The RTI Memo correctly acknowledges that none of the oxidation studies "specifically investigated the optimal cover depth for methane oxidation." (RTI Memo at 15) RTI also notes, "soil cover depths were neither presented in every study reviewed, nor explicitly mentioned as an influencing variable in every study reviewed." (RTI Memo at 5) Though RTI accepts that the oxidation studies do not consider soil cover depth as a factor influencing methane oxidation, RTI nevertheless states, "[a] conclusion cannot be made that cover depth does not impact methane oxidation because a cover material of various depths was included in all measurements." (RTI Memo at 15) Elsewhere in the RTI Memo, RTI concludes, "some amount of soil cover is important for methane oxidation to occur; however the studies do not allow for a conclusion on the optimal depth of that soil cover." (RTI Memo at 5) The RTI Memo does not provide any additional detail or analysis of the amount of soil cover that is necessary for methane oxidation.
RTI's findings, therefore, appear to be based solely on the fact that the majority of the measurements included in RTI's limited review noted depth of soil cover of 24 inches or more. Such a conclusory observation is inconsistent with the scientific record, and has the potential to create confusion regarding why EPA removed the 24-inch soil cover requirement. As WM has demonstrated in its Petition for Reconsideration, including Figure 1 contained therein,[3] there is no statistically significant correlation between cover depth and the rates of observed methane oxidation in the relevant oxidation studies. (WM Petition for Reconsideration at 16-17 and Figure 1)
[Note: The commenter submitted Figure 1 from Chanton, 2014, which provides a representation of the depth of soil cover and methane oxidation fractions for the 32 measurements from the SWICS studies that reported cover depth. See DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0536-0049 for additional details.]
Though RTI recognizes that "the studies do not allow for a conclusion on the optimal depth of that soil cover," the RTI Memo does not comment on the lack of statistical relationship between soil cover depth and methane oxidation, a fact that should be included in RTI's discussion of cover depth and oxidation rates. (RTI Memo at 5) Moreover, the RTI Memo's conclusions regarding soil cover depth are belied by the relevant literature that RTI itself uses, as the oxidation studies show that methane oxidation is influenced by a number of factors other than cover thickness, including climate, moisture levels, and soil characteristics. (2012 SWICS Addendum at 16) The fact that no single factor influencing methane oxidation is appropriate as a prerequisite for the binned approach is lost in the RTI Memo, given its attention to cover depth at the expense of all other factors.
Moving forward, EPA and RTI have an opportunity to strengthen the stated scientific bases for revising the binned approach to remove the 24-inch soil cover requirement by clearly concluding and stating in the final rule preamble that the scientific data in the record does not support a depth of cover prerequisite to using the binned approach.
Footnotes:
(2) WM notes that "logical outgrowth" is a term of legal consequence, the concept being that an administrative agency does not satisfy its notice and comment obligation when an interested party could not have anticipated that a change in a final rule was possible based on the contents of the proposed rule. See Northwest Maryland Waste Disposal Authority v. EPA, F.3d 936, 951-52 (D.C. Cir. 2004). To the extent that the RTI Memo is suggesting that WM should have anticipated that EPA could or would include the 24-inch soil cover requirement in the 2013 Rule and commented accordingly, the RTI Memo misapplies the relevant case law. A final rule must be a logical outgrowth of an agency's proposal, not of the comments submitted on the proposal. Because EPA's original proposal gave no indication that EPA was considering any depth of cover requirement, the 24-inch soil cover requirement was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed 2013 Rule. For further discussion of the "logical outgrowth" requirement, see WM's Petition for Reconsideration at 11-13. In addition, for the reasons set forth at pages 9-11 of the WM Petition for Reconsideration, CCWI's comments cannot reasonably be read to have supported any cover depth requirement because such comments did not address depth of soil cover as prerequisite or direct parameter for determining methane oxidation.
(3) Figure 1, Chanton, 2014 (unpublished), was developed to provide a graphical representation of the relationship between depth of soil cover and methane oxidation fractions for the 32 measurements from the SWICS studies that reported cover depth. The graph clearly shows that there is no significant correlation between the cover depths and oxidation rates reported in those studies, as indicated by the scatter of oxidation data at almost every cover depth. A perfect correlation of r[2] = 1.0 would show the data points aligning along a trend line and would demonstrate that methane oxidation increases with depth of cover. Instead, the studies show that the value of r[2] is very low, at only 0.07. Further the p-statistic, which describes how well the data "fit" a linear relationship between oxidation and cover depth  -  as shown by the diagonal line in Figure 1  -  is 0.137. Such p value demonstrates a lack of correlation between soil depth and oxidation rate. By conventional criteria, a p value this high is considered statistically insignificant, whereas a value for p=0.05 or 1/20 chance is the standard boundary between statistical significance and statistical insignificance.
Response: While EPA has not adopted the commenter's specific suggestions, we have provided further explanation in section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule regarding the final revisions to the rule in response to the Petition for Reconsideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Ted Michaels
Commenter Affiliation:  Energy Recovery Council (ERC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: The EPA's proposal to effectively reduce the cover soil depth requirement to 12 inches, consistent with typical intermediate cover thickness requirements administered by the states, is not supported by the arguments presented in the preamble or the referenced literature investigation.
As the EPA observes in the preamble to the Rule proposal, "85 percent of the data points in the
literature where both methane oxidized and cover depth were reported had a cover depth of 24
inches or more." While several studies observed that a majority of soil oxidation occurs in the
top 12 to 15 inches of soil oxidation, the EPA notes that "it is unclear whether these soils would
have had similar oxidation rates if only 12 or 15 inches of soil cover were present." Furthermore,
the investigation report observed that "none of the 27 peer-reviewed studies specifically
investigated the optimal cover depth for methane oxidation."
