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

Volume No.:44

Subpart M—Food ProcessingJune 2010



# Subpart M—Food Processing

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

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

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

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

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

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

While every effort was made to include all significant comments related to 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart M—Food Processing in this volume, some comments inevitably overlap multiple subject areas. For comments that overlapped two or mo re subject areas, EPA assigned the comment to a single subject category based on an assessment of th e principle subject of the comment. For this reason, EPA encourages the public to read the othe r volumes of this document with subject areas that may be relevant to 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart M—Food Processing.

Please note, EPA has made the fi nal decision not to include S ubpart M – Food Processing as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. For more information, please See section III. Other Proposed Sour ce Categories of today’s preamble.iv The primary contacts regarding questions or comments on this document are:

Carol Cook (202) 343-9263

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

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

ghgreportingrule@epa.govv 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

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

2. REPORTING THRESHOLD ............................................................................................ 10

3. GHGS TO REPORT.......................................................................................................... 19

4. SELECTION OF PROPOSED G HG EMISSIONS CALCULATION AND

MONITORING METHODS ............................................................................................. 19

5. MONITORING AND QA/Q C REQUIREMENTS........................................................... 201 

### SUBPART M—FOOD PROCESSING

1. DEFINITION OF SOURCE CATEGORY

Commenter Name: Jeffrey A. Sitler

Commenter Affiliation: University of Virginia (UVA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: The definition of “food processing facilities ” leaves some room for question as to whether large kitchen or dining hall facilities fall into this cate gory. Would a dining hall fall into this category or would that be considered food preparation rather than food processing? Preamble page 16507 specifically mentions “faci lities in the meat and poultry, and fruit, vegetable, and juice processing industries.” This question may arise for locations such as colleges, prisons, and other facilities that serve a large number of meals a nd may also have other emissions sources totaling more than the 25,000 MTe CO 2 threshold.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

Food processing facilities are specifically in cluded in subpart II – Industrial Wastewater Treatment, and must report their industrial wastewater emissions if the facility meets the 25,000

ton CO 2 e threshold when all ap plicable source categor ies are aggregated. The definition for food processing facility is included in subpart II, and has been significantly revised from that in the proposed rule.

The proposed definition was very broad, would have included sources for which EPA did not have supporting analysis, and multiple commenters requested additional cl arity. For emissions from wastewater treatment, the industries included in the thre shold analysis match the revised

definition. The NAICS codes were added to clarify the coverage . The definition, as revised, does not include kitchens, dining ha lls, cafeterias, restaurants, or other establishments that prepare food for final consumption. Note that these establishments may still be required to report under other Subparts.

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: 4

Comment: The definition of the food processing fac ilities provided in the source category rule language is very broad. It could be construed to require small sour ces such as a cafeteria in an administrative building to be included in reporting once a facility is subject to the rule. Also, the source category itself relies exclusively on the calculation methodologies from source categories as defined in other subparts, suggesting th e Food Processing category is unnecessary. Thepream ble for this source category describes a ve ry large universe of sources: “Food processing facilities prepare raw ingredients for consump tion by animals or humans.” However, Table M-1 and the Technical Support Document for this so urce category suggest that EPA’s intent is to limit applicability and reporting to only the larges t meat and poultry, fruit, vegetable, and juice processing facilities based on the expectation that approximately 100 facilities of over 5,700

nationwide would exceed th e 25,000 metric tons CO 2 e or more per year of § 98.2(a)(2) and be subject to the rule as a food pr ocessor. There is no threshold in Subpart M that would preclude

facilities that conduct some incide ntal food processing (such as institutional kitchens, cafeterias or restaurants) present at othe r types of sources from having to inventory these incidental activities for possible GHG emissions once the rule is found applicable for their facility. Upon further review of Subpart M, EPA sets very specific requirements for the GHG that must be reported for the source category. At § 98.132, EPA limits reporting to GHG from on-site stationary combustion (following the requirement s of Subpart C), landfills (following the requirements of Subpart HH), and on-site wastewat er treatment (following the requirements of subpart II). If the only reporting re quirements for food processing facilities subject to the GHG reporting rule are these three source categories al ready covered in detail by the rule, we do not see the need for a separate f ood processing category. For example, a large meat packing plant that operates some combination of stationary combustion units, an industrial landfill, and

wastewater treatment would need to determine it s applicability to the ru le under § 98.2(a)(2) or (3) even if food processing was not a specifically identified source category. We recommend to EPA to clarify the scope of the Food Processing source category language that solidifies EPA’s intent to address significant sour ces of GHG at a facility. Specif ically exclude residential units from the Food Processing category. Set a capacity threshold for commercial-size units that are excluded from the source category. Alternativel y, eliminate the source category and Subpart M

since all of the GHG emissions that must be re ported under the category are covered by source categories already define d in other subparts.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

For more information on the definition of food pr ocessing facility, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8.

