for change out means
the residual weight or pressure of a gas
container type that a facility uses to
change out that gas container.
Uptime means the ratio of the total
time during which the abatement
system is in an operational mode with
fluorinated GHGs or N2O flowing
through production process tool(s)
connected to that abatement system, to
the total time during which fluorinated
GHGs or N2O are flowing through
production process tool(s) connected to
that abatement system.
Wafer cleaning is a process type that
consists of any production process using
fluorinated GHG reagents to clean
wafers at any step during production.
Wafer passes is a count of the number
of times a wafer substrate is processed
in a specific process recipe, sub-type, or
type. The total number of wafer passes
over a reporting year is the number of
wafer passes per tool multiplied by the
number of operational process tools in
use during the reporting year.
Wafer starts means the number of
fresh wafers that are introduced into the
fabrication sequence each month. It
includes test wafers, which means
wafers that are exposed to all of the
conditions of process characterization,
including but not limited to actual etch
conditions or actual film deposition
conditions.
TABLE I–1 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS FOR THRESHOLD APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
Emission factors EFi
Product type
CF4
Semiconductors (kg/m2) ..................................................
LCD (g/m2) .......................................................................
MEMS (kg/m2) .................................................................
C2F6
0.90
0.50
NA
CHF3
1.00
NA
NA
C3F8
0.04
NA
NA
NF3
0.05
NA
NA
SF6
0.04
0.90
NA
0.20
4.00
1.02
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
TABLE I–2 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—EXAMPLES OF FLUORINATED GHGS USED BY THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY
Product type
Fluorinated GHGs used during manufacture
Electronics ............
CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, c-C4F8O, C4F6, C5F8, CHF3, CH2F2, NF3, SF6, and HTFs (CF3-(O–CF(CF3)-CF2)n-(O–CF2)m-O–
CF3, CnF2n∂2, CnF2n∂1(O)CmF2m∂1, CnF2nO, (CnF2n∂1)3N).
TABLE I–3 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 150MM AND 200 MM WAFER SIZES
Process gas i
Process type/Sub-type
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
CF4
C2F6
CHF3
CH2F2
C3F8
c-C4F8
NF3
SF6
C4F6
C5F8
C4F8O
Plasma Etching
1–Ui ..................................................
BCF4 .................................................
BC2F6 ...............................................
BC3F8 ...............................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
0.69
NA
NA
NA
PO 00000
0.56
0.23
NA
NA
0.38
0.026
NA
NA
Frm 00057
0.093
0.021
NA
NA
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.25
0.19
0.084
NA
0.038
0.0040
NA
NA
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
0.20
NA
NA
NA
01DER2
0.14
0.13
0.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
74830
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE I–3 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 150MM AND 200 MM WAFER
SIZES—Continued
Process gas i
Process type/Sub-type
CF4
C2F6
CHF3
CH2F2
C3F8
c-C4F8
NF3
SF6
C4F6
C5F8
C4F8O
Chamber Cleaning
In situ plasma cleaning:
1–Ui ...........................................
BCF4 ..........................................
BC2F6 ........................................
BC3F8 ........................................
Remote plasma cleaning:
1–Ui ...........................................
BCF4 ..........................................
BC2F6 ........................................
BC3F8 ........................................
In situ thermal cleaning:
1–Ui ...........................................
BCF4 ..........................................
BC2F6 ........................................
BC3F8 ........................................
0.92
NA
NA
NA
0.55
0.19
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.40
0.20
NA
NA
0.10
0.11
NA
NA
0.18
0.011
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.14
0.13
0.030
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.018
0.0047
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.23
NA
NA
NA
0.20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Wafer Cleaning
1–Ui ..................................................
BCF4 .................................................
BC2F6 ...............................................
BC3F8 ...............................................
0.77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.24
NA
NA
NA
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
TABLE I–4 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98–DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 300 MM WAFER SIZE
Process gas i
Process type/sub-type
CF4
C2F6
CHF3
CH2F2
C3F8
c-C4F8
NF3
SF6
C4F6
C5F8
C4F8O
Plasma Etching
1–Ui ..................................................
BCF4 .................................................
BC2F6 ...............................................
BC3F8 ...............................................
0.80
NA
NA
NA
0.80
NA
NA
NA
0.48
0.0018
0.0011
NA
0.14
0.0011
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.29
0.079
0.12
NA
0.32
NA
NA
NA
0.37
NA
NA
NA
0.09
0.27
0.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chamber Cleaning
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
In situ plasma cleaning:
1–Ui ...........................................
BCF4 ..........................................
BC2F6 ........................................
BC3F8 ........................................
Remote Plasma Cleaning:
1–Ui ...........................................
BCF4 ..........................................
BC2F6 ........................................
BC3F8 ........................................
In Situ Thermal Cleaning:
1–Ui ...........................................
BCF4 ..........................................
BC2F6 ........................................
BC3F8 ........................................
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.23
0.0046
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.063
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.018
0.040
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.28
0.010
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.23
NA
NA
NA
0.20
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Wafer Cleaning
1–Ui ..................................................
BCF4 .................................................
BC2F6 ...............................................
BC3F8 ...............................................
0.77
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.24
NA
NA
NA
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74831
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE I–5 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR MEMS MANUFACTURING
Process gas i
Process type factors
CF4
Etch 1–Ui ..........................
Etch BCF4 ........................
Etch BC2F6 .......................
CVD 1–Ui .........................
CVD BCF4 ........................
CVD BC3F8 .......................
C2F6
0.7
NA
NA
0.9
NA
NA
CHF3
CH2F2
1 0.4
1 0.4
1 0.06
1 0.4
1 0.07
1 0.08
NA
0.6
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
C3F8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4
0.1
NA
c-C4F8
1 0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
NA
NF3
Remote
NA
NA
NA
0.02
2 0.02
NA
SF6
NF3
0.2
NA
NA
0.2
2 0.1
NA
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
C4F6a
0.1
1 0.3
1 0.2
NA
NA
NA
C5F8a
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
NA
C4F8Oa
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.1
0.4
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
1 Estimate includes multi-gas etch processes.
2 Estimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch processes that may contain a C-containing fluorinated GHG additive.
TABLE I–6 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR LCD MANUFACTURING
Process Gas i
Process type factors
CF4
Etch 1–Ui ..........................................................................
Etch BCF4 ........................................................................
Etch BCHF3 ......................................................................
Etch BC2F6 .......................................................................
CVD 1–Ui .........................................................................
C2F6
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CHF3
0.2
0.07
NA
0.05
NA
CH2F2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
C3F8
c-C4F8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.009
0.02
NA
NA
NF3
Remote
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.03
NF3
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
SF6
0.3
NA
NA
NA
0.9
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
TABLE I–7 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR PV MANUFACTURING
Process Gas i
Process type factors
CF4
Etch 1–Ui ........................................................................
Etch BCF4 ......................................................................
Etch BC2F6 .....................................................................
CVD 1–Ui .......................................................................
CVD BCF4 ......................................................................
C2F6
0.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
CHF3
0.4
0.2
NA
0.6
0.2
CH2F2
0.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
C3F8
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.2
c-C4F8
NF3
Remote
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NF3
NA
NA
NA
0.3
NA
SF6
0.4
NA
NA
0.4
NA
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
TABLE I–8 TO SUBPART I OF PART
98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS
(1–UN2O j) FOR N2O UTILIZATION
(UN2O j)
Process type factors
N2O
CVD 1–Ui ..............................................
Other Manufacturing Process 1–Ui ......
■
9. Add subpart L to read as follows:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Subpart L—Fluorinated Gas
Production
Sec.
98.120 Definition of the source category.
98.121 Reporting threshold.
98.122 GHGs to report.
98.123 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
0.8
1.0
98.125 Procedures for estimating missing
data.
98.126 Data reporting requirements.
98.127 Records that must be retained.
98.128 Definitions.
Subpart L—Fluorinated Gas
Production
§ 98.120
Definition of the source category.
(a) The fluorinated gas production
source category consists of processes
that produce a fluorinated gas from any
raw material or feedstock chemical,
except for processes that generate HFC–
23 during the production of HCFC–22.
(b) To produce a fluorinated gas
means to manufacture a fluorinated gas
from any raw material or feedstock
chemical. Producing a fluorinated gas
includes producing a fluorinated GHG
as defined at § 98.410(b). Producing a
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
fluorinated gas also includes the
manufacture of a chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC) or hydrochlorofluorocarbon
(HCFC) from any raw material or
feedstock chemical, including
manufacture of a CFC or HCFC as an
isolated intermediate for use in a
process that will result in the
transformation of the CFC or HCFC
either at or outside of the production
facility. Producing a fluorinated gas
does not include the reuse or recycling
of a fluorinated gas, the creation of
HFC–23 during the production of
HCFC–22, the creation of intermediates
that are created and transformed in a
single process with no storage of the
intermediates, or the creation of
fluorinated GHGs that are released or
destroyed at the production facility
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
74832
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Error calculation. To perform the
calculation, you must first calculate the
absolute and relative errors associated
with the quantities calculated using
either Equations L–7 through L–10 of
this section or Equation L–17 of this
section. Alternatively, you may estimate
these errors based on the variability of
previous process measurements (e.g.,
the variability of measurements of
stream concentrations), provided these
measurements are representative of the
current process and current
measurement devices and techniques.
Once errors have been calculated for the
quantities in these equations, those
errors must be used to calculate the
errors in Equations L–6 and L–5 of this
section. You may ignore the errors
associated with Equations L–11, L–12,
and L–13 of this section.
(i) Where the measured quantity is a
mass, the error in the mass must be
equated to the accuracy or precision
(whichever is larger) of the flowmeter,
scale, or combination of volumetric and
density measurements at the flow rate or
mass measured.
(ii) Where the measured quantity is a
concentration of a stream component,
the error of the concentration must be
equated to the accuracy or precision
(whichever is larger) with which you
estimate the mean concentration of that
stream component, accounting for the
variability of the process, the frequency
of the measurements, and the accuracy
or precision (whichever is larger) of the
analytical technique used to measure
the concentration at the concentration
measured. If the variability of process
measurements is used to estimate the
error, this variability shall be assumed
to account both for the variability of the
process and the precision of the
analytical technique. Use standard
statistical techniques such as the
student’s t distribution to estimate the
error of the mean of the concentration
measurements as a function of process
variability and frequency of
measurement.
(iii) Equation L–1 of this section
provides the general formula for
calculating the absolute errors of sums
and differences where the sum, S, is the
summation of variables measured, a, b,
c, etc. (e.g., S = a + b + c):
Where:
eSA = Absolute error of the sum, expressed
as one half of a 95 percent confidence
interval.
ea = Relative error of a, expressed as one half
of a 95 percent confidence interval.
eb = Relative error of b, expressed as one half
of a 95 percent confidence interval.
ec = Relative error of c, expressed as one half
of a 95 percent confidence interval.
§ 98.121
Reporting threshold.
You must report GHG emissions
under this subpart if your facility
contains a fluorinated gas production
process that generates or emits
fluorinated GHG and the facility meets
the requirements of either § 98.2(a)(1) or
(a)(2). To calculate GHG emissions for
comparison to the 25,000 metric ton
CO2e per year emission threshold in
§ 98.2(a)(2), calculate process emissions
from fluorinated gas production using
uncontrolled GHG emissions.
§ 98.122
GHGs to report.
(a) You must report CO2, CH4, and
N2O combustion emissions from each
stationary combustion unit. You must
calculate and report these emissions
under subpart C of this part (General
Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by
following the requirements of subpart C.
(b) You must report under subpart O
of this part (HCFC–22 Production and
HFC–23 Destruction) the emissions of
HFC–23 from HCFC–22 production
processes and HFC–23 destruction
processes. Do not report the generation
and emissions of HFC–23 from HCFC–
22 production under this subpart.
(c) You must report the total mass of
each fluorinated GHG emitted from:
(1) Each fluorinated gas production
process and all fluorinated gas
production processes combined.
(2) Each fluorinated gas
transformation process that is not part of
a fluorinated gas production process
and all such fluorinated gas
transformation processes combined,
except report separately fluorinated
GHG emissions from transformation
processes where a fluorinated GHG
reactant is produced at another facility.
(3) Each fluorinated gas destruction
process that is not part of a fluorinated
gas production process or a fluorinated
gas transformation process and all such
fluorinated gas destruction processes
combined.
(4) Venting of residual fluorinated
GHGs from containers returned from the
field.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
§ 98.123
Calculating GHG emissions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.019
For fluorinated gas production and
transformation processes, you must
calculate the fluorinated GHG emissions
from each process using either the mass
balance method specified in paragraph
(b) of this section or the emission factor
or emission calculation factor method
specified in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e)
of this section, as appropriate. For
destruction processes that destroy
fluorinated GHGs that were previously
‘‘produced’’ as defined at § 98.410(b),
you must calculate emissions using the
procedures in paragraph (f) of this
section. For venting of residual gas from
containers (e.g., cylinder heels), you
must calculate emissions using the
procedures in paragraph (g) of this
section.
(a) Default GWP value. In paragraphs
(b)(1) and (c)(1) of this section and in
§ 98.124(b)(8) and (c)(2), use a GWP of
2,000 for fluorinated GHGs that do not
have GWPs listed in Table A–1 to
subpart A of this part, except as
provided in paragraph § 98.123(c)(1)(vi).
Do not report CO2e emissions under
§ 98.3(c)(4) for fluorinated GHGs that do
not have GWPs listed in Table A–1 to
subpart A of this part.
(b) Mass balance method. Before
using the mass balance approach to
estimate your fluorinated GHG
emissions from a process, you must
ensure that the process and the
equipment and methods used to
measure it meet either the error limits
described in this paragraph and
calculated under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section or the requirements specified in
paragraph § 98.124(b)(8). If you choose
to calculate the error limits, you must
estimate the absolute and relative errors
associated with using the mass balance
approach on that process using
Equations L–1 through L–4 of this
section in conjunction with Equations
L–5 through L–10 of this section. You
may use the mass-balance approach to
estimate emissions from the process if
this calculation results in an absolute
error of less than or equal to 3,000
metric tons CO2e per year or a relative
error of less than or equal to 30 percent
of the estimated CO2e fluorinated GHG
emissions. If you do not meet either of
the error limits or the requirements of
paragraph § 98.124(b)(8), you must use
the emission factor approach detailed in
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this
section to estimate emissions from the
process.
before the production measurement in
§ 98.414(a).
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Where:
ePA = Absolute error of the product,
expressed as one half of a 95 percent
confidence interval.
ea = Relative error of a, expressed as one half
of a 95 percent confidence interval.
eb = Relative error of b, expressed as one half
of a 95 percent confidence interval.
ec = Relative error of c, expressed as one half
of a 95 percent confidence interval.
(vi) Equation L–4 of this section
provides the general formula for
calculating the relative errors of
products:
Where:
ePR = Relative error of the product, expressed
as one half of a 95 percent confidence
interval.
ePA = Absolute error of the product,
expressed as one half of a 95 percent
confidence interval.
a*b*c = Product of the variables measured.
(vii) Calculate the absolute error of the
emissions estimate in terms of CO2e by
performing a preliminary estimate of the
annual CO2e emissions of the process
using the method in paragraph
(b)(1)(viii) of this section. Multiply this
result by the relative error calculated for
the mass of fluorine emitted from the
process in Equation L–6 of this section.
(viii) To estimate the annual CO2e
emissions of the process for use in the
error estimate, apply the methods set
forth in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(7)
and (b)(9) through (b)(16) of this section
to representative process measurements.
If these process measurements represent
less than one year of typical process
activity, adjust the estimated emissions
to account for one year of typical
process activity. To estimate the terms
FERd, FEP, and FEBk for use in the error
estimate for Equations L–11, L–12, and
L–13 of this section, you must either use
emission testing, monitoring of emitted
streams, and/or engineering calculations
or assessments, or in the alternative
assume that all fluorine is emitted in the
form of the fluorinated GHG that has the
highest GWP among the fluorinated
GHGs that occur in more than trace
concentrations in the process. To
convert the fluorinated GHG emissions
to CO2e, use Equation A–1 of § 98.2. For
fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not
listed in Table A–1 to subpart A of this
part, use a default GWP of 2,000.
(2) The total mass of each fluorinated
GHG emitted annually from each
fluorinated gas production and each
fluorinated GHG transformation process
must be estimated by using Equation L–
5 of this section.
(3) The total mass of fluorine emitted
from process i over the period p must
be estimated at least monthly by
calculating the difference between the
total mass of fluorine in the reactant(s)
(or inputs, for processes that do not
involve a chemical reaction) and the
total mass of fluorine in the product (or
outputs, for processes that do not
involve a chemical reaction), accounting
for the total mass of fluorine in any
destroyed or recaptured streams that
contain reactants, products, or byproducts (or inputs or outputs). This
calculation must be performed using
Equation L–6 of this section. An
element other than fluorine may be used
in the mass-balance equation, provided
the element occurs in all of the
fluorinated GHGs fed into or generated
by the process. In this case, the mass
fractions of the element in the reactants,
products, and by-products must be
calculated as appropriate for that
element.
Where:
EF = Total mass of fluorine emitted from
process i over the period p (metric tons).
Rd = Total mass of the fluorine-containing
reactant d that is fed into process i over
the period p (metric tons).
P = Total mass of the fluorine-containing
product produced by process i over the
period p (metric tons).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.021
ER01DE10.022
process i over the period p (metric tons,
calculated in Equation L–13 of this
section).
n = Number of concentration and flow
measurement periods for the year.
ER01DE10.020
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Where:
EFGHGf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG
f emitted annually from production or
transformation process i (metric tons).
ERp-FGHGf = Total mass of fluorinated GHG
reactant f emitted from production
process i over the period p (metric tons,
calculated in Equation L–11 of this
section).
EPp-FGHGf = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG
product f emitted from production
process i over the period p (metric tons,
calculated in Equation L–12 of this
section).
EBp-FGHGf = Total mass of fluorinated GHG
by-product f emitted from production
ER01DE10.024
(v) Equation L–3 of this section
provides the general formula for
Where:
calculating the absolute errors of
products (e.g., flow rates of GHGs
calculated as the product of the flow
rate of the stream and the concentration
of the GHG in the stream), where the
product, P, is the result of multiplying
the variables measured, a, b, c, etc. (e.g.,
P = a*b*c):
ER01DE10.023
eSR = Relative error of the sum, expressed as
one half of a 95 percent confidence
interval.
eSA = Absolute error of the sum, expressed
as one half of a 95 percent confidence
interval.
a+b+c = Sum of the variables measured.
(iv) Equation L–2 of this section
provides the general formula for
calculating the relative errors of sums
and differences:
74833
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Rdj = Mass of fluorine-containing reactant d
removed from process i in stream j and
destroyed over the period p (calculated
in Equation L–8 or L–9 of this section).
MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant
d, calculated in Equation L–14 of this
section.
MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the
product, calculated in Equation L–15 of
this section.
MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in byproduct k, calculated in Equation L–16
of this section.
q = Number of streams destroyed in process
i.
x = Number of streams recaptured in process
i.
Where:
MFGHGfj = Mass of fluorinated GHG f removed
from process i in stream j and destroyed
over the period p. (This may be Pj, Bkj,
or Rdj, as applicable.)
DEFGHGf = Destruction efficiency of the
device that has been demonstrated for
fluorinated GHG f in stream j (fraction).
CFGHGfj = Concentration (mass fraction) of
fluorinated GHG f in stream j removed
from process i and fed into the
destruction device over the period p. If
this concentration is only a trace
concentration, cF–GHGfj is equal to zero.
Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process
i and fed into the destruction device over
the period p (metric tons).
period p. If this concentration is only a
trace concentration, cFCgj is equal to zero.
Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process
i and fed into the destruction device over
the period p (metric tons).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
(6) The mass of each fluorinecontaining compound that is not a
fluorinated GHG and that is removed
from process i in stream j and destroyed
over the period p (i.e., Pj, Bkj, or Rdj, as
applicable) must be estimated using
Equation L–9 of this section.
Where:
MFCgj = Mass of non-GHG fluorine-containing
compound g removed from process i in
stream j and destroyed over the period p.
(This may be Pj, Bkj, or Rdj, as
applicable).
cFCgj = Concentration (mass fraction) of nonGHG fluorine-containing compound g in
stream j removed from process i and fed
into the destruction device over the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
(7) The mass of fluorine-containing
by-product k removed from process i in
stream l and recaptured over the period
p must be estimated using Equation L–
10 of this section:
Where:
Bkl = Mass of fluorine-containing by-product
k removed from process i in stream l and
recaptured over the period p (metric
tons).
cBkl = Concentration (mass fraction) of
fluorine-containing by-product k in
stream l removed from process i and
recaptured over the period p. If this
concentration is only a trace
concentration, cBkl is equal to zero.
Sl = Mass removed in stream l from process
i and recaptured over the period p
(metric tons).
(8) To estimate the terms FERd, FEP,
and FEBk for Equations L–11, L–12, and
L–13 of this section, you must assume
that the total mass of fluorine emitted,
EF, estimated in Equation L–6 of this
section, occurs in the form of the
fluorinated GHG that has the highest
GWP among the fluorinated GHGs that
occur in more than trace concentrations
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
u = Number of fluorine-containing byproducts generated in process i.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants
fed into process i.
(5) The mass of each fluorinated GHG
removed from process i in stream j and
destroyed over the period p (i.e., Pj, Bkj,
or Rdj, as applicable) must be estimated
by applying the destruction efficiency of
the device that has been demonstrated
for the fluorinated GHG f to fluorinated
GHG f using Equation L–8 of this
section:
in the process unless you possess
emission characterization measurements
showing otherwise. These emission
characterization measurements must
meet the requirements in paragraph
(8)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, as
appropriate. The sum of the terms must
equal 1. You must document the data
and calculations that are used to
speciate individual compounds and to
estimate FERd, FEP, and FEBk. Exclude
from your calculations the fluorine
included in FD. For example, exclude
fluorine-containing compounds that are
not fluorinated GHGs and that result
from the destruction of fluorinated
GHGs by any destruction devices (e.g.,
the mass of HF created by combustion
of an HFC). However, include emissions
of fluorinated GHGs that survive the
destruction process.
(i) If the calculations under paragraph
(b)(1)(viii) of this section, or any
subsequent measurements and
calculations under this subpart, indicate
that the process emits 25,000 metric
tons CO2e or more, estimate the
emissions from each process vent,
considering controls, using the methods
in § 98.123(c)(1). You must characterize
the emissions of any process vent that
emits 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more
as specified in § 98.124(b)(4).
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.028
Where:
FD = Total mass of fluorine in destroyed or
recaptured streams from process i
containing fluorine-containing reactants,
products, and by-products over the
period p.
Pj = Mass of the fluorine-containing product
removed from process i in stream j and
destroyed over the period p (calculated
in Equation L–8 or L–9 of this section).
Bkj = Mass of fluorine-containing by-product
k removed from process i in stream j and
destroyed over the period p (calculated
in Equation L–8 or L–9 of this section).
Bkl = Mass of fluorine-containing by-product
k removed from process i in stream l and
recaptured over the period p.
(4) The mass of total fluorine in
destroyed or recaptured streams
containing fluorine-containing
reactants, products, and by-products
must be estimated at least monthly
using Equation L–7 of this section
unless you use the alternative approach
provided in paragraph (b)(15) of this
section.
ER01DE10.027
containing fluorine-containing reactants,
products, and by-products over the
period p, calculated in Equation L–7 of
this section.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants
fed into process i.
ER01DE10.026
MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant
d, calculated in Equation L–14 of this
section.
MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the
product, calculated in Equation L–15 of
this section.
FD = Total mass of fluorine in destroyed or
recaptured streams from process i
ER01DE10.025
74834
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
74835
must characterize emissions as specified
in § 98.124(b)(6).
(9) The total mass of fluorinecontaining reactant d emitted must be
estimated at least monthly based on the
total fluorine emitted and the fraction
that consists of fluorine-containing
reactants using Equation L–11 of this
section. If the fluorine-containing
reactant d is a non-GHG, you may
assume that FERd is zero.
Where:
ER-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing
reactant d that is emitted from process i
over the period p (metric tons).
FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that
consists of the fluorine-containing
reactant d.
EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from
process i over the period p (metric tons),
calculated in Equation L–6 of this
section.
FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that
consists of the fluorine-containing
product.
FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that
consists of fluorine-containing byproduct k.
MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant
d, calculated in Equation L–14 of this
section.
MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the
product, calculated in Equation L–15 of
this section.
MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in byproduct k, calculation in Equation L–16
of this section.
u = Number of fluorine-containing byproducts generated in process i.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants
fed into process i.
Where:
EP-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing
product emitted from process i over the
period p (metric tons).
FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that
consists of the fluorine-containing
product.
EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from
process i over the period p (metric tons),
calculated in Equation L–6 of this
section.
FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that
consists of fluorine-containing reactant
d.
FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that
consists of fluorine-containing byproduct k.
MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant
d, calculated in Equation L–14 of this
section.
MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the
product, calculated in Equation L–15 of
this section.
MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in byproduct k, calculation in Equation L–16
of this section.
u = Number of fluorine-containing byproducts generated in process i.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants
fed into process i.
Where:
EBk-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing byproduct k emitted from process i over the
period p (metric tons).
FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that
consists of fluorine-containing byproduct k.
FERd = The fraction of the mass emitted that
consists of fluorine-containing reactant
d.
FEP = The fraction of the mass emitted that
consists of the fluorine-containing
product.
EF = Total mass of fluorine emissions from
process i over the period p (metric tons),
calculated in Equation L–6 of this
section.
MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant
d, calculated in Equation L–14 of this
section.
MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the
product, calculated in Equation L–15 of
this section.
MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in byproduct k, calculation in Equation L–16
of this section.
u = Number of fluorine-containing byproducts generated in process i.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants
fed into process i.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(10) The total mass of fluorinecontaining product emitted must be
estimated at least monthly based on the
total fluorine emitted and the fraction
that consists of fluorine-containing
products using Equation L–12 of this
section. If the fluorine-containing
product is a non-GHG, you may assume
that FEP is zero.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.030
(12) The mass fraction of fluorine in
reactant d must be estimated using
Equation L–14 of this section:
ER01DE10.031
(11) The total mass of fluorinecontaining by-product k emitted must
be estimated at least monthly based on
the total fluorine emitted and the
fraction that consists of fluorinecontaining by-products using Equation
L–13 of this section. If fluorinecontaining by-product k is a non-GHG,
you may assume that FEBk is zero.
ER01DE10.029
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
(ii) For other vents, including vents
from processes that emit less than
25,000 metric tons CO2e, you must
characterize emissions as specified in
§ 98.124(b)(5).
(iii) For fluorine emissions that are
not accounted for by vent estimates, you
74836
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
MFRd = Moles fluorine per mole of reactant
d.
AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine.
MWRd = Molecular weight of reactant d.
(13) The mass fraction of fluorine in
the product must be estimated using
Equation L–15 of this section:
Where:
MFFP = Mass fraction of fluorine in the
product (fraction).
MFP = Moles fluorine per mole of product.
AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine.
MWP = Molecular weight of the product
produced.
(14) The mass fraction of fluorine in
by-product k must be estimated using
Equation L–16 of this section:
Where:
MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in the
product (fraction).
MFBk = Moles fluorine per mole of byproduct k.
AWF = Atomic weight of fluorine.
MWBk = Molecular weight of by-product k.
(15) Alternative for determining the
mass of fluorine destroyed or
recaptured. As an alternative to using
Equation L–7 of this section as provided
in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, you
may estimate at least monthly the total
mass of fluorine in destroyed or
recaptured streams containing fluorinecontaining compounds (including all
fluorine-containing reactants, products,
and byproducts) using Equation L–17 of
this section.
Where:
FD = Total mass of fluorine in destroyed or
recaptured streams from process i
containing fluorine-containing reactants,
products, and by-products over the
period p.
DEavgj = Weighted average destruction
efficiency of the destruction device for
the fluorine-containing compounds
identified in destroyed stream j under
§ 98.124(b)(4)(ii) and (5)(ii) (calculated in
Equation L–18 of this section)(fraction).
cTFj = Concentration (mass fraction) of total
fluorine in stream j removed from
process i and fed into the destruction
device over the period p. If this
concentration is only a trace
concentration, cTFj is equal to zero.
Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process
i and fed into the destruction device over
the period p (metric tons).
cTFl = Concentration (mass fraction) of total
fluorine in stream l removed from
process i and recaptured over the period
p. If this concentration is only a trace
concentration, cBkl is equal to zero.
Sl = Mass removed in stream l from process
i and recaptured over the period p.
q = Number of streams destroyed in process
i.
x = Number of streams recaptured in process
i.
Where:
DEavgj = Weighted average destruction
efficiency of the destruction device for
the fluorine-containing compounds
identified in destroyed stream j under
98.124(b)(4)(ii) or (b)(5)(ii), as
appropriate.
DEFGHGf = Destruction efficiency of the
device that has been demonstrated for
fluorinated GHG f in stream j (fraction).
cFGHGfj = Concentration (mass fraction) of
fluorinated GHG f in stream j removed
from process i and fed into the
destruction device over the period p. If
this concentration is only a trace
concentration, cF–GHGfj is equal to zero.
cFCgj = Concentration (mass fraction) of nonGHG fluorine-containing compound g in
stream j removed from process i and fed
into the destruction device over the
period p. If this concentration is only a
trace concentration, cFCgj is equal to zero.
Sj = Mass removed in stream j from process
i and fed into the destruction device over
the period p (metric tons).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.034
ER01DE10.033
ER01DE10.032
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
ER01DE10.035
(16) Weighted average destruction
efficiency. For purposes of Equation L–
17 of this section, calculate the
weighted average destruction efficiency
applicable to a destroyed stream using
Equation L–18 of this section.
ER01DE10.036
Where:
MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant
d (fraction).
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
MFFFGHGf = Mass fraction of fluorine in
fluorinated GHG f, calculated in
Equation L–14, L–15, or L–16 of this
section, as appropriate.
MFFFCg = Mass fraction of fluorine in nonGHG fluorine-containing compound g,
calculated in Equation L–14, L–15, or L–
16 of this section, as appropriate.
w = Number of fluorinated GHGs in
destroyed stream j.
y = Number of non-GHG fluorine-containing
compounds in destroyed stream j.
(c) Emission factor and emission
calculation factor methods. To use the
method in this paragraph for batch
processes, you must comply with either
paragraph (c)(3) of this section
(Emission Factor approach) or
paragraph (c)(4) of this section
(Emission Calculation Factor approach).
To use the method in this paragraph for
continuous processes, you must first
make a preliminary estimate of the
emissions from each individual
continuous process vent under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section. If your
continuous process operates under
different conditions as part of normal
operations, you must also define the
different operating scenarios and make
a preliminary estimate of the emissions
from the vent for each operating
scenario. Then, compare the
preliminary estimate for each
continuous process vent (summed
across operating scenarios) to the
criteria in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section to determine whether the
process vent meets the criteria for using
the emission factor method described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section or
whether the process vent meets the
criteria for using the emission
calculation factor method described in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section. For
continuous process vents that meet the
criteria for using the emission factor
method described in paragraph (c)(3) of
this section and that have more than one
operating scenario, compare the
preliminary estimate for each operating
scenario to the criteria in (c)(3)(ii) to
determine whether an emission factor
must be developed for that operating
scenario.
(1) Preliminary estimate of emissions
by process vent. You must estimate the
annual CO2e emissions of fluorinated
GHGs for each process vent within each
operating scenario of a continuous
process using the approaches specified
in paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii) of this
section, accounting for any destruction
as specified in paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of
this section. You must determine
emissions of fluorinated GHGs by
process vent by using measurements, by
using calculations based on chemical
engineering principles and chemical
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
property data, or by conducting an
engineering assessment. You may use
previous measurements, calculations,
and assessments if they represent
current process operating conditions or
process operating conditions that would
result in higher fluorinated GHG
emissions than the current operating
conditions and if they were performed
in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(i),
(c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii) of this section, as
applicable. You must document all data,
assumptions, and procedures used in
the calculations or engineering
assessment and keep a record of the
emissions determination as required by
§ 98.127(a).
(i) Engineering calculations. For
process vent emission calculations, you
may use any of paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A),
(c)(1)(i)(B), or (c)(1)(i)(C) of this section.
(A) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Emission Inventory
Improvement Program, Volume II:
Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air
Emissions from Chemical
Manufacturing Facilities, August 2007,
Final (incorporated by reference, see
§ 98.7).
(B) You may determine the
fluorinated GHG emissions from any
process vent within the process using
the procedures specified in
§ 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (d)(3)(i)(B) of this
chapter, except as specified in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(B)(1) through
(c)(1)(i)(B)(4) of this section. For the
purposes of this subpart, use of the term
‘‘HAP’’ in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i) and
(d)(3)(i)(B) of this chapter means
‘‘fluorinated GHG’’.
(1) To calculate emissions caused by
the heating of a vessel without a process
condenser to a temperature lower than
the boiling point, you must use the
procedures in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3) of
this chapter.
(2) To calculate emissions from
depressurization of a vessel without a
process condenser, you must use the
procedures in § 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(D)(10)
of this chapter.
(3) To calculate emissions from
vacuum systems, the terms used in
Equation 33 to § 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(E) of
this chapter are defined as follows:
(i) Psystem = Absolute pressure of the
receiving vessel.
(ii) Pi= Partial pressure of the
fluorinated GHG determined at the exit
temperature and exit pressure
conditions of the condenser or at the
conditions of the dedicated receiver.
(iii) Pj= Partial pressure of
condensables (including fluorinated
GHG) determined at the exit
temperature and exit pressure
conditions of the condenser or at the
conditions of the dedicated receiver.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74837
(iv) MWFluorinated GHG= Molecular
weight of the fluorinated GHG
determined at the exit temperature and
exit pressure conditions of the
condenser or at the conditions of the
dedicated receiver.
(4) To calculate emissions when a
vessel is equipped with a process
condenser or a control condenser, you
must use the procedures in
§ 63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B) of this chapter,
except as follows:
(i) You must determine the flowrate of
gas (or volume of gas), partial pressures
of condensables, temperature (T), and
fluorinated GHG molecular weight
(MWFluorinated GHG) at the exit
temperature and exit pressure
conditions of the condenser or at the
conditions of the dedicated receiver.
(ii) You must assume that all of the
components contained in the condenser
exit vent stream are in equilibrium with
the same components in the exit
condensate stream (except for
noncondensables).
(iii) You must perform a material
balance for each component, if the
condensate receiver composition is not
known.
(iv) For the emissions from gas
evolution, the term for time, t, must be
used in Equation 12 to
§ 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
(v) Emissions from empty vessel
purging must be calculated using
Equation 36 to § 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(H) of
this chapter and the exit temperature
and exit pressure conditions of the
condenser or the conditions of the
dedicated receiver.
(C) Commercial software products
that follow chemical engineering
principles (e.g., including the
calculation methodologies in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i)(A) and (c)(1)(i)(B) of this
section).
(ii) Engineering assessments. For
process vent emissions determinations,
you may conduct an engineering
assessment to calculate uncontrolled
emissions. An engineering assessment
includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
(A) Previous test results, provided the
tests are representative of current
operating practices of the process.
(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data
representative of the process operating
conditions.
(C) Maximum flow rate, fluorinated
GHG emission rate, concentration, or
other relevant parameters specified or
implied within a permit limit applicable
to the process vent.
(D) Design analysis based on chemical
engineering principles, measureable
process parameters, or physical or
chemical laws or properties.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74838
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(iii) Impact of destruction for the
preliminary estimate. If the process vent
is vented to a destruction device, you
may reflect the impact of the destruction
device on emissions. In your emissions
estimate, account for the following:
(A) The destruction efficiencies of the
device that have been demonstrated for
the fluorinated GHGs in the vent stream
for periods when the process vent is
vented to the destruction device.
(B) Any periods when the process
vent is not vented to the destruction
device.
(iv) Use of typical recent values. In the
calculations in paragraphs (c)(1)(i),
(c)(1)(ii), and (c)(1)(iii) of this section,
the values used for the expected process
activity and for the expected fraction of
that activity whose emissions will be
vented to the properly functioning
destruction device must be based on
either typical recent values for the
process or values that would
overestimate emissions from the
process, unless there is a compelling
reason to adopt a different value (e.g.,
installation of a destruction device for a
previously uncontrolled process). If
there is such a reason, it must be
documented in the GHG Monitoring
Plan.
(v) GWPs. To convert the fluorinated
GHG emissions to CO2e, use Equation
A–1 of § 98.2. For fluorinated GHGs
whose GWPs are not listed in Table A–
1 to subpart A of this part, use a default
GWP of 2,000 unless you submit a
request to use other GWPs for those
fluorinated GHGs in that process under
paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section and
we approve that request.
(vi) Request to use a GWP other than
2,000 for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs
are not listed in Table A–1 to subpart A
of this part. If your process vent emits
one or more fluorinated GHGs whose
GWPs are not listed in Table A–1 to
subpart A of this part, that are emitted
in quantities that, with a default GWP
of 2,000, result in total calculated
annual emissions equal to or greater
than 10,000 metric tons CO2e for the
vent, and that you believe have GWPs
that would result in total calculated
annual emissions less than 10,000
metric tons CO2e for the vent, you may
submit a request to use provisional
GWPs for these fluorinated GHGs for
purposes of the calculations in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The
request must be submitted by February
28, 2011 for a completeness
determination and review by EPA.
(A) Contents of the request. You must
include the following information in the
request for each fluorinated GHG that
does not have a GWP listed in Table A–
1 to subpart A of this part and that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
constitutes more than one percent by
mass of the stream emitted from the
vent:
(1) The identity of the fluorinated
GHG, including its chemical formula
and, if available, CAS number.
(2) The estimated GWP of the
fluorinated GHG.
(3) The data and analysis that
supports your estimate of the GWP of
the fluorinated GHG, including:
(i) Data and analysis related to the
low-pressure gas phase infrared
absorption spectrum of the fluorinated
GHG.
(ii) Data and analysis related to the
estimated atmospheric lifetime of the
fluorinated GHG (reaction mechanisms
and rates, including e.g., photolysis and
reaction with atmospheric components
such as OH, O3, CO, and water).
(iii) The radiative transfer analysis
that integrates the lifetime and infrared
absorption spectrum data to calculate
the GWP.
(iv) Any published or unpublished
studies of the GWP of the gas.
(4) The engineering calculations or
assessments and underlying data that
demonstrate that the process vent is
calculated to emit less than 10,000
metric tons CO2e of this and other
fluorinated GHGs only when the
proposed provisional GWPs, not the
default GWP of 2,000, are used for
fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not
listed in Table A–1 to subpart A of this
part.
(B) Review and completeness
determination by EPA. If EPA makes a
preliminary determination that the
request is complete, that it substantiates
each of the provisional GWPs, and that
it demonstrates that the process vent is
calculated to emit less than 10,000
metric tons CO2e of this and other
fluorinated GHGs only when the
provisional GWPs, not the default GWP
of 2,000, are used for fluorinated GHGs
whose GWPs are not listed in Table A–
1 to subpart A of this part, then EPA
will publish a notice including the data
and analysis submitted under
paragraphs (c)(1)(vi)(A)(1) through
(c)(1)(vi)(A)(3) of this section. If, after
review of public comment on the notice,
EPA finalizes its preliminary
determination, then EPA will permit the
facility to use the provisional GWPs for
the calculations in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section unless and until EPA
determines that one or more of the
provisional GWPs is in error and
provides reasonable notice to the
facility.
(2) Method selection for continuous
process vents.
(i) If the calculations under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, as well as any
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
subsequent measurements and
calculations under this subpart, indicate
that the continuous process vent has
fluorinated GHG emissions of less than
10,000 metric ton CO2e per year,
summed across all operating scenarios,
then you may comply with either
paragraph (c)(3) of this section
(Emission Factor approach) or
paragraph (c)(4) of this section
(Emission Calculation Factor approach).
(ii) If the continuous process vent
does not meet the criteria in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section, then you must
comply with the emission factor method
specified in paragraph (c)(3) (Emission
Factor approach) of this section.
(A) You must conduct emission
testing for process-vent-specific
emission factor development before the
destruction device unless the
calculations you performed under
paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section
indicate that the uncontrolled
fluorinated GHG emissions that occur
during periods when the process vent is
not vented to the properly functioning
destruction device are less than 10,000
metric tons CO2e per year. In this case,
you may conduct emission testing after
the destruction device to develop a
process-vent-specific emission factor. If
you do so, you must develop and apply
an emission calculation factor under
paragraph (c)(4) to estimate emissions
during any periods when the process
vent is not vented to the properly
functioning destruction device.
(B) Regardless of the level of
uncontrolled emissions, the emission
testing for process-vent-specific
emission factor development may be
conducted on the outlet side of a wet
scrubber in place for acid gas reduction,
if one is in place, as long as there is no
appreciable reduction in the fluorinated
GHG.
(3) Process-vent-specific emission
factor method. For each process vent,
conduct an emission test and measure
fluorinated GHG emissions from the
process and measure the process
activity, such as the feed rate,
production rate, or other process
activity rate, during the test as described
in this paragraph (c)(3). Conduct the
emission test according to the
procedures in § 98.124. All emissions
test data and procedures used in
developing emission factors must be
documented according to § 98.127. If
more than one operating scenario
applies to the process that contains the
subject process vent, you must comply
with either paragraph (3)(i) or paragraph
(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) Conduct a separate emissions test
for operation under each operating
scenario.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
74839
which emission testing is performed),
unless the difference between the
operating scenarios is solely due to the
application of a destruction device to
emissions under one of the operating
scenarios. For any other operating
scenarios, adjust the process-vent
specific emission factor developed for
the operating scenario that is expected
to have the largest emissions (or for
another operating scenario for which
emission testing is performed) using the
approach in paragraph (c)(3)(viii) of this
section.
(iii) You must measure the process
activity, such as the process feed rate,
process production rate, or other
process activity rate, as applicable,
during the emission test and calculate
the rate for the test period, in kg (or
another appropriate metric) per hour.
(iv) For continuous processes, you
must calculate the hourly emission rate
of each fluorinated GHG using Equation
L–19 of this section and determine the
hourly emission rate of each fluorinated
GHG per process vent (and per
operating scenario, as applicable) for the
test run.
Where:
EContPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted
from process vent v from process i,
operating scenario j, during the emission
test during test run r (kg/hr).
CPV = Concentration of fluorinated GHG f
during test run r of the emission test
(ppmv).
MW = Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG
f (g/g-mole).
QPV = Flow rate of the process vent stream
during test run r of the emission test (m3/
min).
SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240
m3/g-mole at 68 °F and 1 atm).
1/103 = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000
grams).
60/1 = Conversion factor (60 minutes/1
hour).
each fluorinated GHG for each process
vent and each operating scenario, in kg
of fluorinated GHG per process activity
rate (e.g., kg of feed or production), as
applicable, using Equation L–20 of this
section. For continuous processes,
divide the hourly fluorinated GHG
emission rate during the test by the
hourly process activity rate during the
test runs.
Where:
EFPV = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG
f emitted from process vent v during
process i, operating scenario j (e.g., kg
emitted/kg activity).
EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from process i, operating
scenario j, during the emission test
during test run r, for either continuous
or batch (kg emitted/hr for continuous,
kg emitted/batch for batch).
ActivityEmissionTest = Process feed, process
production, or other process activity rate
for process i, operating scenario j, during
the emission test during test run r (e.g.,
kg product/hr).
r = Number of test runs performed during the
emission test.
Where:
EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from process i, operating
scenario j, for the year (kg).
EFPV–C = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG
f emitted from process vent v during
process i, operating scenario j, based on
testing after the destruction device (kg
emitted/activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg
product).
ActivityC = Total process feed, process
production, or other process activity for
process i, operating scenario j, during the
year for which emissions are vented to
the properly functioning destruction
device (i.e., controlled).
ECFPV–U = Emission calculation factor for
fluorinated GHG f emitted from process
vent v during process i, operating
scenario j during periods when the
process vent is not vented to the
properly functioning destruction device
(kg emitted/activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg
product).
ActivityU = Total process feed, process
production, or other process activity
during the year for which the process
vent is not vented to the properly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
functioning destruction device (e.g., kg
product).
(vii) If you conducted emissions
testing before the destruction device,
apply the destruction efficiencies of the
device that have been demonstrated for
the fluorinated GHGs in the vent stream
to the fluorinated GHG emissions for the
process vent (and operating scenario, as
applicable), using Equation L–22 of this
section. You may apply the destruction
efficiency only to the portion of the
process activity during which emissions
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.039
(vi) If you conducted emissions
testing after the destruction device, you
must calculate the emissions of each
fluorinated GHG for the process vent
(and operating scenario, as applicable)
using Equation L–21 of this section. You
must also develop a process-ventspecific emission calculation factor
based on paragraph (c)(4) of this section
for the periods when the process vent is
not venting to the destruction device.
ER01DE10.038
(v) You must calculate a site-specific,
process-vent-specific emission factor for
ER01DE10.037
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
(ii) Conduct an emissions test for the
operating scenario that is expected to
have the largest emissions in terms of
CO2e (considering both activity levels
and emission calculation factors) on an
annual basis. Also conduct an emissions
test for each additional operating
scenario that is estimated to emit 10,000
metric tons CO2e or more annually from
the vent and whose emission
calculation factor differs by 15 percent
or more from the emission calculation
factor of the operating scenario that is
expected to have the largest emissions
(or of another operating scenario for
74840
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
are vented to the properly functioning
destruction device (i.e., controlled).
Where:
EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vents for process i for the year
(kg).
(4) Process-vent-specific emission
calculation factor method. For each
process vent within an operating
scenario, determine fluorinated GHG
emissions by calculations and
determine the process activity rate, such
as the feed rate, production rate, or
other process activity rate, associated
with the emission rate.
(i) You must calculate uncontrolled
emissions of fluorinated GHG by
individual process vent, EPV, by using
measurements, by using calculations
based on chemical engineering
principles and chemical property data,
or by conducting an engineering
assessment. Use the procedures in
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section,
except paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(C) of this
section. The procedures in paragraphs
Where:
ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for
fluorinated GHG f emitted from process
vent v during process i, operating
scenario j, (e.g., kg emitted/kg product).
EPV = Average mass of fluorinated GHG f
emitted, based on calculations, from
process vent v from process i, operating
scenario j, during the period or batch for
which emissions were calculated, for
either continuous or batch (kg emitted/
hr for continuous, kg emitted/batch for
batch).
ActivityRepresentative = Process feed, process
production, or other process activity rate
corresponding to average mass of
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
(ix) Sum the emissions of each
fluorinated GHG from all process vents
in each operating scenario and all
operating scenarios in the process for
the year to estimate the total process
vent emissions of each fluorinated GHG
from the process, using Equation L–24
of this section.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section may be
applied either to batch process vents or
to continuous process vents. The
uncontrolled emissions must be based
on a typical batch or production rate
under a defined operating scenario. The
process activity rate associated with the
uncontrolled emissions must be
determined. The methods, data, and
assumptions used to estimate emissions
for each operating scenario must be
selected to yield a best estimate
(expected value) of emissions rather
than an over- or underestimate of
emissions for that operating scenario.
All data, assumptions, and procedures
used in the calculations or engineering
assessment must be documented
according to § 98.127.
(ii) You must calculate a site-specific,
process-vent-specific emission
calculation factor for each process vent,
each operating scenario, and each
fluorinated GHG, in kg of fluorinated
GHG per activity rate (e.g., kg of feed or
production) as applicable, using
Equation L–25 of this section.
emissions based on calculations (e.g., kg
product/hr for continuous, kg product/
batch for batch).
(iii) You must calculate emissions of
each fluorinated GHG for the process
vent (and operating scenario, as
applicable) for the year by multiplying
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.043
EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from process i, operating
scenario j, for the year, considering
destruction efficiency (kg).
v = Number of process vents in process i,
operating scenario j.
o = Number of operating scenarios for
process i.
ER01DE10.042
Where:
EFPVadj = Adjusted process-vent-specific
emission factor for an untested operating
scenario.
ECFUT = Emission calculation factor for the
untested operating scenario developed
under paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
ECFT = Emission calculation for the tested
operating scenario developed under
paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
EFPV = Process vent specific emission factor
for the tested operating scenario.
(viii) Adjusted process-vent-specific
emission factors for other operating
scenarios. For process vents from
processes with multiple operating
scenarios, use Equation L–23 of this
section to develop an adjusted processvent-specific emission factor for each
operating scenario from which the vent
is estimated to emit less than 10,000
metric tons CO2e annually or whose
emission calculation factor differs by
less than 15 percent from the emission
calculation factor of the operating
scenario that is expected to have the
largest emissions (or of another
operating scenario for which emission
testing is performed).
ER01DE10.041
vented to the properly functioning
destruction device (e.g., kg product).
ActivityC = Total process feed, process
production, or other process activity for
process i, operating scenario j, during the
year for which the process vent is vented
to the properly functioning destruction
device (e.g., kg product).
DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of
the destruction device (weight fraction).
ER01DE10.040
Where:
EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from process i, operating
scenario j, for the year, considering
destruction efficiency (kg).
EFPV–U = Emission factor (uncontrolled) for
fluorinated GHG f emitted from process
vent v during process i, operating
scenario j (kg emitted/kg product).
ActivityU = Total process feed, process
production, or other process activity for
process i, operating scenario j, during the
year for which the process vent is not
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the process-vent-specific emission
calculation factor by the total process
activity, as applicable, for the year,
using Equation L–26 of this section.
Where:
EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from process i, operating
scenario j, for the year (kg).
ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for
fluorinated GHG f emitted from process
vent v during process i, operating
scenario j, (kg emitted/activity) (e.g., kg
emitted/kg product).
Activity = Process feed, process production,
or other process activity for process i,
operating scenario j, during the year.
(d) Calculate fluorinated GHG
emissions for equipment leaks (EL). If
you comply with paragraph (c) of this
section, you must calculate the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
(ii) Use of Other Approaches in EPA
Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission
Estimates in conjunction with EPA
Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–7. The emissions from equipment
leaks may be calculated using one of the
following methods in EPA–453/R–95–
017 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 98.7): The Screening Ranges
Approach; the EPA Correlation
Approach; or the Unit-Specific
Correlation Approach. If you determine
that EPA Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–7 is appropriate for
monitoring a fluorinated GHG, and if
you calibrate your instrument with a
compound different from one or more of
the fluorinated GHGs or surrogates to be
measured, you must develop response
factors for each fluorinated GHG or for
each surrogate to be measured using
EPA Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A–7. For each fluorinated
GHG or surrogate measured, the
response factor must be less than 10.
The response factor is the ratio of the
known concentration of a fluorinated
GHG or surrogate to the observed meter
reading when measured using an
instrument calibrated with the reference
compound.
