Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule: EPA's Response 

to Public Comments 

Volume No.:46 

Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater 

Treatment 
June 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. Comments letters and transcripts of the public 

hearings are also available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

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

Due to the size and scope of this rulemaking, EPA 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 Wastewater 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 number 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 another comment letter. Rather than repeat these 

comment excerpts for each commenter, EPA has listed the comment excerpt only once and 

provided a list of all the commenters who submitted 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 provided immediately following each comment 

excerpt. However, in instances where several commenters raised similar or related issues, EPA 

has grouped these comments together and provided a single response after the first comment 

excerpt in the group and referenced this response in the other comment 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 this volume, some comments inevitably overlap 

multiple subject areas. For comments that overlapped two or more subject areas, EPA assigned 

the comment to a single subject category based on an assessment of the principle subject of the 

comment. For this reason, EPA encourages the public to read the other volumes of this 

document with subject areas that may be relevant 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.gov 
v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page

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

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

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

4. SELECTION OF PROPOSED GHG 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................................................................................................................. 59 
1 

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 support 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 centralized 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 publicly 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 centralized 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 wastewater 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 centralized 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: 5 
Comment: NACWA commends the Agency for its comprehensive technical evaluation of the 

greenhouse gas emissions from wastewater treatment 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 determination that no municipal 

wastewater treatment plant will trip the reporting threshold, on the basis of the emissions from 

the treatment process, and therefore should be excluded from the reporting rule. NACWA along 

with the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) are working 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 centralized 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 source category applies to onsite wastewater treatment 

systems at pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, ethanol production plants, petrochemical 

facilities, and petroleum refining facilities.” Yet § 98.351 states that 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 categories. EPA should clarify the sources required to 

report under this subpart by stating that electric generating facilities are excluded from this 

subpart. 

Response: For EPA’s response to comments on clarifying the sources required to report, please 

see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. See §98.358 of the final rule 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 wastewater treatment systems that fall under the 

applicability thresholds of §98.2 and that are located at certain sources (pulp and paper mills, 

food processing plants, ethanol production plants, petrochemical facilities, and petroleum 

refining facilities) are covered under this Subpart. (2) §98.353(a): EPA includes emission factors 

2 
for use in Equation II-1 that are 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 confusion, we recommend that EPA further clarify 

in §98.350(a) that the source category only includes anaerobic systems and that aerobic 

wastewater systems are exempted. We also recommend that EPA clarify that the source 

categories to which this applies are defined elsewhere in Part 98. Our proposed language for 

§98.350(a) is below. “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 industrial processes. This source 

category applies to on-site wastewater treatment systems that include anaerobic treatment and 

that are located at pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, ethanol production plants, 

petrochemical facilities, and petroleum refining facilities as defined elsewhere in this Part.” 

Response: For information on the facility types and anaerobic processes covered 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 Treatment implies a broader applicability than the 

language in the proposed rule. Specifically, the EPA fact sheet states, “The types of facilities that 

contain wastewater treatment systems that could be subject to this reporting rule include, but are 

not limited to, the following, Pulp and paper mills, Food processing plants, Ethanol Production 

plants, Petrochemical facilities, and Petroleum refining 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 covered 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 description that is contained in Subpart II §98.350(a) describes the 

source category as follow: “This source category 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 proposed rule, i.e. Subparts AA, M, J, Y, and X. 

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

over the affected industries. 

Response: EPA has revised the definition of the source 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 Foundation (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 processes 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 wastewater treatment systems (WWTS) 

regarding the state of the science in measurements of pulp and paper WWTS and the types of 

systems included in the rule (dedicated anaerobic WWTS) versus those that appear to be 

excluded (aerobic systems and anaerobic portions of aerated stabilization basins). 

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: 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 Support Document for the Petroleum Refining 

Sector: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases”, GHG emissions from 

wastewater treatment account for 0.43% of the total refinery inventory. 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. 

4 
Commenter 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 CO2e emissions 

from domestic wastewater treatment plants. It should. Large plants are significant producers of 

these gases, especially when you consider the direct evolution of CO2 into the atmosphere from 

aerobic biological treatment where half of the influent BOD (or COD) is converted by bacteria to 

carbon dioxide and energy. We estimate that the total CO2 released by domestic wastewater 

treatment plants as: 5.7 Million tons of CO2 per year. This source was completely overlooked in 

EPA’s Technical Support Document for Wastewater Treatment: Proposed Rule for Mandatory 

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (2/4/09)! A requirement should be set to report this CO2

emission for all domestic wastewater treatment plants 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 percent 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: CO2 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 increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The 2006 IPCC 

Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories states: "Carbon dioxide (CO2) 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 CO2 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 information, 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 requires only annual reporting of GHG by 

wastewater treatment facilities operated by pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, ethanol 

production plants, petrochemical facilities and petroleum 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 which use “trinity systems”, there 

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

5 
use in northeastern cities like Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for over 100 years and are designed to 

handle not only effluent from households, but also industrial waste and rainwater collected from 

surface streets. In Philadelphia, as in many northeastern cities, this industrial waste includes 

organic and chemical wastes from food processing plants as well as petrochemicals from smaller 

“non-point” sources. Failing to author a rule which includes these “domestic” trinity systems 

would prevent the EPA from collecting key data 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 centralized municipal wastewater treatment 

systems, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. 

EPA agrees that municipal wastewater treatment systems may also treat commercial and 

industrial wastewater. As described in the 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 Section II.E of the preamble to the 

final rule, EPA does not believe any municipal treatment system will exceed the threshold, even 

with industrial contributions, due to the use of aerobic treatment processes. 

The rule requires petroleum refineries to report CH4 emissions from anaerobic processes at 

wastewater treatment systems. The rule has the same requirements for ethanol production 

facilities, food processing facilities, and pulp and paper mills that exceed the threshold of 25,000 

CO2e. These are industries that have the potential to exceed the reporting threshold. They have 

both high levels of BOD5 or COD in their wastewater and frequently employ anaerobic treatment 

operations. These two conditions result in the opportunity for increased greenhouse gas 

emissions. EPA has reduced the overall reporting burden by focusing the rule requirements on 

those treatment systems with the highest likelihood of generating greenhouse 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 emissions from only anaerobic wastewater 

treatment processes or from either anaerobic or aerobic wastewater treatment processes should 

be reported. §98.350(a) says to report CH4 emissions from anaerobic wastewater treatment 

processes. However, this statement conflicts with the emissions methodology in §98.353(a). 

§98.353(a) says to calculate CH4 emissions from treatment processes other than digesters using 

equation II-1 and the equation includes a methane conversion factor (MCF) from Table II-1. 

There are four MCF values in Table II-1, two are for anaerobic systems and two are for aerobic 

systems. Also, the monitoring and QA/QC requirements in §98.354(c) only discuss requirements 

for anaerobic systems. 

Response: For information on the anaerobic processes covered by the rule, please see Section 

II.E of the preamble to the final rule. 

6 
Commenter 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 emissions from aerobic wastewater treatment are not subject 

to reporting under this rule because they are generally considered of biogenic origin. Also 

Marathon interprets that anoxic zones in aerobic wastewater treatment plants are not considered 

anaerobic treatment. 

Response: For information on the anaerobic processes covered by the rule, please see Section 

II.E of the preamble to the final rule. 

The commenter’s interpretation is correct. EPA added definitions of anaerobic process, 

anaerobic reactor, anaerobic lagoon, and anaerobic sludge digester to §98.350. These definitions 

clarify that anoxic zones in aerobic 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 that wastewater treatment facility reporting requirement 

apply only to specific industries that may have high levels of organic compounds in the 

wastewater. Duke Energy requests that 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 production plants, petrochemical facilities 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 required to report under subpart 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 whether non-anaerobic industrial wastewater 

treatment systems are subject to the reporting requirements outlined in the proposed GHG 

reporting rule. There is a degree of inconsistency and ambiguity between the Preamble to the 

proposed regulation, the proposed regulation itself, and the Technical Support Document For 

Wastewater Treatment: Proposed Rule For Mandatory Reporting Of Greenhouse Gasses. See 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508. Specifically, the Preamble to the proposed regulation states: Owners 

and operators of the following facilities and supply operations would submit annual GHG 

emission reports under the proposal: . . . Any facility that emits 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more 

7 
8 

per year in combined emissions from stationary fuel combustion units, miscellaneous use of 

carbonates and all of the source categories listed below that are located at the facility in any 

calendar year starting in 2010. For these facilities, the GHG emission report would cover all 

source categories for which calculation 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 concerning wastewater treatment systems, Section 

V(II)(1) states: An industrial wastewater treatment system is a system located at an industrial 

facility which includes the collection of processes that treat or remove pollutants and 

contaminants, such as soluble organic matter, suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, and 

chemicals from waters released from industrial processes. . . . Industrial wastewater systems that 

rely on microbial activity to degrade organic compounds under anaerobic conditions are sources 

of CH4 . . . . 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 acknowledges that anaerobic systems are sources of 

CH4, the last sentence of the quoted passage could be interpreted to include non-anaerobic 

treatment systems at an industrial facility as well. Later, in discussing the proposed monitoring 

methods, the Preamble identifies proposed monitoring methods for "CH4 emissions from 

industrial wastewater treatment system components other than digesters," as well as proposed 

monitoring methods for "CH4 Generation from Anaerobic Digesters." 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,560. 