Commenter Name: Keith Epperson

Commenter Affiliation: American Feed Industry Association (AFIA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0399.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: EPA’s proposed rule specifica lly designates food processing facilities as a facility category to which GHG emission reporting requirements woul d apply. EPA defines a “food processing facility” as one which “prepares raw ingredients for consumption by animals or humans.” EPA further states that food proces sing facilities may have on-site wastewater treatment and/or onsite landfills for waste disposal . AFIA strongly believes that EPA’s definition of “food processing facility” is much too far-reaching, and incorrec tly encompasses thousands of facilities that are engaged in grain handling, feed milling and gr ain processing operations. Such

facilities have neither on-site wa stewater treatment nor onsite landf ills. Further, the majority of

2such facilities have an aggregate m aximum ra ted heat input capacity of stationary fuel

combustion units of less than 30 million British thermal units (mmBtu) per hour. As such, we

believe that EPA’s arbitr ary definition of a food processing facil ity is in direct conflict with one of the agency’s stated objectives for the pr oposed rule – keeping th e compliance and reporting burden to a minimum and excluding small emitters. This rule would require excessive reporting, and we believe the definition should be changed. We strongly recommend that EPA refocus its proposed definition of a “food proce ssing facility” to those faciliti es whose operations fall within EPA-specified North American Industry Classifi cation System (NAICS) categories that have GHG emission levels of known significance. If EPA de sires additional criteria within its rule to

ensure that facilities of interest are included within its “food processing facility” definition, we

believe that onsite wastew ater treatment and/or onsite landfi ll operations by a facility involved in food processing would serve as appropriate qualifier s to include such faci lities within the “food processing facility” definition. Further, we recommend that EPA exclude the NAICS categories associated with facilities engaged in grain ha ndling, feed milling and grain processing from its “food processing facility” definition.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

If neither onsite industrial landfi lls nor onsite industrial wastewater treatment exist at facilities engaged in grain handling, feed milling and grain processing operations, then subparts TT (Industrial Landfills) and II (Industrial Wa stewater Treatment) do not apply.

For more information on the definition of food pr ocessing facility, please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. Th is definition, as revised, does not include grain handling, grain milling, or grain pro cessing operations. Note that these operations may still be required to repor t under other Subparts.

Commenter Name: Steven M. Maruszewski

Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania State University (Penn State)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0409.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: As part of its housing and foods operati ons, Penn State, by the very broad source category definition, could be a food processing facility. For reporting in this source category, it is required to report emissions from (R ule SS 98.132, p1074) "(a) Emissions of CO 2 , N 2 O, and CH 4 from on-site stationary combusti on. You must follow the requirements of subpart C of this part. (b) Emissions of CH 4 from on-site landfills. You must follow the calculation procedures, monitoring and QA/QC methods, missing data procedures, reporting requirements, and recordkeeping requirements of subpart HH of this part. (c) Emissions of CH 4 from on-site wastewater treatment. You must follow the requireme nts of subpart II of this part." Penn State will already be reporting all stationary source co mbustion emissions. Penn State does not have an on-site landfill. Penn State does have an on-site domestic wastewater treatment facility that treats the University's wastewater as well as some flow from State College Borough. Subpart II, SS 98.350, defines this subcategory as industrial wastewater and it sp ecifically excludes centralized domestic wastewater treatment plants. Thus, even though Penn State could be a Food Processing

3facility as defined by the rule , the em issions reported would be the same as reporting under stationary sources. Being included in this source category only complicates the reporting with the requirement of reporting emissions separately by s ource category. This situ ation could also occur at a large manufacturing facility where the facil ity is required to repor t due to exceeding the stationary combustion emissions th reshold and where the facility al so provides cafeteria services to its employees. Penn State recommends that the definition for the Food Processing source category add the requirement that the food processed will be consumed off-site. This is similar to the same requirement in the Hydrogen Productio n source category definition where "A hydrogen production source category produces hydrogen gas that is consumed at sites other than where it is produced." (SS 98.160, p1100)

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

For more information on the definition of food pr ocessing facility, please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. Th is definition as revised, does not cover cafeteria services at a university such as Pe nn State. Note that universities may still be required to report under other Subparts.

Commenter Name: See Table 1

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: The proposed rule includes "m iscellaneous use of carbonates." CO 2 is used within the meat industry for anesthetizing (CO 2 Stunning), modified atmosphere packaging, product crusting, and dry ice. These uses are not a significant source of emissions and should be excluded to reduce the emissions assessment and reportin g burden for meat and poultry facilities.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

Subpart U – Miscellaneous Use of Carbonates of the rule signed in 2009, is specific in the

carbonates covered and what is re quired to be reported for co mpliance. Please see section

98.210 of the final rule to determine if the carbonates used in the meat indus try are required to be reported.

Commenter Name: See Table 1

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

4Comment: Wastewater treatm ent is fundamental to the meat industry, but it is not likely to be a significant source of GHG emissions in the U.S. The vast majority of meat and poultry further processing facilities in the U.S. indirectly di scharge wastewater to a municipal facility for wastewater treatment (POTW). Am ong the slaughter facilities in the U.S., only about 20% to 30% process wastewater onsite for direct discharge to waterbodies , and the remainder indirectly discharge to a POTW. At indirect discharge s ites that send all wastew ater to a POTW, only pretreatment operations occur. At direct discharge sl aughter facilities, often a combination of

aerobic and anaerobic treatments ma y be found at the same facilit y, and in a growing number of cases, these anaerobic treatment operations have been covered to capture biogas and reduce odor. Municipal treatment is excluded from the propo sed rule because of its minimal contribution.

Pursuant to EPA's ''Draft I nventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,'' the contribution from food industry wastew ater is projected to be less th an that of municipal sources.

This combination of factors should allow for ex clusion of wastewater treatment from meat industry facilities.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that industrial wast ewater treatment should not be

included in the rule because it would not be a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. While many meat processing facili ties discharge wastewater to municipal treatment systems for further processing, they often pret reat their wastewater anaerobical ly onsite to reduce the organic content. This on-site pretreatment has the potential to emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases which are appropriate to include under the reporting rule. EPA acknowledges that some food processors may use aerobic treatment or have installed controls to capture emissions from anaerobic treatment. The threshold in subpart II is based on emissions, not generation. These facilities would not need to report if their operations do not exceed the reporting threshold.