Given that it is "unclear whether these soils would have had similar oxidation rates if only 12 or
15 inches of soil cover were present" the EPA has not presented a logical rationale for ignoring
this uncertainty and then assuming that oxidation rates over 12 inches will be equivalent to those
reported when a large majority (85%) of studies relied upon soil oxidation for the higher
collection efficiency estimates were based on cover soils at least 24 inches thick.
Response: See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for our response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Paul Gilman
Commenter Affiliation:  Covanta
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0034
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: The EPA's proposal to effectively reduce the cover soil depth requirement to 12 inches, consistent with typical intermediate cover thickness requirements administered by the states, is not supported by the arguments presented in the preamble or the referenced literature investigation.
As the EPA observes in the preamble to the Rule proposal, "85 percent of the data points in the literature where both methane oxidized and cover depth were reported had a cover depth of 24 inches or more." While several studies observed that a majority of soil oxidation occurs in the top 12 to 15 inches of soil oxidation, the EPA notes that "it is unclear whether these soils would
have had similar oxidation rates if only 12 or 15 inches of soil cover were present." Furthermore, the investigation report observed that "none of the 27 peer-reviewed studies specifically investigated the optimal cover depth for methane oxidation."
Given that it is "unclear whether these soils would have had similar oxidation rates if only 12 or 15 inches of soil cover were present" the EPA has not presented a logical rationale for ignoring this uncertainty and then assuming that oxidation rates over 12 inches will be equivalent to those reported when a large majority (85%) of studies relied upon soil oxidation for the higher
collection efficiency estimates were based on cover soils at least 24 inches thick.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033, Excerpt 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Ted Michaels
Commenter Affiliation:  Energy Recovery Council (ERC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: Before any changes are made to the soil oxidation factors, the EPA should re-evaluate the flux-based methodology and the underlying calculations and consider returning to the 10% default in the interim.
The data upon which the flux-based methodology are based on flux chambers, which exclude certain sources of methane emissions from landfills and are generally recognized as underreporting emissions. The Rule applies a soil oxidation factor to the entire fraction of uncollected methane, assuming that all of the methane is subject to soil oxidation. However, as clearly stated in the SWICS Addendum, the emission results which are the basis of the flux-based methodology "do not include gas leaking from pipes and vents or the working face." Instead, the emission results only represent "emissions through the cover soil as determined from flux chambers."[7] This is an important consideration given that a flux box is only a nominal 2 foot by 2 foot box and that the subsurface and surface of a landfill can be highly variable. Flux chambers have been criticized by the EPA and the IPCC [8,9,10] as under-reporting emissions. Those who have used the 10% value in the past have done so in explicit recognition that the advection and diffusion of methane through a soil cap is not the only mechanism of methane emissions to the atmosphere.[11] In response to earlier proposals for elevated soil oxidation factors, the EPA concluded that "a significant portion of the landfill gas is likely to exit the landfill in a limited number of areas under much higher flow rates than other locations. These high volume flows will not have significant oxidation."[12] The EPA's observation mirrors a
similar one made by the IPCC:
      "Field and laboratory CH4 and CO2 emission concentrations and flux measurements that determine CH4 oxidation from uniform and homogeneous soil layers should not be used directly to determine the oxidation factor, since in reality, only a fraction of the CH4 generated will diffuse through such a homogeneous layer. Another fraction will escape through cracks/fissures or via lateral diffusion without being oxidised. Therefore, unless the spatial extent of measurements is wide enough and cracks/fissures are explicitly included, results from field and laboratory studies may lead to over-estimation of oxidation in SWDS cover soils." [13]
The use of soil oxidation data, with the important exception of whole plume isotope data, must be combined with another term representing the fraction of landfill methane not subject to significant soil oxidation.
In addition, the flux based methodology presumes that emissions flux is a reasonable predictor of the fraction of methane oxidized; however, emissions flux explains a relatively minor fraction of the variation seen in soil oxidation values. A linear regression of methane emissions flux (i.e. independent variable) and fraction of soil oxidation as the dependent variable from SWICS Addendum Table 2 reveals a statistically significant correlation (p<0.01), albeit one that only explains ~14% of the variation in soil oxidation fraction (R2 = 0.138). There is also a statistically significant correlation between the natural log of methane emissions flux and the non-transformed fraction of soil oxidation (p<0.01) that explains ~26% of the variation in soil
oxidation fraction. Other variables (e.g. test method, climate, temperature, rainfall prior to sampling event, cover thickness, surface wind, atmospheric pressure, soil type, soil porosity and permeability, cover age, quarterly surface monitoring results) should also be evaluated in a multivariate statistical test to ascertain their ability to predict the fraction of methane oxidation.
The SWICS Addendum provides no justification for the use of methane emissions flux as a predictor of methane oxidation over these other potential variables. In addition, a one-way ANOVA of the soil oxidation fraction grouped by test method (e.g. isotope chamber, lab column) reveals that there is a statistically significant difference between the groups (p<0.01). This is a very problematic result since it demonstrates that there are significant differences between results obtained from different measurement methodologies within the SWICS dataset.