Again, by including two separate methodologies in this section of the Preamble, the quoted text 

is suggestive that non-anaerobic 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 industrial processes." 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,704. Moreover, 40 

C.F.R.§ 98.351 dictates, "You must report GHG emissions 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 CH4 emissions from anaerobic 

wastewater treatment processes, . . . ." Id. This language suggests that non-anaerobic treatment 

processes are not included in the reporting requirements. Furthermore, 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 language of the proposed rule, the requirements 

apply only to the quantity of COD treated anaerobically, facilities with anaerobic treatment 

systems, and facilities with oil/water separators. Id. It remains unclear whether non-anaerobic 

industrial wastewater systems, excluding oil/water separators, are subject to the proposed 

reporting requirements. Lastly, in examining the Technical Support Document For Wastewater 

Treatment: Proposed Rule For Mandatory Reporting Of Greenhouse Gasses, Section 6.1 outlines 

the methodologies for calculating methane generation from domestic wastewater treatment and 

from industrial wastewater treatment; whereas Section 6.2 outlines the methodology for 

calculating methane combustion at anaerobic digesters. However, neither section adequately 

addresses the specific types of non-anaerobic industrial wastewater systems, if any, that are 

subject to the reporting requirements under the proposed regulation. Assuming that a facility 

contains an industrial wastewater treatment process 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 proposed provisions of the regulation, and the 

Technical Support Document fail to clarify if non-anaerobic wastewater treatment systems are 

obligated to report GHG emissions when the various provisions are read in conjunction with one 

another. 
Response: For information on the facility types required 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 Production. However, in the Industrial 

Wastewater Treatment Sources Fact Sheet in the EPA Website, it states "facilities subject to this 

reporting rule, include but are not limited to, the following:" then lists the source categories. This 

implies that Iron and Steel Production 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 required to report under subpart 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 prescribes a broad definition of what constitutes a 

wastewater treatment plant (WWTP): “the collection of all processes that treat or remove 

pollutants and contaminants...”. Many industrial facilities subject to the Proposed Rule have 

wastewater treatment plants that could be affected using this broad applicability language. In 

particular, Georgia mining facilities 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 processes 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 greenhouse gas emissions, or use such processes only to 

treat commingled domestic sewage. In kaolin processing, WWTPs typically involve pH 

adjustment and settling ponds used to remove dissolved solids from an effluent stream prior to 

discharge. The nature of kaolin processing dictates that its effluent streams do not contain 

meaningful quantities of digestible organic material. To avoid inadvertently requiring a large 

number of minor systems to collect effluent data and calculate emissions for wastewater systems 

that have little or no potential to emit greenhouse gases outside of commingled sanitary sewage 

loads, the final rule should include a more precise 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 streams containing industrial organic 

waste is not included in the source category. 

9 
Response: For information on anaerobic processes covered 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 subject to reporting under Subpart II. In addition, only anaerobic 

reactors, anaerobic lagoons, and anaerobic sludge digesters are considered anaerobic treatment 

for the purpose of this rule. 

Commenter Name: Juanita M. Bursley 

Commenter Affiliation: GrafTech International Holdings Inc. Company (GrafTech) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0686.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 34 

Comment: GrafTech believes this subpart is very confusing, as written, as it appears the rule, 

preamble and Fact Sheet summary document for this subpart have significant discrepancies that 

affect applicability assessments. The EPA Fact Sheet document is labeled “Industrial Wastewater 

Treatment Sources” and summarizes that “facilities that contain an industrial wastewater 

treatment process” and furthermore, indicates that only “anaerobic wastewater treatment systems 

at industrial facilities” are included. This would imply, but does not state explicitly, 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 facilities covered under this subpart “include, but are not limited, to the 

following”, after which five specific industries 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 processes that treat. .waters released from 

industrial processes. This language would also appear to exclude anaerobic wastewater treatment 

systems at industrial facilities that treat only sanitary wastewater, i.e., not wastewater discharged 

from an industrial process. But, again, this exclusion 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 processing plants, methanol production plants, 

petrochemical facilities, and petroleum refining facilities”. Since the phrase “include, 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” before listing these five 

specific industries. The preamble also does not seem to limit this subpart to only anaerobic 

systems, which would clearly broaden the applicability to all wastewater 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 conditions are sources of 

CH4.” Furthermore, the preamble states that “only wastewater treatment process emission to be 

reported in this rule are those from onsite wastewater treatment located at industrial facilities...”, 

again with no specific limitations to only include anaerobic systems and to only include 

treatment systems receiving process/industrial wastewaters, i.e. not receiving only sanitary 

wastewaters. The fact that publicly owned treatment 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 CH4 emissions 

from anaerobic sanitary wastewater treatment systems at industrial facilities under 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 specific exclusion covering anaerobic sanitary 

wastewater treatment systems, such as septic tanks, at industrial facilities. GrafTech believes that 

10 
centralized domestic wastewater treatment plants with anaerobic systems likely emit significant 

quantities of CH4 in comparison to industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, 

GrafTech recommends that §98.350 of the rule and the supporting documents should clearly 

exempt all sanitary treatment systems at industrial facilities, including the exclusion 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 considered under this 

rule.

Response: For information on the anaerobic processes 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 that municipal wastewater treatment plants are 

exempted. Please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule for more information. EPA 

has revised §98.350 to explicitly exclude both municipal wastewater treatment plants and 

separate treatment of sanitary wastewater at industrial 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 – Anaerobic Treatment Systems (except 

Digesters) The Technical Support Document (TSD) says that denitrification results from the 

anaerobic treatment of wastewater. However, anaerobic treatment typically results in little 

denitrification. For denitrification, anoxic treatment is typically used. Anoxic conditions are 

defined as environments in which dissolved oxygen is not present in the water and nitrate (NO3) 

is used by the microorganisms as the electron acceptor. Under these conditions, the nitrate is 

converted to nitrogen (N2) and released to the atmosphere as a gas. The microorganisms use the 

oxygen as they degrade carbon sources and release CO2 to atmosphere. In contrast, anaerobic 

conditions are defined as environments in which dissolved oxygen is not present in the water and 

sulfur compounds (such as sulfate SO4 -2) are used as the electron acceptors. Under anaerobic 

conditions, sulfur (S), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and other sulfur-containing compounds such as 

mercaptans are formed. This distinction is important because methane production is 

characteristic of anaerobic treatment, not anoxic treatment. EPA has proposed to require that all 

anaerobic treatment systems must calculate methane production via Equation II-1. Given the 

confusion between anoxic and anaerobic, EPA should 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 vastly overstate the GHG emissions. The clarifications should be 

made with the following changes: 98.6 Aerobic treatment means the treatment of wastewater 

with supplemental oxygen feed by the microbial reduction of complex organic compounds to 

CO2. Anaerobic treatment means the treatment of wastewater without supplemental oxygen feed 

by the microbial reduction of complex organic compounds to CO2 and CH4. Anaerobic treatment 

specifically excludes Anoxic treatment. Anoxic treatment means the treatment of wastewater 

without supplemental oxygen feed by the microbial reduction of complex organic compounds to 

CO2. 

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

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

11 
first be handled aerobically “where ammonia (NH3) or organic nitrogen is converted to nitrates 

and nitrites (nitrification), and then handled anaerobically where the nitrates and nitrites are 

reduced to nitrogen gas (N2), with intermediate production of N2O and nitric oxide 

(NO) (denitrification).” However, EPA agrees with the commenter that biological denitrification 

is typically accomplished under anoxic conditions, rather than anaerobic conditions. 

EPA has not provided definitions for aerobic or anoxic treatment because we have clarified that 

only anaerobic processes are covered 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 Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 39 

Comment: The NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Graphite EHS Committee believes that 

centralized domestic wastewater treatment plants with anaerobic systems likely emit significant 

quantities of methane in comparison to industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the 

NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Graphite EHS Committee recommends that §98.350 of the rule 

and the supporting documents should clearly exempt all sanitary treatment systems at industrial 

facilities, including the exclusion 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 considered under this rule. 

Response: For information on the exclusion of municipal wastewater treatment plants and 

separate treatment of sanitary wastewater at industrial facilities, please see Section II.E of the 

preamble to the final rule. 

Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor 

Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufacturers 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 applicability to all wastewater 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 conditions are sources of 

CH4." Furthermore, the preamble states that "only wastewater treatment process emission to be 

reported in this rule are those from onsite wastewater treatment located at industrial facilities...", 

again with no specific limitations to only include anaerobic systems and to only include 

treatment systems receiving process/industrial wastewaters, i.e. not receiving only sanitary 

wastewaters. The fact that publicly owned treatment 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 CH4 emissions 

from anaerobic sanitary wastewater treatment systems at industrial facilities under 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 

12 
making such an assessment and there is no specific exclusion covering anaerobic sanitary 

wastewater treatment systems at industrial facilities. 

Response: For information on the exclusion of municipal wastewater treatment plants and 

separate treatment of sanitary wastewater at industrial facilities, please see Section II.E of the 

preamble to the final rule. 

Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor 

Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 37 

Comment: The rule also specifies that this "source category applies to on-site wastewater 

treatment systems at pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, methanol production plants, 

petrochemical facilities, and petroleum refining facilities". Since the phrase "include, 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" before listing these five 

specific industries. 

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

the preamble to the final rule. 

Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor 

Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufacturers 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 this subpart "include, 

but are not limited, to the following", after which five specific industries 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 processes that treat...waters 

released from industrial processes. This language would also appear to exclude anaerobic 

wastewater treatment systems at industrial facilities that treat only sanitary 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 separate treatment of sanitary wastewater at 

industrial facilities, 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: 34 

Comment: The agency should address the reporting of GHG emissions from surface 

impoundments if these are subject to Subpart II. 

