[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74774-74861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://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 http://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:
[email protected]. For technical information and implementation
materials, please go to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site
http://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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 greater than 10,500 m\2\ of substrate (the
``largest'' semiconductor manufacturing facilities) \11\ must calculate
and report their emissions using a combination of default emission
factors and directly measured recipe-specific emission factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 recipe-specific 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 recipe-
[[Page 74783]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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-ENG, with limited
exceptions.\15\ Facilities must also aggregate the recipe-specific
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
[[Page 74784]]
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.
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.
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 m\2\ 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 m\2\ 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 74785]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ EPA's ``Refined Method'' as proposed in April 2010 (75 FR
18652) is based on nine process sub-types under the etching, chamber
cleaning, and wafer cleaning process types (four etching process
sub-types, three chamber cleaning process sub-types, and two wafer
cleaning process sub-types) and EPA-published default emission
factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 facility-specific
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-10-0304\E\, 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 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.
[[Page 74786]]
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See footnote 19.
\21\ Since 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 year-end 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``Alternative Refined Method,'' as described in comments, would
be comprised of five process types and sub-types, 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 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 sub-types, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 74787]]
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 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 m\2\ of substrate as the threshold for large
facilities because facilities above this threshold are expected to
account for nearly two-thirds 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 m\2\) 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 recipe-specific 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
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
[[Page 74788]]
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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
[[Page 74789]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Beu, L. (2005). ``Reduction of Perfluorocarbon (PFC)
Emissions: 2005 State-of-the-Technology Report'',
TT0510469AENG, International SEMATECH Manufacturing
Initiative (ISMI), December 2005. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/semiconductor-pfc/documents/final_tt_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See footnote 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 accordance with the manufacturers'
specifications, and provide certification that the abatement system is
specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See footnote 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ http://www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 74790]]
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-10-0304\E\, Specification
for Definition and Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability,
and Maintainability was incorrect. The commenter noted that the SEMI
Standard E-10-0304\E\ 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-10-0304\E\
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-10-0304\E\ because EPA agrees with the commenter that SEMI E-
10-0304\E\ 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 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 sub-types 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. 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 facility-specific 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 74791]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 facility-specific 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 mass-
balance 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,
[[Page 74792]]
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 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).
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-
[[Page 74793]]
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-to-destroy 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-to-destroy 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 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 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.
[[Page 74794]]
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 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.127.
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.
[[Page 74795]]
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.
--For purposes of quantifying emissions from equipment leaks,
defining ``in fluorinated GHG service'' as containing or contacting a
feedstock, by-product, 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, 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
[[Page 74796]]
than requiring stack testing for high-emitting 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 add-on 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 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 by-product
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 100,000-mtCO2/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 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
[[Page 74797]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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-vent-specific
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 mass-balance 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 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 mass-balance 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 74798]]
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, this can be accomplished using
the student's distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 by-products,
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 (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Class 1 is the group of POHCs and surrogates with the
highest thermal stability, meaning they are the most difficult
compounds to destroy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 74799]]
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[deg]C; for CF4, we project
that the temperature would be on the order of 1,380[deg]C.\40\
Researchers have suggested that CF4 may break down only in
the flame zone.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ SF6 temperature is from Appendix VIII ranking of
POHCs; CF4 temperature is estimated based on the rate
constant provided in Tsang, p. 393.
\41\ Tsang, p. 387.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 point-of-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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ A. Trenholm, C. Lee, and H. Jermyn, ``Full-Scale 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Tsang, p. 401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
[[Page 74800]]
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, 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-to-monitor.) 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ This approach was not proposed but is less burdensome than
the other three methods in the Protocol, which were proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 74801]]
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 Sec.
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 system-level 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 off-site 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 GHG emissions. A list of the specific data
to be reported for this source category is contained in Sec. 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 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 corporate-based 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
[[Page 74802]]
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 corporate-based 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 system-wide 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
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.
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 PFC-insulated 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-of-year 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
[[Page 74803]]
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
mass-balance 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-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
sealed-pressure 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 sealed-pressure equipment,
especially for facilities that specialize in electricity distribution.
EPA has clarified that SF6 arriving inside newly acquired
sealed-pressure 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.
G. Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-Charged
Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams (Subpart QQ)
1. Summary of the Final Rule
Source Category Definition. This source category consists of any
entity that is importing or exporting pre-charged equipment that
contains a fluorinated GHG and also consists of any entity that is
importing or exporting closed-cell foams that contain a fluorinated
GHG.
Any importer or exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-
charged 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 pre-charged 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 closed-cell foams, the report may be limited to the mass in
CO2e of the fluorinated GHGs imported or exported in closed-
cell 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.
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
[[Page 74804]]
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.
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-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 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
[[Page 74805]]
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 off-line 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 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 long-established 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.
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
[[Page 74806]]
ensure importers and exporters are properly reporting imports and
exports of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell 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 closed-cell 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 closed-cell 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 closed-cell foams under these
circumstances.
EPA is requiring importers and exporters to report the identity and
mass of the fluorinated GHG within closed-cell foams when it is known.
This is consistent with EPA's approach for pre-charged 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 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 sealed-pressure
equipment including gas-insulated 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 sealed-pressure 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 combustion-related 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 mass-balance 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
[[Page 74807]]
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 mass-
balance 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 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 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
[[Page 74808]]
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 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 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
[[Page 74809]]
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 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:
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.
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 Subsequent years
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart Millions Share Millions Share
2006$ $/ton (percent) 2006$ $/ton (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart I--Electronics Industry. $2.9 $0.33 38 $5.4 $0.33 76
Subpart L--Fluorinated Gas 3.0 0.28 40 0.2 0.02 2
Production.....................