Lastly, the SWICS Addendum incorrectly uses the arithmetic mean to characterize the central tendency of a non-normal dataset. The data presented in Table 2 of the SWICS Addendum is not normally distributed (Anderson-Darling test, p<0.005; Kolmogorov - Smirnov test, p<0.01; Ryan-Joiner test, p<0.01). In defending its use of the mean to characterize the central tendency of the data, the SWICS Addendum overgeneralizes the conclusions reached by Abichou et al. stating that the article "reported that methane oxidation values are normally distributed so mean values are an acceptable way to express the central tendencies of the data." The article actually assesses the distributions of samples collected at individual sites, not average soil oxidation values across multiple sites. Application of the geometric mean to the dataset yields a fraction of 0.29, well below the mean value of 0.38. Other researchers and the EPA have suggested that the geometric mean is more appropriate to use.[14,15]
Footnotes:
(7) See p16 of SWICS (2012).
(8) See p75 of EPA (2008) Emission Factor Documentation for AP‐42 Section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills EPA/600/R‐08‐116
(9) See p1-1 of EPA (2012) Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills EPA/600/R-11/033
(10) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5: Waste, Chapter 3: Solid Waste Disposal.
(11) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5: Waste, Chapter 3: Solid Waste Disposal.
(12) See p56336 of US EPA (2008) Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Federal Register 74: 209, 56260  -  56519 (October 30, 2009)
(13) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006)
(14) See p56336 of US EPA (2008) Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Federal Register 74: 209, 56260  -  56519 (October 30, 2009)
(15) Amini, H.R., D. Reinhart, A. Niskanen (2013) Comparison of first‐order‐decay modeled and actual field measured municipal solid waste landfill methane data, Waste Management 33: 12 (December 2013), 2720  -  2728
Response: Regarding this suggestion that EPA re-evaluate the flux-based methodology and the underlying calculations and consider returning to the 10% default in the interim, EPA did not solicit comment on such changes in the proposed rule. The proposed revisions to Table HH-4 did not substantively revise the flux-based methodology. Previous footnote "a" to Table HH-4 was revised solely to renumber the footnote to be footnote "b," to allow new footnote "a" to be inserted. Therefore, this comment is outside of scope for this rulemaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Paul Gilman
Commenter Affiliation:  Covanta
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0034
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment:
Before any changes are made to the soil oxidation factors, the EPA should re-evaluate the flux-based methodology and the underlying calculations and consider returning to the 10% default in the interim.
The data upon which the flux-based methodology are based on flux chambers, which exclude certain sources of methane emissions from landfills and are generally recognized as underreporting emissions. The Rule applies a soil oxidation factor to the entire fraction of uncollected methane, assuming that all of the methane is subject to soil oxidation. However, as clearly stated in the SWICS Addendum, the emission results which are the basis of the flux-based methodology "do not include gas leaking from pipes and vents or the working face." Instead, the emission results only represent "emissions through the cover soil as determined from flux chambers."[7] This is an important consideration given that a flux box is only a nominal 2 foot by 2 foot box and that the subsurface and surface of a landfill can be highly variable. Flux chambers have been criticized by the EPA and the IPCC.[8,9,10] as underreporting emissions.
Those who have used the 10% value in the past have done so in explicit recognition that the advection and diffusion of methane through a soil cap is not the only mechanism of methane emissions to the atmosphere.[11] In response to earlier proposals for elevated soil oxidation factors, the EPA concluded that "a significant portion of the landfill gas is likely to exit the landfill in a limited number of areas under much higher flow rates than other locations. These high volume flows will not have significant oxidation."12 The EPA's observation mirrors a similar one made by the IPCC:
      "Field and laboratory CH4 and CO2 emission concentrations and flux measurements that determine CH4 oxidation from uniform and homogeneous soil layers should not be used directly to determine the oxidation factor, since in reality, only a fraction of the CH4 generated will diffuse through such a homogeneous layer. Another fraction will escape through cracks/fissures or via lateral diffusion without being oxidised. Therefore, unless the spatial extent of measurements is wide enough and cracks/fissures are explicitly included, results from field and laboratory studies may lead to over-estimation of oxidation in SWDS cover soils." [13]
The use of soil oxidation data, with the important exception of whole plume isotope data, must be combined with another term representing the fraction of landfill methane not subject to significant soil oxidation.
In addition, the flux based methodology presumes that emissions flux is a reasonable predictor of the fraction of methane oxidized; however, emissions flux explains a relatively minor fraction of the variation seen in soil oxidation values. A linear regression of methane emissions flux (i.e. independent variable) and fraction of soil oxidation as the dependent variable from SWICS Addendum Table 2 reveals a statistically significant correlation (p<0.01), albeit one that only explains ~14% of the variation in soil oxidation fraction (R2 = 0.138). There is also a statistically significant correlation between the natural log of methane emissions flux and the non-transformed fraction of soil oxidation (p<0.01) that explains ~26% of the variation in soil
oxidation fraction. Other variables (e.g. test method, climate, temperature, rainfall prior to sampling event, cover thickness, surface wind, atmospheric pressure, soil type, soil porosity and permeability, cover age, quarterly surface monitoring results) should also be evaluated in a multivariate statistical test to ascertain their ability to predict the fraction of methane oxidation.
The SWICS Addendum provides no justification for the use of methane emissions flux as a predictor of methane oxidation over these other potential variables. In addition, a one-way ANOVA of the soil oxidation fraction grouped by test method (e.g. isotope chamber, lab column) reveals that there is a statistically significant difference between the groups (p<0.01). This is a very problematic result since it demonstrates that there are significant differences between results obtained from different measurement methodologies within the SWICS dataset.