13 
Response: For information on the anaerobic processes 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 Technical 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, petrochemical, and petroleum refining facilities.” Although it is 

understood that the list defined is not meant to be all-inclusive of possible sources, it is also 

believed that it is not EPA’s intent to regulate insignificant GHG sources such as small pumpand-treat systems for groundwater contaminants or oil/water separators. We recommend to EPA 

to set a capacity threshold for commercial-size units that are excluded from the source category.

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

the final rule of CO2 emissions from oil/water separators, please see Section II.E of the preamble 

to the final rule. 

With regard to the reporting threshold for industrial wastewater treatment, facilities that meet the 

source category definition of subpart II, must report if their aggregate emissions from all 

applicable source categories in the rule meet the 25,000 tons CO2e 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 wastewater treatment facilities serving 

commercial establishments, such as food repackaging warehouses, are included in the 

Wastewater Treatment source category. 

Response: For information on the facility types covered 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 

14 
Comment: This source category does not include domestic wastewater treatment plants which 

are more significant sources in Wisconsin than the required industrial sources. Please explain 

why municipal wastewater treatment facilities are not included. 

Response: For information on the exclusion of municipal 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 package treatmentplants servicing apartment 

complexes and other residential facilities are excluded from the Wastewater Treatment source 

category. 

Response: For information on the facility types required to report under Subpart II, please see 

Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. 

Package treatment plants servicing apartment complexes and other residential 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 Wastewater Treatment Source Category (Subpart II). The 

Preamble to the proposed rule states (16560): 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 production, petrochemical, and 

petroleum refining facilities. Does this mean that only the sources listed above, viz., pulp and 

paper, food processing, ethanol production, petrochemical, and petroleum refining facilities, are 

subject to Subpart II? It is critical for the regulated community to understand exactly what the 

agency is proposing in this rule in order for industrial and commercial representatives 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-propose this source category once it is better defined in order to ensure proper 

public input. We suggest that Subpart 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 required to report under Subpart II, please see 

Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. 

15 
Commenter 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 description that is contained in Subpart II, proposed Section 98.350 

(a) describes the source category as follow: “This source category 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 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 required 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 reporting requirements for wastewater treatment systems. 

The definition of the applicable source category in § 98.350 would appear to limit reporting 

under this subpart to systems at pulp and paper 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 calculation 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 includes the iron and steel source 

category. We interpret this cross-reference to relate only to the threshold reporting value for the 

listed source categories and not to imply that GHG reporting is required for wastewater treatment 

processes in iron and steel facilities. We respectfully request clarification 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 required to report under Subpart II, please see 

Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. 

Commenter Name: Michael Garvin 

Commenter Affiliation: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0959.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 12 

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

conflict with each other in terms of when GHG emissions 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 required for to be included “...at 

16 
pulp and paper mills, food processing plants, ethanol production plants, petrochemical facilities, 

and petroleum refining facilities.” 

Response: For information on the facility types required 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 decision in Subpart II to define the wastewater source 

category as proposed. EPA has identified the critical wastewater based emissions categories 

appropriately subject to GHG reporting. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their support of EPA’s decision to include greenhouse 

gas emissions from the industrial facility types in the final rule. For further discussion of EPA’s 

revisions to the source category definition to clarify 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 Manufacturers 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 and Fact Sheet summary document 

for this subpart have significant discrepancies that affect applicability assessments. The EPA 

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

"facilities that contain an industrial wastewater treatment process" and furthermore, indicates that 

only "anaerobic wastewater treatment systems at industrial facilities" are included. This would 

imply, but does not state explicitly, 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. 

Response: For information on the exclusion of separate treatment of sanitary wastewater at 

industrial facilities, please see Section II.E of the preamble 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 treatment 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 

17 
is exclusive and therefore Subpart II applies to on-site wastewater treatment systems only at 

those types of facilities. However, the preamble 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 and paper, . . ...". EPA has made 

information sheets on each source category available on their website. The information sheet for 

Subpart II states, "The types of facilities that contain 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)." However, the proposed rule requires the following to be reported: CH4from 

anaerobic wastewater treatment processes (§98.352(a)), CO2 from oil/water separators at 

refineries (§98.352(b)), and CO2, CH4, and N2O from stationary combustion devices. INEOS 

Fluor submits that facilities exist which contain wastewater treatment systems and meet the 

requirements of either §98.2(a)(1) or (2) that are not anaerobic wastewater 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 that 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 CH4 mass emissions from systems other than digesters 

using Equation II-1 of this section." It appears that the intent of §98.353(a) is that it applies to 

"anaerobic systems Other than digesters", but that is not specified in the rule, preamble, or 

applicable information sheet and therefore could be interpreted as being 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 processes at all facilities 

that meet the requirements of §98.2(a)(1) or (2) that 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 such 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 CO2 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 interpreted to include covered oil/water separators, 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 CO2 emissions from oil/water 

separators, please Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. 

18 
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: 216 

Comment: §98.352(b). §98.352(b) requires refineries to report CO2 emissions from oil/water 

separators. Oil/water separator as defined in §98.6 means equipment used to routinely handle 

oily-water streams, including gravity separators or ponds and air 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 CO2 emissions 

from the degradation of hydrocarbons. 

Response: With regard to EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO2 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 monthly sampling of digester gas CH4 content as an 

alternative to a continuous composition analyzer.” (p. 16560) API comments: API requests 

specific exclusion of wastewater treatment operations and oil/water separators at refineries. 

Anaerobic wastewater treatment is extremely rare, and estimating CH4 emissions based on a 

conversion of VOC emissions from oil/water separators is not appropriate. GHG emissions from 

these operations at refineries are extremely small. The requirement as provided in the MRR 

would impact a large number of extremely small operations. The methodology, monitoring, 

reporting, and QA requirements are extreme for such very small emission sources. EPA requests 

comment on “the advantages and disadvantages of using these tools [e.g. National Council of Air 

and Stream Improvement's GHG Calculation 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 contribution is extremely small and does not justify the 

monitoring, reporting, and QA burden. As a result, a tool is not needed to assist refineries in 

reporting emissions from these operations. 

Response: With regard to EPA’s decision to remove the oil/water separator reporting 

requirements because it expects no direct emissions of CO2, 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 conclusion that including GHG emissions for wastewater 

treatment at certain source categories is justified. 

19 
Commenter 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 CO2 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 Emissions – Oil/Water Separators EPA has singled-out 

oil/water separators for GHG reporting without providing justification as to why these units 

demand special attention. Based on our information, the GHG emissions from a typical oil/water 

separator at a refinery are insignificant and should not be identified 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 CO2 emissions would be only 

50 metric ton/year from a covered separator.3 Emissions from an uncovered separator (which are 

very rare in the industry today) 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 registry 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 CO2 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 98.353(b). EPA defines the oil/water separator very 

broadly as “equipment used to routinely handle oily-water streams, including gravity separators 

or ponds and air flotation systems.” To define the oil/water separator as any equipment used to 

routinely handle oily-water streams would suggest that fugitive emissions from the dozens or 

more pieces of equipment separating oil and water upstream of the 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 separator 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 

20 
separator consists of not only the separation unit but also the forebay and other separator basins, 

skimmers, weirs, grit chambers, sludge hoppers, and bar screens that are located directly after the 

individual drain system and prior to additional treatment units such as an air flotation unit, 

clarifier, or biological treatment unit. Examples of an oil-water or organic-water separator 

include, but are not limited to, an American Petroleum Institute separator, parallel-plate 

interceptor, and corrugated-plate interceptor with the associated ancillary equipment. 

Response: With regard to EPA’s exclusion of indirect CO2 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 determine 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 categories covered by Subpart II that use the anaerobic processes covered 

by Subpart II must estimate greenhouse gas emissions using procedures and equations specified 

by the rule. Facilities that operate anaerobic wastewater treatment processes must monitor the 

influent COD or BOD5 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 providing additional outreach materials and we are developing 

guidance and screening tools to help industrial wastewater treatment system operators implement 

the reporting requirement 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 wastewater treatment processes that specifically employ anaerobic 

biological treatment processes, such as anaerobic 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 CH4 emissions from anaerobic wastewater treatment 

processes... b. §98.353 Calculating GHG emissions. The flow and COD should reflect the 

wastewater treated anaerobically on site in anaerobic systems such as lagoons. The terminologies 

21 
“anaerobic wastewater treatment processes” and “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 specifically designed to utilize anaerobic 

microorganisms to degrade organic matter. However, Table II-1 suggests that reporting is also 

required for aerobic treatment systems, and different 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 this interpretation of the proposed rule. 

Response: AF&PA is correct to interpret the proposed 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 Manufacturers 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 contains a wastewater treatment process 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 Section 98.351 be revised to state: “You must report 

GHG emissions 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) ‘at pulp and paper mills, food 

processing plants, ethanol production plants, petrochemical facilities, 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 CO2 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 CH4 emissions and destruction from biogas 

collection and combustion systems be reported. Calculations of CO2 emissions from digester gas 

22 
combustion at stationary sources (which do not include 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 CO2

emissions only from pilot gas and other auxiliary fuels combusted in the flare, as specified in 

Subpart C of this part. Do not include CO2 emissions resulting from the combustion of anaerobic 

digester gas. However, Subpart C does not identify how to calculate emissions from flares and 

does not include flares in the list of equipment that is considered ”stationary fuel combustion 

sources“ (§98.30(a)), a position with which ACC fully 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 inappropriate. 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 combustion of anaerobic digester gas which is not to be reported as 

an anthropogenic emission under §98.352(c). It would be inconsistent and inappropriate 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 excluded 

from detailed calculations because they are considered de minimis emissions as we discuss 

elsewhere in these comments. For these reasons, EPA should remove the requirement to report 

CO2 emissions from flares at wastewater treatment plants that are subject to reporting under 

Subpart II. 