(iii) Use of Other Approaches in EPA
Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission
Estimates in conjunction with sitespecific leak monitoring methods. The
emissions from equipment leaks may be
calculated using one of the following
methods in EPA–453/R–95–017
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7):
The Screening Ranges Approach; the
EPA Correlation Approach; or the UnitSpecific Correlation Approach. You may
develop a site-specific leak monitoring
method appropriate for monitoring
fluorinated GHGs or surrogates to use
along with these three approaches. The
site-specific leak monitoring method
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.046
Where:
EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vents for process i for the year
(kg).
EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from process i, operating
scenario j, for the year, considering
destruction efficiency (kg).
v = Number of process vents in process i,
operating scenario j.
o = Number of operating scenarios in process
i.
fluorinated GHG emissions from pieces
of equipment associated with processes
covered under this subpart and in
fluorinated GHG service. If you conduct
monitoring of equipment in fluorinated
GHG service, monitoring must be
conducted for those in light liquid and
in gas and vapor service. If you conduct
monitoring of equipment in fluorinated
GHG service, you may exclude from
monitoring each piece of equipment that
is difficult-to-monitor, that is unsafe-tomonitor, that is insulated, or that is in
heavy liquid service; you may exclude
from monitoring each pump with dual
mechanical seals, agitator with dual
mechanical seals, pump with no
external shaft, agitator with no external
shaft; you may exclude from monitoring
each pressure relief device in gas and
vapor service with upstream rupture
disk, each sampling connection system
with closed-loop or closed-purge
systems, and any pieces of equipment
where leaks are routed through a closed
vent system to a destruction device. You
must estimate emissions using another
approach for those pieces of equipment
excluded from monitoring. Equipment
that is in fluorinated GHG service for
less than 300 hr/yr; equipment that is in
vacuum service; pressure relief devices
that are in light liquid service; and
instrumentation systems are exempted
from these requirements.
(1) The emissions from equipment
leaks must be calculated using any of
the procedures in paragraphs (d)(1)(i),
(d)(1)(ii), (d)(1)(iii), or (d)(1)(iv) of this
section.
(i) Use of Average Emission Factor
Approach in EPA Protocol for
Equipment Leak Emission Estimates.
The emissions from equipment leaks
may be calculated using the default
Average Emission Factor Approach in
EPA–453/R–95–017 (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7).
ER01DE10.045
(v) Sum the emissions of each
fluorinated GHG from all process vents
in each operating scenario and all
operating scenarios in the process for
the year to estimate the total process
vent emissions of each fluorinated GHG
from the process, using Equation L–28
of this section.
(iv) If the process vent is vented to a
destruction device, apply the
demonstrated destruction efficiency of
the device to the fluorinated GHG
emissions for the process vent (and
operating scenario, as applicable), using
Equation L–27 of this section. Apply the
destruction efficiency only to the
portion of the process activity that is
vented to the properly functioning
destruction device (i.e., controlled).
ER01DE10.044
Where:
EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from process i, operating
scenario j, for the year considering
destruction efficiency (kg).
ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for
fluorinated GHG f emitted from process
vent v during process i, operating
scenario j, (e.g., kg emitted/kg product).
ActivityU = Total process feed, process
production, or other process activity for
process i, operating scenario j, during the
year for which the process vent is not
vented to the properly functioning
destruction device (e.g., kg product).
ActivityC = Total process feed, process
production, or other process activity for
process i, operating scenario j, during the
year for which the process vent is vented
to the properly functioning destruction
device (e.g., kg product).
DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of
the destruction device (weight fraction).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74841
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
must meet the requirements in
§ 98.124(f)(1).
(iv) Use of site-specific leak
monitoring methods. The emissions
from equipment leaks may be calculated
using a site-specific leak monitoring
method. The site-specific leak
monitoring method must meet the
requirements in § 98.124(f)(1).
(2) You must collect information on
the number of each type of equipment;
the service of each piece of equipment
(gas, light liquid, heavy liquid); the
concentration of each fluorinated GHG
in the stream; and the time period each
piece of equipment was in service.
Depending on which approach you
follow, you may be required to collect
information for equipment on the
associated screening data concentrations
for greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv
and associated screening data
concentrations for less than 10,000
ppmv; associated actual screening data
concentrations; or associated screening
data and leak rate data (i.e., bagging)
used to develop a unit-specific
correlation.
(3) Calculate and sum the emissions
of each fluorinated GHG in metric tons
per year for equipment pieces for each
process, EELf, annually. You must
include and estimate emissions for
types of equipment that are excluded
from monitoring, including difficult-tomonitor, unsafe-to-monitor and
insulated pieces of equipment, pieces of
equipment in heavy liquid service,
pumps with dual mechanical seals,
agitators with dual mechanical seals,
Where:
ED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted
annually from destruction of fluorinated
GHGs that were previously ‘‘produced’’
as defined at § 98.410(b) (metric tons).
RED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs that
were previously ‘‘produced’’ as defined at
§ 98.410(b) and that are fed annually into
the destruction device (metric tons).
DE = Destruction efficiency of the destruction
device (fraction).
Where:
Ei = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f
emitted from process i, annual basis (kg/
year).
EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
all process vents and all operating
scenarios in process i, annually (kg/year,
calculated in Equation L–24 or L–28 of
this section, as appropriate).
EELfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted
from equipment leaks for pieces of
equipment for process i, annually (kg/
year, calculated in paragraph (d)(3) of
this section).
totals for fluorinated gas production
processes, transformation processes that
transform fluorinated gases produced at
the facility, and transformation
processes that transform fluorinated
gases produced at another facility.
Where:
E = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f
emitted from all fluorinated gas
production processes, all transformation
processes that transform fluorinated
gases produced at the facility, or all
transformation processes that transform
fluorinated gases produced at another
facility, as appropriate (metric tons).
Ei = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f
emitted from each production or
transformation process, annual basis (kg/
year, calculated in Equation L–29 of this
section).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric
tons.
z = Total number of fluorinated gas
production processes, fluorinated gas
transformation processes that transform
fluorinated gases produced at the
facility, or transformation processes that
transform fluorinated gases produced at
another facility, as appropriate.
vent residual fluorinated GHGs from
containers, you must either measure the
residual fluorinated GHGs vented from
each container or develop a heel factor
for each combination of fluorinated
GHG, container size, and container type
that you vent. You do not need to
estimate de minimis emissions
associated with good-faith attempts to
recycle or recover residual fluorinated
GHGs in or from containers.
(1) Measuring contents of each
container. If you weigh or otherwise
measure the contents of each container
before venting the residual fluorinated
GHGs, use Equation L–32 of this section
to calculate annual emissions of each
fluorinated GHG from venting of
residual fluorinated GHG from
containers. Convert pressures to masses
as directed in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this
section.
HBfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in
container j when received by facility.
HEfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in
container j after evacuation by facility.
(Facility may equate to zero.)
n = Number of vented containers for each
fluorinated GHG f.
Where:
ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f
emitted from the facility through venting
of residual fluorinated GHG from
containers, annual basis (kg/year).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2) Developing and applying heel
factors. If you use heel factors to
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.048
ER01DE10.049
(ii) Estimate annually the total mass of
each fluorinated GHG emitted from each
type of production or transformation
process at the facility using Equation L–
30 of this section. Develop separate
(f) Calculate fluorinated GHG
emissions from destruction of
fluorinated GHGs that were previously
‘‘produced’’. Estimate annually the total
mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted from
destruction of fluorinated GHGs that
were previously ‘‘produced’’ as defined
at § 98.410(b) using Equation L–31 of
this section:
ER01DE10.047
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
(g) Emissions from venting of residual
fluorinated GHGs in containers. If you
pumps with no external shaft, agitators
with no external shaft, pressure relief
devices in gas and vapor service with
upstream rupture disk, sampling
connection systems with closed-loop or
closed purge systems, and pieces of
equipment where leaks are routed
through a closed vent system to a
destruction device.
(e) Calculate total fluorinated GHG
emissions for each process and for
production or transformation processes
at the facility.
(i) Estimate annually the total mass of
each fluorinated GHG emitted from each
process, including emissions from
process vents in paragraphs (c)(3) and
(c)(4) of this section, as appropriate, and
from equipment leaks in paragraph (d),
using Equation L–29 of this section.
ER01DE10.050
74842
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
74843
T = Absolute temperature (K)
Where:
p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa)
V = Volume of the gas (m3)
Z = Compressibility factor
n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles)
R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole)
(iii) Heel factor calculation. To
determine the heel factor hfj for each
combination of fluorinated GHG,
container size, and container type, use
paragraph (g)(1) of this section to
calculate the total heel emissions for
each sample selected under paragraph
(g)(2)(i) of this section. Divide this total
by the number of containers in the
sample. Divide the result by the full
capacity (the mass of the contents of a
full container) of that combination of
fluorinated GHG, container size, and
container type. The heel factor is
expressed as a fraction of the full
capacity.
(iv) Calculate annual emissions of
each fluorinated GHG from venting of
residual fluorinated GHG from
containers using Equation L–34 of this
section.
Where:
ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f
emitted from the facility through venting
of residual fluorinated GHG from
containers, annual basis (kg/year).
hfj = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for
fluorinated GHG f (fraction) and
container size and type j, as determined
in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this section.
Nfj = Number of containers of size and type
j returned to the fluorinated gas
production facility.
Ffj = Full capacity of containers of size and
type j containing fluorinated GHG f (kg).
n = Number of combinations of container
sizes and types for fluorinated GHG f.
collectively contain all of the
fluorinated GHG by-products of the
process at their maximum
concentrations and sample and analyze
the contents of these selected streams or
process vents. For example, if
fluorinated GHG by-products are
separated into one low-boiling-point
and one high-boiling-point stream,
sample and analyze both of these
streams. Alternatively, you may sample
and analyze streams where fluorinated
GHG by-products occur at less than
their maximum concentrations, but you
must ensure that the sensitivity of the
analysis is sufficient to compensate for
the expected difference in
concentration. For example, if you
sample and analyze streams where
fluorinated GHG by-products are
expected to occur at one half their
maximum concentrations elsewhere in
the process, you must ensure that the
sensitivity of the analysis is sufficient to
detect fluorinated GHG by-products that
occur at concentrations of 0.05 percent
or higher. You do not have to sample
and analyze every stream or process
vent, i.e., you do not have to sample and
analyze a stream or process vent that
contains only fluorinated GHGs that are
contained in other streams or process
vents that are being sampled and
analyzed. Sampling and analysis must
be conducted according to the
procedures in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(2) Previous measurements. If you
have conducted testing of streams
(including process streams or destroyed
streams) or process vents less than 10
years before December 31, 2010, and the
testing meets the requirements in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you may
use the previous testing to satisfy this
requirement.
(b) Mass balance monitoring. If you
determine fluorinated GHG emissions
from any process using the mass balance
method under § 98.123(b), you must
estimate the total mass of each
fluorinated GHG emitted from that
process at least monthly. Only streams
that contain greater than trace
concentrations of fluorine-containing
reactants, products, or by-products must
be monitored under this paragraph. If
you use an element other than fluorine
in the mass-balance equation pursuant
to § 98.123(b)(3), substitute that element
for fluorine in the monitoring
requirements of this paragraph.
(1) Mass measurements. Measure the
following masses on a monthly or more
frequent basis using flowmeters, weigh
scales, or a combination of volumetric
and density measurements with
accuracies and precisions that allow the
facility to meet the error criteria in
§ 98.123(b)(1):
(i) Total mass of each fluorinecontaining product produced. Account
for any used fluorine-containing
product added into the production
process upstream of the output
measurement as directed at § 98.413(b)
and § 98.414(b). For each product, the
mass produced used for the massbalance calculation must be the same as
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
§ 98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements.
(a) Initial scoping speciation to
identify fluorinated GHGs. You must
conduct an initial scoping speciation to
identify all fluorinated GHGs that may
be generated from processes that are
subject to this subpart and that have at
least one process vent with uncontrolled
emissions of 1.0 metric ton or more of
fluorinated GHGs per year based on the
preliminary estimate of emissions in
§ 98.123(c)(1). You are not required to
quantify emissions under this initial
scoping speciation. Only fluorinated
GHG products and by-products that
occur in greater than trace
concentrations in at least one stream
must be identified under this paragraph.
(1) Procedure. To conduct the scoping
speciation, select the stream(s)
(including process streams or destroyed
streams) or process vent(s) that would
be expected to individually or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.052
number of containers returned within
that combination annually, in which
case the contents of every container
returned must be measured.
(ii) Measurement of residual gas. The
residual weight or pressure you use for
paragraph (g)(1) of this section must be
determined by monitoring the mass or
the pressure of your cylinders/
containers according to § 98.124(k). If
you monitor the pressure, convert the
pressure to mass using the ideal gas law,
as displayed in Equation L–33 of this
section, with an appropriately selected
Z value.
ER01DE10.051
estimate emissions of residual
fluorinated GHGs vented from
containers, you must annually develop
these factors based on representative
samples of the containers received by
your facility from fluorinated GHG
users.
(i) Sample size. For each combination
of fluorinated GHG, container size, and
container type that you vent, select a
representative sample of containers that
reflects the full range of quantities of
residual gas returned in that container
size and type. This sample must reflect
the full range of the industries and a
broad range of the customers that use
and return the fluorinated GHG,
container size, and container type. The
minimum sample size for each
combination of fluorinated GHG,
container size, and container type must
be 30, unless this is greater than the
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74844
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the mass produced that is reported
under subpart OO of this part, where
applicable.
(ii) Total mass of each fluorinecontaining reactant fed into the process.
(iii) The mass removed from the
process in each stream fed into the
destruction device.
(iv) The mass removed from the
process in each recaptured stream.
(2) Concentration measurements for
use with § 98.123(b)(4). If you use
§ 98.123(b)(4) to estimate the mass of
fluorine in destroyed or recaptured
streams, measure the following
concentrations at least once each
calendar month during which the
process is operating, on a schedule to
ensure that the measurements are
representative of the full range of
process conditions (e.g., catalyst age).
Measure more frequently if this is
necessary to meet the error criteria in
§ 98.123(b)(1). Use equipment and
methods (e.g., gas chromatography) that
comply with paragraph (e) of this
section and that have an accuracy and
precision that allow the facility to meet
the error criteria in § 98.123(b)(1). Only
fluorine-containing reactants, products,
and by-products that occur in a stream
in greater than trace concentrations
must be monitored under this
paragraph.
(i) The concentration (mass fraction)
of the fluorine-containing product in
each stream that is fed into the
destruction device.
(ii) The concentration (mass fraction)
of each fluorine-containing by-product
in each stream that is fed into the
destruction device.
(iii) The concentration (mass fraction)
of each fluorine-containing reactant in
each stream that is fed into the
destruction device.
(iv) The concentration (mass fraction)
of each fluorine-containing by-product
in each stream that is recaptured (cBkl).
(3) Concentration measurements for
use with § 98.123(b)(15). If you use
§ 98.123(b)(15) to estimate the mass of
fluorine in destroyed or recaptured
streams, measure the concentrations
listed in paragraphs (3)(i) and (ii) of this
section at least once each calendar
month during which the process is
operating, on a schedule to ensure that
the measurements are representative of
the full range of process conditions (e.g.,
catalyst age). Measure more frequently if
this is necessary to meet the error
criteria in § 98.123(b)(1). Use equipment
and methods (e.g., gas chromatography)
that comply with paragraph (e) of this
section and that have an accuracy and
precision that allow the facility to meet
the error criteria in § 98.123(b)(1). Only
fluorine-containing reactants, products,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
and by-products that occur in a stream
in greater than trace concentrations
must be monitored under this
paragraph.
(i) The concentration (mass fraction)
of total fluorine in each stream that is
fed into the destruction device.
(ii) The concentration (mass fraction)
of total fluorine in each stream that is
recaptured.
(4) Emissions characterization:
process vents emitting 25,000 metric
tons CO2e or more. To characterize
emissions from any process vent
emitting 25,000 metric tons CO2e or
more, comply with paragraphs (b)(4)(i)
through (b)(4)(v) of this section, as
appropriate. Only fluorine-containing
reactants, products, and by-products
that occur in a stream in greater than
trace concentrations must be monitored
under this paragraph.
(i) Uncontrolled emissions. If
emissions from the process vent are not
routed through a destruction device,
sample and analyze emissions at the
process vent or stack or sample and
analyze emitted streams before the
process vent. If the process has more
than one operating scenario, you must
either perform the emission
characterization for each operating
scenario or perform the emission
characterization for the operating
scenario that is expected to have the
largest emissions and adjust the
emission characterization for other
scenarios using engineering calculations
and assessments as specified in
§ 98.123(c)(4). To perform the
characterization, take three samples
under conditions that are representative
for the operating scenario. Measure the
concentration of each fluorinecontaining compound in each sample.
Use equipment and methods that
comply with paragraph (e) of this
section. Calculate the average
concentration of each fluorinecontaining compound across all three
samples.
(ii) Controlled emissions using
§ 98.123(b)(15). If you use
§ 98.123(b)(15) to estimate the total mass
of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured
streams, and if the emissions from the
process vent are routed through a
destruction device, characterize
emissions as specified in paragraph
(b)(4)(i) of this section before the
destruction device. Apply the
destruction efficiency demonstrated for
each fluorinated GHG in the destroyed
stream to that fluorinated GHG. Exclude
from the characterization fluorinecontaining compounds that are not
fluorinated GHGs.
(iii) Controlled emissions using
§ 98.123(b)(4). If you use § 98.123(b)(4)
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
to estimate the mass of fluorine in
destroyed or recaptured streams, and if
the emissions from the process vent are
routed through a destruction device,
characterize the process vent’s
emissions monthly (or more frequently)
using the monthly (or more frequent)
measurements under paragraphs
(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(iii)
of this section. Apply the destruction
efficiency demonstrated for each
fluorinated GHG in the destroyed stream
to that fluorinated GHG. Exclude from
the characterization fluorine-containing
compounds that are not fluorinated
GHGs.
(iv) Emissions characterization
frequency. You must repeat emission
characterizations performed under
paragraph (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii) of this
section under paragraph (b)(4)(iv)(A) or
(b)(4)(iv)(B) of this section, whichever
occurs first:
(A) 10-year revision. Repeat the
emission characterization every 10
years. In the calculations under
§ 98.123, apply the revised emission
characterization to the process activity
that occurs after the revision.
(B) Operating scenario change that
affects the emission characterization.
For planned operating scenario changes,
you must estimate and compare the
emission calculation factors for the
changed operating scenario and for the
original operating scenario whose
process vent specific emission factor
was measured. Use the engineering
calculations and assessments specified
in § 98.123(c)(4). If the share of total
fluorine-containing compound
emissions represented by any
fluorinated GHG changes under the
changed operating scenario by 15
percent or more of the total, relative to
the previous operating scenario (this
includes the cumulative change in the
emission calculation factor since the last
emissions test), you must repeat the
emission characterization. Perform the
emission characterization before
February 28 of the year that
immediately follows the change. In the
calculations under § 98.123, apply the
revised emission characterization to the
process activity that occurs after the
operating scenario change.
(v) Subsequent measurements. If a
process vent with fluorinated GHG
emissions less than 25,000 metric tons
CO2e, per § 98.123(c)(2), is later found to
have fluorinated GHG emissions of
25,000 metric tons CO2e or greater, you
must perform an emission
characterization under this paragraph
during the following year.
(5) Emissions characterization:
process vents emitting less than 25,000
metric tons CO2e. To characterize
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emissions from any process vent
emitting less than 25,000 metric tons
CO2e, comply with paragraphs (b)(5)(i)
through (b)(5)(iii) of this section, as
appropriate. Only fluorine-containing
reactants, products, and by-products
that occur in a stream in greater than
trace concentrations must be monitored
under this paragraph.
(i) Uncontrolled emissions. If
emissions from the process vent are not
routed through a destruction device,
emission measurements must consist of
sampling and analysis of emissions at
the process vent or stack, sampling and
analysis of emitted streams before the
process vent, previous test results,
provided the tests are representative of
current operating conditions of the
process, or bench-scale or pilot-scale
test data representative of the process
operating conditions.
(ii) Controlled emissions using
§ 98.123(b)(15). If you use
§ 98.123(b)(15) to estimate the total mass
of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured
streams, and if the emissions from the
process vent are routed through a
destruction device, characterize
emissions as specified in paragraph
(b)(5)(i) of this section before the
destruction device. Apply the
destruction efficiency demonstrated for
each fluorinated GHG in the destroyed
stream to that fluorinated GHG. Exclude
from the characterization fluorinecontaining compounds that are not
fluorinated GHGs.
(iii) Controlled emissions using
§ 98.123(b)(4). If you use § 98.123(b)(4)
to estimate the mass of fluorine in
destroyed or recaptured streams, and if
the emissions from the process vent are
routed through a destruction device,
characterize the process vent’s
emissions monthly (or more frequently)
using the monthly (or more frequent)
measurements under paragraphs
(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(iii)
of this section. Apply the destruction
efficiency demonstrated for each
fluorinated GHG in the destroyed stream
to that fluorinated GHG. Exclude from
the characterization fluorine-containing
compounds that are not fluorinated
GHGs.
(6) Emissions characterization:
emissions not accounted for by process
vent estimates. Calculate the weighted
average emission characterization across
the process vents before any destruction
devices. Apply the weighted average
emission characterization for all the
process vents to any fluorine emissions
that are not accounted for by process
vent estimates.
(7) Impurities in reactants. If any
fluorine-containing impurity is fed into
a process along with a reactant (or other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
input) in greater than trace
concentrations, this impurity shall be
monitored under this section and
included in the calculations under
§ 98.123 in the same manner as
reactants fed into the process, fed into
the destruction device, recaptured, or
emitted, except the concentration of the
impurity in the mass fed into the
process shall be measured, and the mass
of the impurity fed into the process
shall be calculated as the product of the
concentration of the impurity and the
mass fed into the process. The mass of
the reactant fed into the process may be
reduced to account for the mass of the
impurity.
(8) Alternative to error calculation. As
an alternative to calculating the relative
and absolute errors associated with the
estimate of emissions under § 98.123(b),
you may comply with the precision,
accuracy, measurement and calculation
frequency, and fluorinated GHG
throughput requirements of paragraph
(b)(8)(i) through (b)(8)(iv) of this section.
(i) Mass measurements. Measure the
masses specified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section using flowmeters, weigh
scales, or a combination of volumetric
and density measurements with
accuracies and precisions of ±0.2
percent of full scale or better.
(ii) Concentration measurements.
Measure the concentrations specified in
paragraph (b)(2) or paragraph (b)(3) of
this section, as applicable, using
analytical methods with accuracies and
precisions of ±10 percent or better.
(iii) Measurement and calculation
frequency. Perform the mass
measurements specified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section and the
concentration measurements specified
in paragraph (b)(2) or paragraph (b)(3) of
this section, as applicable, at least
weekly, and calculate emissions at least
weekly.
(iv) Fluorinated-GHG throughput
limit. You may use the alternative to the
error calculation specified in paragraph
(b)(8) of this section only if the total
annual CO2-equivalent fluorinated GHG
throughput of the process is 500,000
mtCO2e or less. The total throughput is
the sum of the masses of the fluorinated
GHG reactants, products, and byproducts fed into and generated by the
process. To convert these masses to
CO2e, use Equation A–1 of § 98.2. For
fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not
listed in Table A–1 to subpart A of this
part, use a default GWP of 2,000.
(c) Emission factor testing. If you
determine fluorinated GHG emissions
using the site-specific process-ventspecific emission factor, you must meet
the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(8) of this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74845
(1) Process vent testing. Conduct an
emissions test that is based on
representative performance of the
process or operating scenario(s) of the
process, as applicable. Include in the
emission test any fluorinated
greenhouse gas that occurs in more than
trace concentrations in the vent stream
or, where a destruction device is used,
in the inlet to the destruction device.
You may include startup and shutdown
events if the testing is sufficiently long
or comprehensive to ensure that such
events are not overrepresented in the
emission factor. Malfunction events
must not be included in the testing. If
you conduct your emission testing after
a destruction device, and if the outlet
concentration of a fluorinated GHG that
is fed into the device is below the
detection limit of the method, you may
use a concentration of one-half the
detection limit to estimate the emission
factor.
(2) Number of runs. For continuous
processes, sample the process vent for a
minimum of 3 runs of 1 hour each. If the
RSD of the emission factor calculated
based on the first 3 runs is greater than
or equal to 0.15 for the emission factor,
continue to sample the process vent for
an additional 3 runs of 1 hour each. If
more than one fluorinated GHG is
measured, the RSD must be expressed in
terms of total CO2 equivalents. For
fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not
listed in Table A–1 to subpart A of this
part, use a default GWP of 2,000 in the
RSD calculation.
(3) Process activity measurements.
Determine the mass rate of process feed,
process production, or other process
activity as applicable during the test
using flow meters, weigh scales, or other
measurement devices or instruments
with an accuracy and precision of ±1
percent of full scale or better. These
devices may be the same plant
instruments or procedures that are used
for accounting purposes (such as weigh
hoppers, belt weigh feeders,
combination of volume measurements
and bulk density, etc.) if these devices
or procedures meet the requirement. For
monitoring ongoing process activity, use
flow meters, weigh scales, or other
measurement devices or instruments
with an accuracy and precision of ±1
percent of full scale or better.
(4) Sample each process. If process
vents from separate processes are
manifolded together to a common vent
or to a common destruction device, you
must follow paragraph (c)(4)(i), (c)(4)(ii),
or (c)(4)(iii) of this section.