Lastly, the SWICS Addendum incorrectly uses the arithmetic mean to characterize the central tendency of a non-normal dataset. The data presented in Table 2 of the SWICS Addendum is not normally distributed (Anderson-Darling test, p<0.005; Kolmogorov - Smirnov test, p<0.01; Ryan- Joiner test, p<0.01). In defending its use of the mean to characterize the central tendency of the data, the SWICS Addendum overgeneralizes the conclusions reached by Abichou et al. stating that the article "reported that methane oxidation values are normally distributed so mean values are an acceptable way to express the central tendencies of the data." The article actually assesses the distributions of samples collected at individual sites, not average soil oxidation values across multiple sites. Application of the geometric mean to the dataset yields a fraction of 0.29, well
below the mean value of 0.38. Other researchers and the EPA have suggested that the geometric mean is more appropriate to use.[14, 15]
Footnotes:
(7) See p16 of SWICS (2012)
(8) See p75 of EPA (2008) Emission Factor Documentation for AP‐42 Section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills EPA/600/R‐08‐116
(9) See p1-1 of EPA (2012) Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills EPA/600/R-11/033;
(10) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5: Waste, Chapter 3: Solid Waste Disposal.
(11) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5: Waste, Chapter 3: Solid Waste Disposal.
(12) See p56336 of US EPA (2008) Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Federal Register 74: 209, 56260  -  56519 (October 30, 2009)
(13) See p3.15 of IPCC (2006)
(14) See p56336 of US EPA (2008) Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Federal Register 74: 209, 56260  -  56519 (October 30, 2009);
(15) Amini, H.R., D. Reinhart, A. Niskanen (2013) Comparison of first‐order‐decay modeled and actual field measured municipal solid waste landfill methane data, Waste Management 33: 12 (December 2013), 2720  -  2728
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033, Excerpt 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: WM reviewed comments submitted to the Docket for the 2015 Revisions by Covanta and the Energy Recovery Council (ERC), the trade association representing waste-to-energy facility owner/operators. Both organizations commented on the soil depth requirement and the use of flux-based methane oxidation fractions. However, we noted a number of errors and instances where commenters misapplied the scientific data in their comment letters.
Both Covanta and ERC criticized the flux-based methodology as being founded upon data collected using flux chamber studies, which the commenters said are prone to miss surficial sources of methane emissions and under report emissions. However, they have improperly described the preponderance of the data supporting the Agency's "binned approach" to calculating methane oxidation. Measurement of methane oxidation has progressed over the last decade with researchers using isotopic measurements of air collected above landfill surfaces, as well as whole landfill plume studies conducted with cavity ring down spectrometers (CRDS).[4] Both methods overcome the limits associated with use of flux chambers and explicitly included any emissions from cracks and cover penetrations associated with landfill infrastructure. These more sophisticated studies, conducted across a variety of landfill soils and climate types, showed an oxidation value of 36% + 8%. Whole landfill plume studies, conducted with EPA, confirmed those oxidation values even though plume isotope studies underestimate the oxidation fraction as described in the 2012 SWICS Addendum.
The Covanta comment letter criticizes the Agency's use of the flux-based methodology by claiming a weak relationship between the emissions rate and percent oxidation based upon a linear regression they conducted of what they thought were methane emissions rates and the soil oxidation fractions in Table 2 of the 2012 SWICS Addendum. They clearly misread and misapplied the data. Table 2 does not report methane emissions rates, but instead reports methane oxidation rates. As a result, Covanta correlated methane oxidation rates versus percent methane oxidation rather than methane emissions versus percent oxidation. The 2012 SWICS Addendum provides clear field and laboratory, column study data and theoretical justification for the Agency's binned approach, which is based upon a negative relationship between percent oxidation rate and methane emissions. Figure 4 of the 2012 SWICS Addendum plots methane oxidation rates (y-axis) as a function of methane loading to the bottom of the landfill soil cover (x-axis) and shows results from a series of studies that employed surface air samples to calculate methane oxidation. Only one landfill had a methane oxidation rate below 10%.
Lastly, the Covanta comment letter states that the SWICS 2012 Addendum incorrectly uses the arithmetic mean to characterize the central tendency of a non-normal dataset presented in Table 2. The SWICS Addendum Table 2 includes column, laboratory and field studies from most of the available peer-reviewed literature. Abichou et al. 2011 reported that methane surface emissions at a single landfill followed a log-normal distribution and the oxidation data obtained from measurements at single landfill followed a normal distribution. It was argued that the methane emissions were log-normal because they reflect that the soil hydraulic properties governing flow are also log-normal.[5] On the other hand, the oxidation data is based on the comparison of the isotopic signal of the methane below the cover as opposed to above the cover. Therefore, grouping the average oxidation reported in Table 2 and performing normality tests is not appropriate, and reporting their arithmetic or geometric means is not statistically meaningful. We do note that Chanton et al. 2011, referenced above, reported that the distribution of 701 determinations of methane oxidation made during 37 seasonal sampling events was normally distributed.
Footnotes:
(4) Chanton, J. Abichou, T., Langford, C., Hater, G., Green, R., Goldsmith, D., and Swan, N. 2011, Landfill Methane Oxidation Across Climate Types in the U.S., Environmental Science Technology, 45 (1): 313-319
(5) Abichou, T., Clark, J. Chanton, J., 2011, Reporting Central Tendencies of Chamber-measured Surface Emission and Oxidation, Waste Management, 31, 1002-1008
Response: Regarding this suggestion that EPA re-evaluate the flux-based methodology, EPA did not solicit comment on any such changes in the proposed rule. The proposed revisions to Table HH-4 did not substantively revise the flux-based methodology. Previous footnote "a" to Table HH-4 was revised solely to renumber the footnote to be footnote "b," to allow new footnote "a" to be inserted. Therefore, this comment is out of scope for this rulemaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: Covanta and the ERC suggest the cover depth requirement remain unchanged, and that EPA should reconsider the flux-based methodology because it is based only on flux chamber studies. However, Covanta and ERC appear to have misunderstood the extent of the data that EPA relied upon in developing the proposed revisions.