Response: For information on the reporting of emissions 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 CO2 emissions from oil/water separators. 98. 

EPA’s Technical Support Document for Wastewater 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 indirect emissions of CO2 that are 

considered anthropogenic.” No reason is given for this statement. Frankly, oil/water separators at 

petroleum refineries merely separate oil from water- there is no CO2 generation. The requirement 

for reporting of CO2 emissions should be dropped. 

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion of CO2 emissions from oil/water separators at 

petroleum refineries from the final rule, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. 

23 
Commenter 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 CO2 generated from the destruction of CH4 in wastewater processes is not considered 

anthropogenic. The proposed rule does not adequately or consistently describe appropriate 

destruction mechanisms. In the proposed rule destruction of CH4 is referred to in §98.352 part (c) 

only by flaring, but in the preamble to the proposed rule, p 16560, the following language is 

provided: In some systems, the biogas (primarily CH4) generated by anaerobic digestion of 

organic matter is captured and destroyed by flaring and/or energy recovery. IPCC describes the 

following: “Anaerobic reactors treating industrial effluents are usually linked with the recovery 

of the generated CH4 for energy”[IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, 

Volume 5: waste, chapter 6 Wastewater treatment, p 6.20.], inferring further that CH4 capture 

and consumption can occur by means other than flaring. We recommend that language in the rule 

be included to clarify that CH4 destruction can occur through biogas consumption by burning in 

flares or stationary combustion devices, including but not limited to, boilers, turbines, or other 

chemical energy extraction devices, and that CO2 emissions resulting from combustion in these 

scenarios be excluded from mandatory reporting. 

Response: For information on the reporting of emissions 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 CO2

emissions only from pilot gas and other auxiliary fuels combusted in the flare, as specified in 

Subpart C of this part. Do not include CO2 emissions resulting from the combustion of anaerobic 

digester gas. However, Subpart C does not identify how to calculate emissions from flares and 

does not include flares in the list of equipment that is considered “stationary fuel combustion 

sources” (98.30(a)). 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 inappropriate. 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 combustion of anaerobic 

digester gas which is not to be reported as an anthropogenic emission under 98.352(c). It would 

be inconsistent and inappropriate 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 CO2 emissions from flares at wastewater 

treatment plants that are subject to reporting under Subpart II. 

Response: For information on the reporting of emissions from digester gas combustion, please 

see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 28. EPA revised the requirements 

for reporting emissions from combustion of biogas derived from anaerobic processes. As 

promulgated, under §98.352(c) facilities are required to report CH4 emissions and CH4 

24 
destruction resulting from biogas collection and biogas destruction devices. Facilities are not 

required to calculate or report the CO2 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 uncovered 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 CO2 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 separators 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/water separators for GHG reporting without providing 

justification as to why these units demand special attention. 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 highlighting the need for a de minimis reporting threshold provision 

in the rule. For a typical 150,000 BPD refinery, the wastewater flow will be approximately 5 

MGD. Based on Equation II-2, the CO2 emissions would be only 50 metric ton/year from a 

covered separator. Emissions from an uncovered separator (which are very rare in the industry 

today) would be 1,687 MTPY. These represent less than 0.003% and less than 0.1% of the 

typical refinery’s emissions of 2,000,000 MTPY. 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 an inventory 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: For information on EPA’s exclusion of CO2 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 

25 
Comment: EPA should remove emission factor references for well managed and not well 

managed centralized aerobic treatment systems from the reporting rule Table II-1 and clarify 

only methane from anaerobic treatment systems need to be reported. GP agrees with EPA that 

methane emissions from only anaerobic wastewater treatment systems should be reported under 

this rule { 98.352(a) }. However, it is unclear why EPA has included emission factors in Table 

II-1 for two types of centralized aerobic wastewater 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 anaerobic digesters you need to report the amount 

of CH4 emissions (or volume of CH4 destroyed in vent CH4 to a flare) but not count CO2

emissions from a control devise. However if you use the CH4 in a boiler to produce steam for an 

on-site process you need to include the CO2 emission from the boiler. Is this correct, if so it 

seems inconsistent since it would discourage the use of CH4 from a digester for on-site 

combustion. 

Response: Combustion of biogas CH4 generated in anaerobic processes (such as anaerobic 

sludge digesters) in a boiler to produce steam is covered under Subpart C, Stationary Fuel 

Combustion Sources of the October 2009 Final Rule. Subpart C requires reporters to determine 

and report biogenic CO2 emissions separately from fossil-fuel derived CO2 emissions. EPA notes 

that biogenic CO2 emissions resulting from combustion of biogas CH4 in a boiler are not 

included in the calculation of the CO2 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 CO2 emissions. The commenter is correct that if the 

recovered biogas CH4 is combusted in a flare, Subpart II does not require reporting the resulting 

biogenic CO2 emissions. 

4. SELECTION OF PROPOSED GHG EMISSIONS CALCULATION AND 

MONITORING METHODS 

Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor 

Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 40 

Comment: The NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Graphite EHS Committee 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 

26 
collection 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 

systems to install such monitoring equipment for 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 concentration. EPA notes that the proposed rule 

required facilities to monitor COD concentration in the influent wastewater, not BOD5. EPA 

disagrees that it had assumed all facilities collect COD concentration in the influent and that the 

data already exist. EPA included costs in the proposed 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 flexibility to monitor for either BOD5 or COD, and the applicability of 

Subpart II to separate treatment of sanitary wastewater at industrial facilities, please see Section 

II.E of the preamble to the final rule. 

Commenter Name: Juanita M. Bursley 

Commenter Affiliation: GrafTech International Holdings 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 collection 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 systems to install such monitoring equipment for the 

purpose of collecting data for emissions calculations. 

Response: With regard to the costs to monitor influent flow and BOD or COD concentration, 

please see the response to EPA-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 the 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 organic 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 overhead sprinklers. Anaerobic conditions within 

the reservoirs result in emissions of methane. The proposed method of calculating methane 

emissions from wastewater treatment lagoons, as specified in Subpart II, assumes that all of the 

27 
organic material present in the wastewater (represented by the Chemical Oxygen Demand) 

entering the lagoon is available for degradation to produce methane. The extent to which this 

quantity of organic matter will actually degrade anaerobically to methane, indicated by the 

Methane Correction Factor (MCF), depends in part upon the design of the lagoon. However, the 

amount of organic material that actually degrades 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 matter will remain in the wastewater when it is 

discharged and will not be anaerobically degraded to produce methane. For a sugar mill 

wastewater system, where the wastewater is used to irrigate the sugarcane crop, the residence 

time in the reservoir is relatively short (less than 24 hours). Accordingly COD levels in the 

wastewater flowing into the reservoir may be reduced by less than 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 wastewater flows through a treatment lagoon and is 

subsequently discharged into an irrigation system before all organic 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 effluent streams. A&B recommends that the 

proposed Subpart II be modified accordingly. 

Response: Sugar mill facilities are not included in the definition of Food Processing Facility, are 

not covered under Subpart II, and therefore are not required 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., available 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 reflects a shorter residence time. A factor of 0.8 

reflects that 80% of the organic load is treated anaerobically, 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 capture 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 matter at a high load and fast flow rate. Industrial wastewater 

treatment facilities, especially those associated with food processing plants, may opt for 

anaerobic reactors, which are more appropriate for high flow rate influent. Section V subpart M. 

Food Processing defers to subpart II. Wastewater Treatment for GHG 2 Mandatory Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting, 40 CFR Part 98, Federal Register Vol 74, No 68, April 10, 2009 3 IPCC 

guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Volume 5: waste, chapter 6 Wastewater 

treatment emission reporting requirements; therefore, anaerobic reactors appear to be within the 

28 
scope of subpart II. Section V subpart II. Wastewater Treatment appears to inadequately describe 

anaerobic processes, referring only to “anaerobic digestion” in §98.353. IPCC acknowledges 

several types of anaerobic processes, 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” are described. However, it is unclear whether the 

term “digestion” is being used generically to describe anaerobic processes, or whether a 

distinction between digesters and reactors is intended. Table II-1 p 16706 of the proposed rule 

provides an MCF for “anaerobic deep lagoon, anaerobic reactor...”, but is the 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 anaerobic digestion processes. We 

recommend including consideration of high-rate anaerobic reactors along with language 

describing anaerobic digesters as in “anaerobic digester or reactor” where appropriate in subpart 

II. Wastewater Treatment, or providing explicit clarification that “digester” is a generic term 

referring to anaerobic processes that capture biogas inclusive of anaerobic reactors. 

Response: For information on anaerobic processes covered 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 material entering anaerobic wastewater treatment and calculate the 

annual mass of CH4 generated. EPA also clarified that for each anaerobic process (such as 

anaerobic digester, reactor, or lagoon) from which biogas is recovered, facilities must measure 

the flow rate of recovered biogas and the biogas CH4 concentration, and must calculate the 

annual mass of CH4 recovered. Please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule for a 

discussion of why anaerobic digesters are not required to estimate CH4 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 should be able to rely on simplified measurements 

to calculate emissions. RFA supports EPA developing a tool to assist reporters in calculating 

emissions from wastewater treatment as noted 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 landfills and wastewater treatment. We recognize the 

value of providing additional outreach materials and we are developing guidance and screening 

tools to help industrial wastewater treatment 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 

29 
Comment: In addition to combustion and landfills, wastewater may be the most common source 

of GHGs found at a facility. We encourage the development of screening tools for applicability 

determination and emission calculation tools. 