(i) You may sample emissions from
each process in the ducts before the
emissions are combined.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74846
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) You may sample in the common
duct or at the outlet of the destruction
device when only one process is
operating.
(iii) You may sample the combined
emissions and use engineering
calculations and assessments as
specified in § 98.123(c)(4) to allocate the
emissions to each manifolded process
vent, provided the sum of the calculated
fluorinated GHG emissions across the
individual process vents is within 20
percent of the total fluorinated GHG
emissions measured during the
manifolded testing.
(5) Emission test results. The results
of an emission test must include the
analysis of samples, number of test runs,
the results of the RSD analysis, the
analytical method used, determination
of emissions, the process activity, and
raw data and must identify the process,
the operating scenario, the process vents
tested, and the fluorinated GHGs that
were included in the test (i.e., the
fluorinated GHGs that occur in more
than trace concentrations in the vent
stream or, where a destruction device is
used, in the inlet to the destruction
device, and any other fluorinated GHGs
included in the test). The emissions test
report must contain all information and
data used to derive the process-ventspecific emission factor, as well as key
process conditions during the test. Key
process conditions include those that
are normally monitored for process
control purposes and may include but
are not limited to yields, pressures,
temperatures, etc. (e.g., of reactor
vessels, distillation columns).
(7) Emissions testing frequency. You
must conduct emissions testing to
develop the process-vent-specific
emission factor under paragraph (c)(7)(i)
or (c)(7)(ii) of this section, whichever
occurs first:
(i) 10-year revision. Conduct an
emissions test every 10 years. In the
calculations under § 98.123, apply the
revised process-vent-specific emission
factor to the process activity that occurs
after the revision.
(ii) Operating scenario change that
affects the emission factor. For planned
operating scenario changes, you must
estimate and compare the emission
calculation factors for the changed
operating scenario and for the original
operating scenario whose process vent
specific emission factor was measured.
Use the calculation methods in
§ 98.123(c)(4). If the emission
calculation factor for the changed
operating scenario is 15 percent or more
different from the emission calculation
factor for the previous operating
scenario (this includes the cumulative
change in the emission calculation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
factor since the last emissions test), you
must conduct an emissions test to
update the process-vent-specific
emission factor, unless the difference
between the operating scenarios is
solely due to the application of a
destruction device to emissions under
the changed operating scenario.
Conduct the test before February 28 of
the year that immediately follows the
change. In the calculations under
§ 98.123, apply the revised process-ventspecific emission factor to the process
activity that occurs after the operating
scenario change.
(8) Subsequent measurements. If a
continuous process vent with
fluorinated GHG emissions less than
10,000 metric tons CO2e, per
§ 98.123(c)(2), is later found to have
fluorinated GHG emissions of 10,000
metric tons CO2e or greater, you must
conduct the emissions testing for the
process vent during the following year
and develop the process-vent-specific
emission factor from the emissions
testing.
(9) Previous measurements. If you
have conducted an emissions test less
than 10 years before December 31, 2010,
and the emissions testing meets the
requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(8) of this section, you may
use the previous emissions testing to
develop process-vent-specific emission
factors. For purposes of paragraph
(c)(7)(i) of this section, the date of the
previous emissions test rather than
December 31, 2010 shall constitute the
beginning of the 10-year remeasurement cycle.
(d) Emission calculation factor
monitoring. If you determine fluorinated
GHG emissions using the site-specific
process-vent-specific emission
calculation factor, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (d)(4) of this section.
(1) Operating scenario. Perform the
emissions calculation for the process
vent based on representative
performance of the operating scenario of
the process. If more than one operating
scenario applies to the process that
contains the subject process vent, you
must conduct a separate emissions
calculation for operation under each
operating scenario. For each continuous
process vent that contains more than
trace concentrations of any fluorinated
GHG and for each batch process vent
that contains more than trace
concentrations of any fluorinated GHG,
develop the process-vent-specific
emission calculation factor for each
operating scenario. For continuous
process vents, determine the emissions
based on the process activity for the
representative performance of the
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
operating scenario. For batch process
vents, determine emissions based on the
process activity for each typical batch
operating scenario.
(2) Process activity measurements.
Use flow meters, weigh scales, or other
measurement devices or instruments
with an accuracy and precision of ±1
percent of full scale or better for
monitoring ongoing process activity.
(3) Emission calculation results. The
emission calculation must be
documented by identifying the process,
the operating scenario, and the process
vents. The documentation must contain
the information and data used to
calculate the process-vent-specific
emission calculation factor.
(4) Operating scenario change that
affects the emission calculation factor.
For planned operating scenario changes
that are expected to change the processvent-specific emission calculation
factor, you must conduct an emissions
calculation to update the process-ventspecific emission calculation factor. In
the calculations under § 98.123, apply
the revised emission calculation factor
to the process activity that occurs after
the operating scenario change.
(5) Previous calculations. If you have
performed an emissions calculation for
the process vent and operating scenario
less than 10 years before December 31,
2010, and the emissions calculation
meets the requirements in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (d)(4) of this section and
in § 98.123(c)(4)(i) and (c)(4)(ii), you
may use the previous calculation to
develop the site-specific process-ventspecific emission calculation factor.
(e) Emission and stream testing,
including analytical methods. Select
and document testing and analytical
methods as follows:
(1) Sampling and mass measurement
for emission testing. For emission
testing in process vents or at the stack,
use methods for sampling, measuring
volumetric flow rates, non-fluorinatedGHG gas analysis, and measuring stack
gas moisture that have been validated
using a scientifically sound validation
protocol.
(i) Sample and velocity traverses.
Acceptable methods include but are not
limited to EPA Method 1 or 1A in
Appendix A–1 of 40 CFR part 60.
(ii) Velocity and volumetric flow
rates. Acceptable methods include but
are not limited to EPA Method 2, 2A,
2B, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in Appendix A–
1 of 40 CFR part 60. Alternatives that
may be used for determining flow rates
include OTM–24 (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7) and ALT–012
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7).
(iii) Non-fluorinated-GHG gas
analysis. Acceptable methods include
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
but are not limited to EPA Method 3,
3A, or 3B in Appendix A–1 of 40 CFR
part 60.
(iv) Stack gas moisture. Acceptable
methods include but are not limited to
EPA Method 4 in Appendix A–1 of 40
CFR part 60.
(2) Analytical methods. Use a qualityassured analytical measurement
technology capable of detecting the
analyte of interest at the concentration
of interest and use a sampling and
analytical procedure validated with the
analyte of interest at the concentration
of interest. Where calibration standards
for the analyte are not available, a
chemically similar surrogate may be
used. Acceptable analytical
measurement technologies include but
are not limited to gas chromatography
(GC) with an appropriate detector,
infrared (IR), fourier transform infrared
(FTIR), and nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR). Acceptable methods for
determining fluorinated GHGs include
EPA Method 18 in appendix A–1 of 40
CFR part 60, EPA Method 320 in
appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, EPA
430–R–10–003 (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7), ASTM D6348–03
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7),
or other analytical methods validated
using EPA Method 301 at 40 CFR part
63, appendix A or some other
scientifically sound validation protocol.
Acceptable methods for determining
total fluorine concentrations for
fluorine-containing compounds in
streams under paragraph (b)(3) of this
section include ASTM D7359–08
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7),
or other analytical methods validated
using EPA Method 301 at 40 CFR part
63, appendix A or some other
scientifically sound validation protocol.
The validation protocol may include
analytical technology manufacturer
specifications or recommendations.
(3) Documentation in GHG Monitoring
Plan. Describe the sampling,
measurement, and analytical method(s)
used under paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)
of this section in the GHG Monitoring
Plan as required under § 98.3(g)(5).
Identify the methods used to obtain the
samples and measurements listed under
paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv) of
this section. At a minimum, include in
the description of the analytical method
a description of the analytical
measurement equipment and
procedures, quantitative estimates of the
method’s accuracy and precision for the
analytes of interest at the concentrations
of interest, as well as a description of
how these accuracies and precisions
were estimated, including the validation
protocol used.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
(f) Emission monitoring for pieces of
equipment. If you conduct a sitespecific leak detection method or
monitoring approach for pieces of
equipment, follow paragraph (f)(1) or
(f)(2) of this section and follow
paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
(1) Site-specific leak monitoring
approach. You may develop a sitespecific leak monitoring approach. You
must validate the leak monitoring
method and describe the method and
the validation in the GHG Monitoring
Plan. To validate the site-specific
method, you may, for example, release
a known rate of the fluorinated GHGs or
surrogates of interest, or you may
compare the results of the site-specific
method to those of a method that has
been validated for the fluorinated GHGs
or surrogates of interest. In the
description of the leak detection method
and its validation, include a detailed
description of the method, including the
procedures and equipment used and
any sampling strategies. Also include
the rationale behind the method,
including why the method is expected
to result in an unbiased estimate of
emissions from equipment leaks. If the
method is based on methods that are
used to detect or quantify leaks or other
emissions in other regulations,
standards, or guidelines, identify and
describe the regulations, standards, or
guidelines and why their methods are
applicable to emissions of fluorinated
GHGs or surrogates from leaks. Account
for possible sources of error in the
method, e.g., instrument detection
limits, measurement biases, and
sampling biases. Describe validation
efforts, including but not limited to any
comparisons against standard leaks or
concentrations, any comparisons against
other methods, and their results. If you
use the Screening Ranges Approach, the
EPA Correlation Approach, or the UnitSpecific Correlation Approach with a
monitoring instrument that does not
meet all of the specifications in EPA
Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A–7, then explain how and why the
monitoring instrument, as used at your
facility, would nevertheless be expected
to accurately detect and quantify
emissions of fluorinated GHGs or
surrogates from process equipment, and
describe how you verified its accuracy.
For all methods, provide a quantitative
estimate of the accuracy and precision
of the method.
(2) EPA Method 21 monitoring. If you
determine that EPA Method 21 at 40
CFR part 60, appendix A–7 is
appropriate for monitoring a fluorinated
GHG, conduct the screening value
concentration measurements using EPA
Method 21 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74847
A–7 to determine the screening range
data or the actual screening value data
for the Screening Ranges Approach,
EPA Correlation Approach, or the UnitSpecific Correlation Approach. For the
one-time testing to develop the UnitSpecific Correlation equations in EPA–
453/R–95–017 (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7), conduct the
screening value concentration
measurements using EPA Method 21 at
40 CFR part 60, appendix A–7 and the
bagging procedures to measure mass
emissions. Concentration measurements
of bagged samples must be conducted
using gas chromatography following
EPA Method 18 analytical procedures or
other method according to § 98.124(e).
Use methane or other appropriate
compound as the calibration gas.
(3) Frequency of measurement and
sampling. If you estimate emissions
based on monitoring of equipment,
conduct monitoring at least annually.
Sample at least one-third of equipment
annually (except for equipment that is
unsafe-to-monitor, difficult-to-monitor,
insulated, or in heavy liquid service,
pumps with dual mechanical seals,
agitators with dual mechanical seals,
pumps with no external shaft, agitators
with no external shaft, pressure relief
devices in gas and vapor service with an
upstream rupture disk, sampling
connection systems with closed-loop or
closed purge systems, and pieces of
equipment whose leaks are routed
through a closed vent system to a
destruction device), changing the
sample each year such that at the end
of three years, all equipment in the
process has been monitored. If you
estimate emissions based on a sample of
the equipment in the process, ensure
that the sample is representative of the
equipment in the process. If you have
multiple processes that have similar
types of equipment in similar service,
and that produce or transform similar
fluorinated GHGs (in terms of chemical
composition, molecular weight, and
vapor pressure) at similar pressures and
concentrations, then you may annually
sample all of the equipment in one third
of these processes rather than one third
of the equipment in each process.
(g) Destruction device performance
testing. If you vent or otherwise feed
fluorinated GHGs into a destruction
device and apply the destruction
efficiency of the device to one or more
fluorinated GHGs in § 98.123, you must
conduct emissions testing to determine
the destruction efficiency for each
fluorinated GHG to which you apply the
destruction efficiency. You must either
determine the destruction efficiency for
the most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated
GHG fed into the device (or a surrogate
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74848
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
that is still more difficult to destroy) and
apply that destruction efficiency to all
the fluorinated GHGs fed into the device
or alternatively determine different
destruction efficiencies for different
groups of fluorinated GHGs using the
most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated
GHG of each group (or a surrogate that
is still more difficult to destroy).
(1) Destruction efficiency testing. You
must sample the inlet and outlet of the
destruction device for a minimum of
three runs of 1 hour each to determine
the destruction efficiency. You must
conduct the emissions testing using the
methods in paragraph (e) of this section.
To determine the destruction efficiency,
emission testing must be conducted
when operating at high loads reasonably
expected to occur (i.e., representative of
high total fluorinated GHG load that
will be sent to the device) and when
destroying the most-difficult-to-destroy
fluorinated GHG (or a surrogate that is
still more difficult to destroy) that is fed
into the device from the processes
subject to this subpart or that belongs to
the group of fluorinated GHGs for which
you wish to establish a DE. If the outlet
concentration of a fluorinated GHG that
is fed into the device is below the
detection limit of the method, you may
use a concentration of one-half the
detection limit to estimate the
destruction efficiency.
(i) If perfluoromethane (CF4) is vented
to the destruction device in any stream
in more than trace concentrations, you
must test and determine the destruction
efficiency achieved specifically for CF4
to take credit for the CF4 emissions
reduction.
(ii) If sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is
vented to the destruction device in any
stream in more than trace
concentrations, you must test and
determine the destruction efficiency
achieved specifically for SF6, or
alternatively for CF4 as a surrogate, to
take credit for the SF6 emissions
reduction.
(iii) If saturated perfluorocarbons
other than CF4 are vented to the
destruction device in any stream in
more than trace concentrations, you
must test and determine the destruction
efficiency achieved for the lowest
molecular weight saturated
perfluorocarbon vented to the
destruction device, or alternatively for a
lower molecular weight saturated PFC
or SF6 as a surrogate, to take credit for
the PFC emission reduction.
(iv) For all other fluorinated GHGs
that are vented to the destruction device
in any stream in more than trace
concentrations, you must test and
determine the destruction efficiency
achieved for the most-difficult-to-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
destroy fluorinated GHG or surrogate
vented to the destruction device.
Examples of acceptable surrogates
include the Class 1 compounds (ranked
1 through 34) in Appendix D, Table D–
1 of ‘‘Guidance on Setting Permit
Conditions and Reporting Trial Burn
Results; Volume II of the Hazardous
Waste Incineration Guidance Series,’’
January 1989, EPA Publication EPA
625/6–89/019. You can obtain a copy of
this publication by contacting the
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 272–0167,
https://www.epa.gov.
(2) Destruction efficiency testing
frequency. You must conduct emissions
testing to determine the destruction
efficiency as provided in paragraphs
(g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, whichever
occurs first:
(i) Conduct an emissions test every 10
years. In the calculations under
§ 98.123, apply the updated destruction
efficiency to the destruction that occurs
after the test.
(ii) Destruction device changes that
affect the destruction efficiency. If you
make a change to the destruction device
that would be expected to affect the
destruction efficiency, you must
conduct an emissions test to update the
destruction efficiency. Conduct the test
before the February 28 of the year that
immediately follows the change. In the
calculations under § 98.123, apply the
updated destruction efficiency to the
destruction that occurs after the change
to the device.
(3) Previous testing .If you have
conducted an emissions test within the
10 years prior to December 31, 2010,
and the emissions testing meets the
requirements in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section, you may use the destruction
efficiency determined during this
previous emissions testing. For
purposes of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this
section, the date of the previous
emissions test rather than December 31,
2010 shall constitute the beginning of
the 10-year re-measurement cycle.
(4) Hazardous Waste Combustor
testing. If a destruction device used to
destroy fluorinated GHG is subject to
subpart EEE of part 63 of this chapter or
any portion of parts 260–270 of this
chapter, you may apply the destruction
efficiency specifically determined for
CF4, SF6, PFCs other than CF4, and all
other fluorinated GHGs under that test
if the testing meets the criteria in
paragraph (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of
this section. If the testing of the
destruction efficiency under subpart
EEE of part 63 of this chapter was
conducted more than 10 years ago, you
may use the most recent destruction
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
efficiency test provided that the design,
operation, or maintenance of the
destruction device has not changed
since the last destruction efficiency test
in a manner that could affect the ability
to achieve the destruction efficiency,
and the hazardous waste is fed into the
normal flame zone.
(h) Mass of previously produced
fluorinated GHGs fed into destruction
device. You must measure the mass of
each fluorinated GHG that is fed into the
destruction device in more than trace
concentrations and that was previously
produced as defined at § 98.410(b). Such
fluorinated GHGs include but are not
limited to quantities that are shipped to
the facility by another facility for
destruction and quantities that are
returned to the facility for reclamation
but are found to be irretrievably
contaminated and are therefore
destroyed. You must use flowmeters,
weigh scales, or a combination of
volumetric and density measurements
with an accuracy and precision of ±1
percent of full scale or better. If the
measured mass includes more than trace
concentrations of materials other than
the fluorinated GHG being destroyed,
you must measure the concentration of
the fluorinated GHG being destroyed.
You must multiply this concentration
(mass fraction) by the mass
measurement to obtain the mass of the
fluorinated GHG fed into the destruction
device.
(i) Emissions due to malfunctions of
destruction device. In their estimates of
the mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed,
fluorinated gas production facilities that
destroy fluorinated GHGs must account
for any temporary reductions in the
destruction efficiency that result from
any malfunctions of the destruction
device, including periods of operation
outside of the operating conditions
defined in operating permit
requirements and/or destruction device
manufacturer specifications.
(j) Emissions due to process startup,
shutdown, or malfunctions. Fluorinated
GHG production facilities must account
for fluorinated GHG emissions that
occur as a result of startups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions, either recording
fluorinated GHG emissions during these
events, or documenting that these
events do not result in significant
fluorinated GHG emissions. Facilities
may use the calculation methods in
§ 98.123(c)(1) to estimate emissions
during startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions.
(k) Monitoring for venting residual
fluorinated GHG in containers. Measure
the residual fluorinated GHG in
containers received by the facility either
using scales or using pressure and
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
temperature measurements. You may
use pressure and temperature
measurements only in cases where no
liquid fluorinated GHG is present in the
container. Scales must have an accuracy
and precision of ±1 percent or better of
the filled weight (gas plus tare) of the
containers of fluorinated GHGs that are
typically weighed on the scale. For
example, for scales that are generally
used to weigh cylinders that contain 115
pounds of gas when full and that have
a tare weight of 115 pounds, this
equates to ±1 percent of 230 pounds, or
±2.3 pounds. Pressure gauges and
thermometers used to measure
quantities that are monitored under this
paragraph must have an accuracy and
precision of ±1 percent of full scale or
better.
(l) Initial scoping speciations,
emissions testing, emission factor
development, emission calculation
factor development, emission
characterization development, and
destruction efficiency determinations
must be completed by February 29, 2012
for processes and operating scenarios
that operate between December 31, 2010
and December 31, 2011. For other
processes and operating scenarios,
initial scoping speciations, emissions
testing, emission factor development,
emission calculation factor
development, emission characterization
development, and destruction efficiency
determinations must be complete by
February 28 of the year following the
year in which the process or operating
scenario commences or recommences.
(m) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh
scales, and combinations of volumetric
and density measures using monitoring
instruments traceable to the
International System of Units (SI)
through the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) or
other recognized national measurement
institute. Recalibrate all flow meters,
weigh scales, and combinations of
volumetric and density measures at the
minimum frequency specified by the
manufacturer. Use any of the following
applicable flow meter test methods or
the calibration procedures specified by
the flow meter, weigh-scale, or other
volumetric or density measure
manufacturer.
(1) ASME MFC–3M–2004
Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes
Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7).
(2) ASME MFC–4M–1986 (Reaffirmed
1997) Measurement of Gas Flow by
Turbine Meters (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7).
(3) ASME–MFC–5M–1985,
(Reaffirmed 1994) Measurement of
Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7).
(4) ASME MFC–6M–1998
Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes
Using Vortex Flowmeters (incorporated
by reference, see § 98.7).
(5) ASME MFC–7M–1987 (Reaffirmed
1992) Measurement of Gas Flow by
Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7).
(6) ASME MFC–9M–1988 (Reaffirmed
2001) Measurement of Liquid Flow in
Closed Conduits by Weighing Method
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7).
(7) ASME MFC–11M–2006
Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of
Coriolis Mass Flowmeters (incorporated
by reference, see § 98.7).
(8) ASME MFC–14M–2003
Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small
Bore Precision Orifice Meters
(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7).
(n) All analytical equipment used to
determine the concentration of
fluorinated GHGs, including but not
limited to gas chromatographs and
associated detectors, infrared (IR),
fourier transform infrared (FTIR), and
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
devices, must be calibrated at a
frequency needed to support the type of
analysis specified in the GHG
Monitoring Plan as required under
§ 98.124(e)(3) and 93.3(g)(5). Quality
assurance samples at the concentrations
of concern must be used for the
calibration. Such quality assurance
samples must consist of or be prepared
from certified standards of the analytes
of concern where available; if not
available, calibration must be performed
by a method specified in the GHG
Monitoring Plan.
(o) Special provisions for estimating
2011 and subsequent year emissions.
(1) Best available monitoring
methods. To estimate emissions that
occur from January 1, 2011 through June
30, 2011, owners or operators may use
best available monitoring methods for
any parameter that cannot reasonably be
measured according to the monitoring
and QA/QC requirements of this
subpart. The owner or operator must use
the calculation methodologies and
equations in § 98.123, but may use the
best available monitoring method for
any parameter for which it is not
reasonably feasible to acquire, install, or
operate a required piece of monitoring
equipment, to procure measurement
services from necessary providers, or to
gain physical access to make required
measurements in a facility by January 1,
2011. Starting no later than July 1, 2011,
the owner or operator must discontinue
using best available methods and begin
following all applicable monitoring and
QA/QC requirements of this part, except
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74849
as provided in paragraphs (o)(2) through
(o)(4) of this section. Best available
monitoring methods means any of the
following methods specified in this
paragraph:
(i) Monitoring methods currently used
by the facility that do not meet the
specifications of this subpart.
(ii) Supplier data.
(iii) Engineering calculations or
assessments.
(iv) Other company records.
(2) Requests for extension of the use
of best available monitoring methods to
estimate 2011 emissions: parameters
other than scoping speciations, emission
factors, and emission characterizations.
The owner or operator may submit a
request to the Administrator to use one
or more best available monitoring
methods for parameters other than
scoping speciations, emission factors, or
emission characterizations to estimate
emissions that occur between July 1,
2011 and December 31, 2011.
(i) Timing of request. The extension
request must be submitted to EPA no
later than February 28, 2011.
(ii) Content of request. Requests must
contain the following information:
(A) A list of specific items of
monitoring equipment and
measurement services for which the
request is being made and the locations
(e.g., processes and vents) where each
piece of monitoring equipment will be
installed and where each measurement
service will be provided.
(B) Identification of the specific rule
requirements for which the monitoring
equipment or measurement service is
needed.
(C) A description of the reasons why
the needed equipment could not be
obtained, installed, or operated or why
the needed measurement service could
not be provided before July 1, 2011. The
owner or operator must consider all of
the data collection and emission
calculation options outlined in the rule
for a specific emissions source before
claiming that a specific safety, technical,
logistical, or legal barrier exists.
(D) If the reason for the extension is
that the equipment cannot be
purchased, delivered, or installed before
July 1, 2011, include supporting
documentation such as the date the
monitoring equipment was ordered,
investigation of alternative suppliers,
the dates by which alternative vendors
promised delivery or installation,
backorder notices or unexpected delays,
descriptions of actions taken to expedite
delivery or installation, and the current
expected date of delivery or installation.
(E) If the reason for the extension is
that service providers were unable to
provide necessary measurement
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74850
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
services, include supporting
documentation demonstrating that these
services could not be acquired before
July 1, 2011. This documentation must
include written correspondence to and
from at least two service providers
stating that they will not be able to
provide the necessary services before
July 1, 2011.
(F) If the reason for the extension is
that the process is operating
continuously without process
shutdown, include supporting
documentation showing that it is not
practicable to isolate the process
equipment or unit and install the
measurement device without a full
shutdown or a hot tap, and that there is
no opportunity before July 1, 2011 to
install the device. Include the date of
the three most recent shutdowns for
each relevant process equipment or
unit, the frequency of shutdowns for
each relevant process equipment or
unit, and the date of the next planned
process equipment or unit shutdown.
(G) If the reason for the extension is
that access to process streams,
emissions streams, or destroyed streams,
as applicable, could not be gained
before July 1, 2011 for reasons other
than the continuous operation of the
process without shutdown, include
illustrative documentation such as
photographs and engineering diagrams
demonstrating that access could not be
gained.
(H) A description of the best available
monitoring methods that will be used
and how their results will be applied
(i.e., which calculation method will be
used) to develop the emission estimate.
Where the proposed best available
monitoring method is the use of current
monitoring data in the mass-balance
approach, include the estimated relative
and absolute errors of the mass-balance
approach using the current monitoring
data.
(I) A description of the specific
actions the owner or operator will take
to comply with monitoring
requirements by January 1, 2012.
(3) Requests for extension of the use
of best available monitoring methods to
estimate 2011 emissions: scoping
speciations, emission factors, and
emission characterizations. The owner
or operator may submit a request to the
Administrator to use one or more best
available monitoring methods for
scoping speciations, emission factors,
and emission characterizations to
estimate emissions that occur between
July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011.