Domestic or municipal wastewater treatment plants are not included in the rule as the majority of those plants treat wastewater aerobically, and EP A’s threshold analysis did not show that any facilities would meet the repor ting threshold (for more info rmation, please see Wastewater Treatment Technical Support Docu ment (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-035).

Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners

Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: In light of the small contri bution of bakeries to greenhouse gas emissions as a sector, and to avoid the burdensome impacts on bakeries and food prices that the rule (and even the

substantial burden on individual baking facilities of determini ng whether and when the rule applies), EPA should expressly exempt the baking sector from regulation under the proposed rule

and/or should determine that bakeries are not included within the f ood processing sector. EPA has ample discretion to exempt the baki ng industry from overly burdensome reporting requirements or to select an emissions threshol d that does not inappropria tely capture small and medium bakeries that operate at the margins of profitability. The princi pal authority underlying

5EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Reporting Rule, the 2008 C onsolidated Appropria tions Act, provides funding for EPA “to require m andatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate

thresholds in all sectors of th e economy of the United States.” Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110–161, 121 Stat 1844, 2128 (2008).

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

The final rule requires bakeries that meet the applicable criteria in 40 CFR 98.2 to quantify CO 2 emissions from stationary combustion and other applicable sources in subparts C-TT, but does not require bakeries to quantify or report CO 2 emissions from the action of yeast in the baking process. With regard to stationary combusti on units, the only other GHGs that must be reported

are CH 4 and N 2 O and the rule provides emission factors for these pollutants so that the calculation is straightforward.

For more information on the definition of food pr ocessing facility, please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. This definition, of food processing facility, as revised in subpart II , does not cover bakeries. Note that these bakeries may still be required to report under other Subparts.

Commenter Name: See Table 1

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The proposed rule would require reporting of GHG emissions by sources in a covered category that make rela tively significant contributions to that source category's overall GHG emissions. For the meat industry, EPA woul d require reporting of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions for each stationary combustion unit, CH 4 for each onsite landfill and for each onsite wastewater treatment system, and any other source category for which calculations methods are prov ided in the rule (74 Fed. Reg. 16462). EPA has

elected not to include water va por in the list of reportable GHGs. In that regard, EPA has properly identified the GHGs of im portance to the meat industry.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input . EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. See section III. Other Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble for further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be requi red to report if they meet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all ap plicable sources co vered by the rule.

Commenter Name: David Fairfield

Commenter Affiliation: National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0463.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

6Comment: EPA’s proposed rule specifica lly designates food processing facilities as a facility category to which GHG em ission reporting requirements apply. EPA defines a “food processing facility” as one which “prepares raw ingredie nts for consumption by animals or humans.” EPA further states that food processing facilities may have on-site wastewater treatment and/or on-site landfills for waste disposal. The NGFA strongl y believes that EPA’s definition of “food processing facility” is far too expa nsive, and incorrectly encompasse s thousands of facilities that are engaged in grain handling, feed milling and gr ain processing operations. Such facilities have neither on-site wastewater treatment nor onsite landfills. Further, the majority of such facilities have an aggregate maximum rated heat input capac ity of stationary fuel combustion units of less than 30 million British thermal units (mmBtu) per hour . As such, we believe that EPA’s arbitrary definition of a food processing facility is in di rect conflict with one of the agency’s stated objectives for the proposed rule – keeping th e compliance and reporting burden to a minimum and excluding small emitters. We strongly recommend that EPA refocus its proposed definition of a “food processing facility” to those facilities whose operati ons fall within EPA-specified North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories th at have GHG emission levels of known significance. If EPA desires additio nal criteria within its rule to ensure that

facilities of interest are included within its “f ood processing facility” definition, we believe that the operations of on-site wastewater treatment a nd/or on-site landfill by a facility involved in food processing possibly could serv e as appropriate qualifiers for such facilities to be included within the “food processing facili ty” definition. Further, the NG FA strongly recommends that EPA exclude the NAICS categories associated w ith facilities engaged in grain handling, feed milling and grain processing from its “food proc essing facility” defini tion. These categories include NAICS codes 311111, 311119, 311211, 424510, and 493130.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

If neither onsite industrial landfi lls nor onsite industrial wastewater treatment exist at facilities engaged in grain handling, feed milling and grain processing operations, then subparts TT (Industrial Landfills) and II (Industrial Wa stewater Treatment) do not apply.

For more information on the definition of food pr ocessing facility, please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. Th is definition, as revised, does not include grain handling, grain milling, or grain pro cessing operations. Note that these operations may still be required to repor t under other Subparts.

Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners

Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Our members have a critical interest in the development of a carbon reduction program, particularly as it may impact their bus inesses. According to EPA’s own calculations, the food industry is a relatively insignificant portion of the targeted sources for regulations aimed at reducing climate change impact. In its “T echnical Support Docume nt for Food Processing Facilities”, EPA estimates that methane emissions from wastewater treatment and landfills in the

