# Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response
to Public Comments

Volume No.:46

Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater

TreatmentJune 2010



# Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater Treatment

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

This document provides EPA’s responses to public comments on EPA’s Proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on April 10, 2009 (74 FR 16448). EPA received comments on this proposed rule via mail, e-mail, facsimile, and at two public hearings held in Washington, DC and Sacramento, California in April 2009. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. Co mments letters and transcripts of the public hearings are also availa ble electronically through h ttp://www.regulations.gov by searching

Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508.

Due to the size and scope of this rulemaking, EP A prepared this document in multiple volumes, with each volume focusing on a different broad subject area of the rule. This volume of the document provides EPA’s responses to significant public comments received for 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart II—Industrial Wa stewater Treatment.

Each volume provides the verbatim text of comments extracted from the original letter or public hearing transcript. For each comment, the name and affiliation of the commenter, the document control number (DCN) assigned to the comment letter, and the numbe r of the comment excerpt is provided. In some cases the same comment excerpt was submitted by two or more commenters either by submittal of a form letter prepared by an organization or by the commenter incorporating by reference the comments in anothe r comment letter. Rather than repeat these comment excerpts for each commenter, EPA ha s listed the comment excerpt only once and provided a list of all the commenters who su bmitted the same form letter or otherwise incorporated the comments by reference in table(s) at the end of each volume (as appropriate).

EPA’s responses to comments are generally pr ovided immediately following each comment excerpt. However, in instances where several co mmenters raised similar or related issues, EPA has grouped these comments together and provide d a single response af ter the first comment excerpt in the group and referenced this response in the other co mment excerpts. In some cases, EPA provided responses to specific comments or groups of similar comments in the preamble to the final rulemaking. Rather than repeating those responses in this document, EPA has referenced the preamble.

While every effort was made to include the significant comments related to 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater Treatment in th is volume, some comments inevitably overlap multiple subject areas. For comments that over lapped two or more subject areas, EPA assigned the comment to a single subject category based on an assessment of the pr inciple subject of the comment. For this reason, EPA encourages the public to read the ot her volumes of this document with subject areas that may be rele vant to 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart II—Industrial

Wastewater Treatment.iv The primary contacts regarding questions or comments on this document are:

Carole Cook (202) 343-9263

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division

Mail Code 6207-J 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460

ghgreportingrule@epa.govv 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1. DEFINITION OF SOURCE CATEGORY..................................................................... 1

2. REPORTING THRESHOLD........................................................................................ 21

3. GHGS TO REPORT ..................................................................................................... 22

4. SELECTION OF PROPOSED G HG EMISSIONS CALCULATION AND

MONITORING METHODS......................................................................................... 26 5. DETAILED GHG EMISSION CALCULATION PROCEDURES/EQUATIONS IN

THE RULE.................................................................................................................... 36 6. MONITORING AND QA/QC REQUIREMENTS ...................................................... 47

7. PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING MISSING DATA ............................................. 55 8. DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 56

10. COST DATA................................................................................................................. 5 91 

### SUBPART II—WASTEWATER TREATMENT

1. DEFINITION OF SOURCE CATEGORY

Commenter Name: Gregory M. Adams

Commenter Affiliation: Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0710.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The Sanitation Districts fully suppor t the conclusion reached by EPA that anthropogenic emissions from POTWs will fall well short of the reporting threshold. We further support the blanket exemption of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) under the proposed

rule.

Response: For EPA’s response to comments on centr alized municipal wastewater treatment plants, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Chris Hornback

Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0566.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: EPA has estimated that emissions from pub licly owned wastewater treatment plants (POTWs) do not exceed the rule’s threshold and are therefore not included in the proposal, and NACWA agrees with this decision.

Response: For EPA’s response to comments on centr alized municipal wastewater treatment plants, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pfeifer

Commenter Affiliation: Metro Wastewater Reclamation District

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0574.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The District agrees that municipal wast ewater treatment plants will not exceed the reporting threshold on the basis of the emissions from the treatment process and therefore should be excluded from the reporting rule.

Response: For EPA’s response to comments on centr alized municipal wastewater treatment plants, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Chris Hornback

Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0566.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5Comment: NACWA commends the Agency for its com p rehensive technical evaluation of the greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatme nt plants (Wastewater Treatment Technical Support Document, EPA-HQ-OAR-0508- 035). NACWA has worked over the past few years to help EPA refine the estimates for the wastewater treatment category in its Inventory of U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks and believes that based on current confirmed information and estimation methodologies, the Agency has made the correct determinati on that no municipal wastewater treatment plant will trip the reporting threshold, on the basis of the emissions from the treatment process, and th erefore should be excluded from the reporting rule. NACWA along

with the Water Environment Research Founda tion (WERF) are worki ng on independent but

coordinated efforts to increase our understanding of the actual emissions from the wastewater treatment process. We hope that future results from this work will further inform EPA’s efforts on the Inventory and the reporting rule.

Response: For EPA’s response to comments on centr alized municipal wastewater treatment plants, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Chris Hobson

Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1645.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 30

Comment: § 98.350(a) states “This sour ce category applies to onsite wastewater treatment systems at pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, ethanol production plants, petrochemical facilities, and petroleum refini ng facilities.” Yet § 98.351 states th at you must report under this subpart “if your facility meets the requirements of either § 98.2(a)( 1) or (2)” which includes more than the previously listed source categor ies. EPA should clarify the sources required to report under this subpart by stat ing that electric generating faci lities are excluded from this subpart.

Response: For EPA’s response to comments on clarifyi ng the sources required to report, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule . See §98.358 of the final ru le for definitions of food processing and ethanol production to which Subpart II is applicable.

EPA confirms that electric generating facilities are not one of the source categories covered under this subpart.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 146

Comment: EPA has given conflicting information on which treatment systems are subject to reporting under this subpart: (1) §98.350(a): EPA broadly defined the source category, suggesting that all emissions from all wast ewater treatment systems that fall under the applicability thresholds of §98.2 and that are lo cated at certain sources (pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, ethanol production plants, petrochemical facilities, and petroleum refining facilities) are covere d under this Subpart. (2) §98.353(a): EPA includes emission factors

2for use in Equation II-1 that a re applicable to anaerobic treatment, aerobic treatment, and oil/water separators in Table II-1. (3) §98.354: EPA provides QA/QC requirements only for anaerobic treatment systems. To resolve this co nfusion, we recommend that EPA further clarify in §98.350(a) that the source category only incl udes anaerobic systems and that aerobic wastewater systems are exempted. We also recommend that EPA clarify that the source categories to which this applie s are defined elsewhere in Part 98. Our proposed language for §98.350(a) is below. “A wastewater treatment system is the collection of al l processes that treat or remove pollutants and contaminants, such as soluble organic matter, suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, and chemicals from waters released from industrial pr ocesses. This source category applies to on-site wastewater treatment systems that include anaerobic treatment and that are located at pulp and paper mills, f ood processing plants, ethanol production plants, petrochemical facilities, and petr oleum refining facilities as defi ned elsewhere in this Part.”

Response: For information on the facility types and an aerobic processes cove red by subpart II of the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Linda Farrington

Commenter Affiliation: Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0680.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 33

Comment: Lilly requests confirmation that this source category is limited to only those wastewater treatment systems located at pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, ethanol production plants, petrochemical facilities, and petroleum refineries. The language included in EPA’s fact sheet on Subpart II, Wastewater Treat ment implies a broader applicability than the language in the proposed rule. Specif ically, the EPA fact sheet states , “The types of facilities that contain wastewater treatment system s that could be subject to this reporting rule include, but are not limited to, the following, Pulp and paper m ills, Food processing plants, Ethanol Production plants, Petrochemical facilities, and Petroleum re fining facilities.” The use of the phase “but are

not limited to” seems to contradict with the language in the proposed rule, §98.350. Therefore, Lilly asks for clarification of the Agency’s intent.

Response: For information on the facility types cove red by subpart II of the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. EPA acknowledges that the fact sheet supporting the proposed rule suggested a broader applicability of this subpart than was intended by the rule language.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: The applicability descripti on that is contained in Subpa rt II §98.350(a) describes the source category as follow: “This source cate gory applies to on-site wastewater treatment systems at pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, ethanol production plants, petrochemical facilities, and petroleum refining facilities.” While not stated specifically, this would appear to reference other specific subcategories in the prop osed rule, i.e. Subparts AA, M, J, Y, and X.

3These specific subparts should be ref erenced in §98.350(a) in order to eliminate any confusion

over the affected industries.

Response: EPA has revised the definition of the s ource category. For more information, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Dean C. DeLorey

Commenter Affiliation: Beet Sugar Development F oundation (BSDF) Environmental

Committee

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0559.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: For waste water treatment, if system is essentially facultative lagoon, does the anaerobic portion require reporting?

Response: For information on the anaerobic processe s covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Facultative lagoons are not classified as anaerobic treatment systems for the purpose of the rule.

Commenter Name: Traylor Champion

Commenter Affiliation: Georgia-Pacific, LLC (GP)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0380.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 39

Comment: GP supports AF&PA’s comment on wast ewater treatment systems (WWTS) regarding the state of the scie nce in measurements of pulp an d paper WWTS and the types of systems included in the rule (dedicated anaerob ic WWTS) versus those that appear to be excluded (aerobic systems and anaerobic porti ons of aerated stabilization basins).

Response: For information on the anaerobic processe s covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Dan F. Hunter

Commenter Affiliation: ConocoPhillips Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0515.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 57

Comment: As reported in EPA’s “Technical Suppor t Document for the Petroleum Refining Sector: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases”, GHG emissions from

wastewater treatment account for 0.43% of th e total refinery inve ntory. ConocoPhillips

recommends wastewater treatment at refineries be considered in the de minimis category. In addition, wastewater treatment at refineries should be excluded from Subpart II and specifically listed in 98.350(b).

Response: For EPA’s response to de minimis exclusions in the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

4Commenter Name: Brian P. Flynn

Commenter Affiliation: MRE, LLC

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0529.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: 40 CFR Part 98 Subpart II does not include a requirement to report CO 2 e emissions from domestic wastewater treatment plants. It should. Large plants are significant producers of these gases, especially when you c onsider the direct evolution of CO 2 into the atmosphere from aerobic biological treatment where half of the infl uent BOD (or COD) is c onverted by bacteria to carbon dioxide and energy. We estimate that the total CO 2 released by domestic wastewater treatment plants as: 5.7 Million tons of CO 2 per year. This source was completely overlooked in EPA’s Technical Support Document for Wastew ater Treatment: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (2/4/09)! A requi rement should be set to report this CO 2 emission for all domestic wastewater treatment pl ants treating more than 50 million gallons per day. Petroleum refiners in the US would be insignificant emitters as their total wastewater flowrate is on the order of only 1/3 of one per cent of domestic wastewater sources (100 million gallons per day versus 30,000 million gallons per day for domestic wastewater) at the same approximate BOD strength as domestic wastewater.

Response: CO 2 emissions would naturally happen through the biodegradation of human waste. Human waste comes from edible organic material that grows and degrades generally on an annual cycle. Wastewater treatment systems speed up that biodegradation, however, wastewater

treatment does not result in a net increas e in atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 . The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories states: "Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions

from wastewater are not considered in the IPCC Guidelines because these are of biogenic origin and should not be included in national total emissions." Therefore, EPA does not require the estimating or reporting of CO 2 emissions from wastewater treatment.

EPA estimated that no municipal wastewater treatment plants exceed the threshold of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions considered under this rule, therefore EPA has excluded them from the reporting rule. For more informati on, please see Section II.E of the preamble to

the final rule.

Commenter Name: A. J. Hodlofski

Commenter Affiliation: None

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0252.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As currently proposed, §98.350.a requir es only annual re porting of GHG by wastewater treatment facilities operated by pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, ethanol production plants, petrochemical facilities and pe troleum refining facilities. No distinction should be made between the “centralized domestic wastewater treatment plants” currently excluded by §98.350.b and the commercial plants already encompassed by proposed rule §98.350.a. §98.350.b should be eliminated and §98.350.a should be revised to require reporting of GHG by all wastewater treatment facilities. This rule should be revised to encompass all waste

water treatment facilities because in many parts of the country wh ich use “trinity systems”, there

is no real distinction between “ domestic” and commercial systems. Trinity systems have been in

5use in northeastern cities like Ph iladelphia, Pennsylvania for ove r 100 years and are designed to handle not only effluent from hous eholds, but also industrial wast e and rainwater collected from surface streets. In Philadelphia, as in many north eastern cities, this i ndustrial waste includes organic and chemical wastes from food processing plan ts as well as petrochemicals from smaller “non-point” sources. Failing to au thor a rule which includes th ese “domestic” trinity systems would prevent the EPA from collecting key da ta about GHG emissions from trinity systems which handle and treat exactly the same types of waste as systems which are required to collect and report data.

Response: For information on the exclusion of centr alized municipal wastewater treatment systems, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

EPA agrees that municipal wastewater treatme nt systems may also treat commercial and

industrial wastewater. As described in th e Wastewater Treatment TSD (EPA– HQ–OAR–2008– 0508–035), EPA’s threshold analysis accounts for industrial contributions to centralized wastewater treatment plant influent . However, as provided in Sec tion II.E of the preamble to the final rule, EPA does not believe any municipal tr eatment system will exceed the threshold, even with industrial contributions, due to th e use of aerobic treatment processes.

The rule requires petroleum refineries to report CH 4 emissions from anaerobic processes at wastewater treatment systems. The rule ha s the same requirements for ethanol production facilities, food processing facili ties, and pulp and paper mills th at exceed the threshold of 25,000

CO 2 e. These are industries that have the potential to exceed the reporting threshold. They have both high levels of BOD 5 or COD in their wastewater and fr equently employ anaerobic treatment operations. These two conditions result in th e opportunity for increased greenhouse gas emissions. EPA has reduced the overall reportin g burden by focusing the rule requirements on those treatment systems with the highest like lihood of generating gr eenhouse gas emissions exceeding the reporting threshold.

Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 215

Comment: §98.350(a). EPA should clarify if the emi ssions from only anaerobic wastewater treatment processes or from either anaerobic or aerobic wastewater treatment processes should be reported. §98.350(a) says to report CH 4 emissions from anaerobi c wastewater treatment processes. However, this statement conflicts with the emissions methodology in §98.353(a). §98.353(a) says to calculate CH 4 emissions from treatment proce sses other than digesters using equation II-1 and the equation includes a meth ane conversion factor (M CF) from Table II-1. There are four MCF values in Table II-1, two ar e for anaerobic systems and two are for aerobic systems. Also, the monitoring and QA/QC requi rements in §98.354(c) only discuss requirements for anaerobic systems.

Response: For information on the anaerobic processe s covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

6Commenter Name: Gregory A. Wilkins

Commenter Affiliation: Marathon Oil Corporation

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 84

Comment: Marathon supports that emi ssions from aerobic wastewater treatment are not subject to reporting under this rule because they are ge nerally considered of biogenic origin. Also Marathon interprets that anoxic z ones in aerobic wastewater treatme nt plants are not considered

anaerobic treatment.

Response: For information on the anaerobic processe s covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

The commenter’s interpretation is correct. EP A added definitions of anaerobic process, anaerobic reactor, anaerobic lagoon, and anaerobic sludge digester to §98.350. These definitions clarify that anoxic zones in aerob ic wastewater treatment plants are not considered anaerobic

treatment.

Commenter Name: Michael W. Stroben

Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Corporation

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0407.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: The proposal is not clear th at wastewater treatment f acility reporting requirement apply only to specific industrie s that may have high levels of organic compounds in the wastewater. Duke Energy requests th at EPA clarify that it is not the intent of the Agency to require reporting from wastewater treatment systems outside of pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, ethanol produc tion plants, petrochemical fac ilities and petroleum refining

facilities and that emit little or no greenhouse gas emissions. This would include systems for treating wastewater generated by electric generating stations (for example, the wastewater generated by a flue gas desulfurization system).