(i) Timing of request. The extension
request must be submitted to EPA no
later than June 30, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
(ii) Content of request. Requests must
contain the information outlined in
paragraph (o)(2)(ii) of this section,
substituting March 1, 2012 for July 1,
2011 and substituting March 1, 2013 for
January 1, 2012.
(iii) Reporting of 2011 emissions using
scoping speciations, emission factors,
and emission characterizations
developed after February 29, 2012.
Facilities that are approved to use best
available monitoring methods in 2011
for scoping speciations, emission
factors, or emission characterizations for
certain processes must submit, by
March 31, 2013, revised 2011 emission
estimates that reflect the scoping
speciations, emission factors, and
emission characterizations that are
measured for those processes after
February 29, 2012. If the operating
scenario for 2011 is different from all of
the operating scenarios for which
emission factors are developed after
February 29, 2012, use Equation L–23 at
§ 98.123(c)(3)(viii) to adjust the
emission factor(s) or emission
characterizations measured for the postFebruary 29, 2012 operating scenario(s)
to account for the differences.
(4) Requests for extension of the use
of best available monitoring methods to
estimate emissions that occur after
2011. EPA does not anticipate
approving the use of best available
monitoring methods to estimate
emissions that occur beyond December
31, 2011; however, EPA reserves the
right to review requests for unique and
extreme circumstances which include
safety, technical infeasibility, or
inconsistency with other local, State or
Federal regulations.
(i) Timing of request. The extension
request must be submitted to EPA no
later than June 30, 2011.
(ii) Content of request. Requests must
contain the following information:
(A) The information outlined in
paragraph (o)(2)(ii) of this section. For
scoping speciations, emission factors,
and emission characterizations,
substitute March 1, 2013 for July 1, 2011
and substitute March 1, 2014 for January
1, 2012. For other parameters, substitute
January 1, 2012 for July 1, 2011 and
substitute January 1, 2013 for January 1,
2012.
(B) A detailed outline of the unique
circumstances necessitating an
extension, including specific data
collection issues that do not meet safety
regulations, technical infeasibility or
specific laws or regulations that conflict
with data collection. The owner or
operator must consider all the data
collection and emission calculation
options outlined in the rule for a
specific emissions source before
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
claiming that a specific safety, technical
or legal barrier exists.
(C) A detailed explanation and
supporting documentation of how and
when the owner or operator will receive
the required data and/or services to
comply with the reporting requirements
of this subpart in the future.
(E) The Administrator reserves the
right to require that the owner or
operator provide additional
documentation.
(iii) Reporting of 2011 and subsequent
year emissions using scoping
speciations, emission factors, and
emission characterizations developed
after approval to use best available
monitoring methods expires. Facilities
that are approved to use best available
monitoring methods in 2011 and
subsequent years for scoping
speciations, emission factors, or
emission characterizations for certain
processes must submit, by March 31 of
the year that begins one year after their
approval to use best available
monitoring method(s) expires, revised
emission estimates for 2011 and
subsequent years that reflect the scoping
speciations, emission factors, and
emission characterizations that are
measured for those processes in 2013 or
subsequent years. If the operating
scenario for 2011 or subsequent years is
different from all of the operating
scenarios for which emission factors or
emission characterizations are
developed in 2013 or subsequent years,
use Equation L–23 of § 98.123(c)(3)(viii)
to adjust the emission factor(s) or
emission characterization(s) measured
for the new operating scenario(s) to
account for the differences.
(5) Approval criteria. To obtain
approval, the owner or operator must
demonstrate to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that it is not reasonably
feasible to acquire, install, or operate the
required piece of monitoring equipment,
to procure measurement services from
necessary providers, or to gain physical
access to make required measurements
in a facility according to the
requirements of this subpart by the
dates specified in paragraphs (o)(2), (3),
and (4) of this section for any of the
reasons described in paragraph (o)(2)(ii)
of this section, or, for requests under
paragraph (o)(4) of this section, any of
the reasons described in paragraph
(o)(4)(ii)(B) of this section.
§ 98.125 Procedures for estimating
missing data.
(a) A complete record of all measured
parameters used in the GHG emissions
calculations in § 98.123 is required.
Therefore, whenever a quality-assured
value of a required parameter is
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
unavailable, a substitute data value for
the missing parameter must be used in
the calculations as specified in the
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
You must document and keep records of
the procedures used for all such
estimates.
(b) For each missing value of the
fluorinated GHG concentration or
fluorine-containing compound
concentration, the substitute data value
must be the arithmetic average of the
quality-assured values of that parameter
immediately preceding and immediately
following the missing data incident.
(c) For each missing value of the mass
produced, fed into the production
process, fed into the transformation
process, or fed into destruction devices,
the substitute value of that parameter
must be a secondary mass measurement
where such a measurement is available.
For example, if the mass produced is
usually measured with a flowmeter at
the inlet to the day tank and that
flowmeter fails to meet an accuracy or
precision test, malfunctions, or is
rendered inoperable, then the mass
produced may be estimated by
calculating the change in volume in the
day tank and multiplying it by the
density of the product. Where a
secondary mass measurement is not
available, the substitute value of the
parameter must be an estimate based on
a related parameter. For example, if a
flowmeter measuring the mass fed into
a destruction device is rendered
inoperable, then the mass fed into the
destruction device may be estimated
using the production rate and the
previously observed relationship
between the production rate and the
mass flow rate into the destruction
device.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
§ 98.126
Data reporting requirements.
(a) All facilities. In addition to the
information required by § 98.3(c), you
must report the information in
paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(6) of this
section.
(1) Frequency of reporting under
paragraph (a) of this section. The
information in paragraphs (a)(2), (5),
and (6) of this section must be reported
annually. The information in paragraphs
(a)(3) and (4) of this section must be
reported once by March 31, 2012 for
each process and operating scenarios
that operates between December 31,
2010 and December 31, 2011. For other
processes and operating scenarios, the
information in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4)
of this section must be reported once by
March 31 of the year following the year
in which the process or operating
scenario commences or recommences.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
(2) You must report the total mass in
metric tons of each fluorinated GHG
emitted from:
(i) Each fluorinated gas production
process and all fluorinated gas
production processes combined.
(ii) Each fluorinated gas
transformation process that is not part of
a fluorinated gas production process
and all such fluorinated gas
transformation processes combined,
except report separately fluorinated
GHG emissions from transformation
processes where a fluorinated GHG
reactant is produced at another facility.
(iii) Each fluorinated gas destruction
process that is not part of a fluorinated
gas production process or a fluorinated
gas transformation process and all such
fluorinated gas destruction processes
combined.
(iv) Venting of residual fluorinated
GHGs from containers returned from the
field.
(3) The chemical identities of the
contents of the stream(s) (including
process, emissions, and destroyed
streams) analyzed under the initial
scoping speciation of fluorinated GHG
at § 98.124(a), by process.
(4) The location and function of the
stream(s) (including process streams,
emissions streams, and destroyed
streams) that were analyzed under the
initial scoping speciation of fluorinated
GHG at § 98.124(a), by process.
(5) The method used to determine the
mass emissions of each fluorinated
GHG, i.e., mass balance, process-ventspecific emission factor, or processvent-specific emission calculation
factor, for each process and process vent
at the facility. For processes for which
the process-vent-specific emission factor
or process-vent-specific emission
calculation factor are used, report the
method used to estimate emissions from
equipment leaks.
(6) The chemical formula and total
mass produced of the fluorinated gas
product in metric tons, by chemical and
process.
(b) Reporting for mass balance
approach. For processes whose
emissions are determined using the
mass-balance approach under
§ 98.123(b), you must report the
information listed in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(13) of this section for each
process on an annual basis. Identify and
separately report fluorinated GHG
emissions from transformation
processes where the fluorinated GHG
reactants are produced at another
facility. If you use an element other than
fluorine in the mass-balance equation
pursuant to § 98.123(b)(3), substitute
that element for fluorine in the reporting
requirements of this paragraph.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74851
(1) If you calculate the relative and
absolute errors under 98.123(b)(1), the
absolute and relative errors calculated
under paragraph § 98.123(b)(1), as well
as the data (including quantities and
their accuracies and precisions) used in
these calculations.
(2) The balanced chemical equation
that describes the reaction used to
manufacture the fluorinated GHG
product and each fluorinated GHG
transformation product.
(3) The mass and chemical formula of
each fluorinated GHG reactant emitted
from the process in metric tons.
(4) The mass and chemical formula of
the fluorinated GHG product emitted
from the process in metric tons.
(5) The mass and chemical formula of
each fluorinated GHG by-product
emitted from the process in metric tons.
(6) The mass and chemical formula of
each fluorine-containing reactant that is
fed into the process (metric tons).
(7) The mass and chemical formula of
each fluorine-containing product
produced by the process (metric tons).
(8) If you use § 98.123(b)(4) to
estimate the total mass of fluorine in
destroyed or recaptured streams, report
the following.
(i) The mass and chemical formula of
each fluorine-containing product that is
removed from the process and fed into
the destruction device (metric tons).
(ii) The mass and chemical formula of
each fluorine-containing by-product that
is removed from the process and fed
into the destruction device (metric
tons).
(iii) The mass and chemical formula
of each fluorine-containing reactant that
is removed from the process and fed
into the destruction device (metric
tons).
(iv) The mass and chemical formula of
each fluorine-containing by-product that
is removed from the process and
recaptured (metric tons).
(v) The demonstrated destruction
efficiency of the destruction device for
each fluorinated GHG fed into the
device from the process in greater than
trace concentrations (fraction).
(9) If you use § 98.123(b)(15) to
estimate the total mass of fluorine in
destroyed or recaptured streams, report
the following.
(i) The mass of fluorine in each stream
that is fed into the destruction device
(metric tons).
(ii) The mass of fluorine that is
recaptured (metric tons).
(iii) The weighted average destruction
efficiency of the destruction device
calculated for each stream under
§ 98.123(b)(16).
(10) The fraction of the mass emitted
that consists of each fluorine-containing
reactant.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74852
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(11) The fraction of the mass emitted
that consists of the fluorine-containing
product.
(12) The fraction of the mass emitted
that consists of each fluorine-containing
by-product.
(13) The method used to estimate the
total mass of fluorine in destroyed or
recaptured streams (specify
§ 98.123(b)(4) or (15)).
(c) Reporting for emission factor and
emission calculation factor approach.
For processes whose emissions are
determined using the emission factor
approach under § 98.123(c)(3) or the
emission calculation factor under
§ 98.123(c)(4), you must report the
following for each process. Fluorinated
GHG emissions from transformation
processes where the fluorinated GHG
reactants are produced at another
facility must be identified and reported
separately from other fluorinated GHG
emissions.
(1) The identity and quantity of the
process activity used to estimate
emissions (e.g., tons of product
produced or tons of reactant consumed).
(2) The site-specific, process-ventspecific emission factor(s) or emission
calculation factor for each process vent.
(3) The mass of each fluorinated GHG
emitted from each process vent (metric
tons).
(4) The mass of each fluorinated GHG
emitted from equipment leaks (metric
tons).
(d) Reporting for missing data. Where
missing data have been estimated
pursuant to § 98.125, you must report
the reason the data were missing, the
length of time the data were missing, the
method used to estimate the missing
data, and the estimates of those data.
(e) Reporting of destruction device
excess emissions data. Each fluorinated
gas production facility that destroys
fluorinated GHGs must report the excess
emissions that result from malfunctions
of the destruction device, and these
excess emissions would be reflected in
the fluorinated GHG estimates in
§ 98.123(b) and (c). Such excess
emissions would occur if the
destruction efficiency was reduced due
to the malfunction.
(f) Reporting of destruction device
testing. By March 31, 2012 or by March
31 of the year immediately following the
year in which it begins fluorinated GHG
destruction, each fluorinated gas
production facility that destroys
fluorinated GHGs must submit a report
containing the information in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this
section. This report is one-time unless
you make a change to the destruction
device that would be expected to affect
its destruction efficiencies.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each
destruction device for each fluorinated
GHG whose destruction the facility
reflects in § 98.123, in accordance with
§ 98.124(g)(1)(i) through (iv).
(2) Chemical identity of the
fluorinated GHG(s) used in the
performance test conducted to
determine destruction efficiency,
including surrogates, and information
on why the surrogate is sufficient to
demonstrate the destruction efficiency
for each fluorinated GHG, consistent
with requirements in § 98.124(g)(1),
vented to the destruction device.
(3) Date of the most recent destruction
device test.
(4) Name of all applicable Federal or
State regulations that may apply to the
destruction process.
(5) If you make a change to the
destruction device that would be
expected to affect its destruction
efficiencies, submit a revised report that
reflects the changes, including the
revised destruction efficiencies
measured for the device under
§ 98.124(g)(2)(ii), by March 31 of the
year that immediately follows the
change.
(g) Reporting for destruction of
previously produced fluorinated GHGs.
Each fluorinated gas production facility
that destroys fluorinated GHGs must
report, separately from the fluorinated
GHG emissions reported under
paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, the
following for each previously produced
fluorinated GHG destroyed:
(1) The mass of the fluorinated GHG
fed into the destruction device.
(2) The mass of the fluorinated GHG
emitted from the destruction device.
(h) Reporting of emissions from
venting of residual fluorinated GHGs
from containers. Each fluorinated gas
production facility that vents residual
fluorinated GHGs from containers must
report the following for each fluorinated
GHG vented:
(1) The mass of the residual
fluorinated GHG vented from each
container size and type annually (tons).
(2) If applicable, the heel factor
calculated for each container size and
type.
(i) Reporting of fluorinated GHG
products of incomplete combustion
(PICs) of fluorinated gases. Each
fluorinated gas production facility that
destroys fluorinated gases must submit
a one-time report by June 30, 2011, that
describes any measurements, research,
or analysis that it has performed or
obtained that relate to the formation of
products of incomplete combustion that
are fluorinated GHGs during the
destruction of fluorinated gases. The
report must include the methods and
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
results of any measurement or modeling
studies, including the products of
incomplete combustion for which the
exhaust stream was analyzed, as well as
copies of relevant scientific papers, if
available, or citations of the papers, if
they are not. No new testing is required
to fulfill this requirement.
§ 98.127
Records that must be retained.
In addition to the records required by
§ 98.3(g), you must retain the dated
records specified in paragraphs (a)
through (j) of this section, as applicable.
(a) Process information records.
(1) Identify all products and processes
subject to this subpart. Include the unit
identification as appropriate.
(2) Monthly and annual records, as
applicable, of all analyses and
calculations conducted as required
under § 98.123, including the data
monitored under § 98.124, and all
information reported as required and
§ 98.126.
(b) Scoping speciation. Retain records
documenting the information reported
under § 98.126(a)(3) and (4).
(c) Mass-balance method. Retain the
following records for each process for
which the mass-balance method was
used to estimate emissions. If you use
an element other than fluorine in the
mass-balance equation pursuant to
§ 98.123(b)(3), substitute that element
for fluorine in the recordkeeping
requirements of this paragraph.
(1) The data and calculations used to
estimate the absolute and relative errors
associated with use of the mass-balance
approach.
(2) The data and calculations used to
estimate the mass of fluorine emitted
from the process.
(3) The data and calculations used to
determine the fractions of the mass
emitted consisting of each reactant
(FERd), product (FEP), and by-product
(FEBk), including the preliminary
calculations in § 98.123(b)(8)(i).
(d) Emission factor and emission
calculation factor method. Retain the
following records for each process for
which the emission factor or emission
calculation factor method was used to
estimate emissions.
(1) Identify all continuous process
vents with emissions of fluorinated
GHGs that are less than 10,000 metric
tons CO2e per year and all continuous
process vents with emissions of 10,000
metric tons CO2e per year or more.
Include the data and calculation used to
develop the preliminary estimate of
emissions for each process vent.
(2) Identify all batch process vents.
(3) For each vent, identify the method
used to develop the factor (i.e., emission
factor by emissions test or emission
calculation factor).
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(4) The emissions test data and
reports (see § 98.124(c)(5)) and the
calculations used to determine the
process-vent-specific emission factor,
including the actual process-ventspecific emission factor, the average
hourly emission rate of each fluorinated
GHG from the process vent during the
test and the process feed rate, process
production rate, or other process
activity rate during the test.
(5) The process-vent-specific emission
calculation factor and the calculations
used to determine the process-ventspecific emission calculation factor.
(6) The annual process production
quantity or other process activity
information in the appropriate units,
along with the dates and time period
during which the process was operating
and dates and time periods the process
vents are vented to the destruction
device. As an alternative to date and
time periods when process vents are
vented to the destruction device, a
facility may track dates and time
periods that process vents by-pass the
destruction device.
(7) Calculations used to determine
annual emissions of each fluorinated
GHG for each process and the total
fluorinated GHG emissions for all
processes, i.e., total for facility.
(e) Destruction efficiency testing. A
fluorinated GHG production facility that
destroys fluorinated GHGs and reflects
this destruction in § 98.123 must retain
the emissions performance testing
reports (including revised reports) for
each destruction device. The emissions
performance testing report must contain
all information and data used to derive
the destruction efficiency for each
fluorinated GHG whose destruction the
facility reflects in § 98.123, as well as
the key process and device conditions
during the test. This information
includes the following:
(1) Destruction efficiency (DE)
determined for each fluorinated GHG
whose destruction the facility reflects in
§ 98.123, in accordance with
§ 98.124(g)(1)(i) through (iv).
(2) Chemical identity of the
fluorinated GHG(s) used in the
performance test conducted to
determine destruction efficiency,
including surrogates, and information
on why the surrogate is sufficient to
demonstrate destruction efficiency for
each fluorinated GHG, consistent with
requirements in § 98.124(g)(1)(i) through
(iv), vented to the destruction device.
(3) Mass flow rate of the stream
containing the fluorinated GHG(s) or
surrogate into the device during the test.
(4) Concentration (mass fraction) of
each fluorinated GHG or surrogate in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
stream flowing into the device during
the test.
(5) Concentration (mass fraction) of
each fluorinated GHG or surrogate at the
outlet of the destruction device during
the test.
(6) Mass flow rate at the outlet of the
destruction device during the test.
(7) Test methods and analytical
methods used to determine the mass
flow rates and fluorinated GHG (or
surrogate) concentrations of the streams
flowing into and out of the destruction
device during the test.
(8) Destruction device conditions that
are normally monitored for device
control, such as temperature, total mass
flow rates into the device, and CO or O2
levels.
(9) Name of all applicable Federal or
State regulations that may apply to the
destruction process.
(f) Equipment leak records. If you are
subject to § 98.123(d) of this subpart,
you must maintain information on the
number of each type of equipment; the
service of each piece of equipment (gas,
light liquid, heavy liquid); the
concentration of each fluorinated GHG
in the stream; each piece of equipment
excluded from monitoring requirement;
the time period each piece of equipment
was in service, and the emission
calculations for each fluorinated GHG
for all processes. Depending on which
equipment leak monitoring approach
you follow, you must maintain
information for equipment on the
associated screening data concentrations
for greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv
and associated screening data
concentrations for less than 10,000
ppmv; associated actual screening data
concentrations; and associated
screening data and leak rate data (i.e.,
bagging) used to develop a unit-specific
correlation. If you developed and follow
a site-specific leak detection approach,
provide the records for monitoring
events and the emissions estimation
calculations, as appropriate, consistent
with the approach for equipment leak
emission estimation in your GHG
Monitoring Plan.
(g) Container heel records. If you vent
residual fluorinated GHGs from
containers, maintain the following
records of the measurements and
calculations used to estimate emissions
of residual fluorinated GHGs from
containers.
(i) If you measure the contents of each
container, maintain records of these
measurements and the calculations used
to estimate emissions of each
fluorinated GHG from each container
size and type.
(ii) If you develop and apply
container heel factors to estimate
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
74853
emissions, maintain records of the
measurements and calculations used to
develop the heel factor for each
fluorinated GHG and each container size
and type and of the number of
containers of each fluorinated GHG and
of each container size and type returned
to your facility.
(h) Missing data records. Where
missing data have been estimated
pursuant to § 98.125, you must record
the reason the data were missing, the
length of time the data were missing, the
method used to estimate the missing
data, and the estimates of those data.
(i) All facilities. Dated records
documenting the initial and periodic
calibration of all analytical equipment
used to determine the concentration of
fluorinated GHGs, including but not
limited to gas chromatographs, gas
chromatography-mass spectrometry
(GC/MS), gas chromatograph-electron
capture detector (GC/ECD), fourier
transform infrared (FTIR), and nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) devices, and
all mass measurement equipment such
as weigh scales, flowmeters, and
volumetric and density measures used
to measure the quantities reported
under this subpart, including the
industry standards or manufacturer
directions used for calibration pursuant
to § 98.124(e), (f), (g), (m), and (n).
(j) GHG Monitoring Plans, as
described in § 98.3(g)(5), must be
completed by April 1, 2011.
§ 98.128
Definitions.
Except as provided in this section, all
of the terms used in this subpart have
the same meaning given in the Clean Air
Act and subpart A of this part. If a
conflict exists between a definition
provided in this subpart and a
definition provided in subpart A, the
definition in this subpart shall take
precedence for the reporting
requirements in this subpart.
Batch process or batch operation
means a noncontinuous operation
involving intermittent or discontinuous
feed into equipment, and, in general,
involves the emptying of the equipment
after the batch operation ceases and
prior to beginning a new operation.
Addition of raw material and
withdrawal of product do not occur
simultaneously in a batch operation.
Batch emission episode means a
discrete venting episode associated with
a vessel in a process; a vessel may have
more than one batch emission episode.
For example, a displacement of vapor
resulting from the charging of a vessel
with a feed material will result in a
discrete emission episode that will last
through the duration of the charge and
will have an average flow rate equal to
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74854
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the rate of the charge. If the vessel is
then heated, there will also be another
discrete emission episode resulting from
the expulsion of expanded vapor. Other
emission episodes also may occur from
the same vessel and other vessels in the
process, depending on process
operations.
By-product means a chemical that is
produced coincidentally during the
production of another chemical.
Completely destroyed means
destroyed with a destruction efficiency
of 99.99 percent or greater.
Completely recaptured means 99.99
percent or greater of each fluorinated
GHG is removed from a stream.
Continuous process or operation
means a process where the inputs and
outputs flow continuously throughout
the duration of the process. Continuous
processes are typically steady state.
Destruction device means any device
used to destroy fluorinated GHG.
Destruction process means a process
used to destroy fluorinated GHG in a
destruction device such as a thermal
incinerator or catalytic oxidizer.
Difficult-to-monitor means the
equipment piece may not be monitored
without elevating the monitoring
personnel more than 2 meters (7 feet)
above a support surface or it is not
accessible in a safe manner when it is
in fluorinated GHG service.
Dual mechanical seal pump and dual
mechanical seal agitator means a pump
or agitator equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system where the barrier
fluid is not in light liquid service; each
barrier fluid system is equipped with a
sensor that will detect failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both;
and meets the following requirements:
(1) Each dual mechanical seal system
is operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times (except
periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction) greater than the pump or
agitator stuffing box pressure; or
(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservoir that is routed to a
process or fuel gas system or connected
by a closed-vent system to a control
device; or
(3) Equipped with a closed-loop
system that purges the barrier fluid into
a process stream.
Equipment (for the purposes of
§ 98.123(d) and § 98.124(f) only) means
each pump, compressor, agitator,
pressure relief device, sampling
connection system, open-ended valve or
line, valve, connector, and
instrumentation system in fluorinated
GHG service for a process subject to this
subpart; and any destruction devices or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
closed-vent systems to which processes
subject to this subpart are vented.
Fluorinated gas means any
fluorinated GHG, CFC, or HCFC.
In fluorinated GHG service means that
a piece of equipment either contains or
contacts a feedstock, by-product, or
product that is a liquid or gas and
contains at least 5 percent by weight
fluorinated GHG.
In gas and vapor service means that
a piece of equipment in regulated
material service contains a gas or vapor
at operating conditions.
In heavy liquid service means that a
piece of equipment in regulated material
service is not in gas and vapor service
or in light liquid service.
In light liquid service means that a
piece of equipment in regulated material
service contains a liquid that meets the
following conditions:
(1) The vapor pressure of one or more
of the compounds is greater than 0.3
kilopascals at 20 °C.
(2) The total concentration of the pure
compounds constituents having a vapor
pressure greater than 0.3 kilopascals at
20 °C is equal to or greater than 20
percent by weight of the total process
stream.
(3) The fluid is a liquid at operating
conditions.
Note to definition of ‘‘in light liquid
service’’: Vapor pressures may be
determined by standard reference texts
or ASTM D–2879, (incorporated by
reference, see § 98.7).
In vacuum service means that
equipment is operating at an internal
pressure which is at least 5 kilopascals
below ambient pressure.
Isolated intermediate means a product
of a process that is stored before
subsequent processing. An isolated
intermediate is usually a product of
chemical synthesis. Storage of an
isolated intermediate marks the end of
a process. Storage occurs at any time the
intermediate is placed in equipment
used solely for storage.
No external shaft pump and No
external shaft agitator means any pump
or agitator that is designed with no
externally actuated shaft penetrating the
pump or agitator housing.
Operating scenario means any
specific operation of a process and
includes the information specified in
paragraphs (1) through (5) of this
definition for each process. A change or
series of changes to any of these
elements, except for paragraph (4) of
this definition, constitutes a different
operating scenario.
(1) A description of the process, the
specific process equipment used, and
the range of operating conditions for the
process.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2) An identification of related
process vents, their associated
emissions episodes and durations, and
calculations and engineering analyses to
show the annual uncontrolled
fluorinated GHG emissions from the
process vent.