7food process ing source category totale d only 10.9 million metric tons CO 2 e per year. Taking the total nationwide net (sources and sinks) CO 2 e emissions in 2007 of 6,087.5 million MT CO 2 e, one can calculate based on the EPA Technical Support Document that emissions for the food processing industry constituted less than two hundreds of one percent (merely 0.179%) of net total emissions. Emissions from the baking sector specifically are in tu rn only a fraction of overall emissions from the food processing indust ry sector. We recognize that this figure does not quantify the emissions from on-site fuel co mbustion for food processing facilities; however, under recent “cap-and-trade” proposals in Congress, emissions from fossil fuels such as natural gas will be covered “upstream” by fuel producer s and importers and will not be directly attributable to the baking sector, although bakeri es will certainly pay th e price of greenhouse gas reductions in the form of higher energy costs passed through to them as energy consumers. To further elaborate this point, take the example of a typical medium-size bakery with 100 employees. The bakery produces buns and roll s. The bakery operate s three ovens and two boilers. Refrigerant is used to cool the mixers, and the plant f eatures a small wastewater lagoon. This calculation is based on 2008 when the bakery operated three shifts five days a week. The bakery has ovens 1-3 Oven 1, at 4 MMBTU and Oven 2, 5 MMBTU Oven 3, 6 MMBTU; and Boiler 1, 4MMBTU; and Boiler 2, 4MMBTU. This equipment does not run full-on and the bakery only used 31,973 thousand cubic feet (M CF) of natural gas. Multiplying 31,973 MCF times the conversion factor 10.25 and entering 327,723 therms yields carbon equivalents of 1,974 tons. The carbon equivalent of the electricity generated is 3,307 tons. Refrigerant loss is 500 lbs R-404A and equals carbon equivalent s of 890 tons. The bakery sends 3,650,000 gallons of wastewater a year to a small lagoon for trea tment. The lagoon is not aerated so the methane from the biological activity is released. The methane carbon equiva lent is 200 tons. This example footprint is as follows: 1. Burning Natural Gas – 1 ton 2. Electricity – 3,307 tons 3. Refrigerant

loss – 890 tons 4. Methane – 200 tons This bake ry’s carbon footprint is 6,371 tons. If the operation had higher production th e carbon footprint may have b een closer to 10,000 [Footnote: Got Greenhouse Gas? A Bakery's Carbon Footpr int, Milling & Baking News, May 5, 2009]. In light of this example, that is typical of the estimated contribution from the food industry towards greenhouse gas emissions, ABA emphasizes the need for pragmatic regulatory solutions that will avoid negatively impacting medium and sm aller size businesses, such as bakeries.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

With regard to the reporting requirements for ba keries, please see the response to comment EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1, excerpt 4 of this document.

Commenter Name: See Table 1

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: Within the meat-processing source cat egory, EPA identified emissions from stationary combustion units, onsite landfills, and ons ite wastewater treatment systems as the key

emission sources these facilities should consider when determining if reporting thresholds are exceeded (74 Fed. Reg. 16631). Stationary fuel combustion sources are common to the meat

8industry, prim arily boilers for heating water fo r scalding and other carc ass preparation, USDArequired carcass, equipment and facility clean ing and decontamination, steam production, and process heaters for further processing of retail meat products and byproduct rendering. However, onsite landfills at meat pro cessing facilities are rare.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

If an onsite industrial landfill doe s not meet the requirements specified in Subpart TT, or is not present at a meat processing facil ity, then Subpart TT does not apply.

Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners

Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: EPA’s proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gase s Reporting Rule is scheduled to start monitoring requirements on January 1, 2010 – merely 6 months away – with the first report due on March 31, 2011. ABA is concerned about the limited time frame for implementing this program at a smaller facility. The appropriatio ns language mandating EPA’s proposal was signed in December 2007 and EPA was to propose the ru le by September 2008. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2009, 6 months after the deadline. If included as part of the mandatory reporting regime, small a nd large businesses will n eed additional time to implement a program at their facilities, to hire engineers and consultants, and to find the extra operating funds necessary to comply with another EPA program. For example, at some larger bakeries there may be the need to engineering assessments, vendor selection and budget approvals. In some cases these activities need at least an additional 15 month lead time. In particular, many sources in the ba king sector are anticipated to be below the reporting threshold; however, even facilities that are not required to report will need to calculate their emissions (with

the attendant costs and diversion of resources) in order to determ ine that they are not covered. Many small businesses will not be able to comp lete this assessment by 2010, and bakeries in particular may have emissions that are difficult to quantify such as CO 2 emissions from the baking process. EPA should extend the first mon itoring year to 2011. In the alternative, EPA should consider allowing those sources that w ould be reporting greenhouse gas emissions for the first time additional time to meet the requirements and submit their first report. Alternatively, reporting of 2010 emissions could be considered “transitional” with incomplete reporting accepted. For example, a facility may be allowed to report only emissions of CO 2 in 2010, instead of the full suite of greenhouse gas emissions . Some larger facilities that are impacted by the proposed rule may be in a position to begin monitoring requirements at a faster pace than

medium and small entities.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

9See today’s pream ble section II B Changes to the Reporting Schedule.

With regard to the reporting requirements for ba keries, please see the response to comment EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1, excerpt 4.

Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners

Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: EPA should proceed carefully when de signing a greenhouse gas program, including the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases pr oposal, so as to not overly burden the food processing industry, and thereby impose price burdens on the Nation’s food supply at a time when the economy is already negatively impac ting businesses’ livelihood. For example, if a bakery with emissions near the 25,000 tons pe r year were a “covered facility” under a “cap-andtrade” proposal, that business would have to pay $500,000 per year in carbon fees for emissions allowances, even if allowances were priced at only $20/ton. This is a significant impact to a

small or medium size business.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

With regard to the reporting requirements for ba keries, please see the response to comment EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1, excerpt 4. In developing the final rule, EPA gathered additional

data on costs and re-examined the costs in each s ector, in addition to considering ways in which

to reduce the burden of the rule. More details on costs for indi vidual source categories can be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis that a ccompanies this rule, and response to comments received on the economic impact s of the rule found in Sectio n VII of the preamble signed on September 22, 2009.

Consideration of the costs and economic impacts of hypothetical fu ture environmental policies is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.