Response: For information on the facility types re quired to report under s ubpart II, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Robert J. Martineau, Jr

Commenter Affiliation: Counsel, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0414.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Nissan requests clarification on whet her non-anaerobic industrial wastewater treatment systems are subject to the reporti ng requirements outlined in the proposed GHG reporting rule. There is a degree of inconsiste ncy and ambiguity between the Preamble to the proposed regulation, the proposed regulation itse lf, and the Technical Support Document For Wastewater Treatment: Proposed Rule For Ma ndatory Reporting Of Greenhouse Gasses. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508. Specifically, th e Preamble to the proposed regulation states: Owners and operators of the followi ng facilities and supply operations would submit annual GHG emission reports under the proposal: . . . Any facility that emits 25,000 metric tons CO 2 e or more

78 per year in combined emissions from stationa ry fuel combustion units, miscellaneous use of

carbonates and all of the source cate gories listed below that are lo cated at the facility in any calendar year starting in 2010. For these facili ties, the GHG emission report would cover all source categories for which calcu lation methodologies are provided in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subparts B through JJ of the rule, [including] . . . . – Wastewater. 74 Fed. Reg., at 16,462. Following the language of the Preamble concerni ng wastewater treatment systems, Section V(II)(1) states: An industrial wast ewater treatment system is a system located at an industrial facility which includes the co llection of processes that tr eat or remove pollutants and contaminants, such as soluble organic matter, suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, and chemicals from waters released from industrial pr ocesses. . . . Industrial wastewater systems that rely on microbial activity to degrade organic compounds under anaerobic conditions are sources

of CH 4 . . . . The only wastewater treatment process emissions to be reported in this rule are

those from onsite wastewater treatment located at industrial facilities . . . . 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,559-60. Although this section of text acknowledge s that anaerobic systems are sources of

CH 4 , the last sentence of the quoted passage co uld be interpreted to include non-anaerobic treatment systems at an industrial facility as well. Later, in discussi ng the proposed monitoring methods, the Preamble identifies proposed monitoring methods for "CH 4 emissions from industrial wastewater treatment system component s other than digesters," as well as proposed monitoring methods for "CH 4 Generation from Anaerobic Di gesters." 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,560. Again, by including two separate me thodologies in this section of the Preamble, the quoted text is suggestive that non-a naerobic treatment systems may be subject to GHG emissions reporting. Turning to the proposed language of 40 C.F. R. § 98.350(a) for a source category, "[a] wastewater treatment system is the collection of all processes that treat or remove pollutants and contaminants, such as soluble organic matter, suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, and

chemicals from waters released from industr ial processes." 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,704. Moreover, 40 C.F.R.§ 98.351 dictates, "You must report GHG emi ssions under this subpart if your facility contains a wastewater treatment process and the facility meets the requirements of either § 98.2(a)(1) or (2)." Id. However, in discussing the types of "GHG's to report," 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart II, § 98.352 stipulates that "(a) You must report annual CH 4 emissions from anaerobic wastewater treatment processes, . . . ." Id. Th is language suggests that non-anaerobic treatment processes are not included in th e reporting requirements. Furthe rmore, the proposed text of 40 C.F.R. 5 98.354 identifies the "Monitoring and QA/QC requirements" for GHG emissions. 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,705. However, based on the langua ge of the proposed rule, the requirements apply only to the quantity of COD treated anaer obically, facilities w ith anaerobic treatment systems, and facilities with oi l/water separators. Id. It rema ins unclear whether non-anaerobic industrial wastewater systems, excluding oil/wa ter separators, are s ubject to the proposed reporting requirements. Lastly, in examining th e Technical Support Docu ment For Wastewater Treatment: Proposed Rule For Mandatory Repor ting Of Greenhouse Gasses, Section 6.1 outlines the methodologies for calculating methane generati on from domestic wastewater treatment and from industrial wastewater treatment; wher eas Section 6.2 outlines the methodology for calculating methane combustion at anaerobic dige sters. However, neither section adequately addresses the specific ty pes of non-anaerobic industrial wastew ater systems, if any, that are subject to the reporting requirements under the proposed regulation. Assuming that a facility contains an industrial wastewater treatment pro cess and the facility meets the requirements of either § 98.2(a)(1) or (2), as detailed in the proposed language of 40 C.F.R. § 98.351, the abovementioned provisions of the Preamble, the pr oposed provisions of the regulation, and the Technical Support Document fail to clarify if non-anaerobic wast ewater treatment systems are obligated to report GHG emissions when the various provisions are read in conjunction with one

another.Response: For inform ation on the facility types re quired to report under subpart II and the anaerobic processes covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Non-anaerobic wastewater treatment systems are not subject to reporting under Subpart II.

Commenter Name: Carl H. Batliner

Commenter Affiliation: AK Steel Corporation

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0337.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: For Subpart II, Wastewater Treatment, in the proposed rule, the applicable source categories are identified and do not include Iron and Steel Producti on. However, in the Industrial

Wastewater Treatment Sources Fact Sheet in the EPA Website, it stat es "facilities subject to this reporting rule, include but are not limited to, the fo llowing:" then lists the source categories. This implies that Iron and Steel Produc tion facilities could be applicable. Please clarify whether the subject facilities are or are not limited to the source categories listed.

Response: For information on the facility types re quired to report under s ubpart II, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Iron and steel production facilities are not subject to reporting under Subpart II.

Commenter Name: Lee Lemke

Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Mining Association (GMA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0276.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The proposed Subpart II pr escribes a broad definiti on of what constitutes a wastewater treatment plant (WWT P): “the collection of all pro cesses that treat or remove pollutants and contaminants...”. Many industrial f acilities subject to the Proposed Rule have wastewater treatment plants that could be affected using this broad applicability language. In particular, Georgia mining facili ties typically have settling ponds for the treatment of suspended solids prior to effluent discharge. However, it appears that EPA is mainly interested in treatment plants that use biological pr ocesses to reduce COD from non- domestic organic waste. Many

GMA facilities that would be covered under this broad applicability definition do not use the processes identified as being relevant to greenho use gas emissions, or use such processes only to treat commingled domestic sewage. In kao lin processing, WWTPs t ypically involve pH adjustment and settling ponds used to remove disso lved solids from an effluent stream prior to discharge. The nature of kaolin processing dict ates that its effluent streams do not contain meaningful quantities of digestible organic ma terial. To avoid inadvertently requiring a large number of minor systems to coll ect effluent data and calculate emissions for wastewater systems that have little or no potentia l to emit greenhouse gases outside of commingled sanitary sewage loads, the final rule should include a more preci se definition of the source category at §98.350(a). An improved definition of the source category would specify that a sewage treatment or pretreatment plant that is not used for processing waste stre ams containing industrial organic waste is not included in the source category.

9Response: For inform ation on anaerobic processes cove red by the rule and the facility types required to report under subpart II, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Mining facilities are not subj ect to reporting under Subpart II. In addition, only anaerobic reactors, anaerobic lagoons, and anaerobic sludge digesters are c onsidered anaerobic treatment for the purpose of this rule.

Commenter Name: Juanita M. Bursley

Commenter Affiliation: GrafTech International Holdi ngs Inc. Company (GrafTech)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0686.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 34

Comment: GrafTech believes this subpart is very c onfusing, as written, as it appears the rule, preamble and Fact Sheet summary document for this subpart have signifi cant discrepancies that affect applicability assessments. The EPA Fact Sheet document is labeled “Industrial Wastewater

Treatment Sources” and summarizes that “faciliti es that contain an industrial wastewater treatment process” and furthermore, indicates th at only “anaerobic wastewater treatment systems

at industrial facilities” are included. This would imply, but does not state exp licitly, that an anaerobic sanitary treatment system, e.g. a septic tank, at an industrial facility that receives no process/industrial wastewater would not be covered under this subpart. Also, the Fact Sheet states that the types of faciliti es covered under this subpart “inc lude, but are not limited, to the following”, after which five specific industr ies are named. However, §98.350 of the rule is named “Wastewater Treatment” (without the refere nce to industrial), a nd defines a wastewater treatment system to include a collection of a ll processes that treat. .waters released from industrial processes. This language would also a ppear to exclude anaerobi c wastewater treatment systems at industrial facilities that treat only sanitary wastewater, i.e., not wastewater discharged from an industrial process. But, again, this excl usion is not explicitly stated and leaves some doubt. The rule also specifies that this “source category applies to on-site wastewater treatment systems at pulp and paper mills, food pro cessing plants, methanol production plants, petrochemical facilities, and petr oleum refining facilities”. Since the phrase “incl ude, but are not limited, to the following”, is not used, the language of the rule appears to cover only the five named industries. But the preamble also uses the phrase “such as” befo re listing these five specific industries. The preamble also does not seem to limit this subpart to only anaerobic systems, which would clearly broaden the applicab ility to all wastewater treatment systems at industrial sites. For example, the preamble states that “[i]ndustrial wastewat er systems that rely on microbial activity to degrade organic com pounds under anaerobic conditions are sources of

CH 4 .” Furthermore, the preamble states that “onl y wastewater treatment process emission to be reported in this rule are those from onsite wastew ater treatment located at industrial facilities...”, again with no specific limitations to only in clude anaerobic systems and to only include treatment systems receiving process/industrial wa stewaters, i.e. not receiving only sanitary wastewaters. The fact that publicly owned trea tment works (POTWs) were specifically excluded from this subpart because EPA has determined that POTW emissions do not exceed the threshold considered under this rule (as discussed in their referenced Technical Support Document (TSD))

further adds to the confusion. One could assume that EPA decided not to include CH 4 emissions from anaerobic sanitary wastewater treatment systems at industria l facilities unde r this subpart because their treatment systems would very likely be sized significantly smaller than municipal systems treating whole communities. However, there is no discussion in the preamble of EPA making such an assessment and there is no sp ecific exclusion cove ring anaerobic sanitary wastewater treatment systems, such as septic tanks, at industrial facilities . GrafTech believes that

10centralized dom estic wastewater treatment plants with anaerobi c systems likely emit significant quantities of CH 4 in comparison to industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, GrafTech recommends that §98.350 of the rule and the supporting docu ments should clearly exempt all sanitary treatment systems at industr ial facilities, including th e exclusion of anaerobic wastewater treatment systems such as septic ta nks, on the basis that EPA has determined that emissions from much larger capacity POTWs do not exceed the threshold considered under this

rule.

Response: For information on the anaerobic processe s covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

EPA agrees that separate treatment of sanitary wastewater at industrial facilities should also be exempted from the rule for the same reason th at municipal wastewater treatment plants are exempted. Please see Section II.E of the preambl e to the final rule for more information. EPA has revised §98.350 to explicitly exclude both m unicipal wastewater treatment plants and separate treatment of sanitary wast ewater at indust rial facilities.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 41

Comment: 98.6 -Calculating GHG Emissions – An aerobic Treatment Systems (except Digesters) The Technical Support Document (TSD ) says that denitrific ation results from the

anaerobic treatment of wastewat er. However, anaerobic treatment typically results in little

denitrification. For denitrifica tion, anoxic treatment is typica lly used. Anoxic conditions are defined as environments in which dissolved oxyge n is not present in the water and nitrate (NO 3 ) is used by the microorganisms as the electron a cceptor. Under these conditions, the nitrate is converted to nitrogen (N 2 ) and released to the atmosphere as a gas. The microorganisms use the oxygen as they degrade carbon sources and release CO 2 to atmosphere. In contrast, anaerobic

conditions are defined as environments in which dissolved oxygen is not pr esent in the water and sulfur compounds (such as sulfate SO 4 -2) are used as the electr on acceptors. Under anaerobic conditions, sulfur (S), hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S), and other sulfur-contai ning compounds such as mercaptans are formed. This distinction is important because methane production is

characteristic of anaerobic treat ment, not anoxic treatment. EPA ha s proposed to require that all anaerobic treatment systems mu st calculate methane production via Equation II-1. Given the confusion between anoxic and anaerobic, EPA s hould clarify that only anaerobic conditions are the target of Equation II-1. If some systems use Equation II-1 to calculate methane emissions from anoxic treatment, it will va stly overstate the GHG emissions. The clarifications should be made with the following changes: 98.6 Aerobic treatment means the trea tment of wastewater with supplemental oxygen feed by the microbial reduction of complex organic compounds to

CO 2 . Anaerobic treatment means the treatment of wastewater without su pplemental oxygen feed by the microbial reduction of complex organic compounds to CO 2 and CH 4 . Anaerobic treatment specifically excludes Anoxic treat ment. Anoxic treatment means th e treatment of wastewater without supplemental oxygen feed by the microbial reduction of comple x organic compounds to

CO 2

.

Response: EPA disagrees that the TSD states that “denitrification result s from the anaerobic

treatment of wastewater.” EPA stated that for n itrous oxide emissions to occur, wastewater must

11first be handled aerobica lly “where ammonia (NH 3 ) or organic nitrogen is converted to nitrates and nitrites (nitrification), and then handled anaerobically wher e the nitrates and nitrites are reduced to nitrogen gas (N 2 ), with intermediate production of N 2 O and nitric oxide (NO) (denitrification).” Howeve r, EPA agrees with the commenter that biological denitrification is typically accomplished under anoxic condi tions, rather than anaerobic conditions.

EPA has not provided definitions for aerobic or anoxic treatment b ecause we have clarified that only anaerobic processes are cove red by this subpart. For information on anaerobic processes covered by the rule, please see Section II. E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor

Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufact urers Association (NEMA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 39

Comment: The NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Gr aphite EHS Committee believes that

centralized domestic wastewater treatment plants with anaerobi c systems likely emit significant quantities of methane in comparison to industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Graphite EHS Co mmittee recommends that §98.350 of the rule and the supporting documents shoul d clearly exempt all sanitary treatment systems at industrial facilities, including the exclusi on of anaerobic wastewater treatment systems such as septic tanks, on the basis that EPA has determined that emissions from much larger capacity POTWs

do not exceed the threshold c onsidered under this rule.

Response: For information on the exclusion of muni cipal wastewater treatment plants and separate treatment of sanitary wa stewater at industrial facilities, please se e Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor

Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufact urers Association (NEMA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 38

Comment: The preamble also does not seem to limit this subpart to only anaerobic systems, which would clearly broaden the ap plicability to all wa stewater treatment systems at industrial sites. For example, the preamble states that "[i]ndustrial wastewater systems that rely on microbial activity to degrade organic compounds under anaerobic conditi ons are sources of

CH 4 ." Furthermore, the preamble states that "onl y wastewater treatment process emission to be reported in this rule are those from onsite wastew ater treatment located at industrial facilities...", again with no specific limitations to only in clude anaerobic systems and to only include treatment systems receiving process/industrial wa stewaters, i.e. not receiving only sanitary wastewaters. The fact that publicly owned trea tment works (POTWs) were specifically excluded from this subpart because EPA has determined that POTW emissions do not exceed the threshold considered under this rule (as discussed in their referenced Technical Support Document (TSD))

further adds to the confusion. One could assume that EPA decided not to include CH 4 emissions from anaerobic sanitary wastewater treatment systems at industria l facilities unde r this subpart because their treatment systems would very likely be sized significantly smaller than municipal systems treating whole communities. However, there is no discussion in the preamble of EPA

12m aking such an assessment and there is no sp ecific exclusion cove ring anaerobic sanitary wastewater treatment systems at industrial facilities.

Response: For information on the exclusion of muni cipal wastewater treatment plants and separate treatment of sanitary wa stewater at industrial facilities, please se e Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor

Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufact urers Association (NEMA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 37

Comment: The rule also specifies that this "sou rce category applies to on-site wastewater treatment systems at pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, methanol production plants, petrochemical facilities, and petr oleum refining facilities". Since the phrase "incl ude, but are not limited, to the following", is not used, the languag e of the rule appears to cover only the five named industries. But the preamble also uses the phrase "such as" before listing these five specific industries.

Response: For information on the facility types covere d by Subpart II, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor

Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufact urers Association (NEMA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 36

Comment: The Fact Sheet states that the types of facilities covered under th is subpart "include, but are not limited, to the following", after which five specific industrie s are named. However, §98.350 of the rule is named "Wastewater Treatment" (without the reference to industrial), and defines a wastewater treatment system to include a collection of all proce sses that treat...waters released from industrial processes. This langu age would also appear to exclude anaerobic wastewater treatment systems at industrial faciliti es that treat only sanita ry wastewater, i.e., not wastewater discharged from an industrial process. But, again, this exclusion is not explicitly

stated and leaves some doubt.

Response: For information on the exclusion of separa te treatment of sanitary wastewater at industrial facilities, please see Section II.E of the pr eamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Michael Carlson

Commenter Affiliation: MEC Environmental Consulting

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615 Comment Excerpt Number: 34

Comment: The agency should address the repor ting of GHG emissions from surface impoundments if these are subject to Subpart II.

13Response: For inform ation on the anaerobic processe s covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Surface impoundments are not subject to Subpart II.

Commenter Name: Donald R. Schregardus

Commenter Affiliation: Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0381.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Subpart II for wastewater treatment does not clearly specify the reporting thresholds that are described in the preamble and Technica l Support Documents. The preamble states that “The only wastewater treatment process emissions to be reported in this rule are those from

onsite wastewater treatment located at industrial facilities, such as at pulp and paper, food processing, ethanol productions, pe trochemical, and petroleum refi ning facilities.” Although it is

understood that the list defined is not meant to be all-inclusive of possi ble sources, it is also believed that it is not EPA’s intent to regul ate insignificant GHG sources such as small pumpand-treat systems for groundwater contaminants or oil/water se parators. We recommend to EPA to set a capacity threshold for commercial-size un its that are excluded from the source category.

Response: For information on the facility types cove red by the rule and EPA’s exclusion from

the final rule of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators, please see Section II.E of the preamble

to the final rule.

With regard to the reporting threshold for industria l wastewater treatment, f acilities that meet the source category definition of subpart II, must report if thei r aggregate emissions from all applicable source cate gories in the rule meet the 25,000 tons CO 2 e threshold.

Commenter Name: Michael Carlson

Commenter Affiliation: MEC Environmental Consulting

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615 Comment Excerpt Number: 33

Comment: The agency should clarify whether wa stewater treatment facilities serving commercial establishments, such as food re packaging warehouses, are included in the Wastewater Treatment source category.

Response: For information on the facility types covere d by Subpart II, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. See §98.358 for a definition of food processing as covered by Subpart II. Food repackaging warehouses do not fall under the source category definition.

Commenter Name: Matthew Frank

Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1062.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 33

14Comment: This source catego ry does not include domestic wastewater treatment plants which are more significant sources in Wisconsin than the required industrial so urces. Please explain why municipal wastewater treatm ent facilities are not included.

Response: For information on the exclusion of munici pal wastewater treatment plants, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Michael Carlson

Commenter Affiliation: MEC Environmental Consulting

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615 Comment Excerpt Number: 32

Comment: The agency should clarify whether pack age treatmentplants servicing apartment complexes and other residential facilities are excluded from th e Wastewater Treatment source
category.

Response: For information on the facility types requi red to report under Subpart II, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Package treatment plants servicing apartment co mplexes and other reside ntial facilities are not industrial wastewater treatment systems included under Subpart II.

Commenter Name: Michael Carlson

Commenter Affiliation: MEC Environmental Consulting

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615 Comment Excerpt Number: 31

Comment: The proposed rule needs to include clearer criteria for which industrial wastewater

treatment facilities are included in the Wastew ater Treatment Source Ca tegory (Subpart II). The Preamble to the proposed rule states (16560): Th e only wastewater treatment process emissions to be reported in this rule are those from ons ite wastewater treatment located at industrial facilities, such as at pulp and paper, food processing, ethanol production, petrochemical, and petroleum refining facilities. Does this mean th at only the sources listed above, viz., pulp and paper, food processing, ethanol pr oduction, petrochemical, and petr oleum refining facilities, are subject to Subpart II? It is cr itical for the regulated community to understand exactly what the agency is proposing in this rule in order for i ndustrial and commercial repr esentatives to properly comment on it. Without knowing to which industrial wastewater treatment facilities the proposed rule would apply, we cannot adequately comment on this source category. We therefore request that the agency re-propos e this source category once it is bette r defined in order to ensure proper public input. We suggest that Subpa rt II be renamed “Industrial Wastewater Treatment” if, as the agency states (16560), POTWs are not included in this proposal.