Response: We recognize the value of providing additional outreach materials and we are 

developing guidance and screening tools to help 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 should be able to rely on simplified measurements 

to calculate emissions. 

Response: With regard to the emissions calculation approach in Subpart II, please see the 

response at EPA-HQ-OAR-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 treatment emissions be calculated from a weekly 

analysis of flow and chemical oxygen demand (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 wastewater facilities. To avoid imposing redundant financial and 

labor burdens, AMI urges EPA to require BOD5 use instead of COD in the calculation of GHG 

emissions from meat industry wastewater treatment 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 frequency requirement should be the same as what is 

required under a facility's existing NPDES permit conditions. 

Response: With regard to providing flexibility to monitor for either BOD5 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-weighted 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 mean flow rate for a 24-hour sampling period. Similarly, EPA considered allowing 

facilities to collect grab samples if the wastewater influent to the anaerobic wastewater treatment 

process represents the discharge from a well-mixed wastewater storage unit (tank or pond), such 

that the COD or BOD5 concentration of the wastestream does not vary in a 24-hour period. 

However, establishing that these conditions are met would require the facility 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 between samples with sample volume proportional to 

stream flow, or constant sample volume with time interval between samples proportional to 

stream flow). Facilities are required 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 frequency to conform to a facility’s NPDES permit 

conditions. NPDES permits typically only require sampling following treatment prior to 

discharge. Treated effluent characteristics do not vary significantly over small time intervals, 

whereas wastewater characteristics prior to treatment can be highly variable over small time 

intervals. EPA has determined that the sampling methods contained in the rule are the least 

burdensome while still resulting in an accurate estimate of greenhouse gas emissions from 

wastewater treatment processes for 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 that wastewater treatment emissions 

be calculated from a weekly analysis of flow 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 monitored at meat industry wastewater facilities. To avoid unnecessary 

duplication and additional financial 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 BOD5 in emissions calculations, 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. 

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 same sampling frequency as is required under a 

31 
facility’s existing NPDES permit conditions thus minimizing additional financial and personnel 

encumbrance. In addition to analyzing BOD, Tyson urges EPA to consider the calculation 

methodology used within “Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse” [Footnote: 

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., “WASTEWATER ENGINEERING 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 determine methane emissions generated from 

anaerobic activity. 

Response: With regard to the use of BOD5 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 BOD5, EPA believes that the approach required by the 

final rule results in an accurate estimation 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 BOD5 or COD. EPA does not require 

reporters to determine BODL because use of the emissions factors in Table II-1 in the calculation 

for BOD5 is less burdensome and provides enough accuracy 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 organic loads is excessive given the small 

amounts of methane emitted from wastewater treatment plants. Monthly monitoring is sufficient 

to provide an adequate characterization of these loads. 

Response: EPA disagrees that weekly monitoring is excessive. BOD5 or COD values can be 

highly variable in influent waste 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 BOD5 or COD (rather than requiring COD only, as 

proposed), as well as calculating emissions rather 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 analysis of methane generated by anaerobic 

digesters systems are not completely clear with respect to methodologies and frequencies, but 

appear to be overly burdensome. Quarterly sampling and analysis should be specified. 

Response: Monitoring requirements for anaerobic digesters and other anaerobic processes from 

which biogas is recovered, include monitoring of gas composition and flow, as described in 

32 
Section 98.354 (e) through (i). If a facility has equipment 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 should be quarterly. Allowing either continuous or 

weekly monitoring for methane concentration will minimize costs while maximizing the 

accuracy of emissions calculations. Anaerobic digester systems are typically equipped with 

biogas flow meters; therefore, requiring continuous flow monitoring places 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 requiring monthly sampling of digester 

gas CH4 content as an alternative to a continuous composition analyzer. We strongly support the 

proposed options to measure the methane content monthly or less frequently based on a 

statistical demonstration of the variability. There are a number of reasons why these options are 

preferable to continuous monitoring: (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 treatment technologies. EPA did not provide cost 

estimates for the continuous monitoring of methane. Typical costs of the uninstalled instrument 

can be as high as $40,000 [Footnote: Anderson, Russell. 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 Bid Summary. Steuben County (NY) Purchasing 

Department. PW-08-062-B. 1/26/09.] or more each. In contrast, periodic 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 Technology Fact Sheet: Anaerobic Lagoons. 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 systems. 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 factors reduce the impact from influent changes and 

ensure more consistent, and hence effective, treatment. This also ensures that biogas production 

and characteristics (e.g., methane content) are relatively consistent and will vary over days rather 

than hours. For these reasons, EPA should allow for the monitoring of methane concentration in 

anaerobic digester gas to be either (i) monthly or (ii) less frequently based on a statistical 

analysis of the composition data. 

Response: EPA has revised the rule to allow either continuous or weekly monitoring for 

methane concentration. Allowing either continuous or weekly monitoring for methane 

concentration will minimize costs while maximizing the accuracy of emissions calculations. 

Weekly monitoring does not substantially increase costs compared to monthly monitoring, but 

will improve the accuracy of methane emission estimates. For information on monitoring 

33 
requirements 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) monitor, 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-controlled, NEMA enclosure, protected from the 

elements. EPA further assumed that the monitor would be installed following in-line devices that 

control the moisture and hydrogen sulfide content of the biogas stream. 

EPA assumed that the capital equipment lifetime was 20 years and used that lifetime and an 

interest rate of 7 percent to annualize capital costs. EPA further 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 would not result in negative economic impacts on the 

facilities required to monitor CH4 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 flotation units as it is inconsistent with the API Compendium. 

According to the proposed 2009 revisions to the API Compendium, refinery wastewater streams 

do not contain CO2 (Introduction to Chapter 6 of the 2009 revisions). Any emissions from the 

control of oil water separators (like thermal oxidizers) 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 Compendium does not address 

emissions from oil water separators because the streams do not contain significant amounts of 

CO-). This is a de minimis source and the effort required to estimate emissions does not equal 

the benefit received. Marathon stresses 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 CO2 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 petroleum refineries have been included for 

reporting as the CO2 emissions are considered anthropogenic emissions (Preamble, p.581). The 

2009 API Compendium currently includes 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, particularly when considering the burden for 

measurement, monitoring, reporting, and QA. 

34 
Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO2 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 CH4, which is the basis of the 0.6 conversion 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 considers this conversion from national 

inventories). 

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO2 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 proposed rule, p 16704 §98.353 Calculating GHG 

emissions, Equation II-1 is stated to express net methane emissions, but only describes methane 

generation and does not include a consumption term for CH4. Emissions are the difference 

between generation and consumption. While the section does offer CH4 consumption 

(destruction of CH4) 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 calculate 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 anaerobic 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 total mass balance for emissions that accounts for both generation 

and consumption. In addition, the methane 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 this is consistent with the equation presented 

under section 6.1 of the EPA TSD, it is inconsistent with the IPCC 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 other 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 (using equation II-3), methane recovered (using 

equation II-4), leakage from methane recovery systems (using equation II-5), and methane 

35 
emissions from systems with methane recovery (using equation II-6) accounting for both 

recovery efficiency and destruction. 

For facilities that recover generated 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. Facilities must report emissions based on these 

measurements, accounting for the recovery efficiency (that is, gas that leaks 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 processes collect all generated biogas and will report 

emissions based on measured gas recovery. Their reported emissions are not based on the 

influent organic carbon. For this reason, accounting 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 generated biogas and will report emissions based on 

measured gas recovery. Again, their reported emissions are not based on the influent organic 

carbon and accounting for organic carbon incorporated into sludge is not appropriate. 

At other facilities anaerobic lagoons 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 CH4 destruction terms for a flare and/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 accumulated sludge is seldom removed from anaerobic 

lagoons meaning that the organic carbon is not lost from the system via sludge. Instead, the 

sludge biodegrades over time, and the organic carbon is available for conversion to CH4. 

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

appropriate. 

5. DETAILED GHG EMISSION 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 variable 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. 

36 
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: 221 

Comment: §98.353(c). Equation II-3 requires the quantity of CH4 generated by anaerobic 

digesters be previously calculated using Eq. II-4. The order of the 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 Corporation of America (PCA) 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1029.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 7 

Comment: The Rule proposes that methane emissions from anaerobic lagoons be estimated 

based on effluent flow and chemical oxygen demand (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 introduces a high bias to the calculation. 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 approach 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 methane would be produced. This particular system 

features a biogas recovery system wherein the biogas is collected, conditioned and combusted at 

an on-site gas pdckage boiler. Since gas flow and 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 COD, the calculated methane generation rate very 

closely matches the actual measured rate at this facility. 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 anaerobic treatment process. 