Subpart DD--Electric 0.6 0.19 7 0.6 0.05 8
Transmission and Distribution
Equipment Use..................
Subpart QQ--Imports and Exports 0.7 0.03 9 0.6 0.02 9
of Fluorinated GHGs............
Subpart SS--Electrical Equipment 0.02 0.01 0.3 0.02 0.01 0
Manufacture and Refurbishment
and Manufacturing of Electrical
Components.....................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 74810]]
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$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost All
2007 NAICS NAICS description Sub-part per entity ($/ enterprises
entity) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334413..................... Semiconductor and I (Semis).................. $19,980 0.03
Related Device
Manufacturing.
334413..................... Semiconductor and I (Non-Semis).............. 16,046 0.02
Related Device
Manufacturing.
334119..................... Other Computer I (Non-Semis).............. 16,046 0.06
Peripheral Equipment
Manufacturing.
325120..................... Industrial Gas L.......................... 126,523 1.08
Manufacturing.
221121..................... Electrical Power DD......................... 2,213 0.00
Systems.
326140..................... Polystyrene Foam QQ......................... 3,364 0.03
Product Manufacturing.
326150..................... Urethane and Other QQ......................... 3,364 0.03
Foam Product (except
Polystyrene)
Manufacturing..
333415..................... Air-Conditioning and QQ......................... 3,364 0.01
Warm Air Heating
Equipment and
Commercial and
Industrial
Refrigeration
Equipment
Manufacturing.
335313..................... Switchgear and QQ......................... 3,364 0.02
Switchboard Apparatus
Manufacturing.
336391..................... Motor Vehicle Air- QQ......................... 3,364 0.01
Conditioning
Manufacturing.
423610..................... Electrical Apparatus QQ......................... 3,364 0.05
and Equipment, Wiring
Supplies, and Related
Equipment Merchant
Wholesalers.
423620..................... Electrical and QQ......................... 3,364 0.02
Electronic Appliance,
Television, and Radio
Set Merchant
Wholesalers.
423720..................... Plumbing and Heating QQ......................... 3,364 0.05
Equipment and
Supplies (Hydronics)
Merchant Wholesalers.
423730..................... Warm Air Heating and QQ......................... 3,364 0.07
Air-Conditioning
Equipment and
Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers.
423740..................... Refrigeration QQ......................... 3,364 0.09
Equipment and
Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers.
443111..................... Household Appliance QQ......................... 3,364 0.24
Stores.
443112..................... Radio, Television and QQ......................... 3,364 0.14
Other Electronics
Stores.
422610..................... Plastics Materials and QQ......................... 3,364 0.03
Basic Forms and
Shapes Merchant
Wholesalers.
33361...................... Engine, Turbine, and SS......................... 2,213 0.00
Power Transmission
Equipment
Manufacturing.
33531...................... Electrical Equipment SS......................... 2,213 0.02
Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What are the impacts of the rule on small businesses?
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.)
EPA conducted a screening assessment comparing compliance costs for
affected industry sectors to industry-specific 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 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).
[[Page 74811]]
Table 14--Estimated Cost-to-Sales Ratios by Industry and Enterprise Size (First Year, 2006$) a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owned by Enterprises with:
SBA Size Average -----------------------------------------------------------------
standard cost per All 100 to 500 to 750 to 1,000 to
NAICS NAICS Description Sub-part (effective entity enterprises 1 to 20 20 to 99 499 749 999 1,499
March 11, ($/ (percent) Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees Employees
2008) entity) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334413......... Semiconductor and I (Semis)...... 500 $19,980 0.03 1.16 0.22 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.02
Related Device
Manufacturing.
334413......... Semiconductor and I (Non-Semis).. 500 16,046 0.02 0.94 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.02
Related Device
Manufacturing.
334119......... Other Computer I (Non-Semis).. 500 16,046 0.06 0.92 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.01
Peripheral
Equipment
Manufacturing.
325120......... Industrial Gas L.............. 1,000 126,523 1.08 23.19 0.77 3.19 NA NA NA
Manufacturing.
221121......... Electrical Power DD............. (\c\) 2,213 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.01 NA NA NA
Systems.
326140......... Polystyrene Foam QQ............. 500 3,364 0.03 0.25 0.06 0.04 NA NA 0.01
Product
Manufacturing.
326150......... Urethane and QQ............. 500 3,364 0.03 0.19 0.05 0.02 0.02 NA NA
Other Foam
Product (except
Polystyrene).
Manufacturing....
333415......... Air-Conditioning QQ............. 750 3,364 0.01 0.22 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
and Warm Air
Heating
Equipment.
and Commercial
and Industrial
Refrigeration.
Equipment
Manufacturing.
335313......... Switchgear and QQ............. 750 3,364 0.02 0.24 0.05 0.02 NA NA NA
Switchboard
Apparatus
Manufacturing.
336391......... Motor Vehicle Air- QQ............. 750 3,364 0.01 0.33 0.07 NA NA NA NA
Conditioning
Manufacturing.
423610......... Electrical QQ............. 100 3,364 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03
Apparatus and
Equipment,
Wiring Supplies,.
and Related
Equipment
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423620......... Electrical and QQ............. 100 3,364 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01
Electronic
Appliance,
Television, and.
Radio Set
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423720......... Plumbing and QQ............. 100 3,364 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.09
Heating
Equipment and
Supplies.
(Hydronics)
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423730......... Warm Air Heating QQ............. 100 3,364 0.07 0.13 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.03 NA
and Air-
Conditioning
Equipment.
and Supplies
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423740......... Refrigeration QQ............. 100 3,364 0.09 0.16 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.04 NA
Equipment and
Supplies
Merchant.
Wholesalers......
443111......... Household QQ............. $9 M 3,364 0.24 0.42 0.09 0.07 NA NA NA
Appliance Stores.