Response: For information on the facility types requi red to report under Subpart II, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

15Commenter Name: Jeffry C. Muffat

Commenter Affiliation: 3M Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0793.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26

Comment: The applicability descripti on that is contained in Subpa rt II, proposed Section 98.350 (a) describes the source category as follow: “Thi s source category applies to on-site wastewater treatment systems at pulp and paper mills, f ood processing plants, ethanol production plants, petrochemical facilities, and petr oleum refining facilities.” While not stated specifically, this would appear to reference other specific subcateg ories in the proposed rule , i.e. Subparts AA, M, J, Y, and X. These specific subparts should be referenced in paragraph 98.3 50 (a) in order to eliminate any confusion over the affected industries.

Response: For information on the facility types requi red to report under Subpart II, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Lawrence W. Kavanagh

Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0695.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment: Subpart II proposes GHG repor ting requirements for wastewater treatment systems. The definition of the applicable source categor y in § 98.350 would appear to limit reporting under this subpart to systems at pulp and pape r mills, food processing plants, ethanol production plants, and petrochemical and petroleum refining facilities. Also, the GHGs and processes specified for reporting in § 98.352 and the calcul ation method specified in § 98.353 appear to relate only to the listed source categories. However, § 98.351 states that reporting is required for facilities listed in §§ 98.2(a)(1) and (2), the latter which incl udes the iron and steel source category. We interpret this cross-reference to re late only to the threshold reporting value for the listed source categories and not to imply that GHG reporting is required fo r wastewater treatment processes in iron and steel facil ities. We respectfully request cl arification and confirmation of this understanding and insertion of the word “only” preceding the list of the categories to which Subpart II applies in § 98.350.

Response: For information on the facility types requi red to report under Subpart II, please see Section II.E of the preambl e to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Michael Garvin

Commenter Affiliation: Pharmaceutical Research and Ma nufacturers of America (PhRMA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0959.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: The applicability language in Sect ions 98.2(a)(2), 98.350 and 98.351 appear to

conflict with each other in terms of when GHG em issions from wastewater treatment systems are to be addressed. Section 98.2(a)(2 ) implies that GHG emissions from wastewater treatment must
be included for all industrial facilities. However, Section 98.350 states that GHG emissions from wastewater treatment states that wastewater emissions are only re quired for to be included “...at

16pulp and paper m ills, food processing plants, etha nol production plants, petrochemical facilities, and petroleum refining facilities.”

Response: For information on the facility types requi red to report under Subpart II, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Rich Raiders

Commenter Affiliation: Arkema Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0511.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 62

Comment: Arkema supports EPAs d ecision in Subpart II to de fine the wastewater source category as proposed. EPA has identified the cr itical wastewater based emissions categories appropriately subject to GHG reporting.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their suppor t of EPA’s decision to include greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial facility types in the final rule. For furt her discussion of EPA’s revisions to the source category definition to cl arify facility types and anaerobic processes that are covered, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor

Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufact urers Association (NEMA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 35

Comment: The NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Graphite EHS Committee believes this subpart is very confusing, as written, as it appears the rule, preamble a nd Fact Sheet summary document for this subpart have significant discrepancies that affect applicability assessments. The EPA

Fact Sheet document is labeled "Industrial Wast ewater Treatment Sources" and summarizes that

"facilities that contain an industrial wastewater treatment proce ss" and furthermore, indicates that only "anaerobic wastewater treatment systems at industrial facilities" are included. This would imply, but does not state explicitly, that an anae robic sanitary treatmen t system, e.g. a septic tank, at an industrial facility that receives no pr ocess/industrial wastewater would not be covered under this subpart.

Response: For information on the exclusion of separa te treatment of sanitary wastewater at industrial facilities, please see Section II.E of the pr eamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Joel R. Hall

Commenter Affiliation: INEOS Fluor Americas LLC

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1525 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: The applicability of the wastewater treat ment source category needs to be clarified. In regards to Subpart II, §98.350(a) of the proposed rule states, "This source category applies to on-site wastewater treatment systems at pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, petrochemical facilities, and petroleum refining facilities." This gives the impression that the list

17is exclusive and therefore Subpart II applies to on-site wastew ater treatm ent systems only at those types of facilities. However, the preambl e to the rule (page 16560) states, "The only

wastewater treatment processes to be reported in this rule are those from onsite wastewater

treatment located at industrial facilities, such as pulp a nd paper, . . ...". EPA has made information sheets on each source category availabl e on their website. The information sheet for Subpart II states, "The types of facilities that co ntain wastewater treatment systems that could be subject to this reporting rule include, but are not limited to, the following: pulp and paper mills, ......". Section 98.351 specifies that reporting under Subpart II is required if "your facility contains a wastewater treatment process and the facility meets the requirements of either §98.2(a)(1) or (2)." Howeve r, the proposed rule requires the following to be reported: CH4from anaerobic wastewater treatment processes (§98.352(a)), CO 2 from oil/water separators at refineries (§98.352(b)), and CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O from stationary combustion devices. INEOS

Fluor submits that facilities exist which cont ain wastewater treatment systems and meet the requirements of either §98.2(a)(1) or (2) that ar e not anaerobic wastewat er treatment processes (as specified in §98.352(a)) or oil/water separators at refineries (as specified in §98.352(b)) . Therefore, it is not clear whether a facility th at contains a nonbiological wastewater treatment system (i.e., one that is neither aerobic or anaerobic), located at a facility other than those listed in §98.350(a) is subject to the Subpart, further complicating the applicability determination, §98.353(a) states, "Estimate the annual CH 4 mass emissions from systems other than digesters using Equation II-1 of this section." It appears th at the intent of §98.353(a) is that it applies to "anaerobic systems Other than digesters", but th at is not specified in the rule, preamble, or applicable information sheet and therefore coul d be interpreted as be ing applicable to all wastewater treatment systems other than those specified in §98.352(a) and (b). INEOS requests that if Subpart II is intended to be applicable to all wastewater treatment proc esses at a ll facilities that meet the requirements of §98.2(a)(1) or (2) th at the applicability be stated as such under §98.350(a) in the final rule. Conversely, if the intent is that Subpart II is that it be applicable to anaerobic wastewater treatment systems and oil/water separators at all facilities that meet the requirements of §98.2(a)(1) or (2) OR only " pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, petrochemical facilities, and petroleum refining facilities" then INEOS requests that the applicability be stated as su ch under §98.350 in the final rule.

Response: For information on the facility types and anaerobic processes covered by Subpart II,

and EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 218

Comment: EPA also suggests that influent should be measured for oil/water separators. These are generally sewers, which are not in the best location to accurately measure a flow. The language also could be interprete d to include covered oil/water se parators, which would not be a source of GHG emissions. EPA is catching a number of very small separators, with very small

emissions.

Response: With regard to EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators, please Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

18Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 216

Comment: §98.352(b). §98.352(b) requires re fineries to report CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators. Oil/water separator as defined in §98.6 means equipment used to routinely handle oily-water streams, including gr avity separators or ponds and ai r flotation systems. Does EPA intend the definition of oil/water separator to include stormwater ponds? Clearly stormwater ponds contain less hydrocarbon than process water ponds and thus will have less CO 2 emissions from the degradation of hydrocarbons.

Response: With regard to EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 214

Comment: EPA requests “comment on monthl y sampling of digester gas CH 4 content as an
alternative to a continuous composition analyzer.” (p. 16560) API comments: API requests specific exclusion of wastewater treatment opera tions and oil/water separators at refineries.

Anaerobic wastewater treatment is extremely rare, and estimating CH 4 emissions based on a

conversion of VOC emissions from oil/water separators is not appropriate. GHG emissions from these operations at refineries are extremely sm all. The requirement as provided in the MRR would impact a large number of extremel y small operations. The methodology, monitoring, reporting, and QA requirements are extreme for su ch very small emission sources. EPA requests comment on “the advantages and disadvantages of using these t ools [e.g. National Council of Air and Stream Improvement's GHG Calc ulation Tools for Pulp and Paper Mills] as a model for tool development and the utility of providing such a tool.” (p. 16561) API comments: API does not support the inclusion of refinery wastewater treatment operations or oil/water separators in the mandatory reporting rule. The emissions contributi on is extremely small and does not justify the monitoring, reporting, and QA burden. As a result, a to ol is not needed to assist refineries in reporting emissions from these operations.

Response: With regard to EPA’s decision to re move the oil/water separator reporting requirements because it expects no direct emissions of CO 2 , please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

EPA disagrees that refinery wastewater treatment operations should be excluded from the reporting rule because they are extremely small. Please see Section II.E of the preamble to the

final rule for discussion of EPA’s conclusi on that including GHG emi ssions for wastewater treatment at certain source categories is justified.

19Commenter Name: Karen St. John

Commenter Affiliation: BP America Inc. (BP)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0631.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 50

Comment: Oil/water Separator §98.6 (p. 16624): EPA's definition of “Oil/water separator” should specifically exclude sumps and stormwater ponds.

Response: With regard to EPA’s exclusion of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators from the final rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 44

Comment: 98.353(b)- Calculating GHG Emi ssions – Oil/Water Separators EPA has singled-out oil/water separators for GHG re porting without providing justifi cation as to why these units demand special attention. Based on our informati on, the GHG emissions from a typical oil/water separator at a refinery are insi gnificant and should not be iden tified separately, For a typical 150,000 BPD refinery, the wastewater flow will be approximately 5 MGD. Based on Equation II-2 (with which we have other concerns as discussed below), the CO 2 emissions would be only 50 metric ton/year from a covere d separator.3 Emissions from an uncovered separator (which are very rare in the industry t oday) would be 1,687 MTPY.4 These represent less than 0.003% and less than 0.1% of the typical refinery’s emissions of 2,000,000 MTY. The emissions from oil/water separators are very small compared to the total GHG inventory and therefore do not need to be reported for the purpose of a regist ry of emissions. At a minimum, EPA should exempt from reporting any API separator that is covered and vented to a control device (the majority of separators) due to the small emissions.

Response: With regard to EPA’s exclusion of indirect CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators from the final rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 42

Comment: Another issue of concern for Subpart II is the definition of oil/water separator in 98.6

for which emissions must be calculated in 98.35 3(b). EPA defines the oil/water separator very broadly as “equipment used to routinely handle o ily-water streams, including gravity separators or ponds and air flotation systems.” To define th e oil/water separator as any equipment used to routinely handle oily-water stre ams would suggest that fugitive emissions from the dozens or more pieces of equipment separa ting oil and water upstream of th e API separator would need to

be included. EPA needs to narrow the definition of oil/water separator to limit it to the API separator and downstream equipment. We suggest using the definition in 40 CFR 63 Subpart G, Section 63.111: Oil-water separato r or organic-water separator means a waste management unit, generally a tank used to separate oil or organics from water. An oil-water or organic- water

20separator consists of not only th e separation unit but also the fore bay and other separator basins,

skimm ers, weirs, grit chambers, sludge hoppers, and bar screens that are loca ted directly after the individual drain system and prio r to additional treatment units su ch as an air flotation unit, clarifier, or biological treatment unit. Examples of an oil-wa ter or organic-water separator include, but are not limited to, an American Pe troleum Institute separator, parallel-plate interceptor, and corrugated-plate interceptor with the associated ancillary equipment.

Response: With regard to EPA’s exclusion of indirect CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators from the final rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.



### 2. REPORTING THRESHOLD

Commenter Name: Matthew Frank

Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1062.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 34

Comment: Emissions are estimated based on the amount of influent processed. The estimation technique is not standardized. How will EPA determ ine which of the wastewater treatment plants should report based on their guidance?

Response: For information on facility types covered by the final rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Facilities in the source categor ies covered by Subpart II that us e the anaerobic processes covered by Subpart II must estimate greenhouse gas emissi ons using procedures and equations specified by the rule. Facilities that operate anaerobic wa stewater treatment pro cesses must monitor the

influent COD or BOD 5 concentration, as specified in §98.354(a) and (b), and measure the wastewater flow, as specified in §98.354(c).

We recognize the value of pr oviding additional outreach mate rials and we are developing guidance and screening tools to he lp industrial wastewater treatm ent system operators implement the reporting requireme nt of this subpart.

Commenter Name: Rhea Hale

Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: EPA’s proposed method of calculating and reporting methane emissions from industry wastewater treatment systems requires clarification. AF&PA interprets the proposed rule only to address those wa stewater treatment processes th at specifically employ anaerobic biological treatment processes, such as anae robic reactors, anaerobic lagoons and anaerobic digesters. For example, the proposed rule includes the following language: a. §98.352 GHGs to report. (a) You must report annual CH 4 emissions from anaerobic wastewater treatment processes... b. §98.353 Calculati ng GHG emissions. The flow a nd COD should reflect the wastewater treated anaerobically on site in anaerobic systems such as lagoons. The terminologies

21“anaerob ic wastewater treatment processes” a nd “wastewater treated anaerobically on site in anaerobic systems such as lagoons” have specific meaning to wastewater treatment professionals that would exclude all unit operations not sp ecifically designed to utilize anaerobic microorganisms to degrade organic matter. Howeve r, Table II-1 suggests that reporting is also required for aerobic treatment systems, and diffe rent methane conversion factors (MCFs) are specified for “centralized aerobic treatment system , well-managed” (MCF = 0), and “centralized aerobic treatment system, not well-managed (overloaded)” (MCF = 0.3). Inasmuch as all pulp and paper industry facilities are designed and operated to routinely comply with NPDES permit limits for BOD5, TSS and other parameters, there are no systems that would fall into the latter category. Thus, the vast majority of facilities would be reporting zero methane emissions from wastewater treatment operations based on th is interpretation of the proposed rule.

Response: AF&PA is correct to interpret the pro posed rule as only including anaerobic biological treatment processes. For information on the anaerobic processes covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Michael Garvin

Commenter Affiliation: Pharmaceutical Research and Ma nufacturers of America (PhRMA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0959.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Section 98.351 states that the reporting threshold for wastewater treatment is required if your facility contai ns a wastewater treatment pro cess and the facility meets the requirements of either Section 98.2(a)(1) and (2). To address this issue and avoid confusion, PhRMA recommends that the language in Sectio n 98.351 be revised to stat e: “You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if your facility contains a wast ewater treatment process and the facility meets the requireme nts of either §98.2(a)(1) or (2) ‘at pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, ethanol produc tion plants, petrochemical fac ilities, and petroleum refining

facilities’.”

Response: For information on facility types covered by Subpart II, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.



### 3. GHGS TO REPORT

Commenter Name: Burl Ackerman

Commenter Affiliation: J. R. Simplot Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment: The rule states to not include CO 2 emissions resulting from the combustion of anaerobic digester gas. Please clarifier that this applies whether the digester gas is used for energy recovery or flared.

Response: Subpart II of the rule requires that only CH 4 emissions and destruction from biogas collection and combustion systems be reported. Calculations of CO 2 emissions from digester gas

22com bustion at stationary sources (which do not in clude flares) are described in Subpart C of the

October 2009 Final Rule.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 148

Comment: EPA has proposed the following for flare emissions: For flares, calculate the CO 2 emissions only from pilot gas and other auxiliary fuels combusted in the flare, as specified in Subpart C of this part. Do not include CO 2 emissions resulting from the combustion of anaerobic digester gas. However, Subpart C does not identi fy how to calculate emissions from flares and

does not include flares in the li st of equipment that is consid ered ”stationary fuel combustion sources“ (§98.30(a)), a position with which ACC fu lly agrees. Even if EPA meant for Subpart C to cover the emissions from flare pilot gas, the criteria for selecting the ”tier calculation methodology“ in §98.33(b) is inappr opriate. The criteria are in part dependent on maximum rated heat input capacity of the combustion device. In the case of flares, nearly all of the heat input capacity is dedicated to comb ustion of anaerobic digester gas which is not to be reported as an anthropogenic emission under §98.352(c). It w ould be inconsistent and inappropriate to determine applicability based on the capacity to produce non-a nthropogenic emissions. In addition, the fuel use in and emissions from th e pilot flame are small and should be excluded from detailed calculations because they are cons idered de minimis emissions as we discuss elsewhere in these comments. For these reasons, EPA should remove the requirement to report

CO 2 emissions from flares at wastewater treatm ent plants that are su bject to reporting under Subpart II.

Response: For information on the reporting of emissi ons from digester gas combustion, please see the response to EPA- HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 28.

Commenter Name: Brian P. Flynn

Commenter Affiliation: MRE, LLC

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0529.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: 98.352 (b) states that you must report CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators. 98. EPA’s Technical Support Document for Wastew ater Treatment: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (2/4/09) states on page 3 “Wastewater Treatment at oil/water separators onsite at petroleum refineries can result in indir ect emissions of CO 2 that are considered anthropogenic.” No reason is given for th is statement. Frankly, oil/water separators at petroleum refineries merely separa te oil from water- there is no CO 2 generation. The requirement for reporting of CO 2 emissions should be dropped.

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators at petroleum refineries from the final rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

23Commenter Name: Matthew Molinaro

Commenter Affiliation: Ecolab Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0602.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: It is acknowledged in the preamble to the proposed rule, the rule itself, and by the

IPCC that CO 2 generated from the destruction of CH 4 in wastewater processes is not considered anthropogenic. The proposed rule does not adeq uately or consistently describe appropriate destruction mechanisms. In the pr oposed rule destruction of CH 4 is referred to in §98.352 part (c) only by flaring, but in the preamble to the pr oposed rule, p 16560, the following language is provided: In some systems, the biogas (primarily CH 4 ) generated by anaerobic digestion of organic matter is captured and destroyed by fl aring and/or energy reco very. IPCC describes the following: “Anaerobic reactors treat ing industrial effluents are usually linked with the recovery of the generated CH 4 for energy”[IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Volume 5: waste, chapter 6 Wastewater treatment, p 6.20.], inferring further that CH 4 capture and consumption can occur by means other than fl aring. We recommend that language in the rule be included to clarify that CH 4 destruction can occur through biogas consumption by burning in flares or stationary combustion devices, including but not limite d to, boilers, turbines, or other chemical energy extraction devices, and that CO 2 emissions resulting from combustion in these

scenarios be excluded fro m mandatory reporting.