(3) The control or destruction devices
used, as applicable, including a
description of operating and/or testing
conditions for any associated
destruction device.
(4) The process vents (including those
from other processes) that are
simultaneously routed to the control or
destruction device(s).
(5) The applicable monitoring
requirements and any parametric level
that assures destruction or removal for
all emissions routed to the control or
destruction device.
Process means all equipment that
collectively functions to produce a
fluorinated gas product, including an
isolated intermediate (which is also a
fluorinated gas product), or to transform
a fluorinated gas product. A process
may consist of one or more unit
operations. For the purposes of this
subpart, process includes any, all, or a
combination of reaction, recovery,
separation, purification, or other
activity, operation, manufacture, or
treatment which are used to produce a
fluorinated gas product. For a
continuous process, cleaning operations
conducted may be considered part of
the process, at the discretion of the
facility. For a batch process, cleaning
operations are part of the process.
Ancillary activities are not considered a
process or part of any process under this
subpart. Ancillary activities include
boilers and incinerators, chillers and
refrigeration systems, and other
equipment and activities that are not
directly involved (i.e., they operate
within a closed system and materials are
not combined with process fluids) in the
processing of raw materials or the
manufacturing of a fluorinated gas
product.
Process condenser means a condenser
whose primary purpose is to recover
material as an integral part of a process.
All condensers recovering condensate
from a process vent at or above the
boiling point or all condensers in line
prior to a vacuum source are considered
process condensers. Typically, a
primary condenser or condensers in
series are considered to be integral to
the process if they are capable of and
normally used for the purpose of
recovering chemicals for fuel value (i.e.,
net positive heating value), use, reuse or
for sale for fuel value, use, or reuse.
Process vent (for the purposes of this
subpart only) means a vent from a
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
limited to, equipment under extreme
pressure or heat.
■ 10. Add subpart DD to read as follows:
Where:
Decrease in SF6 Inventory = (pounds of SF6
stored in containers, but not in energized
equipment, at the beginning of the
year)—(pounds of SF6 stored in
containers, but not in energized
equipment, at the end of the year).
Acquisitions of SF6 = (pounds of SF6
purchased from chemical producers or
distributors in bulk) + (pounds of SF6
purchased from equipment
manufacturers or distributors with or
inside equipment, including
hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear)
+ (pounds of SF6 returned to facility after
off-site recycling).
Disbursements of SF6 = (pounds of SF6 in
bulk and contained in equipment that is
sold to other entities) + (pounds of SF6
returned to suppliers) + (pounds of SF6
sent off site for recycling) + (pounds of
SF6 sent off-site for destruction).
Net Increase in Total Nameplate Capacity of
Equipment Operated = (The Nameplate
Capacity of new equipment in pounds,
including hermetically sealed-pressure
switchgear)—(Nameplate Capacity of
retiring equipment in pounds, including
hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
Subpart DD—Electrical Transmission and
Distribution Equipment Use
Sec.
98.300 Definition of the source category.
98.301 Reporting threshold.
98.302 GHGs to report.
98.303 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.304 Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements.
98.305 Procedures for estimating missing
data.
98.306 Data reporting requirements.
98.307 Records that must be retained.
98.308 Definitions.
Subpart DD—Electrical Transmission
and Distribution Equipment Use
§ 98.300
Definition of the source category.
(a) The electrical transmission and
distribution equipment use source
category consists of all electric
transmission and distribution
equipment and servicing inventory
insulated with or containing sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons
(PFCs) used within an electric power
system. Electric transmission and
distribution equipment and servicing
inventory includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Gas-insulated substations.
(2) Circuit breakers.
(3) Switchgear, including closedpressure and hermetically sealedpressure switchgear and gas-insulated
lines containing SF6 or PFCs.
(4) Gas containers such as pressurized
cylinders.
(5) Gas carts.
(6) Electric power transformers.
(7) Other containers of SF6 or PFC.
§ 98.301
Reporting threshold.
(a) You must report GHG emissions
from an electric power system if the
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC
containing equipment (excluding
hermetically sealed-pressure
equipment) located within the facility,
when added to the total nameplate
capacity of SF6 and PFC containing
equipment (excluding hermetically
sealed-pressure equipment) that is not
located within the facility but is under
common ownership or control, exceeds
17,820 pounds and the facility meets the
requirements of § 98.2(a)(1).
(b) A facility other than an electric
power system that is subject to this part
because of emissions from any other
source category listed in Table A–3 or
A–4 in subpart A of this part is not
required to report emissions under
subpart DD of this part unless the total
nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC
containing equipment located within
that facility exceeds 17,820 pounds.
§ 98.302
GHGs to report.
You must report total SF6 and PFC
emissions from your facility (including
emissions from fugitive equipment
leaks, installation, servicing, equipment
decommissioning and disposal, and
from storage cylinders) resulting from
the transmission and distribution
servicing inventory and equipment
listed in § 98.300(a). For acquisitions of
equipment containing or insulated with
SF6 or PFCs, you must report emissions
from the equipment after the title to the
equipment is transferred to the electric
power transmission or distribution
entity.
§ 98.303
Calculating GHG emissions.
(a) Calculate the annual SF6 and PFC
emissions using the mass-balance
approach in Equation DD–1 of this
section:
(Note that Nameplate Capacity refers to
the full and proper charge of equipment
rather than to the actual charge, which
may reflect leakage).
(b) Use Equation DD–1 of this section
to estimate emissions of PFCs from
power transformers, substituting the
relevant PFC(s) for SF6 in the equation.
§ 98.304 Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements.
(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring,
you may follow the provisions of
§ 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.053
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
process vessel or vents from multiple
process vessels within a process that are
manifolded together into a common
header, through which a fluorinated
GHG-containing gas stream is, or has the
potential to be, released to the
atmosphere (or the point of entry into a
control device, if any). Examples of
process vents include, but are not
limited to, vents on condensers used for
product recovery, bottoms receivers,
surge control vessels, reactors, filters,
centrifuges, and process tanks. Process
vents do not include vents on storage
tanks, wastewater emission sources, or
pieces of equipment.
Typical batch means a batch process
operated within a range of operating
conditions that are documented in an
operating scenario. Emissions from a
typical batch are based on the operating
conditions that result in representative
emissions. The typical batch defines the
uncontrolled emissions for each
emission episode defined under the
operating scenario.
Uncontrolled fluorinated GHG
emissions means a gas stream
containing fluorinated GHG which has
exited the process (or process condenser
or control condenser, where applicable),
but which has not yet been introduced
into a destruction device to reduce the
mass of fluorinated GHG in the stream.
If the emissions from the process are not
routed to a destruction device,
uncontrolled emissions are those
fluorinated GHG emissions released to
the atmosphere.
Unsafe-to-monitor means that
monitoring personnel would be exposed
to an immediate danger as a
consequence of monitoring the piece of
equipment. Examples of unsafe-tomonitor equipment include, but are not
74855
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74856
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
available monitoring methods rather
than follow the monitoring
requirements of this section. For
purposes of this subpart, any reference
in § 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) to 2010
means 2011, to March 31 means June
30, and to April 1 means July 1. Any
reference to the effective date in
§ 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) means
February 28, 2011.
(b) You must adhere to the following
QA/QC methods for reviewing the
completeness and accuracy of reporting:
(1) Review inputs to Equation DD–1 of
this section to ensure inputs and
outputs to the company’s system are
included.
(2) Do not enter negative inputs and
confirm that negative emissions are not
calculated. However, the Decrease in
SF6 Inventory and the Net Increase in
Total Nameplate Capacity may be
calculated as negative numbers.
(3) Ensure that beginning-of-year
inventory matches end-of-year
inventory from the previous year.
(4) Ensure that in addition to SF6
purchased from bulk gas distributors,
SF6 purchased from Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEM) and SF6 returned
to the facility from off-site recycling are
also accounted for among the total
additions.
(c) Ensure the following QA/QC
methods are employed throughout the
year:
(1) Ensure that cylinders returned to
the gas supplier are consistently
weighed on a scale that is certified to be
accurate and precise to within 2 pounds
of the scale’s capacity and is
periodically recalibrated per the
manufacturer’s specifications. Either
measure residual gas (the amount of gas
remaining in returned cylinders) or have
the gas supplier measure it. If the gas
supplier weighs the residual gas, obtain
from the gas supplier a detailed monthly
accounting, within +/¥ 2 pounds, of
residual gas amounts in the cylinders
returned to the gas supplier.
(2) Ensure that cylinders weighed for
the beginning and end of year inventory
measurements are weighed on a scale
that is certified to be accurate to within
2 pounds of the scale’s capacity and is
periodically recalibrated per the
manufacturer’s specifications. All scales
used to measure quantities that are to be
reported under § 98.306 must be
calibrated using calibration procedures
specified by the scale manufacturer.
Calibration must be performed prior to
the first reporting year. After the initial
calibration, recalibration must be
performed at the minimum frequency
specified by the manufacturer.
(3) Ensure all substations have
provided information to the manager
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
compiling the emissions report (if it is
not already handled through an
electronic inventory system).
(d) GHG Monitoring Plans, as
described in § 98.3(g)(5), must be
completed by April 1, 2011.
§ 98.307
§ 98.308
§ 98.305 Procedures for estimating
missing data.
A complete record of all measured
parameters used in the GHG emissions
calculations is required. Replace
missing data, if needed, based on data
from equipment with a similar
nameplate capacity for SF6 and PFC,
and from similar equipment repair,
replacement, and maintenance
operations.
§ 98.306
Data reporting requirements.
In addition to the information
required by § 98.3(c), each annual report
must contain the following information
for each electric power system, by
chemical:
(a) Nameplate capacity of equipment
(pounds) containing SF6 and nameplate
capacity of equipment (pounds)
containing each PFC:
(1) Existing at the beginning of the
year (excluding hermetically sealedpressure switchgear).
(2) New during the year (all SF6insulated equipment, including
hermetically sealed-pressure
switchgear).
(3) Retired during the year (all SF6insulated equipment, including
hermetically sealed-pressure
switchgear).
(b) Transmission miles (length of lines
carrying voltages above 35 kilovolt).
(c) Distribution miles (length of lines
carrying voltages at or below 35
kilovolt).
(d) Pounds of SF6 and PFC stored in
containers, but not in energized
equipment, at the beginning of the year.
(e) Pounds of SF6 and PFC stored in
containers, but not in energized
equipment, at the end of the year.
(f) Pounds of SF6 and PFC purchased
in bulk from chemical producers or
distributors.
(g) Pounds of SF6 and PFC purchased
from equipment manufacturers or
distributors with or inside equipment,
including hermetically sealed-pressure
switchgear.
(h) Pounds of SF6 and PFC returned
to facility after off-site recycling.
(i) Pounds of SF6 and PFC in bulk and
contained in equipment sold to other
entities.
(j) Pounds of SF6 and PFC returned to
suppliers.
(k) Pounds of SF6 and PFC sent offsite for recycling.
(l) Pounds of SF6 and PFC sent off-site
for destruction.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Records that must be retained.
In addition to the information
required by § 98.3(g), you must retain
records of the information reported and
listed in § 98.306.
Definitions.
Except as specified in this section, all
terms used in this subpart have the
same meaning given in the Clean Air
Act and subpart A of this part.
Facility, with respect to an electric
power system, means the electric power
system as defined in this paragraph. An
electric power system is comprised of
all electric transmission and
distribution equipment insulated with
or containing SF6 or PFCs that is linked
through electric power transmission or
distribution lines and functions as an
integrated unit, that is owned, serviced,
or maintained by a single electric power
transmission or distribution entity (or
multiple entities with a common
owner), and that is located between: (1)
The point(s) at which electric energy is
obtained from an electricity generating
unit or a different electric power
transmission or distribution entity that
does not have a common owner, and (2)
the point(s) at which any customer or
another electric power transmission or
distribution entity that does not have a
common owner receives the electric
energy. The facility also includes
servicing inventory for such equipment
that contains SF6 or PFCs.
Electric power transmission or
distribution entity means any entity that
transmits, distributes, or supplies
electricity to a consumer or other user,
including any company, electric
cooperative, public electric supply
corporation, a similar Federal
department (including the Bureau of
Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers),
a municipally owned electric
department offering service to the
public, an electric public utility district,
or a jointly owned electric supply
project.
Operator, for the purposes of this
subpart, means any person who operates
or supervises a facility, excluding a
person whose sole responsibility is to
ensure reliability, balance load or
otherwise address electricity flow.
■ 11. Add Subpart QQ to read as
follows:
Subpart QQ—Importers and Exporters of
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Contained
in Pre-Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell
Foams
Sec.
98.430 Definition of the source category.
98.431 Reporting threshold.
98.432 GHGs to report.
98.433 Calculating GHG emissions.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Subpart QQ—Importers and Exporters
of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases
Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment
or Closed-Cell Foams
§ 98.430
Definition of the source category.
(a) The source category, importers and
exporters of fluorinated GHGs contained
in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell
foams, consists of any entity that
imports or exports pre-charged
equipment that contains a fluorinated
GHG, and any entity that imports or
exports closed-cell foams that contain a
fluorinated GHG.
§ 98.431
Reporting threshold.
Any importer or exporter of
fluorinated GHGs contained in precharged equipment or closed-cell foams
who meets the requirements of
§ 98.2(a)(4) must report each fluorinated
GHG contained in the imported or
exported pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foams.
§ 98.432
GHGs to report.
You must report the mass of each
fluorinated GHG contained in precharged equipment or closed-cell foams
that you import or export during the
calendar year. For imports and exports
of closed-cell foams where you do not
know the identity and mass of the
fluorinated GHG, you must report the
mass of fluorinated GHG in CO2e.
§ 98.433 Calculating GHG contained in
pre-charged equipment or closed-cell
foams.
(a) The total mass of each fluorinated
GHG imported and exported inside
equipment or foams must be estimated
using Equation QQ–1 of this section:
(b) When the identity and mass of
fluorinated GHGs in a closed-cell foam
is unknown to the importer or exporter,
the total mass in CO2e for the
fluorinated GHGs imported and
exported inside closed-cell foams must
be estimated using Equation QQ–2 of
this section:
Where:
I = Total mass in CO2e of the fluorinated
GHGs imported or exported in close-cell
foams annually (metric tons).
t = Equipment/foam type containing the
fluorinated GHG.
St = Mass in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs
per unit of equipment type t or foam type
t (charge per piece of equipment or cubic
foot of foam, kg).
Nt = Number of units of equipment type t or
foam type t imported or exported
annually (pieces of equipment or cubic
feet of foam).
0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons.
§ 98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements.
(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring,
you may follow the provisions of
§ 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best
available monitoring methods rather
than follow the monitoring
requirements of this section. For
purposes of this subpart, any reference
in § 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) to the year
2010 means 2011, to March 31 means
June 30, and to April 1 means July 1.
Any reference to the effective date or
date of promulgation in § 98.3(d)(1)
through (d)(2) means February 28, 2011.
(b) The inputs to the annual
submission must be reviewed against
the import or export transaction records
to ensure that the information submitted
to EPA is being accurately transcribed as
the correct chemical or blend in the
correct pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foam in the correct
quantities (metric tons) and units (kg
per piece of equipment or cubic foot of
foam).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
§ 98.435 Procedures for estimating
missing data.
Where:
I = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG
imported or exported annually (metric
tons).
t = Equipment/foam type containing the
fluorinated GHG.
St = Mass of fluorinated GHG per unit of
equipment type t or foam type t (charge
per piece of equipment or cubic foot of
foam, kg).
Nt = Number of units of equipment type t or
foam type t imported or exported
annually (pieces of equipment or cubic
feet of foam).
0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
Procedures for estimating missing
data are not provided for importers and
exporters of fluorinated GHGs contained
in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell
foams. A complete record of all
measured parameters used in tracking
fluorinated GHGs contained in precharged equipment or closed-cell foams
is required.
§ 98.436
Data reporting requirements.
(a) Each importer of fluorinated GHGs
contained in pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foams must submit an
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
annual report that summarizes its
imports at the corporate level, except for
transshipments, as specified:
(1) Total mass in metric tons of each
fluorinated GHG imported in precharged equipment or closed-cell foams.
(2) For each type of pre-charged
equipment with a unique combination
of charge size and charge type, the
identity of the fluorinated GHG used as
a refrigerant or electrical insulator,
charge size (holding charge, if
applicable), and number imported.
(3) For closed-cell foams that are
imported inside of appliances, the
identity of the fluorinated GHG
contained in the foam in each
appliance, the mass of the fluorinated
GHG contained in the foam in each
appliance, and the number of
appliances imported with each unique
combination of mass and identity of
fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell
foams.
(4) For closed cell-foams that are not
imported inside of appliances, the
identity of the fluorinated GHG in the
foam, the density of the fluorinated
GHG in the foam (kg fluorinated GHG/
cubic foot), and the volume of foam
imported (cubic feet) for each type of
closed-cell foam with a unique
combination of fluorinated GHG density
and identity.
(5) Dates on which the pre-charged
equipment or closed-cell foams were
imported.
(6) If the importer does not know the
identity and mass of the fluorinated
GHGs within the closed-cell foam, the
importer must report the following:
(i) Total mass in metric tons of CO2e
of the fluorinated GHGs imported in
closed-cell foams.
(ii) For closed-cell foams that are
imported inside of appliances, the mass
of the fluorinated GHGs in CO2e
contained in the foam in each appliance
and the number of appliances imported
for each type of appliance.
(iii) For closed-cell foams that are not
imported inside of appliances, the mass
in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs in the
foam (kg CO2e/cubic foot) and the
volume of foam imported (cubic feet) for
each type of closed-cell foam.
(iv) Dates on which the closed-cell
foams were imported.
(v) Name of the foam manufacturer for
each type of closed-cell foam where the
identity and mass of the fluorinated
GHGs is unknown.
(vi) Certification that the importer was
unable to obtain information on the
identity and mass of the fluorinated
GHGs within the closed-cell foam from
the closed-cell foam manufacturer or
manufacturers.
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.055
98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements.
98.435 Procedures for estimating missing
data.
98.436 Data reporting requirements.
98.437 Records that must be retained.
98.438 Definitions.
74857
ER01DE10.054
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74858
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Each exporter of fluorinated GHGs
contained in pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foams must submit an
annual report that summarizes its
exports at the corporate level, except for
transshipments, as specified:
(1) Total mass in metric tons of each
fluorinated GHG exported in precharged equipment or closed-cell foams.
(2) For each type of pre-charged
equipment with a unique combination
of charge size and charge type, the
identity of the fluorinated GHG used as
a refrigerant or electrical insulator,
charge size (including holding charge, if
applicable), and number exported.
(3) For closed-cell foams that are
exported inside of appliances, the
identity of the fluorinated GHG
contained in the foam in each
appliance, the mass of the fluorinated
GHG contained in the foam in each
appliance, and the number of
appliances exported with each unique
combination of mass and identity of
fluorinated GHG within the closed-cell
foams.
(4) For closed-cell foams that are not
exported inside of appliances, the
identity of the fluorinated GHG in the
foam, the density of the fluorinated
GHG in the foam (kg fluorinated GHG/
cubic foot), and the volume of foam
exported (cubic feet) for each type of
closed-cell foam with a unique
combination of fluorinated GHG density
and identity.
(5) Dates on which the pre-charged
equipment or closed-cell foams were
exported.
(6) If the exporter does not know the
identity and mass of the fluorinated
GHG within the closed-cell foam, the
exporter must report the following:
(i) Total mass in metric tons of CO2e
of the fluorinated GHGs exported in
closed-cell foams.
(ii) For closed-cell foams that are
exported inside of appliances, the mass
of the fluorinated GHGs in CO2e
contained in the foam in each appliance
and the number of appliances imported
for each type of appliance.
(iii) For closed-cell foams that are not
exported inside of appliances, the mass
in CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs in the
foam (kg CO2e/cubic foot) and the
volume of foam imported (cubic feet) for
each type of closed-cell foam.
(iv) Dates on which the closed-cell
foams were exported.
(v) Name of the foam manufacturer for
each type of closed-cell foam where the
identity and mass of the fluorinated
GHGg is unknown.
(vi) Certification that the exporter was
unable to obtain information on the
identity and mass of the fluorinated
GHGs within the closed-cell foam from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
the closed-cell foam manufacturer or
manufacturers.
§ 98.437
Records that must be retained.
(a) In addition to the data required by
§ 98.3(g), importers of fluorinated GHGs
in pre-charged equipment and closedcell foams must retain the following
records substantiating each of the
imports that they report:
(1) A copy of the bill of lading for the
import.
(2) The invoice for the import.
(3) The U.S. Customs entry form.
(4) Ports of entry through which the
pre-charged equipment or closed-cell
foams passed.
(5) Countries from which the precharged equipment or closed-cell foams
were imported.
(6) For importers that report the mass
of fluorinated GHGs within closed-cell
foams on a CO2e basis, correspondence
or other documents that show the
importer was unable to obtain
information on the identity and mass of
fluorinated GHG within closed-cell
foams from the foam manufacturer.
(b) In addition to the data required by
§ 98.3(g), exporters of fluorinated GHGs
in pre-charged equipment and closedcell foams must retain the following
records substantiating each of the
exports that they report:
(1) A copy of the bill of lading for the
export and
(2) The invoice for the export.
(3) Ports of exit through which the
pre-charged equipment or closed-cell
foams passed.
(4) Countries to which the precharged equipment or closed-cell foams
were exported.
(5) For exporters that report the mass
of fluorinated GHGs within closed-cell
foams on a CO2e basis, correspondence
or other documents that show the
exporter was unable to obtain
information on the identity and mass of
fluorinated GHG within closed-cell
foams from the foam manufacturer.
(c) For importers and exports of
fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged
equipment and closed-cell foams, the
GHG Monitoring Plans, as described in
§ 98.3(g)(5), must be completed by April
1, 2011.
(d) Persons who transship pre-charged
equipment and closed-cell foams
containing fluorinated GHGs must
maintain records that indicated that the
pre-charged equipment or foam
originated in a foreign country and was
destined for another foreign country and
did not enter into commerce in the
United States.
§ 98.438
Definitions.
Except as provided in this section, all
of the terms used in this subpart have
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the same meaning given in the Clean Air
Act and subpart A of this part. If a
conflict exists between a definition
provided in this subpart and a
definition provided in subpart A, the
definition in this subpart must take
precedence for the reporting
requirements in this subpart.
Appliance means any device which
contains and uses a fluorinated
greenhouse gas refrigerant and which is
used for household or commercial
purposes, including any air conditioner,
refrigerator, chiller, or freezer.
Closed-cell foam means any foam
product, excluding packaging foam, that
is constructed with a closed-cell
structure and a blowing agent
containing a fluorinated GHG. Closedcell foams include but are not limited to
polyurethane (PU) appliance foam, PU
continuous and discontinuous panel
foam, PU one component foam, PU
spray foam, extruded polystyrene (XPS)
boardstock foam, and XPS sheet foam.
Packaging foam means foam used
exclusively during shipment or storage
to temporarily enclose items.
Electrical equipment means gasinsulated substations, circuit breakers,
other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or
power transformers.
Fluorinated GHG refrigerant means,
for purposes of this subpart, any
substance consisting in part or whole of
a fluorinated greenhouse gas and that is
used for heat transfer purposes and
provides a cooling effect.
Pre-charged appliance means any
appliance charged with fluorinated
greenhouse gas refrigerant prior to sale
or distribution or offer for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce.
This includes both appliances that
contain the full charge necessary for
operation and appliances that contain a
partial ‘‘holding’’ charge of the
fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant
(e.g., for shipment purposes).
Pre-charged appliance component
means any portion of an appliance,
including but not limited to condensers,
compressors, line sets, and coils, that is
charged with fluorinated greenhouse gas
refrigerant prior to sale or distribution
or offer for sale or distribution in
interstate commerce.
Pre-charged equipment means any
pre-charged appliance, pre-charged
appliance component, pre-charged
electrical equipment, or pre-charged
electrical equipment component.
Pre-charged electrical equipment
means any electrical equipment,
including but not limited to gasinsulated substations, circuit breakers,
other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or
power transformers containing a
fluorinated GHG prior to sale or
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
distribution, or offer for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce.
This includes both equipment that
contain the full charge necessary for
operation and equipment that contain a
partial ‘‘holding’’ charge of the
fluorinated GHG (e.g., for shipment
purposes).
Pre-charged electrical equipment
component means any portion of
electrical equipment that is charged
with SF6 or PFCs prior to sale or
distribution or offer for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce.
■
12. Add subpart SS to read as follows:
Subpart SS—Electrical Equipment
Manufacture or Refurbishment
Sec.
98.450 Definition of the source category.
98.451 Reporting threshold.
98.452 GHGs to report.
98.453 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements.
98.455 Procedures for estimating missing
data.
98.456 Data reporting requirements.
98.457 Records that must be retained.
98.458 Definitions.
Subpart SS—Electrical Equipment
Manufacture or Refurbishment
that have total annual purchases of SF6
and PFCs that exceed 23,000 pounds.
§ 98.450
§ 98.452
Definition of the source category.
The electrical equipment
manufacturing or refurbishment
category consists of processes that
manufacture or refurbish gas-insulated
substations, circuit breakers, other
switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or
power transformers (including gascontaining components of such
equipment) containing sulfurhexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons
(PFCs). The processes include
equipment testing, installation,
manufacturing, decommissioning and
disposal, refurbishing, and storage in
gas cylinders and other containers.
§ 98.451
Reporting threshold.