443112......... Radio, Television QQ............. $9 M 3,364 0.14 0.53 0.15 0.23 NA NA NA
and Other
Electronics
Stores.
422610......... Plastics QQ............. 100 3,364 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05
Materials and
Basic Forms and
Shapes.
Merchant
Wholesalers.
33361.......... Engine, Turbine, SS............. 500-1,000 2,213 0.00 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
and Power
Transmission
Equipment
Manufacturing.
33531.......... Electrical SS............. 750-1,000 2,213 0.02 0.19 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01
Equipment
Manufacturing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 (http://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 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 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
[[Page 74812]]
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 m\2\ 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).
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 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.
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.
[[Page 74813]]
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBA Size
standard
2007 NAICS NAICS Description Subpart (effective
August 22, 2008)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
334413................ Semiconductor and I.......... 500
Related Device
Manufacturing.
334119................ Other Computer I.......... 1,000
Peripheral
Equipment
Manufacturing.
325120................ Industrial Gas L.......... 1,000
Manufacturing.
221121................ Electrical Power DD......... (\1\)
Systems.
326140................ Polystyrene Foam QQ......... 500
Product
Manufacturing.
326150................ Urethane and QQ......... 500
Other Foam
Product (except
Polystyrene)
Manufacturing.
333415................ Air-Conditioning QQ......... 750
and Warm Air
Heating
Equipment and
Commercial and
Industrial
Refrigeration
Equipment
Manufacturing.
335313................ Switchgear and QQ......... 750
Switchboard
Apparatus
Manufacturing.
336391................ Motor Vehicle Air- QQ......... 750
Conditioning
Manufacturing.
423610................ Electrical QQ......... 100
Apparatus and
Equipment,
Wiring Supplies,
and Related
Equipment
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423620................ Electrical and QQ......... 100
Electronic
Appliance,
Television, and
Radio Set
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423720................ Plumbing and QQ......... 100
Heating
Equipment and
Supplies
(Hydronics)
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423730................ Warm Air Heating QQ......... 100
and Air-
Conditioning
Equipment and
Supplies
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423740................ Refrigeration QQ......... 100
Equipment and
Supplies
Merchant
Wholesalers.
443111................ Household QQ......... $9 M
Appliance Stores.
443112................ Radio, Television QQ......... $9 M
and Other
Electronics
Stores.
422610................ Plastics QQ......... 100
Materials and
Basic Forms and
Shapes Merchant
Wholesalers.
33361................. Engine, Turbine, SS......... 500-1,000
and Power
Transmission
Equipment
Manufacturing.
33531................. Electrical SS......... 750-1,000
Equipment
Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 4 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
[[Page 74814]]
establishments owned by small businesses, because the reporting costs
are likely lower than average entity estimates provided by the
engineering cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
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. 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.
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 pre-charged 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.
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
[[Page 74815]]
that they did not expect any Tribally-owned 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).
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.
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.
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.
[[Page 74816]]
Dated: November 8, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 98--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 98.3 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding paragraph (c)(4)(vi).
0
b. By revising paragraphs(c)(5)(i) and (c)(5)(ii).
Sec. 98.3 What are the general monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping and verification requirements of this part?
* * * * *
(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, report emissions of all fluorinated GHG, including
those not listed in Table A-1 of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 98.6 is amended by revising the definition of ``Destruction
efficiency'' to read as follows:
Sec. 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.001
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
* * * * *
0
4. Section 98.7 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(8) and paragraph (e)(30).
0
b. By adding paragraph (e)(46) and (e)(47).
0
c. By adding paragraphs (m)(3) through (m)(7).
0
d. By adding paragraph (n).
Sec. 98.7 What standardized methods are incorporated by reference
into this part?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) ASME MFC-3M-2004 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved
for Sec. 98.34(b), Sec. 98.124(m)(1), Sec. 98.244(b), Sec.
98.254(c), Sec. 98.324(e), Sec. 98.344(c), Sec. 98.354(d), Sec.
98.354(h), and Sec. 98.364(e).
(2) ASME MFC-4M-1986 (Reaffirmed 1997) Measurement of Gas Flow by
Turbine Meters, IBR approved for Sec. 98.34(b), Sec. 98.124(m)(2),
Sec. 98.244(b), Sec. 98.254(c), Sec. 98.324(e), Sec. 98.344(c),
Sec. 98.354(h), and Sec. 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 Sec. 98.34(b), Sec. 98.124(m)(3), Sec. 98.244(b), and
Sec. 98.354(d).
(4) ASME MFC-6M-1998 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Vortex Flowmeters, IBR approved for Sec. 98.34(b), Sec. 98.124(m)(4),
Sec. 98.244(b), Sec. 98.254(c), Sec. 98.324(e), Sec. 98.344(c),
Sec. 98.354(h), and Sec. 98.364(e).
(5) ASME MFC-7M-1987 (Reaffirmed 1992) Measurement of Gas Flow by
Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles, IBR approved for Sec.
98.34(b), Sec. 98.124(m)(5), Sec. 98.244(b), Sec. 98.254(c), Sec.
98.324(e), Sec. 98.344(c), Sec. 98.354(h), and Sec. 98.364(e).
(6) ASME MFC-9M-1988 (Reaffirmed 2001) Measurement of Liquid Flow
in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method, IBR approved for Sec. 98.34(b),
Sec. 98.124(m)(6), and Sec. 98.244(b).
(7) ASME MFC-11M-2006 Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of
Coriolis Mass Flowmeters, IBR approved for Sec. 98.124(m)(7), Sec.
98.244(b), Sec. 98.254(c), Sec. 98.324(e), Sec. 98.344(c), and Sec.
98.354(h).