With regard to the procedure to estimate methane using flow and COD, EPA based this approach 

on accepted methods from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for 

estimating methane emissions associated with industrial wastewater treatment. Since proposal, 

EPA considered requests to allow the use of either COD or BOD5 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 for the use of either COD in conjunction with 

37 
Equation II-1 or BOD5 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 Manufacturers 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 biological treatment systems. This simple statement potentially 

broadly expands the implications of the wastewater 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 treatment 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 processes covered by the rule, 

please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. Aerobic treatment is not a system 

component covered by this subpart. Consequently, EPA removed the entry for “not well 

managed” aerobic biological treatment 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 apply to all wastewater treatment operations, 

including those that are not specifically designed to employ anaerobic biological treatment 

processes, the methane conversion factor (MCF) values used in calculating estimated methane 

emissions should reflect a range rather than a single value. MCF 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 information given in the IPCC Guidelines for GHG 

Inventories (IPCC 2006), which provides 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 other pockets” and suggests a range of MCF from 0 

to 0.1, whereas the EPA proposal specifies a MCF of zero for these systems. Allowing user 

discretion in choosing a value for the MCF would 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 methane emissions can be non-zero even for well 

managed aerobic systems. Thus, flexibility is needed to allow facilities to report their best 

estimates of methane emissions. Table 1 summarizes the data collected by NCASI at aerated 

treatment operations using influent BOD5 loading as a measure of the wastewater’s 

biodegradable organic content with potential to generate methane (as is typical of industry 

practice, COD data was not collected).[See DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1 for Table 

38 
showing Calculated MCF Values for Four Secondary Biological Treatment Systems Based on 

NCASI Data for Methane Emissions and BOD5 Loading.] Using data for measured methane 

emissions and BOD5 loadings collected over a few 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 maximum methane producing potential, as shown in 

the following equation. The numerator is the measured methane emissions and the denominator 

is the maximum methane generation potential of the wastewater. MCF = CH4/(Flow * BOD5 * 

B0 * 1000) Where: MCF = Methane conversion factor (fraction of wastewater treated 

anaerobically) CH4 = Methane emissions (g/s). Flow = Volumetric flow rate of wastewater 

(m3/s) BOD5 = Concentration of five-day biochemical oxygen demand of influent wastewater 

(kg/m3) B0 = Maximum CH4 producing potential of wastewater (kg CH4 /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 the 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 report]. The results of this analysis, presented in 

Table 2.9, are that combined emissions of methane from industry wastewater management 

systems are estimated to have been 0.40 Tg CO2 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 CO2 eq. in 

2004, 0.4 Tg CO2 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 the MCF calculation procedure suggested by the 

commenter is unnecessarily complex. Further, the 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 report under Subpart II, and an explanation of the 

need to include CH4 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) referenced in Equation II-1 for calculating 

GHG emissions references Table II-1. This table includes an MCF for centralized aerobic 

treatment systems. The inclusion of aerobic treatment systems seems to directly contradict 98.3 

52(a), which specifically requires reporting from anaerobic wastewater treatment systems. It is 

recommended that the references to aerobic treatment 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 references to aerobic treatment systems 

from Table II-1. 

39 
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: 19 

Comment: EPA should allow the use of BOD5 rather than COD as a measure of the organics in 

wastewater that can degrade to methane. The IPCC (2006) guidance that EPA cites as the source 

of their proposed method for estimating methane from wastewater treatment operations 

specifically states that use of B0 based on BOD5 is good practice (IPCC 2006) and only 

mentions use of a B0 based on COD as relevant 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 such as cellulose fibers and 

dissolved lignin degradation products, as these materials are not biodegradable in time frames 

representative of industry treatment systems. Thus, influent COD may overstate the potential for 

methane generation. Facilities should be given the flexibility to use BOD5 rather than COD, as 

this parameter is more appropriate for estimating methane from industrial wastewater treatment 

systems. 

Response: EPA disagrees that the 2006 IPCC guidance only mentions use of a B0 based on COD 

as relevant for estimating methane from municipal 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 B0 (0.25 kg CH4/kg 

COD). For information on the use of either COD or BOD5 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 [Footnote: Technical Support Document for 

Wastewater Treatment: Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhous Gases. USEPA 

Office of Atmospheric Programs – Climate Change Division. February 4, 2009. Section 1].states 

that denitrification results from the anaerobic treatment of wastewater. However, anaerobic 

treatment typically results in little denitrification. For denitrification, anoxic treatment is 

typically used. Anoxic conditions are defined as an environment in which dissolved oxygen is 

not present in the water and nitrate (NO3-) 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 conditions, the nitrate is converted to nitrogen 

(N2) and released to the atmosphere as a gas. The microorganisms use the oxygen as they 

degrade carbon sources and release CO2 to the atmosphere. In contrast, anaerobic conditions are 

defined as environments in which dissolved oxygen is not present in the water and sulfur 

compounds (such as sulfate SO4-2) are used as the electron acceptors. Under anaerobic 

conditions, sulfur (S), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and other sulfur-containing 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 must calculate methane production via Equation II-1. Given the 

confusion between anoxic and anaerobic, EPA should clarify that only anaerobic conditions are 

40 
the target of Equation II-1. If some systems use Equation II-1 to calculate methane emissions 

from anoxic treatment, it will vastly overstate the GHG emissions. The clarifications should be 

made by adding definitions: “Aerobic treatment means the treatment of wastewater with 

supplemental oxygen feed by the microbial reduction of complex organic compounds to CO2. 

Anaerobic treatment means the treatment of wastewater without supplemental oxygen feed by 

the microbial reduction of complex organic compounds to CO2 and CH4. Anaerobic treatment 

specifically excludes Anoxic treatment. Anoxic treatment means the treatment of wastewater 

without supplemental oxygen feed by the microbial reduction of complex organic compounds to 

CO2.” 

Response: For information on denitrification and anaerobic wastewater treatment, please see the 

response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1, excerpt 41. 

For information on the anaerobic processes covered by the rule, please see Section II.E of the 

preamble to the final rule. Anoxic treatment 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 – Digester 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 result in lower data quality. EPA has proposed to 

require facilities to continuously measure 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 require calibration according to good 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 instrumentation 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 requirements, please see the response to EPA-HQOAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 15. 

In addition, EPA has revised Equation II-4 that calculates methane recovery to allow for flow 

meters that automatically correct for temperature, pressure, and/or moisture. 

For calibration of gas flow meters as required by §98.354(g), EPA disagrees that facilities should 

be allowed to use good engineering 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 according to the manufacturer’s specifications. 

41 
Since all gas flow meter manufacturers specify calibration procedures 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, 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 industry standard, if no calibration procedures or 

frequencies are specified by the device manufacturers, since calibration procedures are not 

typically specified by manufacturers 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, facilities to use instrumentation such as this 

by modifying the proposal as follows: [See DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1 for 

equations provided by commenter] 

Response: With regard to the frequency of monitoring 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 for "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 California’s AB-32 reporting rule, Table 13, where the ‘4’ 

is a footnote not part of the exponent. 

Response: The requirement to monitor CO2 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 CO2, 

only acknowledging thermal destruction devices, and not accounting for floating roof storage 

tanks that may be used as oil-water separators/storage tanks. Equation II-2 calculates CO2

emissions from oil-water separators. But most oil-water separators, if not directed to a thermal 

destruction device, would not directly produce any CO2, but instead might contribute methane 

42 
43 

(CH4) to a very limited extent (by the time oily wastewater is being handled in oil-water 

separators, most if not all methane 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 CO2. This also seems to be the only evaporative 

emission source where this assumption is being made; the CO2 (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, uncontrolled blowdown, etc.). Furthermore, the units for the separator 

emission factors are in kg NMVOC/m3 wastewater treated. (Note that "NMVOC" is not defined 

anywhere in this proposed rule or preamble, but is presumed to mean "non-methane volatile 

organic compounds). Expressing factors in these units would imply that there could also be a 

methane component to the emissions. If EPA is going to retain oil-water separators in the 

reporting mix, EPA should revise the calculation to be on a methane basis to be consistent with 

other evaporative-type emission sources. If this is done, it will likely 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 demonstration is made. The above-referenced equation 

(Equation II-2) also implicitly references Table 11-1, which provides emission factors (EF) for 

various general categories of oil-water separators (based on degree of emission control). 

Unfortunately, the separator factors do not cover the breadth of separators and control systems 

that may be used at a refinery. The table presumes 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 presumption 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 emitted in the first place. The phrase "destruction 

device" in Table II-1 should be changed to "control 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 before January 1,2010. It is strongly recommended that if EPA retains 

industrial oil-water separators in the inventory program, that emissions from petroleum refinery 

process water storage tanks utilized as oil-water separators be determined and reported under the 

storage tanks provisions of Subpart Y (40 CFR 98.253(mXl)]. Finally, the above three issues 

provide a compelling case for eliminating oil-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 calculation. If oil-water separators are not eliminated and whether or not a de 

minimis category is created, the following corrections should be made: 1. Floating roof tanks 

used as oil-water separators need 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 determination provisions for storage tanks. 2. Equation 

TI-l for oil-water separation emissions calculation 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 carbon 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 methane 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 consistent with corrected emission 

determination methods. 
Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO2 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 Equation 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 simple material balance. Given the wide variation 

in sources, flows, and compositions to the oil/water separator in a facility, a material balance 

engineering calculation would be inaccurate and unsuitable to the purpose. In addition, EPA has 

inappropriately applied Equation II-2 to calculate CO2 emissions: [See DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0533.1 for Equation II-2] EPA does not reference 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 document from CONCAWE. In 

the CONCAWE report, the study and the resulting emission calculation were developed to 

estimate Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds (NMVOC): [See DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0533.1 for NMVOC Equation ] The California Air Resources Board (CARB) used 

this equation, along with data from the IPCC, to generate an equation to calculate GHG 

emissions from oil/water separators. However, EPA inappropriately uses this equation for the 

following reasons: 1. NMVOC Destroyed in Control Device: CARB specifically cautions against 

double-reporting the CO2 emissions10 from both the control device and the oil/water separator. 