Response: For information on the reporting of emissi ons from digester gas combustion, please see the response to EPA- HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 28.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 43

Comment: EPA has proposed the following for flare emissions: For flares, calculate the CO 2 emissions only from pilot gas and other auxiliary fuels combusted in the flare, as specified in Subpart C of this part. Do not include CO 2 emissions resulting from the combustion of anaerobic digester gas. However, Subpart C does not identi fy how to calculate emissions from flares and

does not include flares in the li st of equipment that is consid ered “stationary fuel combustion sources” (98.30(a)). Even if EP A meant for Subpart C to cover the emissions from flare pilot gas, the criteria for selecting the “tier calculation methodology” in 98.33(b) is inappropriate. The criteria are in part dependent on maximum rated h eat input capacity of the combustion device. In the case of flares, nearly all of the heat inpu t capacity is dedicated to combustion of anaerobic digester gas which is not to be reported as an anthropogenic emission under 98.352(c). It would be inconsistent and inappropria te to determine applicability based on the capacity to produce non-anthropogenic emissions. In addition, the fuel use in and emissions from the pilot flame are

small and should be considered de minimis emissions as we discuss elsewhere. For these reasons, EPA should remove the requirement to report CO 2 emissions from flares at wastewater treatment plants that are subjec t to reporting under Subpart II.

Response: For information on the reporting of emissi ons from digester gas combustion, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, ex cerpt 28. EPA revised the requirements for reporting emissions from combustion of bi ogas derived from anaer obic processes. As promulgated, under §98.352(c) facilitie s are required to report CH 4 emissions and CH 4

24destruction resulting from bioga s collection and biogas destructi on devices. Facilities are not required to calculate or report the CO 2 emissions from pilot gas and other auxiliary fuels

combusted in the flare.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 160

Comment: Table II-1 – The default values for un covered DAF and IAF units and covered DAF and IAF units are 4.00E-34 kg NMVOC/m3 wastewater and 1 .2E-44 kg NMVOC/m3 wastewater, respectively. These default factors will result in very low emissions that are insignificant in comparison to total refinery GHG emissions. Thus, emissions from DAFs and IAFs should not be included in the report.

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators at petroleum refineries from the final rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. All references to oil/water separato rs in Table II-I have been removed.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 151

Comment: EPA has singled-out oil/w ater separators for GHG re porting without providing justification as to w hy these units demand special attent ion. Based on our information, the GHG emissions from a typical oil/water separator at a refinery are insignificant and should not be identified separately; again hi ghlighting the need for a de mi nimis reporting threshold provision in the rule. For a typical 150,000 BPD refinery, th e wastewater flow will be approximately 5 MGD. Based on Equation II-2, the CO 2 emissions would be only 50 metric ton/year from a covered separator. Emissions from an uncovered se parator (which are very rare in the industry today) would be 1,687 MTPY. Thes e represent less than 0.003% and less than 0.1% of the typical refinery’s emissions of 2,000,000 MTPY. Th e emissions from oil/water separators are very small compared to the total GHG inventory a nd therefore do not need to be reported for the purpose of an inventory of emissions. At a mi nimum, EPA should exempt from reporting any API separator that is covered and vented to a co ntrol device (the majority of separators) due to

the small emissions.

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators at petroleum refineries from the final rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Traylor Champion

Commenter Affiliation: Georgia-Pacific, LLC (GP)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0380.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 38

25Comment: EPA should rem ove emission factor re ferences for well managed and not well managed centralized aerobic treatment systems fr om the reporting rule Ta ble II-1 and clarify only methane from anaerobic treatment systems need to be reported. GP agrees with EPA that methane emissions from only anaerobic wastewat er treatment systems should be reported under this rule { 98.352(a) }. However, it is unclear why EPA has incl uded emission factors in Table II-1 for two types of centralized aerobic wastew ater treatment systems. GP requests that the emission factors for aerobic systems in Table II-1 be removed to clarify the intent of the rule is that only methane emissions from anaerobic systems are to be reported.

Response: For information on the anaerobic processes covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Tom Segulijic

Commenter Affiliation: HRP Associates, Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0215 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The rule states that with regards to an aerobic digesters you need to report the amount

of CH 4 emissions (or volume of CH 4 destroyed in vent CH 4 to a flare) but not count CO 2 emissions from a control devise. However if you use the CH 4 in a boiler to produce steam for an on-site process you need to include the CO 2 emission from the boiler. Is this correct, if so it

seems inconsistent since it w ould discourage the use of CH 4 from a digester for on-site

combustion.

Response: Combustion of biogas CH 4 generated in anaerobic pr ocesses (such as anaerobic sludge digesters) in a boiler to produce steam is covered under Subpart C, Stationary Fuel

Combustion Sources of the Octobe r 2009 Final Rule. Subpart C requ ires reporters to determine and report biogenic CO 2 emissions separately from fossil-fuel derived CO 2 emissions. EPA notes that biogenic CO 2 emissions resulting from combustion of biogas CH 4 in a boiler are not

included in the calculation of the CO 2 emissions used to determine the applicability of the rule. However, if the facility meets the applicability requirement (based on the emissions of other GHGs), they must report the biogenic CO 2 emissions. The commenter is correct that if the recovered biogas CH 4 is combusted in a flare, Subpart II does not require reporting the resulting biogenic CO 2 emissions.



### 4. SELECTION OF PROPOSED GHG EMISSIONS CALCULATION AND

MONITORING METHODS

Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor

Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufact urers Association (NEMA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 40

Comment: The NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Graph ite EHS Committee believes that EPA has erroneously assumed in its TSD that all facili ties collect BOD or COD concentration in the

influent wastewater and that th is data already exists. Howeve r, it is uncommon for sanitary treatment systems at industrial facilities to be equipped with flow measuring devices and sample

26colle ction ports at the influent piping. Therefore, it would be ex cessively burdensome and costly

on industrial facilities to be re quired to make modifications to existing sanitary treatment systems to install such monitoring equipment fo r the purpose of collecting data for emissions

calculations.

Response: EPA considered the comments received on the proposed rule regarding the cost to

monitor influent flow and BOD or COD concen tration. EPA notes that the proposed rule required facilities to monitor COD concentra tion in the influent wastewater, not BOD 5 . EPA disagrees that it had assumed all facilities collec t COD concentration in the influent and that the data already exist. EPA included costs in the pr oposed rule for the collection and analysis of COD samples for influent wastewater. However, EPA did not include costs for influent flow meters and has revised the cost basis for the rule to include this capital cost.

With regard to providing flexib ility to monitor for either BOD 5 or COD, and the applicability of Subpart II to separate treatment of sanitary wast ewater at industrial facilities, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Juanita M. Bursley

Commenter Affiliation: GrafTech International Holdi ngs Inc. Company (GrafTech)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0686.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 35

Comment: GrafTech believes that EPA has erroneously assumed in its TSD that all facilities

collect BOD or COD concentration in the influent wastewater and that this data already exists. However, it is uncommon for sanitary treatment systems at industrial facilities to be equipped with flow measuring devices and sample collectio n ports at the influent piping. Therefore, it would be excessively burdensome and costly on industrial facilities to be required to make modifications to existing sanitary treatment syst ems to install such monitoring equipment for the purpose of collecting data for emissions calculations.

Response: With regard to the costs to monitor in fluent flow and BOD or COD concentration, please see the response to EP A-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1, excerpt 40.

Commenter Name: Sean M, O'Keefe

Commenter Affiliation: Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company (HC&S)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1138.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: The HC&S Puunene Sugar Mill would be required to report GHG emissions from on-site wastewater treatment under the proposed rule. Wastewater generated by the sugar mill comes primarily from the cane cleaner, where th e incoming sugarcane is washed to remove adhered soil and other extraneous matter prior to milling; the wastewater therefore contains significant suspended sediment as well as organi c material. Mill wastewater (or “millwater”) travels via a ditch system to a reservoir where some of the suspended sediment settles out; the millwater is then piped from the reservoir into a dedicated irrigation system used to irrigate approximately 500 acres of sugarcane through overh ead sprinklers. Anaero bic conditions within

the reservoirs result in emissions of methan e. The proposed method of calculating methane emissions from wastewater treatment lagoons, as sp ecified in Subpart II, assumes that all of the

27organic m aterial present in the wastewater (represented by the Chemical Oxygen Demand) entering the lagoon is available fo r degradation to produce methane. The extent to which this quantity of organic matter will actually degrad e anaerobically to meth ane, indicated by the Methane Correction Factor (MCF), depends in part upon the design of the lagoon. However, the amount of organic material that actually degrad es in the lagoon will also depend in part upon the

residence time of the wastewater in the lagoon; if the wastewater does not remain in the lagoon for sufficient time, then some of the organic matt er will remain in the wastewater when it is discharged and will not be anaerobically degr aded to produce methane. For a sugar mill wastewater system, where the wast ewater is used to irrigate the sugarcane crop, the residence time in the reservoir is relatively short (le ss than 24 hours). Accordingly COD levels in the wastewater flowing into the re servoir may be reduced by less th an half by the time the water

flows out of the reservoir into the irrigation system. Estimating methane emissions from such a system using the method prescribed in the proposed Subpart II and the influent COD will therefore result in erroneously high calculated GHG emissions (in some cases double the actual emissions or more). For systems in which wa stewater flows through a treatment lagoon and is subsequently discharged into an irrigation system before all orga nic matter in the wastewater has degraded, methane emissions from the lagoon should be estimated based upon the difference between the COD of the lagoon influent and e ffluent streams. A&B recommends that the proposed Subpart II be modified accordingly.

Response: Sugar mill facilities are not included in th e definition of Food Pr ocessing Facility, are not covered under Subpart II, and th erefore are not requir ed to report their wastewater emissions under this subpart.

As the commenter notes, the Methane Correction Factor (MCF) is the fraction of the organic load that is treated anaerobically (i.e., availabl e for conversion to methane). This factor accounts for the extent to which wastewater treatment systems do not produce the maximum amount of methane possible from the wastewater, for reasons such as reduced residence time in the reservoir, as described by the commenter. For anaerobic lagoons, reporters may use MCFs of 0.8 (for deep lagoons) or 0.2 (for shallow lagoons). The MCF of 0.8 may also indirectly reflect a longer residence time, while the MCF of 0.2 refl ects a shorter residence time. A factor of 0.8 reflects that 80% of the organic load is treated anaer obically, while 0.2 reflects that only 20% of the organic load is treated anaerobically.

Commenter Name: Matthew Molinaro

Commenter Affiliation: Ecolab Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0602.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Anaerobic processes that enable biogas cap ture include anaerobic digesters and highrate anaerobic reactors. The primary distinction between these operations is that digesters are intended to handle insoluble matter (e.g., sludge) at a moderate flow rate, whereas reactors are

intended to handle water-soluble ma tter at a high load and fast fl ow rate. Industrial wastewater treatment facilities, especially those associated with food processing plants, may opt for anaerobic reactors, which are more appropriate fo r high flow rate influent. Section V subpart M. Food Processing defers to subpa rt II. Wastewater Treatment for GHG 2 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting, 40 CFR Part 98, Federal Regi ster Vol 74, No 68, April 10, 2009 3 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Volume 5: waste, chapter 6 Wastewater treatment emission reporting require ments; therefore, anaerobic react ors appear to be within the

28scope of subpart II. Section V subpart II. W astewat er Treatment appears to inadequately describe anaerobic processes, referri ng only to “anaerobic digest ion” in §98.353. IPCC acknowledges several types of anaerobic pr ocesses, including lagoons and reactors.[IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Volume 5: waste, chapter 6 Wastewater treatment, Figures 6.1 and Table 6.1] Throughout EPA TSD for wastewater treatment, the preamble, and the proposed rule only “digestion” or “digesters” ar e described. However, it is unclear whether the term “digestion” is being used generically to describe anaerobic pr ocesses, or whether a distinction between digesters a nd reactors is intended. Table II-1 p 16706 of the proposed rule provides an MCF for “anaerobic deep lagoon, anaerobic reactor...”, but is th e only instance of the term “reactor” in the rule. This appears to be an oversight, and it appears that high-rate anaerobic reactors and digesters are being collectively referred to as anae robic digestion processes. We recommend including consider ation of high-rate anaerobic reactors along with language describing anaerobic digesters as in “anaerobic digester or reacto r” where appropriate in subpart II. Wastewater Treatment, or providing explicit clarification that “digester” is a generic term referring to anaerobic processes that captu re biogas inclusive of anaerobic reactors.

Response: For information on anaerobic processes covere d by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

EPA revised §98.353 to clarify that facilities with anaerobic reactors and lagoons must measure the concentration of organic mate rial entering anaerobic wastewat er treatment a nd calculate the

annual mass of CH 4 generated

. EPA also clarified that for e ach anaerobic process (such as anaerobic digester, reactor, or lagoon) from which biogas is rec overed, facilities must measure

the flow rate of recove red biogas and the biogas CH 4 concentration, and must calculate the

annual mass of CH 4 recovered. Please see Section II.E of th e preamble to the final rule for a discussion of why anaerobic digester s are not required to estimate CH 4 generated.

Commenter Name: Bob Dinneen

Commenter Affiliation: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: RFA agrees that generally requiring direct measurement of landfills and wastewater treatment is not warranted, and that facilities sh ould be able to rely on simplified measurements to calculate emissions. RFA supports EPA developi ng a tool to assist reporters in calculating

emissions from wastewater treatment as not ed on page 16,561 of the Proposed Rule, and EPA should, at a minimum, delay inclusion of this source category until such a tool is developed.

Response: EPA has retained the emissions calculation approach as stated in the proposed rule and will not require direct measurement of landfill s and wastewater treatment. We recognize the value of providing additional out reach materials and we are de veloping guidance and screening tools to help industrial wastewater treatm ent system operators implement the reporting requirements.

Commenter Name: Keith Overcash

Commenter Affiliation: North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0588 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

29Comment: In addition to com bustion and landfills, wastewater may be the most common source of GHGs found at a facility. We encourage the de velopment of screening tools for applicability

determination and emission calculation tools.

Response: We recognize the value of providing a dditional outreach materials and we are developing guidance and screening tools to he lp industrial wastewater treatment system operators implement the reporting requirements.

Commenter Name: Bob Dinneen

Commenter Affiliation: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: RFA agrees that generally requiring direct measurement of landfills and wastewater treatment is not warranted, and that facilities sh ould be able to rely on simplified measurements

to calculate emissions.

Response: With regard to the emissions calculati on approach in Subpart II, please see the response at EPA-HQ-OA R-2008-0508-0494.1, excerpt 13.

Commenter Name: See Table 1 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: EPA has proposed that wastewater treatmen t emissions be calculated from a weekly analysis of flow and chemical oxygen dema nd (COD). However, EPA instead should look instead to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) to make this determination. Although this approach is a more time-consuming test than COD determination, making a BOD5 determination is a very common Clean Water Act NPDES permit requirement and therefore is already being monitored at meat industry wast ewater facilities. To avoid im posing redundant financial and labor burdens, AMI urges EPA to require BOD5 us e instead of COD in the calculation of GHG emissions from meat industry wastewater treatmen t facilities. In that regard, 24 hour composite samples would be appropriate in most cases, but the rule should provide flexibility to use grab samples in some situations. The sampling frequenc y requirement should be the same as what is required under a facility's existing NPDES permit conditions.

Response: With regard to providing flexib ility to monitor for either BOD 5 or COD, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

EPA considered revising the language of §98.354 to clarify how facilities meet the requirement for the collection of grab samples or time-weight ed composite samples. Grab samples consist of a single sample collected at one time and place ; time-weighted composite samples consist of

fixed volumes collected at equal time intervals.

EPA considered allowing facilities to collect time -weighted composite samples if the flow rate of the wastewater influent to the anaerobic wastewater treatment process does not vary more than

30±50% of the m ean flow rate for a 24-hour samp ling period. Similarly, EPA considered allowing facilities to collect grab samples if the wastewater influent to the anaer obic wastewater treatment process represents the discharge from a well-mi xed wastewater storage unit (tank or pond), such

that the COD or BOD 5 concentration of the wastestream does not vary in a 24-hour period.

However, establishing that these conditions are me t would require the faci lity to collect more samples than the proposed requirement to collect flow-weighted composite samples. For this reason, EPA revised the language to require facilities to collect a flow-proportional composite sample (either constant time interval betw een samples with sample volume proportional to stream flow, or constant sample volume with time interval between samples proportional to stream flow). Facilities are re quired to collect a minimum of four sample aliquots per 24 hour period and to composite the aliquots for analysis.

Further, EPA has not revised the sampling freque ncy to conform to a facility’s NPDES permit conditions. NPDES permits typically only requ ire sampling following treatment prior to discharge. Treated effluent characteristics do not vary significantly over small time intervals, whereas wastewater characteristics prior to tr eatment can be highly variable over small time intervals. EPA has determined that the sampli ng methods contained in the rule are the least burdensome while still resulting in an accura te estimate of greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment processes fo r the purpose of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Stewart T. Leeth

Commenter Affiliation: Smithfield Foods, Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: In Sections 98.353 and 98.354, EPA proposes th at wastewater treatment emissions be calculated from a weekly analysis of fl ow and chemical oxygen demand ("COD"). (74 Fed. Reg. at 16,704-05). Smithfield suggests that EPA look instead to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) for this determination. While a more time-consuming test than COD determination, BOD5 determination is a very common Clean Water Act NPDES permit requirement and therefore is already being monito red at meat industry wastewater facilities. To avoid unnecessary duplication and additional financ ial and labor burdens, Smithfield urges EPA to require the use

of BOD5 instead of COD in the calculation of GHG emissions from meat industry wastewater

treatment facilities.