(8) ASME MFC-14M-2003 Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small Bore
Precision Orifice Meters, IBR approved for Sec. 98.124(m)(8), Sec.
98.244(b), Sec. 98.254(c), Sec. 98.324(e), Sec. 98.344(c), Sec.
98.354(h), and Sec. 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), IBR approved for Sec.
98.54(b), Sec. 98.124(e)(2), and Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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), http://www.epa.gov/semiconductor-pfc/documents/dre_protocol.pdf,
IBR approved for Sec. 98.94(f)(4)(i), Sec. 98.94(g)(3), Sec.
98.97(d)(4), Sec. 98.98, and Sec. 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, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume02/index.html, IBR approved for Sec.
98.123(c)(1)(i)(A).
[[Page 74817]]
(5) Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA-453/R-95-
017, November 1995 (EPA-453/R-95-017), http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/efdocs/equiplks.pdf, IBR approved for Sec. 98.123(d)(1)(i), Sec.
98.123(d)(1)(ii), Sec. 98.123(d)(1)(iii), and Sec. 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, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/prelim/otm24.pdf, IBR approved for Sec. 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, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/approalt/alt-012.pdf, IBR approved
for Sec. 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, http://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 Sec.
98.94(d), Sec. 98.94(d)(1), Sec. 98.94(e), Sec. 98.94(e)(1), Sec.
98.94(g)(1), Sec. 98.96(f)(4), and Sec. 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 Sec. 98.94(d), Sec.
98.94(d)(1), Sec. 98.94(e), Sec. 98.94(e)(1), Sec. 98.94(g)(2),
Sec. 98.96(f)(4), and Sec. 98.97(b)(1).
* * * * *
0
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 Sec. 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.
0
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 Sec. 98.2(a)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Categories \a\ Applicable in 2010 and Future Years
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Additional Source Categories\a\ Applicable in 2011 and Future Years
* * * * * * *
Electronics manufacturing (subpart I)
Fluorinated gas production (subpart L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart.
0
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 Sec. 98.2(a)(4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplier Categories \a\ Applicable in 2010 and Future Years
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
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 are defined in each applicable subpart.
[[Page 74818]]
0
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
Sec. 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 micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS),
liquid crystal displays (LCDs), photovoltaic cells (PV), and
semiconductors (including light-emitting 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).
Sec. 98.91 Reporting threshold.
(a) You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if electronics
manufacturing production processes, as defined in Sec. 98.90, are
performed at your facility and your facility meets the requirements of
either Sec. 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 Sec. 98.2(a)(2), follow the requirements of
Sec. 98.2(b), with one exception. Rather than using the calculation
methodologies in Sec. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.002
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 (m\2\).
EFi = Emission factor for input gas i (kg/m\2\).
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.
(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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.003
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 (m\2\).
EFi = Emission factor for input gas i (g/m\2\).
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.
[[Page 74819]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.004
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.
(4) You must calculate total annual production process emissions
for threshold applicability purposes using Equation I-4 of this
subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.005
Where:
ET = Annual production process emissions of all
fluorinated GHGs for threshold applicability purposes (metric tons
Co2e).
[delta] = 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.
i = Input gas.
(b) You must calculate annual manufacturing capacity of a facility
using Equation I-5 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.006
Where:
S = 100 percent of annual manufacturing capacity of a facility
(m\2\).
Wx = Maximum designed substrate starts of a facility in
month x (m\2\ per month).
x = Month.
Sec. 98.92 GHGs to report.
(a) You must report emissions of fluorinated GHGs (as defined in
Sec. 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 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.
Sec. 98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.
(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 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 paragraph (a)(6) of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.007
Where:
ProcesstypeEi = Annual emissions of input gas i from the
processes type (metric tons).
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.008
Where:
ProcesstypeBEk = Annual emissions of by-product 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.
[[Page 74820]]
(1) If you manufacture MEMS, LCDs, or PVs, you must, except as
provided in Sec. 98.93(a)(3), calculate annual facility-level
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 Sec. 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 m\2\ 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 in-situ 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 m\2\ of substrate, as calculated using Equation I-5
of this subpart, you must adhere to the procedures in 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 recipe-
specific utilization and by-product formation rates determined as
specified in Sec. 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 Sec. 98.98. Recipe-specific 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 Sec. 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 in-situ 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 by-
product formation rates determined as specified in Sec. 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 Sec. 98.98.
Recipe-specific 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 Sec.
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 recipe-specific utilization and by-product
formation rates as specified in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 by-product formation rates of 0.
(ii) You must develop recipe-specific utilization and by-product
formation rates determined as specified in Sec. 98.94(d) for each
individual recipe or set of similar recipes as defined in Sec. 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 Sec.
98.98.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.009
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
[[Page 74821]]
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.010
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.
k = By-product gas.
(b) You must calculate annual facility-level 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 facility-specific N2O utilization
factor averaged over all N2O-using chemical vapor deposition
processes determined as specified in Sec. 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 facility-specific N2O utilization
factor averaged over all N2O-using electronics manufacturing
production processes other than chemical vapor deposition processes
determined as specified in Sec. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.011
Where:
E(N2O)j = Annual emissions of N2O
for N2O-using process j (metric tons).
CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed for
N2O-using process j, as calculated in Equation I-13 of
this subpart and apportioned to N2O process j (kg).
UN2O,j = Process utilization factor for N2O-
using 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 N2O-using 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 Sec. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.012
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.
(d) You must calculate disbursements of input gas i using facility-
wide gas-specific heel factors, as determined in Sec. 98.94(b), and by
using Equation I-12 of this subpart.
[[Page 74822]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.013
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 Sec. 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.
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 Sec.
98.94(b)(4).
i = Input gas.
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) 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.014
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-type-specific, or
process type-specific input gas i apportioning factor (expressed as
a decimal fraction), as determined in accordance with Sec.