You must report GHG emissions
under this subpart if your facility
contains an electrical equipment
manufacturing or refurbishing process
and the facility meets the requirements
of § 98.2(a)(1). Electrical equipment
manufacturing and refurbishing
facilities covered by this rule are those
Where:
Decrease in SF6 Inventory = (Pounds of SF6
stored in containers at the beginning of
the year)—(Pounds of SF6 stored in
containers at the end of the year).
Acquisitions of SF6 = (Pounds of SF6
purchased from chemical producers or
suppliers in bulk) + (Pounds of SF6
returned by equipment users) + (Pounds
of SF6 returned to site after off-site
recycling).
Disbursements of SF6 = (Pounds of SF6
contained in new equipment delivered to
customers) + (Pounds of SF6 delivered to
equipment users in containers) +
(Pounds of SF6 returned to suppliers) +
(Pounds of SF6 sent off site for recycling)
+ (Pounds of SF6 sent off-site for
destruction).
transformers, substituting the relevant
PFC(s) for SF6 in Equation SS–1 of this
section.
(c) Estimate the disbursements of SF6
or PFCs sent to customers in new
equipment or cylinders or sent off-site
for other purposes including for
recycling, for destruction or to be
returned to suppliers using Equation
SS–2 of this section:
Where:
DGHG = The annual disbursement of SF6 or
PFCs sent to customers in new
equipment or cylinders or sent off-site
for other purposes including for
recycling, for destruction or to be
returned to suppliers.
Qp = The mass of the SF6 or PFCs charged
into equipment or containers over the
Where:
Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC charged into
equipment or containers over the period
p sent to customers or sent off-site for
other purposes including for recycling,
for destruction or to be returned to
suppliers.
MB = The mass of the contents of the
containers used to fill equipment or
cylinders at the beginning of period p.
GHGs to report.
(a) You must report SF6 and PFC
emissions at the facility level. Annual
emissions from the facility must include
SF6 and PFC emissions from equipment
that is installed at an off-site electric
power transmission or distribution
location whenever emissions from
installation activities (e.g., filling) occur
before the title to the equipment is
transferred to the electric power
transmission or distribution entity.
(b) You must report CO2, N2O and
CH4 emissions from each stationary
combustion unit. You must calculate
and report these emissions under
subpart C of this part (General
Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by
following the requirements of subpart C
of this part.
§ 98.453
Calculating GHG emissions.
(a) For each electrical equipment
manufacturer or refurbisher, estimate
the annual SF6 and PFC emissions using
the mass-balance approach in Equation
SS–1 of this section:
period p sent to customers or sent off-site
for other purposes including for
recycling, for destruction or to be
returned to suppliers.
n = The number of periods in the year.
(d) Estimate the mass of SF6 or PFCs
disbursed to customers in new
equipment or cylinders over the period
p by monitoring the mass flow of the
SF6 or PFCs into the new equipment or
cylinders using a flowmeter or by
weighing containers before and after gas
from containers is used to fill
equipment or cylinders.
(e) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC
disbursed to customers in new
equipment or cylinders over the period
p is estimated by weighing containers
before and after gas from containers is
used to fill equipment or cylinders,
estimate this quantity using Equation
SS–3 of this section:
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.056
VerDate Mar<15>2010
ME = The mass of the contents of the
containers used to fill equipment or
cylinders at the end of period p.
EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted
during the period p downstream of the
containers used to fill equipment or
ER01DE10.057
ER01DE10.058
(b) Use the mass-balance method in
paragraph (a) of this section to estimate
emissions of PFCs associated with the
manufacture or refurbishment of power
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74859
(f) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC
disbursed to customers in new
equipment or cylinders over the period
p is determined using a flowmeter,
estimate this quantity using Equation
SS–4 of this section:
Where:
Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC charged into
equipment or containers over the period
p sent to customers or sent off-site for
other purposes including for recycling,
for destruction or to be returned to
suppliers.
Mmr = The mass of the SF6 or the PFC that
has flowed through the flowmeter during
the period p.
EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted
during the period p downstream of the
containers used to fill equipment or
cylinders and in cases where a flowmeter
is used, downstream of the flowmeter
during the period p (e.g., emissions from
hoses or other flow lines that connect the
container to the equipment that is being
filled).
(g) Estimate the mass of SF6 or the
PFC emitted during the period p
downstream of the containers used to
fill equipment or cylinders (e.g.,
emissions from hoses or other flow lines
that connect the container to the
equipment or cylinder that is being
filled) using Equation SS–5 of this
section:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Where:
EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted
during the period p downstream of the
containers used to fill equipment or
cylinders and in cases where a flowmeter
is used, downstream of the flowmeter
during the period p (e.g., emissions from
hoses or other flow lines that connect the
container to the equipment or cylinder
that is being filled)
FCi = The total number of fill operations over
the period p for the valve-hose
combination Ci.
EFCi = The emission factor for the valve-hose
combination Ci.
n = The number of different valve-hose
combinations C used during the period
p.
(h) The mass of SF6 or the PFC
disbursed to customers in new
equipment over the period p must be
determined either by using the
nameplate capacity of the equipment or,
in cases where equipment is shipped
with a partial charge, by calculating the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
partial shipping charge. Calculate the
partial shipping charge by multiplying
the nameplate capacity of the
equipment by the ratio of the densities
of the partial charge to the full charge.
To determine the equipment’s actual
nameplate capacity, you must measure
the nameplate capacities of a
representative sample of each make and
model and take the average for each
make and model as specified at
§ 98.454(f).
(i) Estimate the annual SF6 and PFC
emissions from the equipment that is
installed at an off-site electric power
transmission or distribution location
before the title to the equipment is
transferred by using Equation SS–6 of
this section:
Where:
EI = Total annual SF6 or PFC emissions from
equipment installation at electric
transmission or distribution facilities.
MF = The total annual mass of the SF6 or
PFCs, in pounds, used to fill equipment.
MC = The total annual mass of the SF6 or
PFCs, in pounds, used to charge the
equipment prior to leaving the electrical
equipment manufacturer facility.
NI = The total annual nameplate capacity of
the equipment, in pounds, installed at
electric transmission or distribution
facilities.
§ 98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements.
(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring,
you may follow the provisions of
§ 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best
available monitoring methods rather
than follow the monitoring
requirements of this section. For
purposes of this subpart, any reference
in § 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) to 2010
means 2011, March 31 means June 30,
and April 1 means July 1. Any reference
to the effective date in § 98.3(d)(1)
through (d)(2) means February 28, 2011.
(b) Ensure that all the quantities
required by the equations of this subpart
have been measured using either
flowmeters with an accuracy and
precision of ±1 percent of full scale or
better or scales with an accuracy and
precision of ±1 percent of the filled
weight (gas plus tare) of the containers
of SF6 or PFCs that are typically
weighed on the scale. For scales that are
generally used to weigh cylinders
containing 115 pounds of gas when full,
this equates to ±1 percent of the sum of
115 pounds and approximately 120
pounds tare, or slightly more than ±2
pounds. Account for the tare weights of
the containers. You may accept gas
masses or weights provided by the gas
supplier e.g., for the contents of
cylinders containing new gas or for the
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
heels remaining in cylinders returned to
the gas supplier) if the supplier provides
documentation verifying that accuracy
standards are met; however, you remain
responsible for the accuracy of these
masses and weights under this subpart.
(c) All flow meters, weigh scales, and
combinations of volumetric and density
measures that are used to measure or
calculate quantities under this subpart
must be calibrated using calibration
procedures specified by the flowmeter,
scale, volumetric or density measure
equipment manufacturer. Calibration
must be performed prior to the first
reporting year. After the initial
calibration, recalibration must be
performed at the minimum frequency
specified by the manufacturer.
(d) For purposes of Equations SS–5 of
this subpart, the emission factor for the
valve-hose combination (EFC) must be
estimated using measurements and/or
engineering assessments or calculations
based on chemical engineering
principles or physical or chemical laws
or properties. Such assessments or
calculations may be based on, as
applicable, the internal volume of hose
or line that is open to the atmosphere
during coupling and decoupling
activities, the internal pressure of the
hose or line, the time the hose or line
is open to the atmosphere during
coupling and decoupling activities, the
frequency with which the hose or line
is purged and the flow rate during
purges. You must develop a value for
EFc (or use an industry-developed
value) for each combination of hose and
valve fitting, to use in Equation SS–5 of
this subpart. The value for EFC must be
determined for each combination of
hose and valve fitting of a given
diameter or size. The calculation must
be recalculated annually to account for
changes to the specifications of the
valves or hoses that may occur
throughout the year.
(e) Electrical equipment
manufacturers and refurbishers must
account for SF6 or PFC emissions that
occur as a result of unexpected events
or accidental losses, such as a
malfunctioning hose or leak in the flow
line, during the filling of equipment or
containers for disbursement by
including these losses in the estimated
mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted
downstream of the container or
flowmeter during the period p.
(f) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC
disbursed to customers in new
equipment over the period p is
determined by assuming that it is equal
to the equipment’s nameplate capacity
or, in cases where equipment is shipped
with a partial charge, equal to its partial
shipping charge, equipment samples for
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
ER01DE10.060
cylinders and in cases where a flowmeter
is used, downstream of the flowmeter
during the period p (e.g., emissions from
hoses or other flow lines that connect the
container to the equipment or cylinder
that is being filled).
ER01DE10.061
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
ER01DE10.059
74860
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
conducting the nameplate capacity tests
must be selected using the following
stratified sampling strategy in this
paragraph. For each make and model,
group the measurement conditions to
reflect predictable variability in the
facility’s filling practices and conditions
(e.g., temperatures at which equipment
is filled). Then, independently select
equipment samples at random from
each make and model under each group
of conditions. To account for variability,
a certain number of these measurements
must be performed to develop a robust
and representative average nameplate
capacity (or shipping charge) for each
make, model, and group of conditions.
A Student T distribution calculation
should be conducted to determine how
many samples are needed for each
make, model, and group of conditions as
a function of the relative standard
deviation of the sample measurements.
To determine a sufficiently precise
estimate of the nameplate capacity, the
number of measurements required must
be calculated to achieve a precision of
one percent of the true mean, using a 95
percent confidence interval. To estimate
the nameplate capacity for a given make
and model, you must use the lowest
mean value among the different groups
of conditions, or provide justification
for the use of a different mean value for
the group of conditions that represents
the typical practices and conditions for
that make and model. Measurements
can be conducted using SF6, another
gas, or a liquid. Re-measurement of
nameplate capacities should be
conducted every five years to reflect
cumulative changes in manufacturing
methods and conditions over time.
(g) Ensure the following QA/QC
methods are employed throughout the
year:
(1) Procedures are in place and
followed to track and weigh all
cylinders or other containers at the
beginning and end of the year.
(h) You must adhere to the following
QA/QC methods for reviewing the
completeness and accuracy of reporting:
(1) Review inputs to Equation SS–1 of
this subpart to ensure inputs and
outputs to the company’s system are
included.
(2) Do not enter negative inputs and
confirm that negative emissions are not
calculated. However, the decrease in
SF6 inventory may be calculated as
negative.
(3) Ensure that beginning-of-year
inventory matches end-of-year
inventory from the previous year.
(4) Ensure that in addition to SF6
purchased from bulk gas distributors,
SF6 returned from equipment users with
or inside equipment and SF6 returned
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:13 Nov 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
from off-site recycling are also
accounted for among the total additions.
§ 98.455 Procedures for estimating
missing data.
A complete record of all measured
parameters used in the GHG emissions
calculations is required. Replace
missing data, if needed, based on data
from similar manufacturing operations,
and from similar equipment testing and
decommissioning activities for which
data are available.
§ 98.456
Data reporting requirements.
In addition to the information
required by § 98.3(c), each annual report
must contain the following information
for each chemical at the facility level:
(a) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs stored in
containers at the beginning of the year.
(b) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs stored in
containers at the end of the year.
(c) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs purchased
in bulk.
(d) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs returned
by equipment users with or inside
equipment.
(e) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs returned
to site from off site after recycling.
(f) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs inside
new equipment delivered to customers.
(g) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs delivered
to equipment users in containers.
(h) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs returned
to suppliers.
(i) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs sent off
site for destruction.
(j) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs sent off
site to be recycled.
(k) The nameplate capacity of the
equipment, in pounds, delivered to
customers with SF6 or PFCs inside, if
different from the quantity in paragraph
(f) of this section.
(l) A description of the engineering
methods and calculations used to
determine emissions from hoses or other
flow lines that connect the container to
the equipment that is being filled.
(m) The values for EFC for each hose
and valve combination and the
associated valve fitting sizes and hose
diameters.
(n) The total number of fill operations
for each hose and valve combination, or,
FCi of Equation SS–5 of this subpart.
(o) The mean value for each make,
model, and group of conditions if the
mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to
customers in new equipment over the
period p is determined by assuming that
it is equal to the equipment’s nameplate
capacity or, in cases where equipment is
shipped with a partial charge, equal to
its partial shipping charge.
(p) The number of samples and the
upper and lower bounds on the 95
percent confidence interval for each
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
74861
make, model, and group of conditions if
the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to
customers in new equipment over the
period p is determined by assuming that
it is equal to the equipment’s nameplate
capacity or, in cases where equipment is
shipped with a partial charge, equal to
its partial shipping charge.
(q) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs used to
fill equipment at off-site electric power
transmission or distribution locations,
or MF, of Equation SS–6 of this subpart.
(r) Pounds of SF6 and PFCs used to
charge the equipment prior to leaving
the electrical equipment manufacturer
or refurbishment facility, or MC, of
Equation SS–6 of this subpart.
(s) The nameplate capacity of the
equipment, in pounds, installed at offsite electric power transmission or
distribution locations used to determine
emissions from installation, or NI, of
Equation SS–6 of this subpart.
(t) For any missing data, you must
report the reason the data were missing,
the parameters for which the data were
missing, the substitute parameters used
to estimate emissions in their absence,
and the quantity of emissions thereby
estimated.
§ 98.457
Records that must be retained.
In addition to the information
required by § 98.3(g), you must retain
the following records:
(a) All information reported and listed
in § 98.456.
(b) Accuracy certifications and
calibration records for all scales and
monitoring equipment, including the
method or manufacturer’s specification
used for calibration.
(c) Certifications of the quantity of
gas, in pounds, charged into equipment
at the electrical equipment
manufacturer or refurbishment facility
as well as the actual quantity of gas, in
pounds, charged into equipment at
installation.
(d) Check-out and weigh-in sheets and
procedures for cylinders.
(e) Residual gas amounts, in pounds,
in cylinders sent back to suppliers.
(f) Invoices for gas purchases and
sales.
(g) GHG Monitoring Plans, as
described in § 98.3(g)(5), must be
completed by April 1, 2011.
§ 98.458
Definitions.
All terms used in this subpart have
the same meaning given in the CAA and
subpart A of this part.
[FR Doc. 2010–28803 Filed 11–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\01DER2.SGM
01DER2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74774-74861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28803]
[[Page 74773]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 98
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 74774]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 98
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927; FRL-9226-8]
RIN 2060-AQ00
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a regulation to require monitoring and
reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from additional sources of
fluorinated greenhouse gases, including electronics manufacturing,
fluorinated gas production, electrical equipment use, electrical
equipment manufacture or refurbishment, as well as importers and
exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. This rule
requires monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gases for these source
categories only for sources with carbon dioxide equivalent emissions,
imports, or exports above certain threshold levels. This rule does not
require control of greenhouse gases.
DATES: The final rule is effective on December 31, 2010. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 31,
2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0927 for this rule. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202) 566-1742.
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; e-mail address:
GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For technical information and implementation
materials, please go to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. To
submit a question, select Rule Help Center, followed by Contact Us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The Administrator
determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions
of CAA section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the
Administrator may determine.''). This final rule affects owners and
operators of electronics manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas
production facilities, electric power systems, and electrical equipment
manufacturing facilities, as well as importers and exporters of pre-
charged equipment and closed-cell foams. Regulated categories and
entities include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of affected
Category NAICS facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Manufacturing........ 334111 Microcomputers
manufacturing
facilities.
334413 Semiconductor,
photovoltaic (solid-
state) device
manufacturing
facilities.
334419 Liquid Crystal Display
(LCD) unit screens
manufacturing
facilities.
334419 Micro-electro-mechanical
systems (MEMS)
manufacturing
facilities.
Fluorinated Gas Production....... 325120 Industrial gases
manufacturing
facilities.
Electrical Equipment Use......... 221121 Electric bulk power
transmission and
control facilities.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture 33531 Power transmission and
or Refurbishment. distribution switchgear
and specialty
transformers
manufacturing
facilities.
Importers and Exporters of Pre- 423730 Air-conditioning
charged Equipment and Closed- equipment (except room
Cell Foams. units) merchant
wholesalers.
333415 Air-conditioning
equipment (except motor
vehicle) manufacturing.
336391 Motor vehicle air-
conditioning
manufacturing.
423620 Air-conditioners, room,
merchant wholesalers.
443111 Household appliance
stores.
423730 Automotive air-
conditioners merchant
wholesalers.
326150 Polyurethane foam
products manufacturing.
335313 Circuit breakers, power,
manufacturing.
423610 Circuit breakers
merchant wholesalers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of
facilities that EPA is now aware could be potentially affected by the
reporting requirements. Other types of facilities and companies not
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
and the relevant criteria in the subparts related to electronics
manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas production facilities,
electric power transmission or distribution facilities, electrical
equipment manufacturing or refurbishment facilities, and importers and
exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
facility, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT section.
[[Page 74775]]
Many facilities that are affected by the final rule have greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from multiple source categories listed in 40 CFR
part 98. Table 2 of this preamble has been developed as a guide to help
potential reporters in the source categories subject to this reporting
rule identify the source categories (by subpart) that they may need to
(1) consider in their facility applicability determination, and/or (2)
include in their reporting. The table should only be seen as a guide.
Additional subparts in 40 CFR part 98 may be relevant for a given
reporter. Similarly, not all listed subparts are relevant for all
reporters.
Table 2--Source Categories and Relevant Subparts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category (and main Subparts recommended for review to
applicable subpart) determine applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity Generation............ Electrical Equipment Use.
Electronics Manufacturing......... General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Fluorinated Gas Production........ General Stationary Fuel Combustion
Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse
Gases.
Electrical Equipment Use.......... General Stationary Fuel Combustion.
Imports and Exports of Fluorinated Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse
GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment Gases.
and Closed-Cell Foams. Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs from
Electrical Equipment Manufacture
and Refurbishment.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture General Stationary Fuel Combustion
or Refurbishment. Imports and Exports of Fluorinated
GHGs Inside Pre-charged Equipment
and Closed-Cell Foams.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the effective date? The final rule is effective on December
31, 2010. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect
earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register.
EPA is issuing this final rule under section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air
Act, which states: ``The provisions of section 553 through 557 * * * of
Title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in this section, apply
to actions to which this subsection applies.'' Thus, section 553(d) of
the APA does not apply to this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting
consistently with the purposes underlying APA section 553(d) in making
this rule effective on December 31, 2010. Section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published
with the rule.'' As explained below, EPA finds that there is good cause
for this rule to become effective on or before December 31, 2010, even
if this results in an effective date fewer than 30 days from date of
publication in the Federal Register.
While this action is being signed prior to December 1, 2010, there
is likely to be a significant delay in the publication of this rule as
it contains complex diagrams, equations, and charts, and is relatively
long in length. As an example, EPA signed a shorter technical
amendments package related to the same underlying reporting rule on
October 7, 2010, and it was not published until October 28, 2010, 75 FR
66434, three weeks later.
The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C.
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as
here, the final rule will be signed and made available on the EPA Web
site more than 30 days before the effective date, but where the
publication is likely to be delayed due to the complexity and length of
the rule, that purpose is still met. Moreover, through June 30, 2011,
facilities covered by this rule may use Best Available Monitoring
Methods (BAMM) for any parameter for which it is not reasonably
feasible to acquire, install, or operate a required piece of monitoring
equipment in a facility, or to procure measurement services from
necessary providers. This will provide facilities a substantial
additional period to adjust their behavior to the requirements of the
final rule. Accordingly, we find good cause exists to make this rule
effective on or before December 31, 2010, consistent with the purposes
of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We recognize that this rule could be published at least 30
days before December 31, 2010, which would negate the need for this
good cause finding, and we plan to request expedited publication of
this rule in order to decrease the likelihood of a printing delay.
However, as we cannot know the date of publication in advance of
signing this rule, we are proceeding with this good cause finding
for an effective date on or before December 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Review.
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is
available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 31, 2011. Under
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a
mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f
the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review)
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to EPA should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a
copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI confidential business information
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
DE destruction efficiency
DRE destruction or removal efficiency
ECD electron capture detector
EFC emission factor for the valve-hose combination
EIA Economic Impact Analysis
[[Page 74776]]
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas
FTIR fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy)
FID flame ionization detector
GC gas chromatography
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HFE hydrofluoroether
HTF heat transfer fluid
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kg kilograms
LCD liquid crystal displays
LED light-emitting diode
MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems
MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MRR mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule
MS mass spectrometry
MVAC motor vehicle air conditioner
N2O nitrous oxide
NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NERC North American Energy Reliability Corporation
NESHAP National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NMR nuclear magnetic resonance
NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFC perfluorocarbon
POHC principal organic hazardous constituent
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PSEF process-vent-specific emission factor
PV photovoltaic cells
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QMS Quadrapole Mass Spectroscopy
R&D research and development
RF radio frequency
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RPS remote plasma source
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
TCR The Climate Registry
TSD technical support document
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
WCI Western Climate Initiative
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Organization of this Preamble
B. Background on the Final Rule
C. Legal Authority
II. Requirements for Specific Source Categories
A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data Elements
in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules
C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the General
Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the Addition of Subparts I,
L, DD, QQ, and SS
D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)
E. Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L)
F. Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use
(Subpart DD)
G. Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-
Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams (Subpart QQ)
H. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment (Subpart
SS)
III. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule
A. How were compliance costs estimated?
B. What are the costs of the rule?
C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?
D. What are the impacts of the rule on small businesses?
E. What are the benefits of the rule for society?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
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
K. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
A. Organization of This Preamble
This preamble is broken into several large sections, as detailed in
the Table of Contents. The paragraphs below describe the layout of the
preamble and provide a brief summary of each section.
The first section of this preamble contains the basic background
information about the origin of this rule, including a brief discussion
of the rationale for revising the initially proposed requirements for
subparts L, DD, and SS. This section also discusses EPA's use of our
legal authority under the CAA to collect the required data, and the
benefits of collecting the data.
The second section of this preamble provides a brief summary of the
key design elements for each subpart. For each subpart, this section
includes (1) The definition of the source category, (2) GHGs to report,
(3) GHG emission calculating and monitoring methods, (4) data reporting
requirements, and (5) records that must be retained. Each subpart also
includes a summary of major changes since proposal and a summary of
comments and responses. Please refer to the specific source category of
interest for more details.
The third section provides the summary of the cost impacts,
economic impacts, and benefits of this rule from the Economic Analysis.
Finally, the last section discusses the various statutory and executive
order requirements applicable to this rule.
B. Background on the Final Rule
This action finalizes monitoring and reporting requirements for the
following five source categories: Electronics manufacturing,
fluorinated gas production, electrical equipment use, electrical
equipment manufacture and refurbishment, and importers and exporters
and pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.
EPA initially proposed reporting requirements for electronics,
fluorinated GHG production, and electrical equipment use on April 12,
2009 (74 FR 16448) as part of a larger rulemaking effort to establish a
GHG reporting program for all sectors of the economy. In that proposal,
EPA also requested comment on requiring reporting of the quantities of
fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged equipment and
foams. However, EPA did not include requirements for these source
categories in the Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (Part 98) (40 CFR
part 98), which was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on
September 22, 2009 and published in the Federal Register on October 30,
2009 (74 FR 56260).
EPA deferred action on these source categories because EPA received
a number of lengthy, detailed comments regarding the proposed
requirements for these source categories. These comments, which are
described in more detail in the discussions of the individual source
categories in the April 12, 2010 proposed rule, raised concerns about
the costs and technical feasibility of implementing subparts I and L as
initially proposed, requested clarification of how ``facility'' should
be interpreted under subpart DD, and both favored and opposed a
requirement to report fluorinated GHGs contained in
[[Page 74777]]
imported and exported pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.
EPA recognized the concerns raised by stakeholders, and decided to
re-propose significant pieces of these subparts. The revised proposed
rule was published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2010. A public
hearing on the proposed rule was held on April 20, 2010 in Washington,
DC, and the 60-day public comment period ended on June 11, 2010.
For subparts I and L this rule incorporates a number of technical
changes including, but not limited to, the addition of different
methodologies that provide improved emissions coverage at a lower cost
burden to facilities as compared to the initial April 2009 proposal.
Where aspects of the initial proposals for subparts I and L are
retained in this rule, such as in the basic mass-balance methodology
for subpart L (as an option for some facilities) and in many of the
equations for subpart I, this rule adds more flexibility in how and how
frequently the underlying data are gathered. In addition, EPA is
requiring facilities to report emissions from manufacture or
refurbishment of electrical equipment and to report the quantities of
fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged equipment and
foams.
We have concluded that the monitoring approaches required in this
rule, which combine direct measurement and facility-specific
calculations, effectively balance accuracy and costs, and that they are
warranted because the resulting data will enable EPA to analyze and
develop a range of potential CAA GHG policies and programs. A
consistent and accurate data set is crucial to serve this intended
purpose.