First, Covanta and ERC have criticized the flux-based methodology as being dependent on data from flux chamber studies, which could miss some sources of methane emissions. However, the commenters fail to recognize that a significant portion of the data supporting EPA's "binned approach" for methane oxidation calculations include both isotopic measurements of air collected above landfill surfaces as well as whole landfill plume studies conducted with EPA using cavity ring down spectrometers (CRDS).[7] These methods specifically address other potential emissions from landfills such as cracks and vents, thus dealing with flux chamber limitations. The studies utilizing isotopic measurements and CRDS were conducted across a variety of soils and climates and resulted in an oxidation value of 36% + 8%. Although plume isotope studies can also underestimate oxidation, whole landfill plume studies have confirmed those oxidation values.
Second, Covanta criticizes EPA's use of the flux-based methodology by claiming a weak relationship between the emissions rate and percent oxidation based upon a linear regression they conducted. However, they erroneously assumed methane oxidation in Table 2 of the 2012 SWICS Addendum were methane emissions rates. This led Covanta to incorrectly correlate methane oxidation rates versus percent methane oxidation rather than methane emissions versus percent oxidation. As a result, they claim that the SWICS Addendum provides no justification for use of the binned approach. In fact, the 2012 SWICS Addendum provides clear justification for the Agency's binned approach based upon both theoretical and actual results. There is a clear inverse relationship between percent oxidation rate and methane emissions. Figure 4 of the 2012 SWICS Addendum plots methane oxidation rates (y-axis) as a function of methane loading to the bottom of the landfill soil cover (x-axis) and shows results from a series of studies that employed surface air samples to calculate methane oxidation.
Lastly, Covanta states the SWICS 2012 Addendum "incorrectly uses the arithmetic mean to characterize the central tendency of a non-normal dataset." The SWICS Addendum includes data from most of the available peer-reviewed literature. Abichou et al. 2011 reported that methane surface emissions at a single landfill followed a log-normal distribution and the oxidation data obtained from measurements at a single landfill followed a normal distribution. It was argued that the emissions were log-normal because they reflect the soil hydraulic properties governing flow, which are log-normal.[8] On the other hand, the oxidation data is based on the comparison of the isotopic signal of the methane below the cover as opposed to above the cover. Therefore, grouping the average oxidation reported in Table 2 and performing normality tests is not appropriate, and reporting their arithmetic or geometric means is not statistically relevant. Also, Chanton et al. 2011, referenced above, reported normal distributions for 701 determinations of methane oxidation made during 37 seasonal sampling events.
Footnotes:
(7) Chanton, J. Abichou, T., Langford, C., Hater, G., Green, R., Goldsmith, D., and Swan, N. 2011, Landfill Methane Oxidation Across Climate Types in the U.S., Environmental Science Technology, 45 (1): 313-319

(8) Abichou, T., Clark, J. Chanton, J., 2011, Reporting Central Tendencies of Chamber-measured Surface Emission and Oxidation, Waste Management, 31, 1002-1008
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049, Excerpt 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Amendments: Revisions to the oxidation fraction for landfills with passive vents/passive flares or active vent systems (Table HH-4)
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: EPA is considering revisions to Table HH-4 of subpart HH to require landfills that have passive or active vent systems that service greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste to use the default 10% oxidation value in their emissions calculations. EPA is also considering requiring landfills that have only passive or active vent systems to use a methane oxidation value of 10%. Although these landfills would meet all other site criteria qualifying them to calculate a site-specific methane flux rate and use an oxidation value of 25% or 35%, the proposed change would preclude these landfills from doing so.
EPA states that its motivation for the change is to increase the accuracy of landfill emissions estimates by adding an additional conservative factor to the estimation of methane oxidation. While WM agrees with the Agency's goal of accurate reporting, the proposed change will reduce accuracy of the rule's methodology, which already conservatively overestimates emissions. The relevant data demonstrates that landfills with venting systems are likely to have methane oxidation rates in excess of 10%.
In our opinion, the field data do not support the Agency's proposed revision. In the preamble to the rule EPA states, "in our review of the oxidation studies, we noted that some investigators observed that soil methane flux near passive vent locations was low." (81 FR 2570) The observations to which the Agency refers involve statements made in two of the more than 90 scientific studies provided to the Agency for its review and consideration. The first, published in 1998[6] found that in the warm season, 24 to 35% of methane transported across the soil cap is oxidized, and further noted,
"However, aggregate landfill oxidation, which would be a measure of methane oxidation relative to total methane emissions from the landfill (including soil transport, vent pipe escape, and methane released through cracks in the soil cap) may be less because methane escaping...might be subjected to a lesser degree of oxidation." (emphasis added)
The authors were unable to test their hypothesis with field measurements, but noted, "Isotopic analysis of the methane plume downwind of a landfill...will enable aggregate or whole landfill estimates of oxidation."
However, neither this 1998 study, nor the second study cited by EPA published in 2000[7], attempted to measure whole landfill methane emissions as the 1998 study recommended to estimate methane oxidation. Indeed, the authors of the two cited studies did not measure emissions from vents, nor did they attempt to estimate the proportional impact of emissions from vents, relative to emissions moving through the surface of the landfill, and subject to oxidation in the cover.