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 Sec. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.015
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.94(f),
you must calculate the uptime by using Equation I-15 of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.016
Where:
up = The uptime of abatement system p (expressed as a
decimal fraction).
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.
(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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.017
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
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
[[Page 74823]]
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.
Sec. 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 Sec.
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 recipe-specific utilization
and by-product formation rates for the plasma etching process type.
With respect to any provision of this subpart except Sec.
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 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 recipe-specific utilization and
by-product formation rates for the etching process type under Sec.
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
[[Page 74824]]
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.
(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 Sec. 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
Sec. 98.94(c), it is not required to verify its 2012 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 facility-wide 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 gas-specific 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 gas-specific heel factors in Sec. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.018
Where:
p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa).
V = Volume of the gas (m\3\).
Z = Compressibility factor.
n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles).
R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole).
T = Absolute temperature (K).
(3) The initial mass you use to calculate a facility-wide gas-
specific heel factor in Sec. 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 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 facility-wide 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 74825]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.7) provided the measurements were made prior
to January 1, 2007. You may use recipe-specific utilization and by-
product 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
by-product formation rates using the International SEMATECH
06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7,) or
the International SEMATECH 01104197A-XFR (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.7). You
may use measurements made using the International SEMATECH
01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 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 Sec. 98.7,) or the International SEMATECH
01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 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
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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:
[[Page 74826]]
(1) Follow the QA/QC procedures in the International SEMATECH
06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7) when
measuring and calculating facility-specific, recipe-specific
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.93 must have an accuracy and
precision of one percent of full scale or better.
Sec. 98.95 Procedures for estimating missing data.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a complete
record of all measured parameters used in the fluorinated GHG and
N2O emissions calculations in Sec. 98.93 and Sec. 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.
Sec. 98.96 Data reporting requirements.
In addition to the information required by Sec. 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 Sec. 98.93.
(e) Annual production in terms of substrate surface area (e.g.,
silicon, PV-cell, 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 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 Sec. 98.98.
(4) Certification that the measurements for all reported recipe-
specific 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 Sec. 98.7), or the International SEMATECH
01104197A-XFR (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 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 gas-specific 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
[[Page 74827]]
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 Sec. 98.94(c),
the following information to determine it is verified in accordance
with procedures in Sec. 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 Sec. 98.94(c)(2)(i).
(iii) Certification that the gases you selected under Sec.
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 Sec. 98.94(c)(2)(iii).
(n) Fraction of each fluorinated GHG or N2O fed into a
recipe, process sub-type, 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 sub-type, 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
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.94(a), the parameter measured or
estimated using the method, and the time period during which the ``best
available monitoring method'' was used.
Sec. 98.97 Records that must be retained.
In addition to the information required by Sec. 98.3(g), you must
retain the following records:
(a) All data used and copies of calculations made as part of
estimating 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
recipe-specific utilization and by-product formation rates
demonstrating that the values were measured using International
SEMATECH 06124825A-ENG (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
98.7) or, if the measurements were made prior to January 1, 2007,
International SEMATECH 01104197A-XFR (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 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 Sec.
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 facility-specific engineering model used
to apportion fluorinated GHG and N2O consumption. This
documentation must be part of your site GHG Monitoring Plan as required
under Sec. 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 type-specific gas apportioning
factors (fij) for the two fluorinated GHGs used at your
[[Page 74828]]
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.3(g)(5), must be
completed by April 1, 2011. You must update your GHG Monitoring Plan to
comply with Sec. 98.94(c) consistent with the requirements in Sec.
98.3(g)(5)(iii).
Sec. 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 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. By-product 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 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
[[Page 74829]]
remove materials from a substrate during electronics manufacturing. The
materials removed may include SiO2, SiOx-based or
fully organic-based thin-film 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 Sec. 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 C2F6 CHF3 C3F8 NF3 SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semiconductors (kg/m\2\).......... 0.90 1.00 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.20
LCD (g/m\2\)...................... 0.50 NA NA NA 0.90 4.00
MEMS (kg/m\2\).................... NA NA NA NA NA 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 By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for
Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150mm and 200 mm Wafer Sizes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process gas i
Process type/Sub-type --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plasma Etching
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui................................................. 0.69 0.56 0.38 0.093 NA 0.25 0.038 0.20 0.14 NA NA
BCF4................................................. NA 0.23 0.026 0.021 NA 0.19 0.0040 NA 0.13 NA NA
BC2F6................................................ NA NA NA NA NA 0.084 NA NA 0.12 NA NA
BC3F8................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 74830]]
Chamber Cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situ plasma cleaning:
1-Ui............................................. 0.92 0.55 NA NA 0.40 0.10 0.18 NA NA NA 0.14
BCF4............................................. NA 0.19 NA NA 0.20 0.11 0.011 NA NA NA 0.13
BC2F6............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.030
BC3F8............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Remote plasma cleaning:
1-Ui............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.018 NA NA NA NA
BCF4............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0047 NA NA NA NA
BC2F6............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
In situ thermal cleaning:
1-Ui............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF4............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wafer Cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui................................................. 0.77 NA NA 0.24 NA NA 0.23 0.20 NA NA NA
BCF4................................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 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 By-Product 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................................................. 0.80 0.80 0.48 0.14 NA 0.29 0.32 0.37 0.09 NA NA
BCF4................................................. NA NA 0.0018 0.0011 NA 0.079 NA NA 0.27 NA NA
BC2F6................................................ NA NA 0.0011 NA NA 0.12 NA NA 0.29 NA NA
BC3F8................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chamber Cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situ plasma cleaning:
1-Ui............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.23 NA NA NA NA
BCF4............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0046 NA NA NA NA
BC2F6............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Remote Plasma Cleaning:
1-Ui............................................. NA NA NA NA 0.063 NA 0.018 NA NA NA NA
BCF4............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.040 NA NA NA NA
BC2F6............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
In Situ Thermal Cleaning:
1-Ui............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.28 NA NA NA NA
BCF4............................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.010 NA NA NA NA