However, EPA has done just that: CO2 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 Control Device): The IPCC concluded11 that non-CO2

carbon emissions are eventually oxidized to CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC directs that these 

GHG emissions should be included in national inventories. However, the eventual CO2

emissions from NMVOC from other sources are not reported under 98 and oil/water separator 

emissions should not be treated differently. 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 CO2 conversion. 

In the case of oil/water separators, their inclusion in 98 would again double-count the GHG 

emissions. For these reasons, EPA should remove 98.353(b) from the rule. 

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO2 emissions from 

oil/water separators located at petroleum refineries, please see Section II.E of the preamble to the 

final rule. 

44 
Commenter 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 provides emissions factors for 

dissolved air flotation (DAF) and induced air flotation (IAF). (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 are 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 CO2 emissions from oil/water separators. 

98.353 (b) states that petroleum refineries calculate annual CO2 emissions by separator type. It 

refers to Table II-1. This table includes insignificant factors for DAF or IAF (both covered and 

uncovered). The DAF and IAF should be dropped from Table II-1 and from the requirements to 

report CO2 emissions. [An equation is provided by the commenter showing CO2 estimated 

emissions of 6.2 E-30 metric tons CO2 per year from a fairly large refinery.] This is a mere 6.2 

E-24 gram- less than one atom’s worth! This is not worth calculating or reporting. 

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO2 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 used for calculating CO2 emissions. Equation II-2 in 98.353 (b) 

should be modified to show “metric tons of CO2/kg” instead of “metric tons of CH4/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 and therefore no longer requires the calculation of 

CO2 emissions. Please see Section II.E of the preamble to the final rule. 

45 
Commenter 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 Equation 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 simple material balance. Given the wide variation 

in sources, flows, and compositions to the oil/water separator in a facility, a material balance 

engineering calculation would be inaccurate and unsuitable to the purpose. In addition, EPA has 

inappropriately applied Equation II-2 to calculate CO2 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 mandatory reporting rule. [Footnote: Title 17, California Code of 

Regulations §9511 3(c)(2)] In turn, California‘s rule relied on a document from CONCAWE. 

[Footnote: CONCAWE oil companies‘ European association for environment, health and safety 

in refining and distribution. www.concawe.org.] In the CONCAWE report [Footnote: Air 

pollutant emission estimation methods for E-PRTR reporting by refineries. CONCAWE Air 

Quality Management Group‘s Special Task Force on Emission Reporting Methodologies (STF69). Brussels, Belgium. Report no. 1/09, January 2009. Section 13.6.3.2.], the study and the 

resulting emission calculation were developed 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 Board (CARB) used this equation, along with data from the IPCC, 

to generate an equation to calculate GHG emissions from oil/water separators. However, EPA‘s 

use of this equation is inappropriate for the following reasons: 1. NMVOC Destroyed in Control 

Device: CARB specifically cautions against double-reporting the CO2 emissions [Footnote: 

Attachments C to F. Supplemental Materials Document 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: CO2 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 Oxidized in Atmosphere (i.e. Not Destroyed 

in Control Device): The IPCC concluded [Footnote: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Volume 1, Chapter 7, 

Section 7.2.1.5.] that non-CO2 carbon emissions are eventually oxidized to CO2 in the 

atmosphere. The IPCC directs that these GHG emissions should be included in national 

inventories. However, the eventual CO2 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 CFR 51, Subpart A to estimate all 

NMVOC emissions and its eventual CO2 conversion. In the case of oil/water separators, their 

inclusion in part 98 would again double-count the GHG emissions. For these reasons, EPA 

should remove §98.353(b) from the rule. 

Response: For information on EPA’s exclusion from the final rule of CO2 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 CH4 content sampling as an alternative to continuous 

metering of gas concentration. 

Response: For information on the frequency of monitoring required, please see the response to 

EPA-HW-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 15. EPA agrees that continuous monitoring is not 

necessary. For discussion of the requirement for 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 that facilities collect all samples as flow-weighted 

composites but says that time-weighted composites 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 which is impossible for any system to achieve. EPA should clarify 

“does not vary” as having a standard deviation 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 determination of COD or BOD5 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 whether a facility utilizing an on-site industrial 

wastewater treatment system is required to utilize third-party laboratory analysis; or 

alternatively, may perform the requisite laboratory analysis in-house. The Preamble to the 

proposed regulation stipulates that in order "[t]o estimate the amount of CH4 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 monitor the wastewater flow and COD no less than 

once per week. . . . Facilities must collect 24-hour 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 regulation includes the term "facilities," no further guidance is 

offered as to whether the facility may perform monitoring and the collection of samples through 

use of an in-house laboratory, or instead, must utilize an independent third-party laboratory. 

47 
Response: EPA does not require an independent third-party laboratory to provide the analysis of 

BOD5 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 proven reliable and cost effective on Clean 

Development Mechanism (CDM) projects throughout the world. These infrared monitoring 

systems are passing independent third party validations on CDM projects and generating 

certified emission reduction credits. We ask the EPA to include calibrated infrared technology as 

an acceptable method for quantifying methane 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) analyzers 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 flame ionization or NDIR analyzer measures both 

methane and non-methane organic compounds they will tend to overstate the methane 

concentration in biogas and provide a high bias to the amount of methane recovered. To 

eliminate this bias, when facilities use these types of flame ionization or NDIR analyzers, 

98.354 (e) requires a correction factor that must be determined at least annually, to arrive at the 

ratio of the methane concentration to the analyzer response (calibrated with methane). Including 

these alternative monitoring methods with the correction factor reduces the burden on facilities, 

but still ensures that the calculated methane recovery quantities are unbiased and comparable to 

the recovery quantities calculated when gas chromatographic methods 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, the rule should provide that all EPA approved methods for 

monitoring COD in wastewater are allowed to be used for the purposes 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 the use of either COD in conjunction with 

Equation II-1 or BOD5 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 

48 
wastewater pollutants, conducted in accordance with 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, reporting facilities should be given 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 measuring devices such as weir, flumes, and venturi meters used for 

compliance monitoring must be calibrated and 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 treatment 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 calculations could be used to adjust the measured 

flows. 

Response: The rule requires that flow and BOD5 or COD be monitored at the location of influent 

to the anaerobic treatment process. EPA disagrees that facilities should be allowed to use 

downstream locations. Influent monitoring gives the most accurate determination of GHG 

emissions and does not require the complex and burdensome back-calculations that effluent flow 

monitoring would. In addition, allowing for effluent 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 influent flow monitoring and determined it to be a reasonable burden 

for facilities. For more information, please see Section 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 CO2e 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 monitoring (98.353(c), 98.354) do not 

reflect available technology and could increase the burden on facilities and result in lower data 

quality. EPA has proposed to require 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 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. Also in 

98.354(g) and (h), EPA requires that temperature and pressure monitors and flow measuring 

devices be calibrated and maintained as specified by the device manufacturer. Instead, EPA 

49 
should require calibration according to good engineering and maintenance practices. This 

alternative wording will allow a facility to incorporate manufacturers’ recommendations, 

equipment standards, and results of previous troubleshooting and maintenance. 

Response: For more information on the frequency of monitoring required 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 appropriate 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 facility's existing NPDES permit conditions. In addition, 

most wastewater treatment facilities 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 influent flow meter is required. 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 composite 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 CH4

content as an alternative to a continuous composition analyzer. We strongly support the options 

to measure the methane content monthly or less frequently 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 methane monitoring can be 

problematic, and (3) conditions in anaerobic digesters 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 will have an equalization basin to reduce swings in 

concentration and make the digester 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 characteristics (e.g. methane content) are relatively 

consistent and will vary over days rather than hours. For these reasons, EPA should allow for the 

monitoring of methane concentration in anaerobic digester gas to be (i) monthly or (ii) less 

frequently based on a statistical analysis of the composition data. 

50 
Response: EPA agrees that continuous monitoring is not necessary. However, if continuous 

emissions monitoring equipment is already in place, it must be used. For discussion of the 

requirement for weekly monitoring, please 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 week. Industrial facilities draw COD samples at the 

wastewater treatment plant discharge per NPDES permit conditions. 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 given the option to take 

daily grab samples of the influent to monitor 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 states 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 requiring 0% variation which is impossible for any system to achieve. 

EPA should clarify in the final rule that ”does not vary” has a standard deviation that is less than 

50% of the mean. EPA also states that the location for the COD sample must represent the 

influent to the treatment process and that the location 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) operation of meters in 

wastewater service is problematic due to oil, foam, 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 concern. As an option to inlet flow meters, reporters 

should be allowed to use outlet flow meters or engineering determination. 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 wastewater 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 site-specific conversion factor based on actual 

analytical data. The quantity of TOC treated anaerobically must be determined using analytical 

methods for industrial wastewater pollutants and must be conducted in accordance with the 

methods specified in 40 CFR Part 136.] (c) For anaerobic treatment systems, facilities must 

monitor the COD [concentration and monitor or calculate the wastewater flow] no less than once 

per week. The sample location must represent the 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 and 

wastewater flow into the anaerobic treatment system [has a standard deviation 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-weighted composites to characterize changes in 

51 
wastewater due to production fluctuations, or a grab sample 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 BOD5 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 separation 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 see response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1, 

excerpt 21. 