Under this rule, facilities and suppliers will begin data
collection in 2011 following the methods outlined in this rule and will
submit data to EPA by March 31, 2012. EPA is allowing facilities and
suppliers to use the Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) through
June 30, 2011 without submitting a petition to EPA. EPA is also
allowing facilities to request an extension for the use of BAMM beyond
the initial 6-month period. For details on BAMM extension requests,
including their due dates and required contents, refer to the
Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements section of each subpart and to the
preamble discussions for subparts I and L.
C. Legal Authority
EPA is finalizing requirements for five source categories
(electronics manufacturing, production of fluorinated gases, use of
electrical transmission and distribution equipment, manufacture or
refurbishment of electrical equipment, and imports and exports of pre-
charges equipment and closed cell-foams) under its existing CAA
authority; specifically, authorities provided in CAA section 114. As
discussed in detail in Sections I.C and II.Q of the preamble to the
2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1)
provides EPA with broad authority to require emissions sources, persons
subject to the CAA, manufacturers of process or control equipment, or
persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary information
to monitor and report emissions and provide such other information the
Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision
of the CAA. Further information is available in ``Mandatory Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Legal Issues''
(available in EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508)
II. Requirements for Specific Source Categories
A. Overview of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
On October 30, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a rule for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases (GHG)
(also referred to as 40 CFR part 98) from large GHG emissions sources
in the United States. Implementation of 40 CFR Part 98 is referred to
as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).
The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions and supply from
certain sectors of the economy, and apply to certain downstream
facilities that emit GHGs, as well as to certain upstream suppliers of
fossil fuels and industrial GHGs. The regulations require annual
reporting of GHGs including carbon dioxide (CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
and other fluorinated compounds (e.g., hydrofluoroethers (HFEs)).
Part 98 regulations require only that source categories subject to
the rule monitor and report GHGs in accordance with the methods
specified in the individual subparts. In this action, EPA is adding
five source categories to part 98. For a list of the specific GHGs to
be reported and the GHG calculation procedures, monitoring, missing
data procedures, recordkeeping, and reporting required for facilities
subject to subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS see the relevant subpart
description below.
B. Overview of Confidentiality Determination for Data Elements in the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rules
This action does not address whether data reported under subparts
I, L, DD, QQ, or SS will be treated as confidential business
information (CBI). EPA published a proposed confidentiality
determination on July 7, 2010 (75 FR 39094) which addressed this issue.
In that action, EPA proposed which specific data elements would be
treated as CBI and which data elements must be available to the public
under CAA section 114. EPA has received several comments on the
proposal, and is in the process of considering these comments. A final
determination will be issued before any data is released, and the final
determination will include all of the data elements under these
subparts.
C. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the General
Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98 Related to the Addition of Subparts I, L,
DD, QQ, and SS
Changes to Applicability. We are making changes to 40 CFR
98.3(c)(5) to be consistent with previous revisions that were made on
July 12, 2010. On July 12, 2010 (75 FR 39736), we made a number of
conforming changes to the General Provisions (subpart A to part 98) to
accommodate the addition of new source categories that were being added
to Part 98. In the July 12, 2010 notice, we added Tables A-3 through A-
5 to replace the list of source categories and supplier categories in
40 CFR 98.2(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(4), respectively. Under this revised
approach, as new subparts are adopted, a new row is added to the
appropriate table for the year in which reporting is required to
commence for the new source category or supplier category. As a
conforming change, the text of 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) was reworded to refer
to ``Table A-3 and Table A-4'' instead of ``subparts C-JJ.''
In this action, we are amending Tables A-3, A-4, and A-5 to subpart
A to add entries for five subparts: DD, SS, I, L, and QQ. Because we
are now adding a new supplier category to the reporting requirements,
we are also making a conforming change to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5)(i) and (ii)
to replace the reference to ``subparts KK through PP'' with a reference
to ``Table A-5.'' This conforming change does not alter any reporting
requirements.
The following source categories have been added to the list of
source categories in Table A-3 to subpart A because they have a
production capacity
[[Page 74778]]
or gas consumption threshold rather than a CO2e emission
threshold.
Electric power transmission or distribution facilities
that include the total nameplate capacity located within the facility,
when added to the total nameplate capacity of SF6 and PFC
containing equipment that is not located within the facility but is
under common ownership or control, exceeds 17,820 pounds of sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6)or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (subpart DD).
Electric power equipment manufacturing or refurbishing
facilities with total annual SF6 and PFC purchases
(combined) that exceed 23,000 pounds per year (subpart SS).
The following source categories are subject to the rule if facility
emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons
CO2e per year. Therefore, these source categories have been
added to the list of emission threshold source categories referenced in
Table A-4 to subpart A.
Fluorinated gas production facilities whose emissions
would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control
technologies (subpart L).
Electronics manufacturing facilities whose emissions would
exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control technologies
(subpart I).
For all of these facilities, whether they are listed in Table A-3
or A-4 to subpart A, the annual GHG report must cover stationary fuel
combustion sources, miscellaneous uses of carbonates, and all
applicable source categories listed in Table A-3 and Table A-4 to
subpart A.
Importers and exporters of certain types of pre-charged equipment
or closed-cell foam products containing fluorinated GHGs,
N2O, or CO2 (subpart QQ) have been added to Table
A-5 to subpart A because they are suppliers of GHGs.
As is true for the source categories covered by the final Part 98,
a facility or supplier in any of these source categories may cease
reporting if their emissions are less than 25,000 mtCO2e per
year for five consecutive years or less than 15,000 mtCO2e
per year for three consecutive years, subject to the procedures at 40
CFR 98.2(i).
Reporting CO2e emissions. EPA is adding a paragraph to 40 CFR
98.3(c)(4) to clarify that facilities that emit fluorinated GHGs are
required to calculate and report CO2e emissions only for
those fluorinated GHGs that are listed in Table A-1 of this subpart,
not for other fluorinated GHGs. However, it is important to note that
fluorinated GHG emitters are still required to report all fluorinated
GHGs emitted under 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(iii) (in metric tons of GHG). This
change clarifies that emitters are not required to develop GWPs for
fluorinated GHGs that are not listed in Table A-1 and ensures
consistent reporting of such fluorinated GHGs among different
reporters. The change is being made in parallel with a similar change
to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5) through a separate rulemaking.
Definitions. EPA is revising one definition in 40 CFR part 98
subpart A and is adding a number of definitions applicable to specific
source categories to the corresponding subparts. The definition that is
being revised in subpart A is the definition of ``destruction
efficiency,'' which is being revised to be expressed in tons of
specific greenhouse gases rather than tons of CO2e. This revision and
the rationale for it are discussed in more detail in Section II.E of
this preamble.
The definitions that are applicable to specific source categories
are not being added to the definitions section in 40 CFR part 98
subpart A because they do not have broader applicability to part 98.
EPA has sought to avoid any conflict between these subpart-specific
definitions and the definitions in Subpart A. In one instance, for
electric power systems, EPA is applying a category-specific definition
of facility rather than the general definition of facility in the
General Provisions. The reasons for this source-category-specific
definition of facility are set forth in Section II.G of this preamble.
The remaining definitions are intended as supplements to the
definitions section in the General Provisions. EPA does not expect
these definitions to create conflicts with the General Provisions. To
the extent regulated entities are in doubt as to which definition
applies, they should assume that the category-specific definitions are
controlling.
Incorporation by Reference (IBR). We are amending 40 CFR 98.7
(incorporation by reference) to include standard methods used in the
subparts. In particular, for subpart I, we are adding the following
three standards: the 2006 International SEMATECH Manufacturing
Initiative's Guideline for Environmental Characterization of
Semiconductor Process Equipment (International SEMATECH
06124825A-ENG), the 2001 International SEMATECH's Guidelines
for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Equipment
(International SEMATECH 01104197A-XFR), and EPA's Protocol for
Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing,
Version 1, EPA 430-R-10-003. These standards are referenced in 40 CFR
98.94 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements for subpart I), 40 CFR 98.96
(Data reporting requirements for subpart I), 40 CFR 98.97 (Records that
must be retained for subpart I), and 40 CFR 98.98 (Definitions for
subpart I).
In addition, for subpart L, we are revising the paragraphs listing
several ASME standards and one ASTM standard that are already contained
in 40 CFR 98.7 to indicate that these standards are also referenced by
40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements in 40 CFR part 98,
subpart L, fluorinated gas production). We are also adding the
following seven standards: ASTM D2879-97 (Reapproved 2007) Standard
Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial
Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope; ASTM D7359-08
Standard Test Method for Total Fluorine, Chlorine and Sulfur in
Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Their Mixtures by Oxidative Pyrohydrolytic
Combustion followed by Ion Chromatography Detection (Combustion Ion
Chromatography-CIC); Tracer Gas Protocol for the Determination of
Volumetric Flow Rate Through the Ring Pipe of the Xact Multi-Metals
Monitoring System (also known as Other Test Method 24); Approved
Alternative Method 012: An Alternate Procedure for Stack Gas Volumetric
Flow Rate Determination (Tracer Gas); the Emission Inventory
Improvement Program, Volume II: Chapter 16, Methods for Estimating Air
Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing Facilities; Protocol for
Equipment Leak Emission Estimates; and EPA's Protocol for Measuring
Destruction or Removal Efficiency (DRE) of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas
Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, Version 1, EPA 430-R-
10-003. These are referenced in 40 CFR 98.123 (Calculating GHG
emissions for subpart L), 40 CFR 98.124 (Monitoring and QA/QC
requirements for subpart L), and 40 CFR 98.128 (Definitions for subpart
L).
D. Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I)
1. Summary of the Final Rule
Source Category Definition. The electronics manufacturing source
category consists of any of the following five production processes.
Facilities that use these processes include, but are not limited to,
those facilities that manufacture micro-electro-mechanical systems
(MEMS), liquid crystal displays (LCDs), photovoltaic cells (PV), and
semiconductors (including light-emitting diodes).
[[Page 74779]]
Electronics manufacturing production processes in which
the etching process uses plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other
reactive fluorine-containing fragments, which chemically react with
exposed thin-films (e.g., dielectric, metals) or substrate (e.g.,
silicon) to selectively remove portions of material.
Electronics manufacturing production processes in which
chambers used for depositing thin films are cleaned periodically using
plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing
fragments.
Electronics manufacturing production process in which
wafers are cleaned using plasma generated fluorine atoms or other
reactive fluorine-containing fragments to remove residual material from
wafer surfaces, including the wafer edge.
Electronics manufacturing production processes in which
the chemical vapor deposition process (CVD) or other manufacturing
processes use N2O.
Production processes which use fluorinated GHGs as heat
transfer fluids to cool process equipment, to control temperature
during device testing, to clean substrate surfaces and other parts, and
for soldering (e.g., vapor phase reflow). Heat transfer fluids commonly
used in electronics manufacturing include those sold under the trade
names ``Galden[supreg]'' and ``Fluorinertsu.\TM\''
Reporting Threshold. Electronics manufacturing facilities that meet
the applicability criteria in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2) must
report GHG emissions. Electronics manufacturing facilities covered by
subpart I are those that have emissions equal to or greater than 25,000
mtCO2e. For electronics manufacturing, EPA is requiring that
uncontrolled emissions be used for purposes of determining whether a
facility's emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000
mtCO2e.\2\ Facilities must determine if they meet the
applicability criteria in the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.2(a)(2)) by
using the methods in 40 CFR 98.91 and summarized as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For purposes of calculating and reporting emissions for this
subpart, facilities may report controlled emissions if they abide by
provisions in 40 CFR 98.94(f) of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD manufacturing facilities are
required to use gas specific emission factors and 100 percent of annual
manufacturing capacity. Because heat transfer fluids are widely used in
semiconductor manufacturing, to account for emissions from heat
transfer fluids, semiconductor manufacturing facilities are required to
add 10 percent of total clean and etch emissions at a facility to their
total estimate. For semiconductor and LCD manufacturing facilities, the
gas specific emission factors are consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 1
emission factors. For MEMS manufacturing facilities, because there is
no IPCC factor available, the emission factor was developed by EPA and
is based on the IPCC Tier 2b SF6 emission factor for
semiconductors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For a more detailed explanation of the MEMS default factor,
please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV manufacturing facilities are required to multiply
annual fluorinated GHG purchases or consumption by the gas-appropriate
100-year GWPs (provided in Table A-1 to subpart A of this part).
It is important to clarify that these methods for determining
whether a manufacturer exceeds the threshold are different from those
used to calculate and report annual GHG emissions. The methods for
calculating GHG emissions and consumption for reporting purposes are
provided in the following paragraphs.
GHGs to Report. Each facility must calculate and report the
following GHG emissions and consumption:
Fluorinated GHG emissions from plasma etching, chamber
cleaning, and wafer cleaning.
N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition
and other electronics manufacturing processes.
Fluorinated GHG emissions from heat transfer fluid use.
Consumption for all fluorinated GHGs and N2O
including gases used for manufacturing processes other than those
listed above.
CO2, CH4, and N2O
combustion emissions from stationary combustion units by following the
requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel
Combustion Sources).
GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. To calculate fluorinated
GHG and N2O emissions from electronics manufacturing,
reporters must use the following methods, as appropriate for each
electronics manufacturing facility (depending on the product
manufactured, i.e., MEMS, LCD, PV, or semiconductors).
Fluorinated GHG Emissions
All electronics manufacturing facilities are required to calculate
fluorinated GHG emissions from etch and clean processes by estimating
emissions of input fluorinated GHGs and of by-product fluorinated GHGs.
This is done by applying utilization factors and by-product formation
factors (collectively referred to as ``emission factors'' below) to the
consumption of each fluorinated GHG by each process type, process sub-
type or recipe, as appropriate. However, the methods prescribed for use
by different types of electronics manufacturing facilities differ in
the values of these emission factors, the level of aggregation to which
the factors are applied (process type, process sub-type, or recipe),
and whether defaults or recipe-specific factors are applied. This
framework is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
To calculate and report fluorinated GHG emissions, reporters must
adhere to the typology shown in Figure 1 of this preamble.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.000
[[Page 74780]]
At the top of the typology figure are process types, which consist
of plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer cleaning. The second
level in the figure consists of process sub-types, which are identified
for only the chamber cleaning process type. As explained in Section
II.D.2 of this preamble (Summary of Major Changes Since the Proposal)
and Section II.D.3 of this preamble (Summary of Comments and
Responses), EPA is only establishing sub-types for the chamber cleaning
process type because sufficient information was available for these
sub-types to establish default emission factors. The three chamber
cleaning process sub-types are in-situ plasma, remote plasma, and in-
situ thermal cleans. The bottom of the figure displays production
process recipes. Definitions are provided in the paragraphs below.
Process Type. EPA is defining a process type as a broad group of
manufacturing steps used at a facility associated with substrate (e.g.,
wafer) processing during device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG
emissions and fluorinated GHG usages are calculated and reported. The
process types are plasma etching, chamber cleaning, and wafer
cleaning.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As defined in the final rule, the plasma etching process
type consists of any production process using fluorinated GHG
reagents to selectively remove materials that have been deposited on
a substrate during electronics manufacturing. Also as defined in the
final rule, the wafer cleaning process type consists of any
production process using fluorinated GHG reagents to clean wafers at
any step during production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Sub-type. EPA is defining a process sub-type as a set of
similar manufacturing steps, more closely related within a broad
process type. (For clarity, EPA is referring to what was previously
termed process categories in the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652)
as process sub-types).
In situ plasma process sub-type consists of the cleaning of thin-
film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is dissociated into its cleaning
constituents by a plasma generated inside the chamber where the films
are produced.
Remote plasma process sub-type consists of the cleaning of thin-
film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent dissociated by a remotely located
(e.g., upstream) plasma source.
In situ thermal process sub-type consists of the cleaning of thin-
film production chambers, after processing substrates, with a
fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent that is thermally dissociated into its
cleaning constituents inside the chamber where one or more thin films
are produced.
Production Process Recipe (Recipe). EPA has included definitions of
``individual recipe'' and ``similar'' with respect to recipes in this
final rule as an aid to understanding the portions of the rule where a
facility is required or allowed to calculate emissions on a recipe-
specific basis. The final rule uses the term ``individual recipe'' to
refer to a specific combination of gases, under specific conditions of
reactor temperature, pressure, flow, radio frequency (RF) power and
duration, used repeatedly to fabricate a specific feature on a specific
film or substrate. EPA is also introducing the term ``similar,'' with
respect to recipes, to refer to recipes that are composed of the same
set of chemicals and have the same flow stabilization times and where
the documented differences, considered separately, in reactor pressure,
individual gas flow rates, and applied RF power are less than or equal
to plus or minus 10 percent. For purposes of comparing and documenting
recipes that are similar, facilities may use either the best known
method provided by an equipment manufacturer or the process of record,
for which emission factors for either have been measured (see the
Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927) for supporting
information). Generally, where facilities develop recipe-specific
utilization and by-product formation rates, they may apply the
utilization and by-product formation rates developed for an individual
recipe to any ``similar recipe.\5\ ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ To be included in a set of similar recipes for the purposes
of this subpart, a recipe must be similar to the recipe in the set
for which recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates
have been measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics manufacturing facilities must calculate and report
emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at the facility by adhering to
typologies discussed and defined earlier in this section, as
appropriate, and using the following methods based on the use of (1)
Gas consumption, and (2) emission factors for fluorinated-GHG
utilization and by-product formation rates. Where facilities are
required to estimate and calculate emissions for sub-types or recipes,
they are also required to report those emissions in aggregate by
process type.
The required methods are summarized in Table 3 of this preamble.
EPA is naming the methodologies described below using a format similar
to that used in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. While EPA's methodologies may be viewed generally as an
extension from and building upon the IPCC's methods, EPA's approach is
distinct in terms of its applicability and level of detail.
Table 3--Summary of Final Provisions for Electronics Manufacturing Facilities To Estimate and Report Fluorinated
GHG Emissions From Etching and Cleaning Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufactured wafer Required Optional
Product manufactured size Annual capacity\a\ methodology methodology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV, MEMS, LCDs.................. NA................ NA................ Modified Tier 2b-- Tier 3--Use recipe-
Use EPA default specific emission
emission factors for all
factors\b\ for production
plasma etching processes that
and chamber use fluorinated
cleaning process GHGs.
types.\c\
Semiconductors.................. 300 mm and smaller Less than or equal Tier 2c--Use EPA Tier 3--Use recipe-
to 10,500 m\2\ of default emission specific emission
substrate. factors for factors for all
plasma etching, production
chamber cleaning processes that
(including in- use fluorinated
situ plasma GHGs.
cleaning, remote
plasma cleaning,
in-situ thermal
cleaning sub-
types), and wafer
cleaning process
types.\c\
[[Page 74781]]
Semiconductors.................. 300 mm and smaller Greater than Tier 2d--Use EPA Tier 3--Use recipe-
10,500 m\2\ of default emission specific emission
substrate. factors for factors for all
chamber cleaning production
(including in- processes that
situ plasma use fluorinated
cleaning, remote GHGs.
plasma cleaning,
in-situ thermal
cleaning sub-
types), and wafer
cleaning process
types, and recipe-
specific emission
factors for
plasma
etching.\c\
Semiconductors.................. Larger than 300 mm NA................ Tier 3--Use recipe- None.
specific emission
factors for all
production
processes that
use fluorinated
GHG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Manufacturing capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility as determined by
summing the area of maximum designed substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.
\b\ These emission factors are consistent with emission factors published in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
\c\ Where default emission factors are not provided in Tables I-3, I-4, I-5, I-6, or I-7 for a particular
fluorinated GHG and process type or sub-type combination, a facility must either use utilization and by-
product formation rates of 0 or use directly measured recipe-specific emission factors using the procedures of
this subpart.
Gas Consumption
Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the following methods
to calculate and apportion fluorinated GHG consumption:
Total annual gas consumption, for all fluorinated GHGs,
calculated using the facility's purchase records, disbursements, gas
container inventories, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors.
Total annual gas consumption apportioning factors
developed using facility-specific engineering models based on
quantifiable metrics (i.e., a metric that is proportional to gas usage)
of fluorinated GHG-using activity. Facilities must document these
models in their site GHG Monitoring Plans (as required under 40 CFR
98.3) and verify them. At a minimum, facilities must verify and
document the information listed in 40 CFR 98.94(c) and 40 CFR 98.97(c),
respectively. This information must be updated each reporting year.
Fluorinated GHG Utilization and By-Product Formation Rates (Emission
Factors)
Electronics manufacturing facilities must use the following methods
for applying (and in some cases, developing) fluorinated GHG emission
factors, as appropriate. Where a facility uses less than 50 kg of a
fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, rather than calculate emissions
using an emission factor, they may report the emissions of that gas as
equal to consumption.
Facilities That Manufacture MEMS, LCDs, and PV
Facilities that manufacture MEMS, LCDs, and PV are required to
calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions from two process
types: Plasma etching and chamber cleaning. These facilities are
required to use default emission factors presented in Tables I-5, I-6,
or I-7 to subpart I for MEMS, LCDs, PV, respectively. EPA is using the
term ``Modified Tier 2b Method'' to refer to this methodology.
A facility may use directly measured recipe-specific emission
factors in lieu of defaults for all production processes that use
fluorinated GHGs only if the recipe-specific emission factors are
measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH
06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.\6\ The facility must
develop recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except that
a factor developed for one individual recipe may be applied to similar
recipes. In a given reporting year, a facility must develop new recipe-
specific emission factors only for recipes which are not similar to any
recipe used in a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose the
recipe-specific approach must also aggregate the recipe-specific
emissions and report the total emissions by process type (plasma
etching and chamber cleaning). In addition, where a facility reports
using recipe-specific emission factors, they are required to report the
film or substrate that was etched/cleaned and the feature type that was
etched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA is permitting facilities to use emission factors
measured using the 2001 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH
01104197A-XFR, provided the emissions factors were measured
prior to January 1, 2007. Documentation for the measurements is
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A facility that is using a method based on default emission
factors, but uses a fluorinated GHG for a particular process type for
which default emission factors are not provided in Tables I-5, I-6, or
I-7, must either use utilization and by-product formation rates of 0
or, in that particular instance, use directly measured recipe-specific
emission factors measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International
SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.\7\ The
facility must develop and report the recipe-specific emission factors
using the same procedures as discussed in the paragraph above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the exception of where default emission factors are not
provided in Tables I-5, I-6, or I-7 for a particular process type, EPA
is prohibiting a facility from creating and using a hybrid method to
ensure consistent methods of calculating and reporting emissions. This
means that a single facility must choose between using only default
emission factors or using recipe-specific emission factors for all
process types; hybrid methods using both default emission factors and
recipe-specific factors within the same reporting year are not
permitted. This restriction will enable EPA to analyze emissions and
trends using a consistent set of data.
Facilities That Manufacture Semiconductors
EPA is requiring facilities that manufacture semiconductors to use
a method to calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions which
varies depending on the size of wafers that the facility is
manufacturing (i.e., whether the facility manufactures wafers measuring
300 mm and less or greater than 300 mm). This distinction was proposed
in the April 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 18652). For facilities that
manufacture wafers measuring 300 mm and less, EPA is requiring the use
of one of two following methods for calculating and reporting
emissions, depending on the facility's manufacturing capacity: (1) A
method for facilities that have an annual manufacturing capacity that
is less than or equal to 10,500 m\2\ of substrate, and (2) a method for
those
[[Page 74782]]
that have an annual manufacturing capacity greater than 10,500 m\2\ of
substrate. A facility's manufacturing capacity (as calculated using
Equation I-5 of subpart I) is 100 percent of the maximum designed
substrate starts, expressed as surface area, for the reporting year.
This distinction in manufacturing capacity was part of EPA's initial
April 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 16448).
Semiconductor Manufacturing Facilities That Fabricate Devices on Wafers
Measuring 300 mm or Less in Diameter and That Have an Annual
Manufacturing Capacity of Less Than or Equal to 10,500 m\2\ of
Substrate
Semiconductor manufacturing facilities that fabricate devices on
wafers measuring 300 mm or less in diameter and that have an annual
manufacturing capacity of less than or equal to 10,500 m\2\ of
substrate \8\ must calculate and report their fluorinated GHG emissions
using the following five process types and sub-types, and the
corresponding default emission factors presented in Tables I-3 and I-4
to subpart I:
\8\ As calculated in Equation I-5 of subpart I, manufacturing
capacity is 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a
facility as determined by summing the area of maximum designed
substrate starts of a facility per month over the reporting period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plasma etching process type.
Chamber cleaning process type which includes the following
three process sub-types:
--In-situ plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.
--Remote plasma chamber cleaning process sub-type.
--In-situ thermal chamber cleaning process sub-type.
Wafer cleaning process type.
Default emission factors are differentiated by 150/200 mm and 300
mm wafer technologies. The default emission factors were developed
using the data provided in Table 5 of the report Draft Emission Factors
for Refined Semiconductor Manufacturing Process Categories (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927-0073). EPA is using the term ``Tier 2c Method'' to refer to
this methodology.
A facility may use directly measured recipe-specific emission
factors for each individual recipe or recipe that is not a similar
recipe in lieu of defaults only if the recipe-specific emission factors
are measured using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, International SEMATECH
06124825A-ENG, with limited exceptions.\9\ The facility must
develop recipe-specific factors for each individual recipe except that
factors developed for one individual recipe may be applied to similar
recipes. In a given reporting year, a facility must develop recipe-
specific emission factors only for new recipes which are not similar to
any recipe used in a previous reporting year. Facilities that choose
the recipe-specific approach must also aggregate the recipe-specific
emissions and report the total emissions by process type (plasma
etching, cha