In 2012, EPA's Office of Research and Development, under a cooperative research and development agreement with WM and Dr. Chanton of Florida State University, has produced aggregate or whole landfill estimates of oxidation using isotopic analysis of the methane plume downwind of four older closed and vented landfills. EPA and WM obtained the data to measure the potential influence of vents on methane oxidation following the approach recommended by Liptay et al. in the 1998 study. The peer-reviewed and published findings of this work by EPA and WM contradict the rationale for EPA's proposal to require landfills with passive or active vents to use a 10% methane oxidation fraction.[8]
WM and EPA measured methane emissions at four closed landfills using the tracer correlation approach, and assessing the downwind plume with a vehicle-mounted cavity ring down spectrometer (CRDS). This cooperative research involved nine measurement campaigns conducted in 2010 and 2011 at the four sites. All four of the sites operated passive vents. In addition to taking whole-landfill measurements, the study authors also modeled landfill emissions using 1) the GHG MRR requirements, and 2) using the GHG MRR, but substituting the SWICS methane oxidation value listed for other soil mixtures (30%) for the default 10% oxidation value used in the GHG MRR. The authors then compared measured emission rates to those modeled under the GHG MRR:
      Measured emission rates                                     ranged from 2.4 to 7.1 g CH4 m[-2]d[-1]
      GHG MRR modeled emission rates                   ranged from 16.5 to 21.6 g CH4 m[-2]d[-1]
      SWICS modeled emission rates                          ranged from 12.8 to 16.8 g CH4 m[-2]d[-1]
The results of these comparisons are displayed in Figure 1 below. The measured methane emissions are only 33%, 12%, 44%, and 17% of the total methane generation predicted by the GHG MRR methodology. Clearly, the entire landfill in each case is emitting less of the generated methane than would be predicted to occur from the vents alone should the proposed 10% oxidation rate be assigned to vented landfills. For example, consider Center Point Landfill, in Figure 1. The EPA MRR value is 22g CH4/m2/d (qualifying for a 25% oxidation per Table HH-4) and the measured emission is 7.5g CH4/m2/d (qualifying for a 35% oxidation per Table HH-4). If the vents were actually releasing 60% of the emitted methane of 22g, then the flux would be 13.2 g CH4/m2/d, or twice the amount measured, which equates to a 25% methane oxidation rate and not a 10% rate as proposed by EPA.
In conjunction with the CRDS emission measurements shown below, WM conducted upwind and downwind plume isotopic measurements. The average oxidation percentage from these four landfills, weighting each landfill equally was determined to be 34 +- 12%.[9]
[Note: The commenter submitted Figure 1, "Comparison of Methane Emissions from CRDS Measurements and Models". See DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0536-0049 for additional details.]
The landfill sector uses passive and active vents in areas that are unable to produce enough landfill gas flow or a sufficient concentration of methane to support an active gas collection and control system (GCCS) or an active flare. In these low-emitting areas, vents protect cover integrity by preventing gas buildup that might cause cracks or fissures. Some landfills with active GCCS also operate vents. In these cases, the vents tend to be in segregated, defined areas of the landfill -- usually closed areas or boundary areas that can be outside the waste footprint.
Actual measurements at four landfills with passive vents clearly demonstrate that the GHG MRR methodology is already very conservative and is significantly overestimating landfill emissions. EPA's proposed change would take an already conservative methodology and make it even more conservative. We therefore recommend that EPA not finalize this proposal to require landfills with passive or active vents covering more than 50% of the landfill area, or landfills with no active GCCS and passive or active vents to use a 10% oxidation factor. The conservative assumptions already built into the GHG MRR methodology have accounted for any methane loss through vents. Moreover, EPA cannot disqualify sites from using a 25% or 35% oxidation fraction based on site-specific flux calculations simply because they have one or two vents covering LESS than 50% of the landfill as EPA suggests in its proposed changes to C3 of Table HH-4. The results of the direct measurement study illustrated in Figure 1 clearly do not support this assumption. We have provided suggested language for Table HH-4 in Attachment A.
Footnotes:
(6) Liptay, K, Chanton, J. Czepiel, P and Mosher, B., 1998, "Use of stable isotopes to determine methane oxidation in landfill cover soils", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol., 103.
(7) Chanton et al. 2000, "Seasonal variation in methane oxidation in landfill cover soil as determined by an in situ stable isotope technique", Global Biochemical Cycles, Vol., 14
(8) Green, R., Swan, N., Thoma, E., Footer, T., Chanton, J., Hater, G., 2012. "Measured and Modeled Methane Emissions at Closed MSW Landfills without Gas Collection", Proceedings of the Global Waste Management Symposium, San Antonio, Texas.
(9) Chanton, J. et al, 2014, Proceedings of the Global Waste Management Symposium, Orlando, FL.
Response: EPA is not finalizing the proposed revision to Table HH-4 to include landfills "with passive vents/passive flares that service greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste, or for landfills with only passive vents/passive flares or active venting" to use the default 10% oxidation fraction. See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: EPA is proposing to revise Table HH-4 to require landfills with passive vents/flares that service greater than 50% of the landfill area to use the default 10% oxidation value in their emissions calculations. EPA has reported that a significant portion of the methane emissions is expected to be released via the vent pipe, and therefore bypass the surface soil. Because the oxidation factor for the methane released via the passive vent is expected to be 0, EPA concludes that it may be appropriate to limit the use of high oxidation fractions for landfills with passive vents.
EPA cites two studies to support this conclusion. The first, published in 1998[9] noted that "aggregate landfill oxidation...may be less because methane escaping...might be subjected to a lesser degree of oxidation." The authors suggested that "isotopic analysis of the methane plume downwind of a landfill...will enable aggregate or whole landfill estimates of oxidation." Neither this study, nor the second study cited by EPA,[10] measured whole landfill methane emissions as Liptay et. al. recommended.