### 2. REPORTING THRESHOLD

Commenter Name: Dean C. DeLorey

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

Committee

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0559.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The examples of affected f acilities (Table 1) and source categories (Table 2) include multiple overlapping categories and subparts th at may apply to a source. However, the

10description f ails to explain how the categories and subparts may apply to a source like a beet sugar manufacturer that uses processes that fit in multiple categories.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

For more information on the definition of food pr ocessing facility, please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. Th is definition, as revised, does not include beet sugar manufacturers. Note that beet sugar manufacturers may still be required to report under other Subparts.

Commenter Name: See Table 2

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: The meat industry in general contri butes only minimally to total U.S. GHG emissions. To get a better unde rstanding of this, the Food Industry Environmental Council (FIEC) examined GHG emissions from the food industry. EPA estimated that the CH 4 emissions from wastewater treatment and landfills of the entire food processing source category total 10.9

million metric tons CO 2 e per year. EPA did not quantify the emissions from on-site fuel combustion. Taking the total nationw ide new (sources and sinks) CO 2 e emissions in 2007 of 6,087.5 million MT CO 2 e, FIEC calculated that the TSD- based emissions were 0.179% of net U.S. total GHG emissions. Using 2006 inventor y figures, FIEC calculated food industry

emissions of 0.181% of net U.S. total GHG emis sions. Because the meat industry is a small subset of the total food processing industry, becau se 80% of the meat industry discharges its wastewater to POTWs, because aerobic treatment is a large part of the industry's wastewater treatment, and given that a growing number of existing meat industr y anaerobic wastewater

treatment facilities are covere d, the meat industry is a small GHG emitter, which EPA sought to exclude from this rule. Accordingly, the rule should provide the following: 1. No reporting for facilities that emit less than 50,000 mtpy; 2. Annual re porting for facilities th at emit greater than 50,000 mtpy (for two to three years as described below); and 3. Reporting significant changes for facilities that emit 25,000 to 50,000 mtpy, if those ch anges would increase emissions to greater than 50,000 mtpy.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

EPA disagrees with the commente r that industrial wastewater treatment should not be included in the rule because it would not be a significan t source of greenhouse gas emissions. Please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 8 of this document for further

discussion.

11While food processing facilities m ay not be large sources of GHG em issions, and are not included as a separate subcategory, their inclusion is important to the goal of the reporting rule if they are otherwise subject to reporting requireme nts. See the preamble signed in 2009 (74 FR (page 56317)) for response to comments on de minimus exclusions.

Commenter Name: See Table 2

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: EPA's published a meat and poultry processi ng guide to help facilities determine if they will fall above the 25,000 mtpy threshol d. EPA used Office of Water demographics collected for the 2004 effluent limitations guideline promulgation to estimate the relative plant size that is likely to emit more than 25,000 mtpy from wastewater processing alone, but did not consider stationary combustion units. EPA estimat ed that "only a few facilities" that process annually more than 292 million pounds of meat or 232 million pounds of poultry would likely be subject to the rule (EPA, Tabl e 2, Technical Support Document fo r Food Processing Facilities, p. 5, 2009). However, EPA's definition of "large " meat and poultry production volumes are incorrect. In fact, large meat and poultry facili ties today typically process: 1. Beef = 325 head/hr x 16 hrs/day x 1250 lbs/head live weight x 5 days x 52 wks = 1.69 billion pounds per year [Footnote: Published carcass yields for beef and pork are 62% and 76%. Tyson Foods, Inc. Fiscal 2008 Fact Book, 32 pp.] 2. Pork = 1000 head/hr x 16 hr s/day x 280 lbs/head live weight x 5 days x 52 wks = 1.16 billion pounds per year 3. Chicke n = 1.3 million birds/wk x 7.5 lbs/bird live weight x 52 wks = 507 million pounds per year. [Foot note: Published carcass yields for broiler chickens range from 73-76%. Kokoszynski D, Bernacki Z. 2008. Comparison of slaughter yield and carcass tissue composition in broiler chickens of various compositions. J. Central European Ag. 9 (1), 11-16. http://www.agr.hr/jcea/issues/j cea9-1/pdf/jcea9l2.pdf] Us ing EPA's projections a majority of AMI member company plants – larg e, medium, and perhaps some small plants too – process amounts of meat or pou ltry that would result in an aerobic wastewater treatment GHG emissions levels that exceed the proposed 25,000 mtpy threshold. When stationary combustion unit emissions are added, is it really possible that the majority of faciliti es in the meat industry will be required to report GHG emissions? Either EPA's numbers are inco rrect for the pounds of meat and poultry processed that would exceed 25,000 mtpy, or the 25,000 mtpy threshold itself is too low, or both.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

Food processing facilities are specifically in cluded and defined in subpart II – Industrial Wastewater Treatment which is being finalized with this regulatory action. For more information on the definition of food processing facility, please see th e response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1, excerpt 8. EPA revised the TSD for Industrial Wastewater, and in the course of doing so reevaluated the number of facilities that may be required to report

their emissions from industrial wastewater unde r the rule. For more information, please see Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technical Support Document (June 2010) (see docket EPAHQ-OAR-2008-0508 for a copy of this document).

12Commenter Name: See Table 2

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: The proposed rule identifies 25,000 mtpy CO 2 equivalency (CO 2 e) as the total annual GHG emissions threshold for requi red reporting, aggregated for al l the source categories and for all supply categories for which emission cal culation methods are pr ovided6 (74 Fed. Reg. 16462). Although the proposal asserts that this th reshold would exclude small emitters, thereby reducing the reporting burden and providing the most valid data fo r future policy and regulatory decisions, (74 Fed. Reg. 16456), it is uncerta in that this benefit will ensue.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

See the preamble signed in 2009 (74 FR (page 56317)) for response to comments on de minimus

exclusions.