BC2F6............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8............................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wafer Cleaning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui................................................. 0.77 NA NA 0.24 NA NA 0.23 0.20 NA NA NA
BCF4................................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
[[Page 74831]]
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process gas i
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process type factors NF3
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 Remote NF3 SF6 C4F6a C5F8a C4F8Oa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etch 1-Ui................................... 0.7 \1\ 0.4 \1\ 0.4 \1\ NA \1\ 0.2 NA 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 NA
0.06
Etch BCF4................................... NA \1\ 0.4 \1\ \1\ NA 0.2 NA NA NA \1\ 0.3 0.2 NA
0.07 0.08
Etch BC2F6.................................. NA NA NA NA NA 0.2 NA NA NA \1\ 0.2 0.2 NA
CVD 1-Ui.................................... 0.9 0.6 NA NA 0.4 0.1 0.02 0.2 NA NA 0.1 0.1
CVD BCF4.................................... NA 0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1 \2\ \2\ 0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1
0.02
CVD BC3F8................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 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 By-
Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for LCD Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Gas i
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process type factors NF3
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 Remote NF3 SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etch 1-Ui...................... 0.6 NA 0.2 NA NA 0.1 NA NA 0.3
Etch BCF4...................... NA NA 0.07 NA NA 0.009 NA NA NA
Etch BCHF3..................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.02 NA NA NA
Etch BC2F6..................... NA NA 0.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA
CVD 1-Ui....................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.03 0.3 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 By-
Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for PV Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Gas i
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process type factors NF3
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 Remote NF3 SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etch 1-Ui..................... 0.7 0.4 0.4 NA NA 0.2 NA NA 0.4
Etch BCF4..................... NA 0.2 NA NA NA 0.1 NA NA NA
Etch BC2F6.................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 NA NA NA
CVD 1-Ui...................... NA 0.6 NA NA 0.1 0.1 NA 0.3 0.4
CVD BCF4...................... NA 0.2 NA NA 0.2 0.1 NA NA 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......................................................... 0.8
Other Manufacturing Process 1-Ui................................. 1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
9. Add subpart L to read as follows:
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.
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
Sec. 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
Sec. 98.410(b). Producing a 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
[[Page 74832]]
before the production measurement in Sec. 98.414(a).
Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec.
98.2(a)(2), calculate process emissions from fluorinated gas production
using uncontrolled GHG emissions.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 98.123 Calculating GHG emissions.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.123(c)(1)(vi).
Do not report CO2e emissions under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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.
(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):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.019
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.
[[Page 74833]]
(iv) Equation L-2 of this section provides the general formula for
calculating the relative errors of sums and differences:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.020
Where:
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.
(v) Equation L-3 of this section provides the general formula for
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):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.021
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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.022
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 Sec. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.023
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 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.
(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 by-products (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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.024
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).
[[Page 74834]]
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 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.
(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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.025
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.
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 by-product 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.
u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.026
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).
(6) The mass of each fluorine-containing 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.027
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 non-GHG
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).
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.028
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 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.124(b)(4).
[[Page 74835]]
(ii) For other vents, including vents from processes that emit less
than 25,000 metric tons CO2e, you must characterize
emissions as specified in Sec. 98.124(b)(5).
(iii) For fluorine emissions that are not accounted for by vent
estimates, you must characterize emissions as specified in Sec.
98.124(b)(6).
(9) The total mass of fluorine-containing 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.029
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 by-product 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 by-product k,
calculation in Equation L-16 of this section.
u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products generated in process
i.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into process i.
(10) The total mass of fluorine-containing 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.030
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 by-product 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 by-product k,
calculation in Equation L-16 of this section.
u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products generated in process
i.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into process i.
(11) The total mass of fluorine-containing by-product k emitted
must be estimated at least monthly based on the total fluorine emitted
and the fraction that consists of fluorine-containing by-products using
Equation L-13 of this section. If fluorine-containing by-product k is a
non-GHG, you may assume that FEBk is zero.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.031
Where:
EBk-ip = Total mass of fluorine-containing by-product k
emitted from process i over the period p (metric tons).
FEBk = The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of
fluorine-containing by-product 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 by-product k,
calculation in Equation L-16 of this section.
u = Number of fluorine-containing by-products generated in process
i.
v = Number of fluorine-containing reactants fed into process i.
(12) The mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d must be estimated
using Equation L-14 of this section:
[[Page 74836]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.032
Where:
MFFRd = Mass fraction of fluorine in reactant d
(fraction).
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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.033
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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.034
Where:
MFFBk = Mass fraction of fluorine in the product
(fraction).
MFBk = Moles fluorine per mole of by-product 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 fluorine-containing compounds (including all fluorine-
containing reactants, products, and byproducts) using Equation L-17 of
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.035
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 Sec. 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.
(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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.036
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 non-GHG
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).
[[Page 74837]]
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 non-GHG 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
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.7).
(B) You may determine the fluorinated GHG emissions from any
process vent within the process using the procedures specified in Sec.
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec.
63.1257(d)(2)(i)(D)(10) of this chapter.
(3) To calculate emissions from vacuum systems, the terms used in
Equation 33 to Sec. 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.
(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 Sec.
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 Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(B) of this
chapter.
(v) Emissions from empty vessel purging must be calculated using
Equation 36 to Sec. 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.
[[Page 74838]]
(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 Sec. 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
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 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 Sec. 98.124. All emissions test data
and procedures used in developing emission factors must be documented
according to Sec. 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.