To measure the potential influence of vents on methane oxidation as recommended by Liptay et al., EPA's Office of Research and Development, under a cooperative research and development agreement with Waste Management and Dr. Chanton of Florida State University, analyzed the methane plume downwind of four older closed landfills using passive vents and produced estimates of oxidation. The findings of this work contradict EPA's rationale for the proposed change to reporting methane oxidation.[11]
In addition to the field measurements, the study modeled landfill emissions using 1) the GHG MRR requirements, and 2) using 30% methane oxidation value as modeled by SWICS. The authors then compared measured emission rates to those modeled:
      Measured emission rates............................................................ranged from 2.4 to 7.1 g CH4 m-2d-1
GHG MRR modeled emission rates...........................................ranged from 16.5 to 21.6 g CH4 m-2d-1
SWICS modeled emission rates.................................................ranged from 12.8 to 16.8 g CH4 m-2d-1
The field measured methane emissions are significantly below the predicted modeled emissions which indicates that the entire landfill emitted less of the generated methane than would be predicted to occur from the vents alone.
The landfill sector uses passive vents in areas that do not produce sufficient landfill gas to support an active gas collection and control system (GCCS) or an active flare. In these low-emitting areas, vents protect cover integrity by preventing gas buildup that might cause cracks or fissures. Some landfills with active GCCS also operate passive vents or flares. In these cases, the passive systems tend to be in segregated, defined areas of the landfill -- usually closed areas or boundary areas that can be outside the waste footprint. Further, passive flares, unlike passive vents, thermally destruct the methane. Sometimes passive flares are used on inactive areas of the GCCS or on leachate pump stations. These passive vents/flares have a limited radius of influence in routing landfill gas, as there is no vacuum applied to the waste as with an active system.
Actual measurements at landfills with passive vents demonstrate that the GHG MRR methodology is conservative, thereby significantly overestimating landfill emissions. EPA's proposed change would increase the inaccuracies by further overestimating landfill methane emissions. We therefore recommend that EPA not finalize this proposal limiting landfills utilizing passive vents/flares to a 10% oxidation factor.
Footnotes:
(9) Liptay, K, Chanton, J. Czepiel, P and Mosher, B., 1998, "Use of stable isotopes to determine methane oxidation in landfill cover soils", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol., 103.
(10) Chanton et al. 2000, "Seasonal variation in methane oxidation in landfill cover soil as determined by an in situ stable isotope technique", Global Biochemical Cycles, Vol., 14
(11) Green, R., Swan, N., Thoma, E., Footer, T., Chanton, J., Hater, G., 2012 "Measured and Modeled Methane Emissions at Closed MSW Landfills without Gas Collection," Proceedings of the Global Waste Management Symposium, San Antonio, TX
Response: EPA is not finalizing the proposed revision to Table HH-4 to include landfills "with passive vents/passive flares that service greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste, or for landfills with only passive vents/passive flares or active venting" to use the default 10% oxidation fraction. See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  J. Chanton
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0050
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: I understand that EPA is considering the use of a value of 10% for methane oxidation for landfills where passive vents are present over 50% of the surface, or where gas collection systems have been turned off because methane concentrations are insufficient to support combustion in a flare and the gas is vented. In my opinion, this rule will underestimate the value of landfill cover soils in attenuating methane emissions particularly at these older sites with passive vents. Our cavity ring-down measurements on older Midwestern facilities with passive vents in place clearly show emissions that are well below those predicted by models of methane generation. This is due either to lower than predicted methane production or elevated soil cover methane oxidation. Consistent with these flux results, our plume-based isotope oxidation measurements, indicate a methane oxidation percentage of 34 +- 12 % for these sites.
Response: EPA is not finalizing the proposed revision to Table HH-4 to include landfills "with passive vents/passive flares that service greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste, or for landfills with only passive vents/passive flares or active venting" to use the default 10% oxidation fraction. See Section III.S.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Subpart HH Issues not proposed
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: WM also recommends that EPA remove the requirement for reporters under Subpart HH to report average waste depths, as the data element is not used in any Subpart A or HH calculation.
Response: EPA did not solicit comment on the requirement to report average waste depths in the proposed rule and this comment is outside of scope for this rulemaking. There are no revisions to the rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment: EPA is proposing to amend the GHG MRR to allow, but not require, facilities to exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions calculations in Part 98 subparts Q, X, and Y. (81 FR 2560) WM requests that the Agency extend the same exclusion for pilot gas used in flares at MSW landfills reporting under subpart HH for the following related reasons. Some landfill gas flares use continuous pilots that burn landfill gas or other fuels. These flares are often used in conjunction with landfill renewable energy facilities. Landfill gas flares provide such facilities with a back-up combustion mechanism should an energy plant need to be placed offline for maintenance or due to a malfunction. Pilot gas may also be used to ensure a stable flame when a flare is operating at low flow rates. As the Agency discussed in the preamble to explain its proposal to reduce reporter burden by allowing those subject to Subpart Y to exclude pilot gas when making GHG emission calculations, the quantity of GHG emissions associated with the pilot gas is very small relative to the total GHG emissions from the flare. (81 FR 2559) Given that the same is true for pilot gas used in MSW landfill flares, EPA should extend the pilot gas exclusion to Subpart HH. Moreover, providing Subpart HH reporters with the option to eliminate required monitoring of this small quantity of pilot gas is consistent with EPA's objective of decreasing the monitoring burden for reporters while not adversely affecting the quality of GHG reporting.