Commenter Name: Rechelle Hollowaty

Commenter Affiliation: Tyson Foods, Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0379.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Tyson respectively requests EPA to rec onsider the full impact of the 25,000 tpy GHG reporting threshold on meat processors. EPA cl aims only a few facilities within the meat processors will be affected by this regulation at this threshold. Tyson disagrees entirely with EPA’s approach to estimating the potential number of affected facilities by the annual amount of processed meat or poultry. Within Tyson alone ther e will be 20+ facilities affected for the long

term of which all of 20+ f acilities are over the EPA’s volum e estimates. While many of companies have similar processes to Tyson, we be lieve there will be much greater impact within

the industrial sector th en initially estimated by EPA to the extent that most of the meat processing facilities in the US will be re porting emissions. Many of the meat processing companies will have to rely on outside consultant s to help coordinate and compile the data and assemble the reports. As with all regulatory requirements there will be a financial impact to the company and therefore at some point that financial impact will trickle down to the bottom of the

“food chain” to the consumer.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

13W ith regard to the number of meat processors expected to be required to report emissions under the rule, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 11.

Commenter Name: See Table 2

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: AMI's comments demonstrate that the m eat industry as a whole is an extremely small component of U.S. GHG emissions, that EPA's concept of a "large" meat or poultry processing plant is incorrect, and that this incorrect concept has led EPA to significantly underestimate the number of meat and poultry processi ng facilities (the "meat industry") that will be affected by these reporting requirements.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

With regard to the number of meat processors expected to be required to report emissions under the rule, please see the respons e to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1, excerpt 11.

Commenter Name: Robert Garfield

Commenter Affiliation: American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0402.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: AFFI believes that for source categories contributing relatively insignificant amounts of GHG emissions (i.e., be low 0.5% of nationwide CO 2 e emissions), EPA should use alternative, conservative reporting thresholds that are tied to the status of a s ource category facility as a Title V major source rather than the cap acity of particular facilities to emit GHGs. AFFI respectfully recommends this approach for three reasons. Fi rst, AFFI estimates that excluding non-Title V facilities from GHG reporting will not adversely affect the qualit y or reliability of EPA’s GHG collection efforts. Even if the reporting requi rements excluded every single food processing facility—an overly- conservative assumption given that at least some food processing facilities fall under Title V—EPA would miss detailed emissions data only from some 0.161% of nationwide GHG emissions [Footnote: Using AP-42 emission factors, a natural-ga s-fired boiler would need to have a capacity of some 171 MMBt u/hr to emit 100 tons per year NOx, while at the same time emitting only 78,000 MT CO 2 e /yr. Using the Title V threshold approach, the 30 MMBtu/hr stationary fuel combustion threshold would need to be altered for qualifying source categories]. And reporting under the rule of natural gas deliveries by local distri bution companies would provide EPA with a separate source of da ta from which to calculate GHG emissions from the combustion of natural gas. Second, major sources under Title V are already accustomed to managing sophisticated monitoring, recordkeepi ng, and reporting requirements. As a result, those facilities already have inte rnal QA/QC procedures in place, have designated representatives responsible for compliance, and have staff th at are well-qualified to include GHG monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting in th e normal operation of the facilit y. In short, Title V facilities

14already have the foundations in place to support the additiona l burden of GHG reporting. Last,

the burden o f monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting on small-to-medium-sized facilities unaccustomed to detailed federal environmental compliance outweighs the minor benefits achieved by collecting detailed GHG emissions data from such an insignificant source category. In recent testimony to Congress, Administrator Jackson has reiterated that EPA’s GHG policies are not designed to adversely impact smaller busin esses. Limiting the scope of the proposed rule as we have suggested is a step towards avoiding those adverse im pacts. As well, most of these food processing facilities use effi cient natural gas as the primary fuel source to meet FDA and USDA processing requirements for safe and wholesome food products. Taken together, including non-Title V sources in a source category that contribut es less than 0.5% to nationwide GHG emissions appears to be contrary to EPA’s stat ed goal of “[b]alanc[i ng] the rule coverage to maximize the amount of emissions reported while excluding small emitters,” and may be contrary to Congress’ direct ive to require reporting of GH G emissions “above appropriate thresholds.” [Footnote: Consolidated Appr opriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2008). AFFI also notes that EPA has not es timated the incremental GHG emissions to be reported at different threshol d levels, making it very difficult to determine whether the 25,000

MT CO 2 e /yr threshold for the food processing source category is reasonable. Compare Table M1 with Table N-1, 74 Fed. Reg. 16,507–508.]

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

See the preamble signed in 2009 for the response on selection of the thre shold. Regarding the comment that only Title V sources should report emissions, see the response to comment from the rule signed in 2009 EPA-HQ-OAR -2008-0508-0526.1, excerpt 6 in Volume 2.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Hirst

Commenter Affiliation: International Bottled Water Association (IBWA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1143.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: IBWA believes that for source categori es contributing relatively insignificant amounts of GHG emissions, such as the bottled wa ter industry (i.e., below 0.5% of nationwide

CO 2 e emissions), EPA should use alternative, conser vative reporting threshol ds that are tied to the status of a source category f acility as a Title V major source rather than the capacity of particular facilities to emit GHGs. IBWA estim ates that excluding non-Title V facilities from GHG reporting will not negatively affect the qua lity or reliability of EPA’s GHG collection efforts. Even if the reporti ng requirements excluded every type of food processing facility, including those associated with the manufact uring and dispersal of bottled water—an overlyconservative assumption given that at least so me food processing facilities fall under Title V— EPA would miss detailed emissions data only fr om some 0.161% of nationwide GHG emissions. Reporting under the rule of natural gas deliveri es by local distribution companies would provide EPA with a separate source of data from whic h to calculate GHG emissions from the combustion of natural gas. Title V facil ities already have the foundations in place to support the added responsibility of GHG reporting. Major source s under Title V are adapted to managing sophisticated monitoring, recordkeeping, and re porting requirements. These facilities have

15adopted internal QA/QC procedures, have designat ed representatives responsible for com pliance, and are outfitted with well-qu alified staff to include GHG monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting in the normal operation of the facility.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

See the preamble signed on September 22, 2009 for th e response on selection of the threshold. Regarding the comment that only Title V sources should report emissions, see the response to comment from the rule signed in 2009 EP A-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0526.1, excerpt 6 in Volume 2

of this document.

Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners

Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: EPA should consider further streamlining the applicability by pr oviding a de minimis exemption for any food processing facility (with emissions only from combustion) which has less than 30 million Btu burner capacity.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

With regard to de minimus reporting, please s ee the preamble signed in 2009 and the response to comment from the rule signed 2009 EPA-HQ- OAR-2008-0508-0374.1, excerpt 7 in Volume 2.

Commenter Name: Robert Garfield

Commenter Affiliation: American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0402.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: AFFI respectfully recommends that for those GHG source categories contributing less than 0.5% to nationwide GHG emissions, EPA require reporting only from facilities in the source category that would otherwise qualify as a major source under Title V of the Clean Air

Act. The bases for our recommendation are set fo rth in more detail below. The GHG Reporting Rule identifies food processing as a source cate gory that emits GHGs fr om landfill operations, wastewater treatment systems, and stationary fuel combustion and for which EPA has set a facility-wide GHG reporting threshold of 25,000 MT CO 2 e /yr. EPA has estimated total GHG emissions from this source category (excluding stationary fuel combustion) of some 10.9 MMT

CO 2 which equals 0.152% of total 2007 nationwide CO 2 e emissions. Including a proportionate share of stationary fuel com bustion GHG emissions [footnote: That is, 0.152% of total estimated

16stationary fuel com bustion emissions of 410 MMT CO 2 e, see 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,482, or 0.63

MMT CO 2 e.] in the food processing source category yields total estimated emissions of 11.53

MMT CO 2 e, or 0.161% of total 2007 CO 2 e emissions—an undeniably insignificant contribution

to overall emissions.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

EPA is not excluding source categories from reporting based on the specific percent of nationwide GHG emissions contributed by the sour ce category as a whole. See the preamble signed in 2009 and the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 excerpt 8.

Commenter Name: Stewart T. Leeth

Commenter Affiliation: Smithfield Foods, Inc.

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: In the Proposed Rule, EPA states that "P OTWs are not included in this proposal because, as described in the Wastewat er Treatment TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-035),

emissions from POTWs do not excee d the threshold considered under this rule." (74 Fed. Reg. at 16,560). However, EPA’s Inventor y of Greenhouse Gas Emissions depicts POTWs as a larger

contributor of CO 2 e than industrial wastewater treatme nt. (EPA, DRAFT Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, Ch. 8, Table 8-6 (April 15, 2009)). Food processing is an even smaller subset of the industrial category. As AMI observes in its comments, 2007 CO 2 e emissions in the food industry amounts to 0.179% of net US total GHG emissions. Based on EPA’s own reasoning for excluding POTWs from the Proposed Rule, there is absolutely no basis to include food processing.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III, Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

EPA has not required domestic or municipal trea tment systems to report emissions because, as

described in the Wastewater Treatme nt TSD (EPA– HQ–OAR–2008–0508–035), emissions from domestic or municipal treatment system s do not exceed the thresholds considered under

this rule. Due to the fact that most centralized wastewater treatment plants use aerobic treatment, and those that use anaerobic sy stems are small, EPA does not expect any to meet the 25,000

metric ton CO 2 e reporting threshold. As a result, EP A has not required POTWs to report

emissions.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Hirst

Commenter Affiliation: International Bottled Water Association (IBWA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1143.1

17Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The burden of monitoring, recordkeepi ng, and reporting on small-to-medium-sized

facilities unaccustomed to detailed federal e nvironmental compliance outweighs the minor benefits achieved by collecting detailed GHG emi ssions data from such an insignificant source category. In recent testimony to Congress, Admini strator Jackson has reite rated that EPA’s GHG policies are not designed to a dversely impact smaller businesses. Limiting the scope of the proposed rule as we have suggested is a step towards avoiding those adverse impacts. Taken together, including non-Title V sources in a sour ce category that contributes less than 0.5% to nationwide GHG emissions appears to be contrary to EPA’s stated goal of “[ b]alanc[ing] the rule coverage to maximize the amount of emissions reported while excluding small emitters,” and may be contrary to Congress’ directive to require reporting of GHG emissions “above appropriate thresholds.”[Footnote: Consolid ated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2008). AFFI also notes that EPA has not estimated the incremental GHG emissions to be reported at di fferent threshold levels, making it very difficult to determine whether the 25,000 MTCO 2 e/yr threshold for the food processi ng source category is reasonable. Compare Table M-1 with Table N-1, 74 Fed. Reg. 16,507–508.]

Response: EPA has made the final decision not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Ru le. See section III, Other Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

Please see the response to comment from th e rule signed in 2009 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508- 0609.1, excerpt 2 in Volume 10 for EPA’s approach to reducing burdens on small businesses.

Commenter Name: Dean C. DeLorey

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

Committee

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0559.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: We encourage the US EPA to further consider impacts to small to medium companies and American farmers in promulga ting this GHG inventory rule. Although all US beet sugar processing facilities anticipate be ing required to particip ate the GHG inventory, the additional resources required to comply with reporting rules will significantly impact our typically nearly a century old facilities that have to comp ete in a commodity industry.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

Please see the response to comment from th e rule signed in 2009 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508- 0609.1, excerpt 2 in Volume 10 of this document for EPA’s approach to reducing burdens on

small businesses.