[[Page 74839]]
(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 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.037
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 (m\3\/min).
SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 m\3\/g-mole at 68 [deg]F
and 1 atm).
1/10\3\ = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000 grams).
60/1 = Conversion factor (60 minutes/1 hour).
(v) You must calculate a site-specific, process-vent-specific
emission factor for 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.038
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.
(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-vent-specific
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.039
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 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
[[Page 74840]]
are vented to the properly functioning destruction device (i.e.,
controlled).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.040
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 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).
(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 process-vent-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).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.041
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.
(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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.042
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 for process i.
(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
(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
Sec. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.043
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 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
[[Page 74841]]
the process-vent-specific emission calculation factor by the total
process activity, as applicable, for the year, using Equation L-26 of
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.044
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.
(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).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.045
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).
(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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.046
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.
(d) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for equipment leaks (EL).
If you comply with paragraph (c) of this section, you must calculate
the 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-to-monitor, 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 Sec. 98.7).
(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 Sec. 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 site-specific 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 Sec. 98.7): The Screening Ranges Approach; the EPA
Correlation Approach; or the Unit-Specific 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
[[Page 74842]]
must meet the requirements in Sec. 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 Sec. 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-to-monitor, 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, 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.047
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).
(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 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.048
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.
(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 Sec.
98.410(b) using Equation L-31 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.049
Where:
ED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted annually from
destruction of fluorinated GHGs that were previously ``produced'' as
defined at Sec. 98.410(b) (metric tons).
RED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs that were previously
``produced'' as defined at Sec. 98.410(b) and that are fed annually
into the destruction device (metric tons).
DE = Destruction efficiency of the destruction device (fraction).
(g) Emissions from venting of residual fluorinated GHGs in
containers. If you 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.050
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).
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.
(2) Developing and applying heel factors. If you use heel factors
to
[[Page 74843]]
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 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 Sec. 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.051
Where:
p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa)
V = Volume of the gas (m\3\)
Z = Compressibility factor
n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles)
R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole)
T = Absolute temperature (K)
(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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.052
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.
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.123(b)(1):
(i) Total mass of each fluorine-containing product produced.
Account for any used fluorine-containing product added into the
production process upstream of the output measurement as directed at
Sec. 98.413(b) and Sec. 98.414(b). For each product, the mass
produced used for the mass-balance calculation must be the same as
[[Page 74844]]
the mass produced that is reported under subpart OO of this part, where
applicable.
(ii) Total mass of each fluorine-containing 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 Sec. 98.123(b)(4). If
you use Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.123(b)(15). If
you use Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 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 Sec.
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 fluorine-containing compound in each sample.
Use equipment and methods that comply with paragraph (e) of this
section. Calculate the average concentration of each fluorine-
containing compound across all three samples.
(ii) Controlled emissions using Sec. 98.123(b)(15). If you use
Sec. 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 fluorine-containing compounds that
are not fluorinated GHGs.
(iii) Controlled emissions using Sec. 98.123(b)(4). If you use
Sec. 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.
(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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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
[[Page 74845]]
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 Sec. 98.123(b)(15). If you use
Sec. 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 fluorine-containing compounds that
are not fluorinated GHGs.
(iii) Controlled emissions using Sec. 98.123(b)(4). If you use
Sec. 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 input) in greater
than trace concentrations, this impurity shall be monitored under this
section and included in the calculations under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 by-products fed into and generated by the
process. To convert these masses to CO2e, use Equation A-1
of Sec. 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-vent-specific emission
factor, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(8) of this section.
(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.
[[Page 74846]]
(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 Sec. 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-vent-specific 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 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 Sec. 98.123, apply the
revised process-vent-specific 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 Sec. 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 re-
measurement 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 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 process-vent-specific emission calculation factor, you must
conduct an emissions calculation to update the process-vent-specific
emission calculation factor. In the calculations under Sec. 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
Sec. 98.123(c)(4)(i) and (c)(4)(ii), you may use the previous
calculation to develop the site-specific process-vent-specific 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-fluorinated-GHG 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
Sec. 98.7) and ALT-012 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(iii) Non-fluorinated-GHG gas analysis. Acceptable methods include
[[Page 74847]]
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 quality-assured 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
Sec. 98.7), ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 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.
(f) Emission monitoring for pieces of equipment. If you conduct a
site-specific 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 site-
specific 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 Unit-Specific 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 A-7 to determine the
screening range data or the actual screening value data for the
Screening Ranges Approach, EPA Correlation Approach, or the Unit-
Specific Correlation Approach. For the one-time testing to develop the
Unit-Specific Correlation equations in EPA-453/R-95-017 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 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
[[Page 74848]]
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-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, http://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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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
[[Page 74849]]
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 Sec.
98.7).
(2) ASME MFC-4M-1986 (Reaffirmed 1997) Measurement of Gas Flow by
Turbine Meters (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(3) ASME-MFC-5M-1985, (Reaffirmed 1994) Measurement of Liquid Flow
in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(4) ASME MFC-6M-1998 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Vortex Flowmeters (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(5) ASME MFC-7M-1987 (Reaffirmed 1992) Measurement of Gas Flow by
Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 98.7).
(6) ASME MFC-9M-1988 (Reaffirmed 2001) Measurement of Liquid Flow
in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 98.7).
(7) ASME MFC-11M-2006 Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of
Coriolis Mass Flowmeters (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(8) ASME MFC-14M-2003 Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small Bore
Precision Orifice Meters (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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
[[Page 74850]]
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.
(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 Sec. 98.123(c)(3)(viii) to adjust the
emission factor(s) or emission characterizations measured for the post-
February 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 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 Sec.
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.
Sec. 98.125 Procedures for estimating missing data.