EPA disagrees that analysis of COD in waste streams after preliminary and primary treatment 

may be impractical due to the sample composition. First, preliminary and primary treatment 

change the composition of the wastewater by removing non-aqueous phases such as oil, foam, 

and sediment. The partially treated wastewater can be sampled with an automatic compositor or 

by compositing manual grab samples. Second, facilities may select the wastewater flow 

measurement device that is most appropriate for their wastewater stream. The rule, at 

§98.354(d), identifies five methods that may be used to monitor wastewater flow. Facilities may 

choose among these methods or another, as appropriate, used as specified by the manufacturer. 

Further, allowing facilities to measure Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and mathematically convert 

it to COD using a site-specific conversion factor based on actual analytical data can be subjective 

and difficult to standardize. For this reason, EPA has not revised the rule to allow facilities to 

analyze influent to anaerobic wastewater treatment processes for TOC rather than COD. 

California’s GHG emissions reporting program does not allow facilities to measure Total 

Organic Carbon (TOC) and mathematically convert it to COD; therefore the use of COD in 

Subpart II is consistent with California’s Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions. 

For a discussion of the use of grab and composite 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 the 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 unit 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 processes, including anaerobic reactors, anaerobic 

lagoons, and anaerobic sludge digesters. Consequently, facilities are not required to monitor 

treatment processes that are designed with a staged saturated air treatment unit that flows into an 

aeration basin. 

52 
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: 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 the location of the flow 

sample must correspond to the location of the COD 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 use outlet flow meters or engineering 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 influent 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 treatment process and requires reporters to collect 

a 24- hour flow-weighted composite sample at least once per week. Refineries and petrochemical 

plants draw COD samples at the wastewater treatment plant discharge under NPDES permit. 

Maintaining a compositor on the influent will be problematic because the waste contains oil and 

sediments. Consistent with California’s GHG emissions reporting program, reporters should be 

given the option to take daily grab samples on the 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 monitoring influent to anaerobic reactors can be 

done with available technology 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 

53 
Comment: The proposed monitoring and QA procedures described in §98.354 may present an 

undue burden on facilities whose current measurement procedures are more appropriate for 

process control decisions and not compliance monitoring. EPA has not provided typical on-site 

approved measurement methods for influent COD that are appropriate for the proposed rule. The 

only on-site method identified has capacity that is half of the requirement 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 Engineering 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. Box 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 acceptable 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 indirect overhead costs from managing and preparing 

samples. EPA must determine affordable on-site methods or dilution 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 the rigor of the requirements to 

facilitate reporting. 

Response: EPA has revised §98.354 of the rule to clarify that while facilities must determine the 

concentration of organic material in wastewater treated anaerobically using analytical methods 

for COD or BOD5 in accordance with the methods specified in 40 CFR part 136.3 Table 1B, for 

the purpose of determining concentrations of wastewater influent to the anaerobic wastewater 

treatment process, samples may be diluted to the concentration range of the approved method. 

Alternatively, facilities may send their samples to an offsite laboratory for analysis. 

Commenter Name: Dean C. DeLorey 

Commenter Affiliation: Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF) Environmental 

Committee 

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0559.1 

Comment Excerpt Number: 18 

Comment: Wastewater sampling frequencies appear unnecessarily specific 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 should be guidance rather 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 samples 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 associated with methane generation. Monthly monitoring would result 

in greater uncertainty and would not significantly reduce the costs compared to weekly 

monitoring. EPA has considered cost of sampling and analysis of influent wastewater and 

determined it to be a reasonable burden for facilities. 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 CO2e threshold. 

54 
EPA disagrees that monitoring frequency should be provided as guidance rather than a specific 

requirement. Facility responses to guidance would 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 read as follows: If required for Equation II-4, all 

temperature and pressure monitors must be calibrated 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 industry standard, if no calibration procedures or 

frequencies are specified by the device manufacturers, since calibration procedures are not 

typically specified by manufacturers 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 sentence of 40CFR 98.354 (d) should refer to monitoring, not 

sample as no sample is required, flowrate is monitored. 

Response: EPA has removed the requirement to monitor CO2 emissions from oil/water 

separators at refineries. Please see Section II.E of the preamble to the 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 the use of a 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. For example, if the data gap should occur during a known 

spike or drop in concentrations or flow, it would not be appropriate to use the data that surrounds 

the gap. Only the operator will have the knowledge to make that assessment. 

55 
Response: EPA disagrees that an averaging method for substitute data is not appropriate. 

Allowing facilities the option to utilize case-by-case determinations for estimating missing data 

will make reporting more cumbersome and variable. Utilizing an average to determine substitute 

data will allow for standardization and simplify 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 substitute 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 that 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 should 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 CH4 that leaks from the process due to inefficiencies in the anaerobic process CH4 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 

56 
Comment: 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 monitors 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 compelling 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 existing 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 methane, 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 conclusions can be drawn from the request. For example, 

is EPA seeking the amount of wastewater that is treated: (1) In an anaerobic digester vs. other 

anaerobic technology? (2) In an anaerobic digester or other technology vs. aerobic technology? 

(3) In a neutralization basin? (4) In an equalization basin? (5) In an oil/water separator? In 

addition, this information is not required for 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 calculations. 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 treatment 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 requires facilities to report monthly average COD 

or BOD5 concentration of wastewater entering each anaerobic wastewater 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 contain multiple treatment steps that proceed in 

57 
both parallel and series. Portions of the wastewater can be removed 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 digester vs. other anaerobic technology? 

2. In an anaerobic digester or other technology vs. aerobic technology? 3. In a neutralization 

basin? 4. In an equalization basin? 5. In an oil/water separator? In addition, this information is 

not required for determining the GHG emissions from 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 important 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 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. 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 pressure should be retained onsite rather than reported and made 

available for inspection in keeping with existing 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 highlights, [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 intends 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) 

Response: With regard to the reporting of data from continuous methane, temperature, and 

pressure monitors, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2, excerpt 158. 

With regard to the requirement for reporting percent wastewater treated, 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 which flow is measured (if 

required for Equation II-4 at facilities with anaerobic digesters). Section 98.356(o) should read as 

follows: Pressure at which flow is measured (if required for Equation II-4 at facilities with 

anaerobic digesters). 

Response: Section 98.356 has been revised such that subsection (d) (4) (formerly section n) now 

states: “Monthly average temperature for each month at which flow is measured for biogas 

collected for destruction, or statement that temperature is incorporated into monitoring 

equipment internal calculations.” In addition, subsection (d) (6) (formerly section o) now states: 

“Monthly average pressure for each month at which flow is measured for biogas collected for 

destruction, or statement that pressure is incorporated into monitoring equipment internal 

calculations.” 

58 
10. 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 from 50 to over 300 KBPCD (thousand barrels per 

calendar day). 

Subpart II (Wastewater Treatment) Costs: 

1. EPA assumes the following annual costs associated 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 approximately $10,000 to operate the continuous 

measurement system, including the cost to calibrate the analyzers monthly and to compile 

annual emission reports. 

3. API members estimated a cost range of $5,000 to $10,000 for collecting and analyzing 

COD wastewater samples. 

4. API members estimated a cost of approximately $100,000 per facility to purchase and 

install flow meters and tank 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 feedback substantially overstates the cost 

petroleum refineries will incur to meet Subpart II reporting requirements. 

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

unit costs – 

a. EPA estimated $480 to collect and organize flow rate of wastewater entering each 

anaerobic wastewater treatment process. 

b. EPA estimated $2,600 for determination of COD or BOD5 concentration entering 

each anaerobic wastewater treatment processes, 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 and anaerobic digester from which biogas 

is recovered and for calculating and reporting the annual methane emissions from 

the process. 

59 
2. EPA assumed facilities that recover biogas from their anaerobic wastewater treatment 

processes and anaerobic digesters would use a multi-gas non-dispersive infrared monitor 

(Inova 1316-1 or equivalent) to analyze the composition of the biogas. According to the 

product literature for this analyzer, 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 BOD5 concentration entering each 

anaerobic wastewater treatment processes. EPA assumed that facilities have existing 

wastewater sampling and analysis capabilities, because they must comply with NPDES 

discharge permit monitoring requirements, and would not incur 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 assumed 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 treatment process, but 

that no refineries recover the methane generated from anaerobic wastewater treatment. 

Consequently, refineries will incur costs for monitoring wastewater flow and COD or 

BOD5 concentration but will not incur costs 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 available in the Memorandum: Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule, Industrial Wastewater Treatment Source Category, Costs for Final Rule Monitoring 

Requirements – Revised, March 5, 2010. [see 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 Landfill for an Offset Project. SCS Engineers. 

December 11, 2008.] each with installed costs of $60,000[footnote: Continuous Methane Gas 

Analyzer Bid Summary. Steuben County (NY) Purchasing Department. 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 humidity and impurities. Conditions such as these 

increase the maintenance on a system and shorten the life of that system, both of which increase 

costs. 

Response: For information on the frequency of monitoring required, please see EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 15. EPA estimated the costs for monitoring the CH4 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 

60 
following in-line devices that control the moisture 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 also reduce maintenance requirements and they 

extend the life of the CH4 meter. EPA assumed that the CH4 meter will have a 20-year operating 

life. See the Memorandum: Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, Industrial Wastewater Treatment 

Source Category, Costs for Final Rule Monitoring 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 monitoring 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 costly 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 processing plant operators. As a practical matter, daily analysis is 

not required because biogas quality does not vary 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 Registry (CCAR) only requires quarterly analysis 

by portable hand held equipment. EPA should adopt a similar approach. 

Response: For information on the frequency of monitoring 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 gas monitor (with appropriate temperature and 

pressure corrections) may be used to calculate 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 Institute (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-OAR-2008-0508-0459.1 

61