18

### 3. GHGS TO REPORT

Commenter Name: Mike Redman

Commenter Affiliation: The American Beverage Association (ABA)

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0582 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Manufacturers of carbonated beverages use ca rbon dioxide as an ingredient in the beverage manufacturing process. In the US, a ll of the carbon dioxide used in beverage manufacturing originates as a byproduct of other industrial processes (suc h as fermentation, etc.) from other industries. No new or virgin carbon dioxide is manufactured for use in carbonated beverages. Since all of the carbon dioxide used in beverage manufactur ing is a byproduct of other industrial processes, the carbon dioxide used as an ingr edient in carbo nated beverage manufacturing does not represen t a new source of a greenhouse gas. Although ABA recognizes that carbon dioxide emissions from beverage ma nufacturing facilities repr esents a minute portion of overall greenhouse gas releases , reporting carbon dioxide emissi ons from carbonated beverage manufacturing would not reflect the “accurate and timely” information that EPA has outlined as its goal in the preamble to the proposal. ABA urges EPA to cons ider the unique circumstances described above and address this issue in any future steps during this rulemaking process. Carbon dioxide which is both a byproduct of othe r industrial processes a nd an ingredient in foods and beverages should not be subject to greenhouse gas reporting as such reporting would be both misleading and inaccurate.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

Under subpart PP (Suppliers of CO 2 ), industrial faciliti es that capture a CO 2 stream and supply it for commercial application must report quantities captured and supplied. The facility that purchases and uses the captured CO 2 would have to report facility direct CO 2 emissions only if the facility contains a source category covered by the rule an d there are methodologies in the rule for reporting CO 2 process emissions for the specific industrial process.



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

MONITORING METHODS

Commenter Name: See Table 1

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: EPA does not require continuous emissions monitoring of meat industry combustion devices, but provides options fo r calculating GHG emissions. In its proposal, EPA agrees that

indirect estimation is more cost-effective and reliable.

19Response: EPA has m ade the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III, Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

The final subpart C for stationary fuel combus tion retains the tiered approach that allows specified calculation methods rather th an CEMS for many combustion units.



### 5. MONITORING AND QA/QC REQUIREMENTS

Commenter Name: See Table 1

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: EPA apparently considered sunsetting the reporting requirement after three years but rejected the option because the agency conclude d that such an approach would unnecessarily limit the debate about potentia l policy options to address c limate change (74 Fed. Reg. 16478). There is no substantive reason to conclude, howev er, that the climate change debate would be affected in any manner if reporti ng was limited to two or three year s. Meat processors should be required to report for two or three years only, an d thereafter report when process changes occur or other considerations signifi cantly change emissions estimati ons. Such a policy exists for continuous emissions reporting by animal feedi ng operations of hazardous air pollutants under EPA regulations for the Comprehensive Enviro nmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Reporting emissions for two to th ree years should provide EPA with sufficient data on which to make informed policy decisions regarding climate change – the purported goal of the rule. If two or three years proves to be insufficient, EPA could ta ke action to extend the rule. EPA should, however, have a sunset plan fo r this information gathering tool because once regulatory programs are established, they are very difficult to end for political reasons unrelated

to their continued relevance.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

For the response to the comment regarding inclus ion of sunset provisions, see the response to comment for the rule signed in 2009 EP A-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7 in Volume 5

of this document.

Commenter Name: See Table 1

Commenter Affiliation:

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

20Comment: EPA concluded that annual em issions reporting is sufficient for policy development

and is consistent with othe r existing mandatory and voluntar y GHG reporting programs at the State and Federal levels. The ag ency cautioned, however, that as future policies develop it may be necessary to reconsider the reporting freque ncy and require more or less frequent reporting (e.g., quarterly reporting under future programs or polic y initiatives, particular ly if regulatory in nature such as a cap-and-trade program). To that end, for the meat industry, annual reporting is more than adequate for a period that would depend on the emissions level.

Response: EPA has made the final deci sion not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

EPA has retained annual reporting in 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: 5

Comment: We strongly urge EPA to re think their position for the Meat Processing Industry and

allow a much slower transition in to reporting as well as limit the number of years from 2-3 years of required reporting. Thereafter, a facility should only have re port if there are significant changes made to that location dram atically increasing the GHG emissions.

Response: EPA has made the final decisi on not to include Subpart M as a distinct subpart in the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule . See section III. Ot her Proposed Source Categories of today’s preamble fo r further explanation. Note, food processing facilities will still be required to report if they m eet the threshold of 25,000 tons CO 2 e by aggregating emissions from all applicable sources covered by the rule.

For the response to the commen t on reducing the frequency of reporting, see the response to comment for the rule signed in 2009 EP A-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 3 in Volume 12

of this document.

EPA decided not to phase in reporting for diffe rent source categories as recommended by the commenter because comprehensive data are criti cal to the timely development of future GHG policy and regulatory programs. As explained in Section II.G of the preamble signed on September 22, 2009, Congress requested EPA to deve lop this reporting progr am on an expedited schedule, and Congressional inquir ies along with public comments reinforce that data collection for calendar year 2010 is a priorit y. For more information on why EPA needs to collect data in 2010, see Section I.G of the preamble signed on September 22, 2009. However, EPA agrees that some facilities may need additional time to inst all monitoring devices and the final rule includes provisions allowing best available data to be used during the first qu arter of 2010. For more

information on the use of best available da ta, see Section II.G of the preamble signed on September 22, 2009.

2122 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
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