(a) A complete record of all measured parameters used in the GHG
emissions calculations in Sec. 98.123 is required. Therefore, whenever
a quality-assured value of a required parameter is
[[Page 74851]]
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.
Sec. 98.126 Data reporting requirements.
(a) All facilities. In addition to the information required by
Sec. 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.
(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 Sec. 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 Sec.
98.124(a), by process.
(5) The method used to determine the mass emissions of each
fluorinated GHG, i.e., mass balance, process-vent-specific emission
factor, or process-vent-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 Sec.
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 Sec. 98.123(b)(3), substitute
that element for fluorine in the reporting requirements of this
paragraph.
(1) If you calculate the relative and absolute errors under
98.123(b)(1), the absolute and relative errors calculated under
paragraph Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
98.123(b)(16).
(10) The fraction of the mass emitted that consists of each
fluorine-containing reactant.
[[Page 74852]]
(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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.123(c)(3) or the emission
calculation factor under Sec. 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-vent-specific 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each destruction device for each
fluorinated GHG whose destruction the facility reflects in Sec.
98.123, in accordance with Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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.
Sec. 98.127 Records that must be retained.
In addition to the records required by Sec. 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 Sec. 98.123, including the
data monitored under Sec. 98.124, and all information reported as
required and Sec. 98.126.
(b) Scoping speciation. Retain records documenting the information
reported under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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).
[[Page 74853]]
(4) The emissions test data and reports (see Sec. 98.124(c)(5))
and the calculations used to determine the process-vent-specific
emission factor, including the actual process-vent-specific 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-vent-specific 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.123, in accordance
with Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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 Sec. 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
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 98.124(e), (f), (g),
(m), and (n).
(j) GHG Monitoring Plans, as described in Sec. 98.3(g)(5), must be
completed by April 1, 2011.
Sec. 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
[[Page 74854]]
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 Sec. 98.123(d) and Sec. 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 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 [deg]C.
(2) The total concentration of the pure compounds constituents
having a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 [deg]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 Sec. 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.
(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
[[Page 74855]]
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-to-monitor equipment include, but are not
limited to, equipment under extreme pressure or heat.
0
10. Add subpart DD to read as follows:
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
Sec. 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 closed-pressure and hermetically sealed-
pressure 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.
Sec. 98.301 Reporting threshold.
(a) You must report GHG emissions from an electric power system if
the 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 Sec. 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.
Sec. 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 Sec.
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.
Sec. 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.053
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). (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.
Sec. 98.304 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the
provisions of Sec. 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(2) for best
[[Page 74856]]
available monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring
requirements of this section. For purposes of this subpart, any
reference in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
compiling the emissions report (if it is not already handled through an
electronic inventory system).
(d) GHG Monitoring Plans, as described in Sec. 98.3(g)(5), must be
completed by April 1, 2011.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 98.306 Data reporting requirements.
In addition to the information required by Sec. 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
sealed-pressure switchgear).
(2) New during the year (all SF6-insulated equipment,
including hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear).
(3) Retired during the year (all SF6-insulated
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 off-site for recycling.
(l) Pounds of SF6 and PFC sent off-site for destruction.
Sec. 98.307 Records that must be retained.
In addition to the information required by Sec. 98.3(g), you must
retain records of the information reported and listed in Sec. 98.306.
Sec. 98.308 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.
0
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.
[[Page 74857]]
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.
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.
(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.
Sec. 98.431 Reporting threshold.
Any importer or exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-
charged equipment or closed-cell foams who meets the requirements of
Sec. 98.2(a)(4) must report each fluorinated GHG contained in the
imported or exported pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams.
Sec. 98.432 GHGs to report.
You must report the mass of each fluorinated GHG contained in pre-
charged 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.
Sec. 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.054
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.
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.055
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.
Sec. 98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the
provisions of Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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).
Sec. 98.435 Procedures for estimating missing data.
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 pre-charged
equipment or closed-cell foams is required.
Sec. 98.436 Data reporting requirements.
(a) Each importer of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged
equipment or closed-cell foams must submit an 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
pre-charged 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.
[[Page 74858]]
(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
pre-charged 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 the closed-cell foam manufacturer or
manufacturers.
Sec. 98.437 Records that must be retained.
(a) In addition to the data required by Sec. 98.3(g), importers of
fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and closed-cell 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 pre-charged 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 Sec. 98.3(g), exporters of
fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and closed-cell 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 pre-charged 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 Sec. 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.
Sec. 98.438 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 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. Closed-cell 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 gas-insulated 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 gas-insulated substations, circuit
breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers
containing a fluorinated GHG prior to sale or
[[Page 74859]]
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.
0
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
Sec. 98.450 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 gas-containing components of such
equipment) containing sulfur-hexafluoride (SF6) or
perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The processes include equipment testing,
installation, manufacturing, decommissioning and disposal,
refurbishing, and storage in gas cylinders and other containers.
Sec. 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 Sec. 98.2(a)(1). Electrical
equipment manufacturing and refurbishing facilities covered by this
rule are those that have total annual purchases of SF6 and
PFCs that exceed 23,000 pounds.
Sec. 98.452 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.
Sec. 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.056
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).
(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 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.057
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 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.058
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.
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
[[Page 74860]]
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).
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.059
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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.060
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 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 Sec. 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE10.061
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.
Sec. 98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the
provisions of Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec.
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 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
[[Page 74861]]
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 from off-site recycling
are also accounted for among the total additions.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 98.456 Data reporting requirements.
In addition to the information required by Sec. 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 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 off-site 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.
Sec. 98.457 Records that must be retained.
In addition to the information required by Sec. 98.3(g), you must
retain the following records:
(a) All information reported and listed in Sec. 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 Sec. 98.3(g)(5), must be
completed by April 1, 2011.
Sec. 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