Response: With regard to the use of BOD 5 in emissions calculations, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 14 an d Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Rechelle Hollowaty

Commenter Affiliation: Tyson Foods, Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0379.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Tyson urges EPA use biological oxygen demand (BOD5) analysis for wastewater treatment systems instead of chemical oxygen demand (COD). BOD5 is already a parameter used to determine compliance for most meat industry wastewater treatments systems through NPDES permits. We request EPA to use the sa me sampling frequency as is required under a

31facility’s existing NPDES perm it conditions thus minimizing additional financial and personnel encumbrance. In addition to analyzing BOD, Tyson urges EPA to consider the calculation methodology used within “Wastewater Engineeri ng Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse” [Footnote: Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., “WASTEWATER ENGIN EERING Treatment, Disposal and Reuse”, third edition, copyright 1992, pg. 818-825]. and that of which is used in Climate Leaders that includes BOD5 and BODL (BOD ultimate) to de termine methane emissions generated from anaerobic activity.

Response: With regard to the use of BOD 5 or COD and the sampling frequency, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508- 0440.1, excerpt 14 and Section II. E of the preamble to

the final rule.

With regard to the direct measurement of BOD 5 , EPA believes that the approach required by the

final rule results in an accurate estimati on of greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment systems, and does not create an economic burden on facilities. Therefore, EPA has retained the requirement for direct measurement of BOD 5 or COD. EPA does not require reporters to determine BOD L because use of the emissions fact ors in Table II-1 in the calculation

for BOD 5 is less burdensome and provides enough accura cy in the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions for the purposes of this reporting rule.

Commenter Name: Rhea Hale

Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: Required weekly monitoring of influent or ganic loads is excessive given the small

amounts of methane emitted from wastewater treatment plants. M onthly monitoring is sufficient to provide an adequate characterization of these loads.

Response: EPA disagrees that weekly monitoring is excessive. BOD 5 or COD values can be highly variable in influent wast e streams to anaerobic treatment and the collection and analysis of samples is simple to complete. EPA has eased the reporting burden by allowing facilities to measure the influent organic load with either BOD 5 or COD (rather than requiring COD only, as proposed), as well as calculating emissions ra ther than requiring direct measurement of emissions from treatment units. Therefore, the rule requirements allow for the more accurate determination while minimizing the reporting burden.

Commenter Name: See Table 1 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: The requirements for monitoring and anal ysis of methane generated by anaerobic digesters systems are not completely clear with respect to methodologies and frequencies, but appear to be overly burdensom e. Quarterly sampling and anal ysis should be specified.

Response: Monitoring requirements for anaerobic dige sters and other anaer obic processes from which biogas is recovered, include monitoring of gas composition and flow, as described in

32Section 98.354 (e) through (i ). If a facility has eq uipm ent that continuously monitors flow rate, methane concentration, temperature, pressure, and moisture content of the biogas that is collected and destroyed, it must be used to determine methane generated. If methane concentration is not continuously monitored, it must be measured at least once each calendar week, with at least three days between measurements using either installed or portable equipment. Flow rate must be monitored continuously.

EPA disagrees that digester gas monitoring shou ld be quarterly. Allowing either continuous or weekly monitoring for methane concentration will minimize costs while maximizing the accuracy of emissions calculations. Anaerobic di gester systems are typically equipped with biogas flow meters; therefore, requiring continuo us flow monitoring plac es no additional burden

on facilities.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 154

Comment: In §98.354, EPA has requested comment on re quiring monthly sampling of digester gas CH 4 content as an alternative to a continuous composition analyzer. We strongly support the proposed options to measure the methane cont ent monthly or less fr equently based on a

statistical demonstration of the variability. There are a numbe r of reasons why these options are preferable to continuous monito ring: (1) continuous methane monitoring is expensive; (2) continuous methane monitoring can be problematic , and (3) conditions in anaerobic digesters change at a slow pace relative to other treat ment technologies. EPA did not provide cost estimates for the continuous monitoring of methan e. Typical costs of the uninstalled instrument can be as high as $40,000 [Footnote: Anderson, Ru ssell. Preparing Your Landfill for an Ofset Project. SCS Engineers. December 11, 2008.] each, with installed costs of $60,000 [Footnote: [Footnote: Continuous Methane Gas Analyzer Bi d Summary. Steuben County (NY) Purchasing Department. PW-08-062-B. 1/26/09.] or more each. In contrast, peri odic monitoring with instruments would cost about $8,000. There are also difficulties with monitoring digester gas due to its saturated humidity and impurities. Conditions such as these increase the maintenance on a system and shorten the life o that system, both of which increase costs. As EPA has documented
[Footnote: Wastewater Tec hnology Fact Sheet: Anaerobic La goons. US EPA. EPA 832-F-02- 009. Sept 2002.], the hydraulic retention time in anaerobic digesters is measured in days, not hours as with other treatment system s. In addition, a facility that could expect variable influent conditions will have an equalization basin to reduce swings in concentration and make the digester feed more consistent. These design fact ors reduce the impact from influent changes and ensure more consistent, and hence effective, tr eatment. This also ensures that biogas production and characteristics (e.g., methane c ontent) are relatively consistent and will vary over days rather than hours. For these reasons, EPA should allow fo r the monitoring of meth ane concentration in anaerobic digester gas to be e ither (i) monthly or (ii) less frequently based on a statistical analysis of the composition data.

Response: EPA has revised the rule to allow eith er continuous or w eekly monitoring for methane concentration. Allowing either cont inuous or weekly m onitoring for methane concentration will minimize costs while maximizing the accuracy of emissions calculations. Weekly monitoring does not substantially increa se costs compared to monthly monitoring, but will improve the accuracy of methane emi ssion estimates. For information on monitoring

33requirem ents of this subpart, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 15.

To estimate compliance costs, EPA assumed that facilities would install and operate an Inova 1316-1 multi-gas nondispersive infrared (NDIR) monito r, or equivalent, at an installed cost of $5,900. NDIR monitors do not require temperature or moisture compensation. EPA assumed that the monitor would be housed in a temperature-c ontrolled, NEMA enclosure, protected from the

elements. EPA further assumed that the monitor w ould be installed following in-line devices that control the moisture and hydrogen sulf ide content of the biogas stream.

EPA assumed that the capital equipment lifetim e was 20 years and used that lifetime and an interest rate of 7 percent to a nnualize capital costs. EPA furthe r estimated that annual operation of the biogas methane monitor would cost $900 per year, for a total annualized cost of $1,457 per year. EPA estimated that these costs woul d not result in negative economic impacts on the facilities required to monitor CH 4 concentration.

Commenter Name: Gregory A. Wilkins

Commenter Affiliation: Marathon Oil Corporation

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 83

Comment: Marathon opposes the current method of estimating emissions from oil/water separators and induced gas flot ation units as it is inconsiste nt with the API Compendium. According to the proposed 2009 revisions to the API Compendium, refinery wastewater streams

do not contain CO 2 (Introduction to Chapter 6 of the 2009 revisions). Any emissions from the control of oil water separators (like thermal oxidi zers) should be allowed to be considered de minimis as previously described, or estimated using the methods allowed for "other process vents" from Subpart Y using engineering estimates. The Co mpendium does not address emissions from oil water separators because th e streams do not contain significant amounts of CO-). This is a de minimis source and the effo rt required to estimate emissions does not equal

the benefit received. Marathon stresse s that just because a protocol exists as in California's mandatory reporting rule, does not mean that it is providing accurate data.

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators at petroleum refineries, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final

rule.

Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 217

Comment: §98.353(b). Oil/water separators at petrol eum refineries have been included for reporting as the CO 2 emissions are considered anthropoge nic emissions (Preamble, p.581). The 2009 API Compendium currently in cludes this source in Appendix E, in a list of VOC emission

sources that are not sources of GHG emissions. This emission estimation method is extremely onerous for such a small GHG emission source, pa rticularly when considering the burden for measurement, monitoring, reporting, and QA.

34Response: For inform ation on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators at petroleum refineries, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final

rule.

Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 219

Comment: In addition, this is the only source in the MRR that considers the atmospheric

oxidation of VOCs to form CH 4 , which is the basis of the 0.6 c onversion factor. This conversion is not considered anywhere else in the rule as VOC is not a GHG, as defined in the rule. This extrapolation is not appropriate at a facility level (IPCC consider s this conversion from national inventories).

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators at petroleum refineries, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final

rule.

Commenter Name: Matthew Molinaro

Commenter Affiliation: Ecolab Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0602.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: In Section V subpart II of the pr oposed rule, p 16704 §98.353 Calculating GHG emissions, Equation II-1 is stated to express ne t methane emissions, but only describes methane generation and does not include a consumption term for CH 4 . Emissions are the difference between generation and consumpti on. While the section does offer CH 4 consumption (destruction of CH 4 ) calculations in Equations II-3 and II- 4, these are not properly aligned with IPCC Volume 5 chapter 6 for wastewater treatment or the EPA TSD for wastewater treatment. EPA TSD section 6.1 proposes equations to ca lculate methane generation in domestic and

industrial facilities ; this is the same calculation proposed for Eq II-1. EPA TSC section 6.2 and 6.3 describe consumption of methane for anaer obic digesters, which are included for the proposed Eq II-3 and II-4. However the proposed rule does not close the loop as in EPA TSD section 6.5, which provides a tota l mass balance for emissions that accounts for both generation and consumption. In addition, the me thane generation as stated in subpart II of the proposed rule, p 16704 §98.353 Calculating GHG emissions, Equation II-1 does not include credit for organic carbon going to sludge and not to biogas. While th is is consistent with the equation presented under section 6.1 of the EPA TSD, it is inconsistent with the IP CC Tier 1 method to calculate methane generation (equation 6.4, IPCC V5 Ch6) . We recommend that §98.353 be revised to

include a final mass balance that accounts for both methane generation terms inclusive of a credit for sludge yield and methane destruction terms for a flare and/or othe r combustion devices.

Response: EPA has revised the equations presented in the final rule to clearly lay out the methodology for estimating methane generated (using equations II-1 or II-2), methane emissions from systems without methane recovery (u sing equation II-3), meth ane recovered (using equation II-4), leakage from methane recovery systems (using equation II-5), and methane

35em issions from systems with methane rec overy (using equation II-6) accounting for both recovery efficiency and destruction.

For facilities that recover genera ted biogas, reported emissions are not based on a mass balance. Instead, EPA is requiring facilities to report emissions based on the measured volume and methane concentration of recovered biogas. Fa cilities must report emissions based on these measurements, accounting for the recovery efficiency (that is, gas that l eaks from the recovery system) and destruction.

Because anaerobic sludge digesters and anaerobic reactors are operated in enclosed tanks, EPA expects that facilities that operate these proces ses collect all generated biogas and will report emissions based on measured gas recovery. Th eir reported emissions are not based on the influent organic carbon. For this reason, account ing for organic carbon incorporated into sludge and not to biogas is not appropriate.

Anaerobic lagoons are lined or unlined earthen basins, typically open to the air. Some facilities that operate anaerobic lagoons collect genera ted biogas and will report emissions based on measured gas recovery. Again, their reported em issions are not based on the influent organic carbon and accounting for organic carbon incorp orated into sludge is not appropriate.

At other facilities anaerobic la goons are not covered, biogas is not recovered, and no biogas is destroyed (combusted). These facilities will base their estimated emissions on methane generation calculated using Equation II-1 or II -2. Because biogas is not recovered and destroyed, accounting for CH 4 destruction terms for a flare an d/or other combustion devices is not appropriate.

EPA acknowledges it has not accounted for organic carbon that is incorporated into sludge and not converted to biogas. EPA notes that accumu lated sludge is seldom removed from anaerobic lagoons meaning that the organic carbon is not lo st from the system via sludge. Instead, the sludge biodegrades over time, and the organi c carbon is available for conversion to CH 4

. Consequently, EPA concluded that accounting for organic carbon incorporated into sludge is not appropriate.



### 5. DETAILED GHG EM ISSION CALCULATION PROCEDURES/EQUATIONS IN THE RULE

Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 220

Comment: §98.353(b) and (c). Equations II-2 and II-4 are inconsistent with the rest of the proposed rule in presenting variab le units in the equation. Variable units should be presented in the variable definitions only.

Response: EPA has revised equation II-4 and removed variable units. Note that Equation II-2 included in the proposed rule, has been removed from the final rule.

36Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 221

Comment: §98.353(c). Equation II-3 re quires the quantity of CH 4 generated by anaerobic digesters be previously calculat ed using Eq. II-4. The order of th e equations should be rearranged to present calculations in a logical format.

Response: EPA has revised the equations in the rule such that methane generated is no longer required for a previous equation.

Commenter Name: John Piotrowski

Commenter Affiliation: Packaging Corporati on of America (PCA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1029.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: The Rule proposes that methane emissi ons from anaerobic lagoons be estimated based on effluent flow and chemical oxygen de mand (COD) input to the lagoons (§98.273). The proposed Rule assumes that all COD is converted into methane on a stoichiometric basis, a protocol that we believe intr oduces a high bias to the calcul ation. Pulp and paper mill raw effluent contains ''refractory COD'' in the form of cellulose fiber and lignin, neither of which are readily biodegradable. A more accurate appro ach would be to measure the net soluble COD reduction across an anaerobic treatment system. For example, our Tomahawk, WI facility employs anaerobic biodegradation to treat raw mill effluent. Monthly influent and effluent COD (total and soluble) are measured to monitor waste treatment efficiency. In 2008 a total of 110 million Kg of total COD entered the anaerobic treatment system. EPA's proposed calculation method predicts that 12.5 million Kg of methan e would be produced. This particular system features a biogas recovery system wherein the biogas is collect ed, conditioned and combusted at an on-site gas pdckage boiler. Since gas flow a nd composition is continuously monitored, we can easily determine methane production. For 2008, methane production from anaerobic treatment totaled 3.8 million kg, or only 30% of the amount predicted by the calculation method proposed in the Rule (i.e., Eq. 11-1). We find that by inserting the monthly average soluble COD destruction into equation instead of total C OD, the calculated methane generation rate very closely matches the actual measured rate at this f acility. It is for this reason we believe that the

Rule overstates GHG emissions from anaerobic treatment.

Response: EPA disagrees that the proposed rule based methane emissions on effluent flow. The proposed rule specified flow as the volumetric flow rate of wastewater sent to an anaerobic treatment system. In the final rule, EPA retains this requirement to use volumetric flow rate of

wastewater sent to an an aerobic treatment process.

With regard to the procedure to estimate methan e using flow and COD, EPA based this approach on accepted methods from the Intergovernment al Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for estimating methane emissions associated with i ndustrial wastewater treatment. Since proposal, EPA considered requests to allow the use of either COD or BOD 5 to represent the organic loading of a waste stream entering an anaerobic treatment process. To ease the burden of reporting, EPA has revised the rule to allow fo r the use of either COD in conjunction with

37Equation II-1 or BOD 5 in conjunction with Equation II-2 for the calculation of methane generation from anaerobic reactors and anaerobic lagoons.

Commenter Name: Michael Garvin

Commenter Affiliation: Pharmaceutical Research and Ma nufacturers of America (PhRMA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0959.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: In Table II-1 of Subpart II, which contains the GHG emissions factors for wastewater treatment, EPA has included a factor for methane emissions from certain “not well managed (overloaded)” aerobic biol ogical treatment systems. This simple statement potentially broadly expands the implications of the wastew ater emissions component. In the preamble and elsewhere in the text, wastewater is defined to be limited to strictly anaerobic treatment systems. With this language, PhRMA believes that EPA may be implying that there would be an obligation to demonstrate that aerobic trea tment systems are not “overloaded or poorly managed.” We recommend that EPA clarify that there is no obligation to demonstrate that aerobic treatment systems are not overloaded or poorly managed.

Response: EPA has clarified that “not well managed” aerobic biological treatment systems are not included in Subpart II. For information on the anaerobic processe s covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the fi nal rule. Aerobic treatment is not a system component covered by this subpart. Conseque ntly, EPA removed the entry for “not well managed” aerobic biological trea tment systems from Table II-1.

Commenter Name: Rhea Hale

Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: If the proposed rule is intended to appl y to all wastewater treatment operations, including those that are not sp ecifically designed to employ anaerobic biological treatment processes, the methane conversion factor (MCF) values used in calcula ting estimated methane emissions should reflect a range ra ther than a single value. MC F values indicate the degree to which a given system is anaerobic, with values theoretically ranging from 0 to 1.0. The values provided in Table II-1 are based on inform ation given in the IPCC Guidelines for GHG Inventories (IPCC 2006), which pr ovides a range of values for each system type, offering the reporting entity the option of reporting emissions that may be small but not zero. For example, the IPCC guidance indicates that well-managed aerobic treatment systems can have some methane emissions from “settling basins and othe r pockets” and suggests a range of MCF from 0 to 0.1, whereas the EPA proposal specifies a MC F of zero for these systems. Allowing user discretion in choosing a value for the MCF w ould accommodate future adjustments based on new information in this emerging field. Industry data from a small number of pulp and paper mill wastewater treatment operations suggest that me thane emissions can be non-zero even for well managed aerobic systems. Thus, flexibility is ne eded to allow facilities to report their best

estimates of methane emissions. Table 1 summar izes the data collected by NCASI at aerated treatment operations using influent BOD5 lo ading as a measure of the wastewater’s biodegradable organic content with potential to generate methan e (as is typical of industry practice, COD data was not collected ).[See DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1 for Table

38showing Calculated MCF Values for Four Sec ondary Biological Treatm ent Systems Based on

NCASI Data for Methane Emissions and BOD5 Loading.] Using data for measured methane emissions and BOD5 loadings collected over a fe w days, a MCF was calculated for each system tested using Equation II-1 in the proposed rule, rearranged to solve for MCF and using BOD5 in place of COD and a BOD-based factor for maxi mum methane producing potential, as shown in the following equation. The numerator is the me asured methane emissions and the denominator is the maximum methane generation pot ential of the wastewater. MCF = CH 4 /(Flow * BOD5 * B0 * 1000) Where: MCF = Methane conversion factor (fraction of wastewater treated anaerobically) CH 4 = Methane emissions (g/s). Flow = Vo lumetric flow rate of wastewater (m3/s) BOD5 = Concentration of five-day biochemical oxygen demand of influent wastewater (kg/m3) B0 = Maximum CH 4 producing potential of wastewater (kg CH 4 /kg BOD5), default is 0.60 (per IPCC (2006) guidance) 1000 = Conversion factor from kg to g NCASI Special Report

No. 08-05 also describes the methods in which th e data were used to estimate industry-wide emissions of methane from pulp and paper industry waste water treatment plants [See DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1 for re port]. The results of this analysis, presented in Table 2.9, are that combined emissions of me thane from industry wastewater management systems are estimated to have been 0.40 Tg CO 2 eq. in both 1990 and 2004. Given that total

direct emissions due to fuel combustion at U.S. pulp and paper mills were 57.7 Tg CO 2 eq. in 2004, 0.4 Tg CO 2 eq from wastewater treatment comprise less than one percent of the industry’s

fuel combustion-related emissions.

Response: The rule is not intended to apply to all wastewater treatment operations. For information on the anaerobic processes covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. EPA believes th e MCF calculation proce dure suggested by the commenter is unnecessarily complex. Further, th e MCFs listed in Table II-1 apply to the anaerobic processes covered by this subpart and facilities must use them to calculate methane generated, as specified in equations II-1 and II-2.

For information on facility types required to re port under Subpart II, and an explanation of the

need to include CH 4 emissions from industrial wastewater treatment in the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Renae Schmidt

Commenter Affiliation: CITGO Petroleum Corporation

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0726.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment: The MCF (methane conversion factor) refe renced in Equation II-1 for calculating

GHG emissions references Table II-1. This ta ble includes an MCF for centralized aerobic treatment systems. The inclusi on of aerobic treatment systems s eems to directly contradict 98.3 52(a), which specifically requires re porting from anaerobic wastewater treatment systems. It is

recommended that the references to aerobic treat ment systems be removed from Table II-1 to

eliminate confusion.

Response: For information on revisions to Table II-1, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0959.1, excerpt 14. EPA has removed all refe rences to aerobic treatment systems

from Table II-1.

39Commenter Name: Rhea Hale

Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: EPA should allow the use of BOD5 rather th an COD as a measure of the organics in wastewater that can degrade to methane. The IP CC (2006) guidance that EPA cites as the source of their proposed method for estimating meth ane from wastewater treatment operations specifically states that use of B0 base d on BOD5 is good practice (IPCC 2006) and only

mentions use of a B0 based on COD as releva nt for use when estimating the potential for

methane from domestic wastewater treatment systems. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the influent wastewater may not be a technically sound basis for estimating methane emissions for pulp and paper wastewaters that contain wood-derived materials su ch as cellulose fibers and dissolved lignin degradation produc ts, as these materials are not biodegradable in time frames representative of industr y treatment systems. Thus, influent COD may overstate the potential for methane generation. Facilities should be given the flexibility to us e BOD5 rather than COD, as this parameter is more appropriate for estimati ng methane from industria l wastewater treatment

systems.

Response: EPA disagrees that the 2006 IPCC gu idance only mentions use of a B 0 based on COD as relevant for estimating methane from munici pal wastewater treatment systems. The IPCC guidance for emissions from industrial wastewater specifically states that if no country-specific data are available, it is good practice to use the IPCC COD-default factor for B 0 (0.25 kg CH4/kg COD). For information on the use of either COD or BOD 5 in the emissions calculations, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 149

Comment: The Technical Support Document [Foot note: Technical Support Document for Wastewater Treatment: Proposed Rule for Mand atory Reporting of Greenhous Gases. USEPA Office of Atmospheric Programs – Climate Change Division. February 4, 2009. Section 1].states

that denitrification results fr om the anaerobic treatment of wa stewater. However, anaerobic treatment typically results in li ttle denitrification. For denitr ification, anoxic treatment is typically used. Anoxic conditions are defined as an environment in which dissolved oxygen is not present in the water and nitrate (NO 3 -) is used by the microorganisms as the electron acceptor. [Footnote: Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet: Sequencing Batch Reactors. US EPA. EPA 832-F-99-073. Sept 1999. p. 4.] Under these conditi ons, the nitrate is c onverted to nitrogen (N 2 ) and released to the atmosphere as a ga s. The microorganisms use the oxygen as they degrade carbon sources and release CO 2 to the atmosphere. In contrast, anaerobic conditions are defined as environments in which dissolved oxy gen is not present in the water and sulfur compounds (such as sulfate SO 4 -2) are used as the electr on acceptors. Under anaerobic conditions, sulfur (S), hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S), and other sulfur-contai ning compounds such as mercaptans are formed. This distinction is important because methane production is characteristic ofanaerobic treatment, not anoxic treatment. EPA has proposed to require that all anaerobic treatment systems mu st calculate methane production via Equation II-1. Given the confusion between anoxic and anaerobic, EPA s hould clarify that only anaerobic conditions are

40the target of Equation II-1. If som e systems use Equation II-1 to calculate methane emissions from anoxic treatment, it will va stly overstate the GHG emissions. The clarifications should be made by adding definitions: “Aerobic treatmen t means the treatment of wastewater with supplemental oxygen feed by the microbial re duction of complex organic compounds to CO 2

. Anaerobic treatment means the tr eatment of wastewater without supplemental oxygen feed by the microbial reduction of complex organic compounds to CO 2 and CH 4 . Anaerobic treatment specifically excludes Anoxic treat ment. Anoxic treatment means th e treatment of wastewater without supplemental oxygen feed by the microbial reduction of comple x organic compounds to

CO 2 .”

Response: For information on denitrification and anaer obic wastewater treatment, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OA R-2008-0508-0533.1, excerpt 41.

For information on the anaerobic processes covere d by the rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. Anoxic treatmen t processes are not covered by the rule.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 153

Comment: Calculating Methane Destruction – Dige ster Gas Flow Monitoring The techniques that EPA specified for flow monitoring ( §§98.353(c), 98.354) do not reflect available technology

and could increase the burden on facilities and re sult in lower data quality. EPA has proposed to require facilities to continuously measur e gas flow under actual conditions (ACFM), temperature, and pressure. EPA is proposing that this information be averaged daily and then used to calculate gas flow under standard conditions (SCFM). This prevents facilities from using instrumentation that is widely available that will measure all three conditions (flow, temperature, pressure) simultaneously and report the flow in SCFM. An example of this is the Fox Thermal

Instruments Model 10A Thermal Gas Flowmeter. [Footnote: www.foxthermalinstruments.com] Also in §§98.354(g) and (h), EPA is proposing that temperature and pressure monitors and flow measuring devices be calibrated and maintained as specified by the device manufacturer. Instead, we believe that EPA should requ ire calibration according to g ood engineering and maintenance practices. This alternative wording will allow a facility to incorporate manufacturers’ recommendations, equipment standards, and results of previous troubleshooting and maintenance. EPA should allow, though not require, facilities to use instrume ntation such as this by modifying the proposal as follows: [See DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 page 57 and 58 for suggested rule text including a new equation.]

Response: For information on monitoring requirem ents, please see the response to EPA-HQOAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 15.

In addition, EPA has revised Equati on II-4 that calculates methan e recovery to allow for flow meters that automatically correct for te mperature, pressure, and/or moisture.

For calibration of gas fl ow meters as required by §98.354(g), EPA disagrees that facilities should be allowed to use good engineeri ng and maintenance practices to calibrate instrumentation as this determination is subjective and difficult to standardize in comparison to requiring facilities to calibrate and maintain monitoring devices ac cording to the manufactur er’s specifications.

41Since all gas flow m eter manuf acturers specify calibration proce dures and frequencies for their equipment, it is appropriate that these procedures be followed when calibrating equipment for purposes of this rule.

For calibration of temperature, pressure, a nd moisture content monitors as required by §98.354(h), EPA has revised the regu lation to allow calibration pro cedures and frequencies that represent an industry accepted pr actice or industry standard, if no calibration procedures or frequencies are specified by the device manufact urers, since calibration procedures are not typically specified by manufacturer s of temperature, pressure or moisture content monitors.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 47

Comment: EPA should allow, though not require, facili ties to use instrumentation such as this by modifying the proposal as follo ws: [See DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 for equations provided by commenter]

Response: With regard to the frequency of monitori ng required, please see the response to EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 15.

Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 225

Comment: §98.358, Table II-1. The emission factors fo r "DAF or IAF - uncovered" and "DAF or IAF - covered" appear to be shown to the wrong order of magnitude (E-34 and E-44, instead of E-3 and E-4, respectively). Refer to Califor nia’s AB-32 reporting rule, Table 13, where the ‘4’ is a footnote not part of the exponent.

Response: The requirement to monitor CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators has been removed; please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule for more details. Therefore, all

references to DAF and IAF in Table II-1 have also been removed.

Commenter Name: Renae Schmidt

Commenter Affiliation: CITGO Petroleum Corporation

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0726.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 29

Comment: This section’s calculation methods for oil- water separators do not seem to make

intuitive sense and have three problems - assuming that all VOC oxidizes in atmosphere to CO 2 , only acknowledging thermal destruction devices, and not accounting for floating roof storage tanks that may be used as oil-water separa tors/storage tanks. Equa tion II-2 calculates CO 2 emissions from oil-water separators. But most oil-water separators, if not directed to a thermal destruction device, would not directly produce any CO 2 , but instead might contribute methane

4243 (CH 4 ) to a very limited extent (by the time oily wastewater is being handled in oil-water separators, most if not all me thane should have been removed during the refining process). Instead, it appears that EPA is making the ill-supported assumption that all of the carbon in the VOC emissions oxidizes in the atmosphere to CO 2 . This also seems to be the only evaporative emission source where this assumption is being made; the CO 2 (e) from all other VOC sources in the refinery sector (Subpart Y) is based on methane (e.g., process vents, equipment leaks, storage tanks, product loading, uncontrolle d blowdown, etc.). Furthermore, the units for the separator emission factors are in kg NMVOC/m3 wastewater treated. (Note that "N MVOC" is not defined anywhere in this proposed rule or preamble, but is presumed to mean "non-methane volatile organic compounds). Expressing fact ors in these units would imply that there could also be a methane component to the emissions. If EPA is going to retain oil-wate r separators in the reporting mix, EPA should revise th e calculation to be on a methane basis to be consistent with other evaporative-type emission s ources. If this is done, it will lik ely become apparent that this source category becomes trivial, and should be either eliminated, or be eligible to be placed in a de minimis group where a one-time demonstrat ion is made. The above-referenced equation (Equation II-2) also implicitly references Table 11-1, which pr ovides emission factors (EF) for various general categories of oil-water sepa rators (based on degree of emission control). Unfortunately, the separator factors do not cover the breadth of separato rs and control systems that may be used at a refinery. The table presum es that all industrial oil-water separators are "gravity type" and either uncovered, covered, or if covered, mayor may not be ducted to a "destruction device". This is an incomplete pres umption for two different reasons. First, some refinery oil-water separators can be vented to a carbon adsorption system; such systems do not "destroy" the VQC, but prevent it from being emitte d in the first place. The phrase "destruction device" in Table II-1 should be changed to "con trol device". Second, at refineries, some floating roof process water storage tanks can also function as separators. This type of oil-water separator is in fact allowed under 40 CFR 60 Subpart QQQ (40 CFR 60.693-2). Because of the floating

root: emissions associated with these types of tanks are better estimated from tank level changes as opposed to tank throughput. Many such tanks may not have flow meters presently, so to comply with the oil-water separator QA-QC requirements, such tanks would require the

installation of flow meters befo re January 1,2010. It is strongly recommended that if EPA retains industrial oil-water separators in the inventory program, that emi ssions from petroleum refinery process water storage tanks utili zed as oil-water separators be determined and reported under the storage tanks provisions of S ubpart Y (40 CFR 98.253(mXl)]. Fina lly, the above three issues provide a compelling case for eliminating oi l-water separators from the WWTP category. However, if oil-water separators are not eliminated, then a broad de minimis category should be

created that allows for one-time evaluation of low-Level sources and provides some degree of flexibility to the calcul ation. If oil-water separators are not eliminated and whether or not a de minimis category is created, the following corre ctions should be made: 1. Floating roof tanks used as oil-water separators n eed to be accommodated. Since the only focus of Subpart II’s oilwater separators is refineries, a paragraph should be added that explicitly directs those tanks be handled under the Subpart Y emission determin ation provisions for storage tanks. 2. Equation TI-l for oil-water separation emissions calculati on should be revised to report emissions as

methane. a. The default carbon fraction should be changed to default methane fraction b.

Eliminate the conversion of car bon to methane. 3. Table II-l would need to be revised accordingly. a. Emission factor units should be revised not to reflect NMVOC, but total organic compounds b. The default carbon fraction should be changed to default m ethane fraction. c. The "EF sep- Gravity Type-Covered and Connected to a Destruction Device" should be changed to ".., Connected to an Emission Control Device", to accommodate carbon adsorption systems. 4. Data reporting requirements would need to be revised to be cons istent with corrected emission

determination methods.Response: For inform ation on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators located at petroleum refineries, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the

final rule.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 45

Comment: In 98.353, EPA proposes to require that the volume of wastewater to an oil/water separator be measured and used as an input to Eq uation II-2. However, very few, if any, oil/water separators will have flow monitoring and this approach does not recognize the technical and practical difficulties of measuring flowrate for a two-phase (oil and water), or sometimes threephase (oil, water, and oil/water emulsion), stream with inconsistent/varying specific gravities. Nor can these emissions be calculated with a simp le material balance. Gi ven the wide variation in sources, flows, and compositi ons to the oil/water se parator in a facility, a material balance engineering calculation would be inaccurate and unsuitable to the purpose. In addition, EPA has inappropriately applied Equa tion II-2 to calculate CO 2 emissions: [See DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0533.1 for Equation II-2] EPA does not refere nce the source of the equation in the TSD. However, in the preamble, EPA says that the equation was “based on” California’s AB32 mandatory reporting rule. In turn, California’s rule relied on a documen t from CONCAWE. In the CONCAWE report, the study and the result ing emission calculation were developed to estimate Non-Methane Volatile Organic Co mpounds (NMVOC): [See DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0533.1 for NMVOC Equation ] The Californi a Air Resources Board (CARB) used this equation, along with data from the IPCC, to generate an equa tion to calculate GHG emissions from oil/water separators. However, EPA inappropriately uses this equation for the following reasons: 1. NMVOC Destroyed in Contro l Device: CARB specifically cautions against double-reporting the CO 2 emissions10 from both the control de vice and the oil/water separator. However, EPA has done just that: CO 2 emissions from the combustion of NMVOC from oil/water separators are to be reported both under Subpart C (98.242(b), . 352(c)) and Subpart II (98.353(b)). [See DCN:EPA-HQ- OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 for References] 2. NMVOC Oxidized in Atmosphere (i.e. Not Destroyed in Cont rol Device): The IPCC concluded11 that non-CO 2 carbon emissions are eventually oxidized to CO 2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC directs that these

GHG emissions should be included in nationa l inventories. However, the eventual CO 2 emissions from NMVOC from other sources are not reported under 98 and oil/water separator

emissions should not be treated di fferently. EPA should use the data that is already reported to it under 40 CFR 51, Subpart A to estimate all NMVOC emissions and its eventual CO 2 conversion. In the case of oil/water separators, their inclusion in 98 would again double-count the GHG emissions. For these reasons, EPA s hould remove 98.353(b) from the rule.

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators located at petroleum refineries, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the

final rule.

44Commenter Name: Stewart T. Leeth

Commenter Affiliation: Smithfield Foods, Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Subpart II - Wastewater Treatment, Table II – 1 provi des emissions factors for dissolved air flotation (DAF) and induced air flotation (IA F). (74 Fed. Reg. at 16,706). We believe that EPA provided these factors for use by petroleum facilities, but request that EPA clarify in the final rule that food processing facilities are not required to report emissions from

DAF or IAF units.

Response: Food processing facilities ar e not required to report emissions from DAF or IAF

units.

Commenter Name: Brian P. Flynn

Commenter Affiliation: MRE, LLC

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0529.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: 98.352 (b) states that you must report CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators. 98.353 (b) states that petroleum refineries calculate annual CO 2 emissions by separator type. It

refers to Table II-1. This tabl e includes insignifican t factors for DAF or IAF (both covered and uncovered). The DAF and IAF should be dropped fr om Table II-1 and from the requirements to report CO 2 emissions. [An equation is provi ded by the commenter showing CO 2 estimated

emissions of 6.2 E-30 metric tons CO 2 per year from a fairly large refinery.] This is a mere 6.2 E-24 gram- less than one atom’s worth! Th is is not worth calc ulating or reporting.

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators located at petroleum refineries, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the

final rule.

Commenter Name: Brian P. Flynn

Commenter Affiliation: MRE, LLC

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0529.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Equation II-2 is us ed for calculating CO 2 emissions. Equation II-2 in 98.353 (b)

should be modified to show “metric tons of CO 2 /kg” instead of “metric tons of CH 4 /kg” in order to be consistent with the equation’s purpose.

Response: Upon further review of comments, EPA has removed the requirement to estimate emissions associated with oil/water separators an d therefore no longer requires the calculation of

CO 2 emissions. Please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

45Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 152

Comment: In §98.353, EPA proposes to require that the volume of wastewater to an oil/water separator be measured and used as an input to Eq uation II-2. However, very few, if any, oil/water separators will have flow monitoring and this approach does not recognize the technical and practical difficulties of measuring flowrate for a two-phase (oil and water), or sometimes threephase (oil, water, and oil/water emulsion), stream with inconsistent/varying specific gravities. Nor can these emissions be calculated with a simp le material balance. Gi ven the wide variation in sources, flows, and compositi ons to the oil/water se parator in a facility, a material balance engineering calculation would be inaccurate and unsuitable to the purpose. In addition, EPA has inappropriately applied Equa tion II-2 to calculate CO 2 emissions. EPA does not reference the source of the equation in the TSD. However, in the preamble, EPA says that the equation was

3based on ́ California‘s AB32 manda tory reporting rule. [Footnote: Title 17, California Code of Regulations §9511 3(c)(2)] In tu rn, California‘s rule relied on a document from CONCAWE. [Footnote: CONCAWE oil companies‘ European asso ciation for environment, health and safety in refining and distribution. www.concawe.or g.] In the CONCAWE report [Footnote: Air pollutant emission estimation methods for E- PRTR reporting by refineries. CONCAWE AirQuality Management Group‘s Special Task Force on Emission Reporting Methodologies (STF69). Brussels, Belgium. Report no. 1/09, Ja nuary 2009. Section 13.6.3.2.], the study and the resulting emission calculation were develope d to estimate Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds (NMVOC). [See DCN EPA-HQ-2008-0508-0423.2 (page 56) to view an equation.]

The California Air Resources Boar d (CARB) used this equation, along with data from the IPCC, to generate an equation to cal culate GHG emissions from oil/wat er separators. However, EPA‘s use of this equation is inappr opriate for the following reasons: 1. NMVOC Destroyed in Control Device: CARB specifically cautions against double-reporting the CO 2 emissions [Footnote: Attachments C to F. Supplemental Materials Do cument for Staf Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. California Air Resources Board. October 19, 2007. Attachment E. ] from both the control device and the oil/water separator. However, EPA has done just that: CO 2 emissions from the combustion of NMVOC from oil/water separators are to be reported both under Subpart C (§§98.242(b), 98.352(c)) and Subpart II (§98.353(b)). 2. NMVOC Oxid ized in Atmosphere (i.e. Not Destroyed in Control Device): The IPCC concluded [Footnote: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Pa nel on Climate Change. Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 7.2.1.5.] that non-CO 2 carbon emissions are eventually oxidized to CO 2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC directs that these GHG em issions should be included in national inventories. However, the eventual CO 2 emissions from NMVOC from other sources are not reported under part 98 and oil/water separator emissions should not be treated differently. EPA

should use the data that is already reported to it under 40 CF R 51, Subpart A to estimate all

NMVOC emissions and its eventual CO 2 conversion. In the case of oil/water separators, their inclusion in part 98 would again double-c ount the GHG emissions. Fo r these reasons, EPA should remove §98.353(b) from the rule.

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators located at petroleum refineries, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the

final rule.

46

### 6. MONITORING AND QA/QC REQUIREMENTS

Commenter Name: Burl Ackerman

Commenter Affiliation: J. R. Simplot Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment: We support allowing monthly CH 4 content sampling as an alternative to continuous metering of gas concentration.

Response: For information on the frequency of monito ring required, please see the response to EPA-HW-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 15. EPA agr ees that continuous monitoring is not necessary. For discussion of the requirement fo r weekly monitoring, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2, excerpt 154.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 52

Comment: EPA proposes to require th at facilities coll ect all samples as flow-weighted composites but says that time-weighted compos ites would be acceptable if the COD content and flow “does not vary.” Because of the lack of guidance in the proposal, some may interpret “does not vary” as 0% variation whic h is impossible for any system to achieve. EPA should clarify “does not vary” as having a standard devi ation that is less than 50% of the mean.

Response: The final rule no longer contains the phrase ‘does not vary’ .For information regarding requirements for collecting samples of wastewater influent to anaerobic wastewater treatment processes for dete rmination of COD or BOD 5 concentration, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule

Commenter Name: Robert J. Martineau, Jr

Commenter Affiliation: Counsel, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0414.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: Nissan requests clarification as to whethe r a facility utilizing an on-site industrial wastewater treatment system is required to utilize third-party la boratory analysis; or alternatively, may perform the requisite laborat ory analysis in-house. The Preamble to the proposed regulation stipulates that in order "[t]o estimat e the amount of CH 4 emissions from industrial waste water treatment, plant-specific values of COD would be determined by weekly sampling." 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,560. The proposed text of 40 C.F.R. § 98.354 states, "(c) For anaerobic treatment systems, facilities must mon itor the wastewater flow and COD no less than once per week. . . . Facilities must collect 24-hou r flow-weighted composite samples . . . (d) For oil/water separators, facilities must monitor the flow no less than once per week." 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,705. Although the proposed regulati on includes the term "facilities," no further guidance is

offered as to whether the fac ility may perform monitoring and the collection of samples through use of an in-house laboratory, or instead, must utilize an independent third-party laboratory.

47Response: EPA does not require an independent third-pa rty laboratory to provi de the analysis of

BOD 5 or COD. The facility may use either an in -house laboratory or an independent third party laboratory to perform the monitoring and collect samples.

Commenter Name: Bill Perez

Commenter Affiliation: LANDTEC North America, Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1485 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: In several industries including; landfill gas (LFG), manure management, anaerobic digesters, waste-water treatment plants and others, portable infrared analyzers are the instruments of choice for quantifying methane in the field. Fixed infrared analyzers with automatic calibration systems have been pr oven reliable and cost effective on Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects throu ghout the world. These infrared monitoring systems are passing independent third party validations on CDM projects and generating

certified emission reduction credit s. We ask the EPA to include calibrated infrared technology as an acceptable method for quantifying methan e when reporting Greenhouse gas emissions.

Response: EPA has revised the rule language at 98.354 (e) to provide for flame ionization of nondispersive infrared (NDIR) an alyzers to be used as an alternative to gas chromatography

methods. This alternative reduces the burden on facilities that do not have existing gas chromatography equipment. However, if the fl ame ionization or NDIR an alyzer measures both methane and non-methane organic compounds th ey will tend to overstate the methane concentration in biogas and provide a high bi as to the amount of methane recovered. To eliminate this bias, when facilities use these types of flame ionizat ion or NDIR analyzers, 98.354 (e) requires a correction factor that must be determined at least annua lly, to arrive at the

ratio of the methane concentrati on to the analyzer re sponse (calibrated with methane). Including these alternative monitoring methods with the co rrection factor reduces the burden on facilities,

but still ensures that the calcul ated methane recovery quantities are unbiased and comparable to the recovery quantities calculat ed when gas chromatographic me thods are used to speciate methane specifically.

Commenter Name: Rhea Hale

Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: Should COD be retained, th e rule should provide that all EPA approved methods for monitoring COD in wastewater are allowed to be used for the pur poses of this rule. There are several analytical methods for measuring COD, some of which generate hazardous wastes containing, for example, chromium and mercury.

Response: EPA has revised the rule to allow for th e use of either COD in conjunction with Equation II-1 or BOD 5 in conjunction with Equation II-2 for the calculation of methane generation. For more information, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. The rule specifies at 98.354(a) that facilities must use analytical methods appropriate for industrial

48wastewater pollutants, conducted in accordan ce w ith the methods specified in 40 CFR part 136.3

Table 1B.

Commenter Name: Rhea Hale

Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: Where appropriate, reporti ng facilities should be give n the option of using flow

measurements made at locations downstream of the treatment unit for which methane emissions are being estimated. Flow monitoring of influent streams is not widely practiced at mills, and may require costly modifications to install a flow measuring device in a collection system. Effluent discharge flow measuri ng devices such as weir, flumes , and venturi meters used for compliance monitoring must be calibrated a nd maintained on a regular basis per NPDES discharge permits conditions, and are much more likely to provide accurate flow data than meters installed upstream in collection or treatm ent systems. Where evaporative and other water losses between the influent and the point at which flow is measured are deemed to be significant (e.g., >5% of measured flow), engineering calcula tions could be used to adjust the measured

flows.

Response: The rule requires that flow and BOD 5 or COD be monitored at the location of influent to the anaerobic treatment process. EPA disagree s that facilities should be allowed to use downstream locations. Influent monitoring gi ves the most accurate determination of GHG emissions and does not require th e complex and burdensome back-cal culations that effluent flow monitoring would. In addition, allowing for effl uent flow monitoring would require EPA to describe all possible treatment scenarios which would make the rule cumbersome and overly complex.

EPA has considered cost of infl uent flow monitoring and determin ed it to be a reasonable burden for facilities. For more information, please see Se ction II.E of the preamble to the final rule. EPA has already taken steps to minimize burden in the rule by excluding small facilities through the application of the 25,000 metric tons of CO 2 e threshold.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 46

Comment: The techniques that EPA specified for flow monito ring (98.353(c), 98.354) do not reflect available technology and c ould increase the burden on facili ties and result in lower data quality. EPA has proposed to requ ire facilities to continuously measure gas flow under actual conditions (ACFM), temperature, and pressure. EPA requires that this information be averaged daily and then used to calculate gas flow unde r standard conditions (SCFM). This prevents facilities from using instrumentation that is widely available that will measure all three conditions (flow, temperature, pressure) simu ltaneously and report the flow in SCFM. An example of this is the Fox Thermal Instrument s Model 10A Thermal Gas Flowmeter. Also in 98.354(g) and (h), EPA requires th at temperature and pressure monitors and flow measuring devices be calibrated and maintained as speci fied by the device manufacturer. Instead, EPA

49should requ ire calibration according to good engi neering and maintenance practices. This alternative wording will allow a facility to incorporate manufacturers’ recommendations, equipment standards, and results of pr evious troubleshooting and maintenance.

Response: For more information on the frequency of monitoring requir ed and calibration methods, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2, excerpt 153.

Commenter Name: Stewart T. Leeth

Commenter Affiliation: Smithfield Foods, Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Twenty-four hour composite samples are appr opriate in most cases, but there should be flexibility to use grab samples in some situations. The sampling frequency requirement should be the same as what is required under a facili ty's existing NPDES permit conditions. In addition,

most wastewater treatment faciliti es have effluent flow meters but few have influent flow meters.

The text and definitions of these sections referred to flow into the wastewater treatment system in the inclusions and seem to imply that and in fluent flow meter is re quired. Please clarify this

section to allow the use of effluent flow meter data to minimize the cost and impact on the food industry.

Response: For a discussion of the use of grab and co mposite samples, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

For a discussion of the use of effluent flow meters, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0909.1, excerpt 21.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 50

Comment: EPA has requested comment on requiring monthly sampling of digester gas CH 4 content as an alternative to a continuous com position analyzer. We strongly support the options to measure the methane content monthly or less fr equently based on a statistical demonstration of the variability. The reasons for these options as opposed to continuous monitoring include: (1) continuous methane monitoring is expensive, (2) continuous methan e monitoring can be problematic, and (3) conditions in anaerobic digest ers change at a slow pace relative to other treatment technologies. As EPA has documented, the hydraulic retention time in anaerobic digesters is measured in days, not hours as with other treatment systems. In addition, a facility that could expect variable influent conditions wi ll have an equalization ba sin to reduce swings in concentration and make the dige ster feed more consistent. These design factors reduce the impact from influent changes and ensure more consistent, and hence effective, treatment. This also ensures that biogas production and characte ristics (e.g. methane cont ent) are relatively consistent and will vary over days rather than hours. For these reasons, EPA should allow for the monitoring of methane concentratio n in anaerobic digester gas to be (i) monthly or (ii) less frequently based on a statistical analysis of the composition data.

50Response: EPA agrees that continuous m onitoring is not necessary. However, if continuous emissions monitoring equipment is already in pl ace, it must be used. For discussion of the requirement for weekly monitoring, pleas e see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508- 0423.2, excerpt 154.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 155

Comment: In §§98.354(a) and (c), EPA states that the location for the COD sample must represent the influent to the treatment process and requires reporters to collect a 24-hour flowweighted composite sample at least once per wee k. Industrial facilities draw COD samples at the wastewater treatment plant discharge per NPDES permit conditi ons. Maintaining a compositor on the influent will be problematic due to oil, foam, sediment, phase separation, etc. Consistent with California‘s GHG emissions reporting program, reporters should be give n the option to take daily grab samples of the influent to mon itor for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and use a

conversion factor to convert TOC to COD. EPA proposes to require that facilities collect all samples as flow-weighted composites but stat es that time-weighted composites would be acceptable if the COD content and flow ”does not vary.” Without further clarification, some may interpret 3does not vary ́ as requi ring 0% variation which is impossi ble for any system to achieve. EPA should clarify in the final rule that ”does not vary” has a standard devi ation that is less than

50% of the mean. EPA also states that the lo cation for the COD sample must represent the influent to the treatment process and that the lo cation of the flow sample must correspond to the location of the COD sample. Industrial facilities do not have flow meters on the influent because (1) the NPDES-permit monitoring point is on the effluent outfall, (2) op eration of meters in wastewater service is problematic due to oil, fo am, phase separation, sediment, etc. and is much more difficult than monitoring the clean effluent, and (3) accuracy of flow meters in a gravity flow, possibly phase-separated system is a concer n. As an option to inlet flow meters, reporters

should be allowed to use outlet flow meters or engineering determin ation. This option is

consistent with California‘s GHG emissions reporting program (Title 17 CCR Subchapter 10, Article 2). We recommend these changes be reflected in §98.354(a) and (c) as follows: (new language is in brackets). “(a) The quantity of COD treated anaerobically must be determined using analytical methods for industrial wast ewater pollutants and must be conducted in accordance with the methods specified in 40 CFR Part 136. [If COD analysis is impractical due to the sample composition, the facility may measure Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and mathematically convert it to COD using a si te-specific conversion fa ctor based on actual analytical data. The quantity of TOC treated anaerobically must be determined using analytical

methods for industrial wastewater pollutants and must be con ducted in accordance with the methods specified in 40 CFR Part 136.] (c) For anaerobic treatment syst ems, facilities must monitor the COD [concentration a nd monitor or calculate the wast ewater flow] no less than once per week. The sample location must represent th e influent to anaerobic treatment for the time period that is monitored. The flow [data] sample must correspond to the location used to measure the COD. [If flow monitoring at this location is impracticable, the facility must determine the flow using appropriate methods.] Facilities must collect 24 -hour flow-weighted composite samples, unless (1) they can demonstrate that the [data for the] COD concentration an d wastewater flow into the anaerobic treatment system [has a standard devia tion that is less than 50 percent of the mean or (2) flow monitoring at that location is impracticable]. In these cases this case, facilities must collect 24-hour time-wei ghted composites to characterize changes in

51wastewater due to production fluc tuations, or a grab sam ple if the influent flow is equalized resulting in little variability.

Response: EPA has revised §98.354(a) of the rule to clarify that flow and BOD 5 or COD must

be monitored at the location of influent to the anaerobic treatment process, following all preliminary and primary treatment steps (e.g., after grit removal, primary clarification, oil-water separation, dissolved air flotation, or similar solids and oil sepa ration processes). After such preliminary and primary treatment, oil, foam, sediment, and phase separation will not interfere with sampling collection or flow measurement. With regard to the use of influent monitoring as opposed to effluent monitoring, please s ee response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1, excerpt 21.

EPA disagrees that analysis of COD in waste streams after preliminar y and primary treatment may be impractical due to the sample compositi on. First, preliminary and primary treatment change the composition of the wa stewater by removing non-aqueous phases such as oil, foam, and sediment. The partially treated wastewater ca n be sampled with an automatic compositor or by compositing manual grab samples. Second, faci lities may select th e wastewater flow measurement device that is most appropriate for their wastewater stream. The rule, at §98.354(d), identifies five methods that may be us ed to monitor wastewater flow. Facilities may choose among these methods or another, as appropr iate, used as specified by the manufacturer.

Further, allowing facilities to measure Total Organic Carbon (T OC) and mathematically convert it to COD using a site-specific c onversion factor based on actual an alytical data can be subjective and difficult to standardize. For this reason, EP A has not revised the rule to allow facilities to analyze influent to anaerobic wastewater tr eatment processes for TO C rather than COD. California’s GHG emissions reporting program do es not allow facilitie s to measure Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and mathema tically convert it to COD; th erefore the use of COD in Subpart II is consistent with California’s Re gulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse

Gas Emissions.

For a discussion of the use of grab and com posite samples, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 222

Comment: §98.354(c). The monitoring requirements in §98.354(c) state the location for the COD sample must represent the influent to the treatment process and th e location of the flow sample must correspond to the location of the COD sample. For treatment processes that are designed with a staged saturated air treatment uni t that flows into an aeration basin, the sampling location should be representative of the influent into the staged saturated air treatment unit.

Response: Subpart II applies to anaerobic processe s, including anaerobic reactors, anaerobic lagoons, and anaerobic sludge digesters. Conseque ntly, facilities are no t required to monitor treatment processes that are designe d with a staged saturated air treatment unit that flows into an

aeration basin.

52Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 223

Comment: §98.354(c). The monitoring requirements in §98.354(c) state the location for the COD sample must represent the influent to the treatment process and th e location of the flow sample must correspond to the location of the C OD sample. Refineries and petrochemical plants

do not have flow meters on the influent because (1) NPDES monitoring point is on the outfall, (2) operation of meters in oily water service is problematic, and (3) accuracy of flow meters in a gravity flow, possibly phase separated system is a concern. As an option to inlet flow meters, reporters should be allowed to us e outlet flow meters or engin eering determination. This option is consistent with California’s GHG emissions reporting program.

Response: Petrochemical facilities are not known to employ anaerobic wastewater treatment. Therefore, this sector has been removed from the final rule.

Please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008- 0508-0423.2, excerpt 155 for a discussion of why EPA has determined that monitoring influe nt to anaerobic reactors can be done with available technology and at reasonable cost.

For a discussion of the use of effluent flow meters, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0909.1, excerpt 21.

Commenter Name: See Table 3 at the end of this volume.

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 224

Comment: §98.354(c). The monitoring requirements in §98.354(c) state the location for the COD sample must represent the influent to the tr eatment process and requir es reporters to collect a 24- hour flow-weighted composite sample at le ast once per week. Refine ries and petrochemical plants draw COD samples at the wastewater treatment plant discharg e under NPDES permit. Maintaining a compositor on the influent will be problematic because the waste contains oil and

sediments. Consistent with California’s GHG em issions reporting program, reporters should be given the option to take daily grab samples on th e influent for TOC and use a conversion factor

to convert TOC to COD.

Response: Please see the response to EPA- HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2, excerpt 155 for a discussion of why EPA has determined that mon itoring influent to anaerobic reactors can be

done with available tech nology at reasonable cost.

Commenter Name: Matthew Molinaro

Commenter Affiliation: Ecolab Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0602.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

53Comment: The proposed m onitoring and QA procedur es described in §98.354 may present an

undue burden on facilities whose cu rrent measurement procedures are more appropriate for process control decisions and not compliance m onitoring. EPA has not provided typical on-site approved measurement methods for influent COD th at are appropriate for the proposed rule. The only on-site method identified has ca pacity that is half of the re quirement for minimum influent measurement for typical anaerobic treatment. Food processing wastewater is typically in the range 3000 – 30,000 mg/L COD, through some plants may operate with influent COD as high as 60,000 mg/L.[ Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineer ing 4th ed p 987.] Typical current practice

is to use an on-site test such as Hach Method 8000 “High Range Plus”, which has a range of 200 – 15,000 mg/L COD.[Hach Company, P.O. B ox 389, Loveland, Colorado, 80539-0389, Phone: 800-227-4224, www.hach.com.] For influent COD in excess of 15,000 mg/L dilution steps are required, which have not been described as accep table in the proposed rule. It is common for these process control tests to be performed on-site, but the current scope of the proposed rule would require off-site testing. This can be costly in terms of both direct testing costs and fees (estimated at $2000 or more per year) and indir ect overhead costs from managing and preparing samples. EPA must determine affo rdable on-site methods or diluti on practices that allow users to accurately perform calculations for this rule. We recommend EPA provide further guidance to appropriate measurement methods or techniques and/or reduce th e rigor of the requirements to facilitate reporting.

Response: EPA has revised §98.354 of the rule to clarif y that while facilities must determine the concentration of organic material in wastewater treated anaerobi cally using analytical methods

for COD or BOD 5 in accordance with the methods specified in 40 CFR part 136.3 Table 1B, for the purpose of determining concentrations of wast ewater influent to th e anaerobic wastewater treatment process, samples may be diluted to the concentration range of the approved method. Alternatively, facilities may send their sample s to an offsite laboratory for analysis.

Commenter Name: Dean C. DeLorey

Commenter Affiliation: Beet Sugar Development F oundation (BSDF) Environmental

Committee

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0559.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: Wastewater sampling frequenc ies appear unnecessarily spec ific and detailed. How is this level of effort and documentation justified by the relative accuracy of the calculation and the

overall contribution to GHG emissions? This sh ould be guidance rath er than a specific requirement.

Response: For a discussion of EPA’s clarification of wastewater sampling requirements in 98.354(b), please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. The final rule continues to require facilities to collect and analyze sample s of anaerobic treatment process influent no less than once per week. Weekly monitoring provides an adequate number of samples to evaluate the variability and uncertainty asso ciated with methane generation. Monthly monitoring would result in greater uncertainty and w ould not significantly reduce the costs compared to weekly monitoring. EPA has considered cost of sampli ng and analysis of infl uent wastewater and

determined it to be a reasonable burden for fac ilities. EPA has already taken steps to minimize burden in the rule by excluding sm all facilities through the applic ation of the 25,000 metric tons

of CO 2 e threshold.

54EPA disagrees that m onitoring fr equency should be provided as gui dance rather than a specific requirement. Facility responses to guidance woul d be subjective and difficult to standardize. EPA continues to require facilities to collect and analyze samples of anaerobic treatment process influent no less than once per week.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 48

Comment: Section 98.354(g) should r ead as follows: If required for Equation II-4, all temperature and pressure monitors must be ca librated using the procedures and frequencies established by good engineering and maintenance practices.

Response: For calibration of temperature, pressure, and moisture content monitors as required by §98.354(h), EPA has revised the regulation to allow calibration procedures and frequencies that represent an industry accepted practice or in dustry standard, if no calibration procedures or frequencies are specified by the device manufact urers, since calibration procedures are not typically specified by manufacturer s of temperature, pressure, or moisture content monitors.

Commenter Name: Brian P. Flynn

Commenter Affiliation: MRE, LLC

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0529.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: For clarity, the second sent ence of 40CFR 98.354 (d) shoul d refer to monitoring, not sample as no sample is required, flowrate is monitored.

Response: EPA has removed the requirement to monitor CO 2 emissions from oil/water separators at refineries. Please se e Section II.E of the preamble to th e final rule for more details. Therefore the edit described in this comment is no longer needed.



### 7. PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING MISSING DATA

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 156

Comment: In §98.355(a), EPA describes the use of an averaging method for substitute data. We recommend that EPA also allow as an option th e use of a method that is case-specific and justified by the operator based on facility ope rating knowledge or data. The averaging method may not be appropriate in all cases. For exam ple, if the data gap should occur during a known spike or drop in concentrations or flow, it would not be appropriate to us e the data that surrounds the gap. Only the operator will have th e knowledge to make that assessment.

55Response: EPA disagrees that an av eraging method for substitute data is not appropriate. Allowing facilities the option to utilize case-by-ca se determinations for estimating missing data will make reporting more cumbersome and variable. Utilizing an average to determine substitute data will allow for standardization and simp lify what facilities must do to meet rule requirements.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 53

Comment: In 98.355(a), EPA describes a method for s ubstitute data. As an option, EPA should also allow using another method that is case-specific and justified by the operator based on facility operating knowledge or data. The averaging method may not be appropriate in all cases. The operator will have the knowledge to make that assessment.

Response: With regard to the use of case specific methods, please see the response to EPA-HQOAR-2008-0508-0423.2, excerpt 156.



### 8. DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 159

Comment: EPA has proposed in §98.356(r) to require th at facilities with anaerobic digesters report ”fugitive methane.” This is also ambiguous. As EPA notes, [Footnote: 74 Federal Register 16529, April 10, 2009.] it uses multiple definitions for “fugitive.” For example, in some sections, “fugitive” includes flare emissions but in other sections it does not. EPA provides no

clarification which definition s hould apply for wastewater plants in the Preamble, Technical Support Document, or proposed rule language. For Subpart II, EPA should define “fugitive

methane” emissions to be that methane which is fed to the destruction device (e.g. flare, engine) but not destroyed.

Response: EPA has revised §98.353 to clarify fugitive emission calculations. The final rule requires facilities to calculate the quantity of biogas generated but not recovered; that is, the mass

of CH 4 that leaks from the process due to in efficiencies in the anaerobic process CH 4 collection

system.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 158

56Comment: EPA has proposed in §§98.356(m ), (n), and (o) to require that the data from continuous methane, temperature and pressure monitors be submitted. As written, this is an overwhelming amount of data. Continuous monito rs will collect a data point many times per minute. This means that EPA will require facilities to submit millions of data points every year. EPA has never before required such information to be submitted for emissions inventory reports and should not begin now unless it can present comp elling reasons to do so. Detailed data such as methane content, temperature, and pressure should be maintained by the facility and made available for inspection in keeping with exis ting practice. We suggest that EPA remove §§98.356(m), (n), and (o).

Response: EPA has revised the rule language in §98.356 to clarify that facilities are only required to report the monthly average of meth ane, temperature, and pressure monitoring.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 157

Comment: In §98.356(b), EPA has proposed to require that systems report the “percent of wastewater treated at each system component .” We find this statement ambiguous. Industrial wastewater treatment plants are complex systems that can contain multiple treatment steps that proceed both in parallel and series . Portions of the wastewater can be removed from or added to the system at different points. Multiple conclusi ons can be drawn from the request. For example, is EPA seeking the amount of wast ewater that is treated: (1) In an anaerobic digester vs. other anaerobic technology? (2) In an anaerobic dige ster or other technology vs. aerobic technology? (3) In a neutralization basin? (4) In an equaliza tion basin? (5) In an oil/water separator? In addition, this information is not required fo r the GHG emissions from the facility. EPA has proposed to request an unprecedented amount of detailed data throughout the rule, much of which is not important to GHG emission calcul ations. We suggest that EPA remove §98.356(b) in its entirety from the final rule.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and has removed the requirement for percent wastewater treated from the final rule. However, the rule does require facilities to list the anaerobic processes at on-site wastewater treatm ent systems operated at the facility and whether biogas generated by the process is recovered. Further, for each anaerobic wastewater treatment process, facilities must report the volumetric flow rate of wastewater entering the process for each month it is operated. In addition, the rule re quires facilities to re port monthly average COD

or BOD 5 concentration of wastewater entering each anaerobic wastew ater treatment process, for each month the anaerobic process was operated.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 54

Comment: In 98.356(b), EPA has proposed to require that systems report the “percent of wastewater treated at each system component .” This is ambiguous. Industrial wastewater treatment plants are complex systems that can co ntain multiple treatment steps that proceed in

57both parallel and series. Portions of the wastewater can be remove d from or added to the system at different points. Multiple conclusions can be drawn from the request: Is EPA seeking the

amount of wastewater that is treated: 1. In an anaerobic di gester vs. other anaerobic technology? 2. In an anaerobic digester or other technol ogy vs. aerobic technology? 3. In a neutralization basin? 4. In an equalizati on basin? 5. In an oil/water separator? In addition, this information is not required for determining the GHG emissions fr om the facility. As discussed elsewhere in these comments, EPA has proposed to request an unprecedented amount of detailed data throughout the rule, much of which is not impor tant to GHG emission calculations. We suggest that EPA remove 98.356(b). In98.356(m), (n), (o), EPA has proposed to require that the data from continuous methane, temperature and pressure monitors be submitted. As written, this is an overwhelming request. Continuous monitors will collect a data point many times per minute. This means that EPA will require facilities to su bmit millions of data points every year. EPA has never before required such information to be submitted for emissions inventory reports and should not begin now. As discussed elsewhere in these comments, EPA has proposed to request an unprecedented amount of detailed data throughout the rule. Detailed data such as methane content, temperature, and pre ssure should be retained onsite rather than reported and made available for inspection in keeping with exis ting practice. We suggest that EPA remove 98.356(m), (n), (o). In 98.356(r), EPA has proposed to require that facilities with anaerobic digesters report “fugitive methane.” This is also ambiguous. As EPA hi ghlights, [Footnote: 74 FR 16529, April 10, 2009] it uses multiple definitions for “fugitive.” For example, in some sections, “fugitive” includes flare emissions but in other sections, it is excluded. However, there

is no clarification of which definition EPA in tends for wastewater plants in the Preamble, Technical Support Document, or proposed rule language. For Subpart II , EPA should define “fugitive methane” emissions to be that methane whic h is fed to the destruction device (e.g. flare, engine)

Response: With regard to the reporting of data from continuous methane, temperature, and pressure monitors, please see the re sponse to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2, excerpt 158.

With regard to the requirement for reporting pe rcent wastewater treate d, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2, excerpt 157.

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 49

Comment: Section 98.356(n) should read as follows: Temperature at wh ich flow is measured (if required for Equation II-4 at faci lities with anaerobic digesters) . Section 98.356(o) should read as follows: Pressure at which flow is measured (i f required for Equation II-4 at facilities with anaerobic digesters).

Response: Section 98.356 has been revise d such that subsect ion (d) (4) (formerly section n) now states: “Monthly average temperature for each mo nth at which flow is measured for biogas collected for destruction, or statement that temperature is incorporated into monitoring equipment internal calculations.” In addition, su bsection (d) (6) (formerly section o) now states: “Monthly average pressure for each month at whic h flow is measured for biogas collected for destruction, or statement that pressure is in corporated into monitoring equipment internal

calculations.”

5810. COST DATA

Commenter Name: Karin Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2167.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The following summarizes API member company feedback on parameters EPA used to develop the cost implications for Subpart C. The responses below represent feedback from 7 U.S. refineries, with capacities ranging fr om 50 to over 300 KBPCD (thousand barrels per calendar day).

Subpart II (Wastewater Treatment) Costs:

1. EPA assumes the following annual costs asso ciated with Subpart II: $871 to collect and organize flow data, $795 for sampling, $361 to calculate and report emissions, and $973 for

labor and calibration kits.

2. API members estimated a cost of appr oximately $10,000 to operate the continuous measurement system, including the cost to calib rate the analyzers monthly and to compile annual emission reports.

3. API members estimated a cost range of $5,000 to $10,000 for colle cting and analyzing COD wastewater samples.

4. API members estimated a cost of approxi mately $100,000 per facili ty to purchase and

install flow meters and ta nk temperature sensors.

5. API members estimated a cost range of $10,000 to $50,000 for additional O&M, reporting, monitoring, and QA/QC associated with the rule.

Response: EPA considers that API member company f eedback substantially overstates the cost petroleum refineries will incur to meet Subpart II reporting requirements.

1. EPA revised its estimated annual costs associat ed with Subpart II, based on the following

unit costs –

a. EPA estimated $480 to collect and organize fl ow rate of wastewater entering each anaerobic wastewater treatment process.

b. EPA estimated $2,600 for determination of COD or BOD 5 concentration entering each anaerobic wastewater treatment pr ocesses, based on weekly sampling and analysis.

c. EPA estimated $200/year for calculating and reporting the annual mass of methane generated and emitted by each anaerobic wastewater treatment process.

d. EPA estimated $900/year for calibrating the gas composition analyzer for each anaerobic wastewater treatment process a nd anaerobic digester from which biogas is recovered and for calculating and repor ting the annual methane emissions from the process.

592. EPA assum ed facilities that re cover biogas from their anae robic wastewater treatment processes and anaerobic digest ers would use a multi-gas non-d ispersive infrared monitor (Inova 1316-1 or equivalent) to analyze the composition of the biogas. According to the product literature for this anal yzer, the instrument is designed to be span-stable and frequent span calibration is not required to maintain accurate gas concentration measurements. Span calibration is recommended once per year.

3. EPA estimated $2,600 for determination of COD or BOD 5 concentration entering each anaerobic wastewater treatment processes. EPA assumed that facilities have existing wastewater sampling and analysis capabiliti es, because they must comply with NPDES discharge permit monitoring re quirements, and would not in cur additional capital costs for sampling equipment.

4. Subpart II does not require tank temperature sensors. EPA assumed that, at petroleum refineries, the flow rate of wastewater entering each anaerobic wastewater treatment process ranged from 0.4 to 8 MGD. EPA a ssumed facilities would install an 8”magnetic flow meter (McCrometer Ultra Mag, 150#, 316 stainless steel with NSF fusion bonded ultraliner, or equivalent). EPA estimated the installed cost for this meter as $7,235. EPA assumed that each refinery would require one new flow meter.

5. EPA estimated that all refineries operate one anaerobic wastewater tr eatment process, but that no refineries recover the methane genera ted from anaerobic wastewater treatment. Consequently, refineries will incur costs fo r monitoring wastewater flow and COD or

BOD 5 concentration but will not incur cost s for monitoring biogas composition or calculating annual methane recovery. EPA estimated that each refinery would expend $3,963 associated with Subpart II.

Documentation for these costs are availabl e in the Memorandum: Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, Industrial Wastewater Treatment Sour ce Category, Costs for Final Rule Monitoring Requirements – Revised, March 5, 2010. [s ee docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0508 for a copy of this document]

Commenter Name: Robert Rouse

Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 51

Comment: EPA did not provide cost estimates for the continuous monitoring requirement. Typical costs of the uninstalled instrument can be as high as $40,000 [footnote: Anderson,

Russell. Preparing Your Landfil l for an Offset Project . SCS Engineers. December 11, 2008.] each with in stalled costs of $60,000[footnote: Continuous Methane Gas Analyzer Bid Summary . Steuben County (NY) Purchasing De partment. PW-08-062-B. 1/26/09] or more each. This compares with periodic monitoring with instruments that can cost $8,000. [See DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 for References ]. There are also difficulties with monitoring digester gas due to its saturated hum idity and impurities. Conditions such as these increase the maintenance on a system and shorten th e life of that system, both of which increase

costs.

Response: For information on the frequency of m onitoring required, please see EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 15. EPA estimated the costs for monitoring the CH 4 concentration of recovered biogas. Please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2167.1, excerpt 4 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2, excerpt 154. EPA notes that monitors are typically installed

60following in-line devices that co ntrol the m oisture and hydrogen sulfide content of the biogas

stream. Facilities install these in-line devices to reduce maintenance requirements and extend the life of biogas destruction devices. They will al so reduce maintenance requirements and they

extend the life of the CH 4 meter. EPA assumed that the CH 4 meter will have a 20-year operating life. See the Memorandum: Greenhouse Gas Repor ting Rule, Industrial Wastewater Treatment Source Category, Costs for Final Rule Monitori ng Requirements – Revised, March 5, 2010 [. [see docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0508 for a copy of this document] .

Commenter Name: Stewart T. Leeth

Commenter Affiliation: Smithfield Foods, Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: In Section 98.353(c), EPA refers to daily biogas monitoring and 98.354(f) and 98.364(d) seem to imply that continuous mon itoring by gas chromatography is required for methane concentration on anaerobic digester systems. (74 Fed. Reg. at 16,705-08). This requirement is unnecessarily burdensome and co stly for food processing plants and livestock producers with anaerobic digester systems. Gas chromatography equipment for methane analysis costs approximately $15,000, requires frequent calibrations, and is generally beyond the operational capabilities of food proc essing plant operators. As a practic al matter, daily analysis is not required because biogas quality does not va ry substantially from day to day or month to month. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) only requires annual testing by an approved laboratory and the California Climate Action Regist ry (CCAR) only requires quarterly analysis by portable hand held equipment. EP A should adopt a similar approach.

Response: For information on the frequency of mon itoring required, please see EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 15.

Because methane is typically the only combustible gas in biogas generated from food processing wastes, weekly monitoring by a combustible ga s monitor (with appropriate temperature and pressure corrections) may be used to cal culate the amount of methane recovered.

Table 1

COMMENTER AFFILIATE DCN
Mark Dopp American Meat Institute (AMI) EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1

Stewart T. Leeth Smithfield Foods, Inc. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553

Table 2

COMMENTER AFFILIATE DCN

James Greenwood Valero Energy Corporation EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0571.1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0571.2

Charles T. Drevna National Petrochemical and Refiners

Association EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.2

Table 3

COMMENTER AFFILIATE DCN

Karin Ritter American Petroleum Institu te (API) EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1

James Greenwood Valero Energy Corporation EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0571.1 William W. Grygar II Anadarko Petroleum Corporation EPA-HQ-O AR-2008-0508-0459.1

61