Response: EPA did not solicit comment on the reporting of pilot gas used in flares at MSW landfills reporting under subpart HH in the proposed rule and this comment is outside of scope for this rulemaking. There are no revisions to the rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: EPA is proposing to allow facilities to exclude pilot gas from GHG emissions calculations in Part 98 subparts Q, X, and Y (81 FR 2560). NWRA and SWANA request that EPA extend the same exclusion for pilot gas used in flares at landfills reporting under subpart HH. Some landfill gas flares use continuous pilots in conjunction with renewable energy facilities. The flare provides a back-up combustion mechanism should the renewable energy plant go offline. In addition, pilot gas may be used where the landfill gas is insufficient to maintain a flame. As the EPA states, the quantity of GHG emissions associated with the pilot gas is very small relative to the total GHG emissions from the flare. Moreover, providing the option to eliminate required monitoring of this small quantity of gas will decrease the monitoring burden for reporters while not adversely affecting the quality of GHG reporting.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049, Excerpt 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Jean E. Bogner
Commenter Affiliation:  College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0047
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: The purpose of this letter is to, first, document the deficiencies of the current IPCC (2006) FOD model for landfill methane generation, recovery, and emissions as currently applied to U.S. sites under the GHGRP HH- methodologies [Spokas et al., 2011, 2015; Bogner et al., 2010, 2014, 2016]. In general, IPCC (2006) relies on 40-year old science using a 1970's landfill gas generation model as well as a default 10% oxidation value based on a 20-year old study for oxidation at one U.S. site (Czepiel et al., 1996a,b). Importantly, neither IPCC (2006) nor the recent modifications for oxidation and emissions added to the GHGRP methodologies explicitly model the major climate drivers for emissions now known from literature. In addition, these model applications lack comprehensive field-validation for emissions. See Appendix A for more detailed discussion.
A second purpose is to introduce an existing, freely-available [www.ars.usda.gov], fully-documented, user-friendly JAVA tool for landfill methane emissions inventory reporting. This model [CALMIM] was developed using established relationships for gaseous & heat transport, then independently field-validated [Bogner et al., 2010; 2014]. There were two CALMIM projects completed during the last decade. First, the initial project was funded by the CEC [California Energy Commission] (2007- 2010) to develop and independently field-validate an improved model for California. The second CALMIM project was funded by EREF [Environmental Research & Education Foundation] (2011-2014) and resulted in expanded model capabilities & improvements, as well as independent global field validation using 29 global sites on 6 continents. For the EREF project, as discussed below, we also developed a new 2010 landfill methane inventory for the 372 permitted California landfill sites (Spokas et al., 2015) to compare with the prior inventory using IPCC (2006).
CALMIM stands for CAlifornia Landfill Methane Inventory Model. Instead of relying on a landfill gas generation model, CALMIM explicitly models landfill methane emissions based on 1-dimensional gaseous, heat, and water transport in each cover material for a typical annual cycle of 365 days. The major drivers are: 1) the individual cover thicknesses and physical properties at a specific site; 2) the annual climate cycle for each cover as it affects soil moisture and temperature at various depths and, in turn, methane transport and oxidation rates; and 3) the physical effect of engineered gas recovery on soil gas concentration gradients. Required inputs are limited to the area, thickness, and physical properties of each cover material, plus the presence or absence of engineered gas extraction under each cover. See Appendix B.
A third purpose is to initiate discussion regarding the application of CALMIM as an alternative to IPCC (2006) for landfill methane emissions inventory reporting under the GHGRP. As stated in IPCC (2006), "higher order validated" models are permitted under IPCC national GHG inventory guidelines.
As Appendices A and B provide more detailed discussion of the shortcomings of the IPCC (2006) FOD model and an overview of the CALMIM model, the remainder of this letter will specifically address: (1) Why did CALMIM abandon both the 10% oxidation value and, similarly to the current GHGRP, using a wider range of generalized oxidation values for site-specific cover soils? (2) Why did CALMIM abandon the FOD model for methane generation? Rather, CALMIM directly models emissions rather than partitioning the estimated generation to emissions and other pathways?
The most efficient way to answer those questions is to provide a brief history of the CALMIM projects and discuss how our thinking evolved during those studies. In 2007, Drs. Kurt Spokas [U.S. Dept. of Agriculture], Jeffrey Chanton [Florida State University] and I, were funded by the California Energy Commission-Public Interest Energy Research [PIER] Program to develop an improved landfill methane emissions methodology for the state of California. A recent review of California GHG methodologies by Farrell et al. (2005) had concluded that an improved landfill methane methodology was a research priority for the state. As the three of us had conducted and published field and laboratory research on landfill methane for many years, we intended to focus on: a) expanding the universal 10% default value for methane oxidation to a range of values supported by field and laboratory investigations; and b) improving the underlying landfill gas generation methodology as mismatches were observed between measured methane emissions vs. emissions estimated from IPCC (2006).
Regarding a) the 10% oxidation default value, this was based solely on the first study in the literature (Czepial et al., 1996a,b), and had been approved at a 1996 U.S./European workshop which I convened at Argonne National Laboratory with Keith Smith of the University of Edinburgh under the auspices of the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry/International Geosphere Biosphere Program [IGAC/IGBP]. At that time, Peter Czepial and colleagues had completed the only combined field, laboratory, and modeling study in the refereed literature addressing annual oxidation at a landfill in Nashua NH. In the intervening decade (1996-2006) between that workshop and the CEC study, there had been a number of field and laboratory studies addressing site-specific landfill methane emissions and oxidation (see Scheutz et al., 2009; Spokas et al., 2011, and references cited therein). In general, very wide ranges for methane emissions and oxidation had been quantified, often not aligning with the 10% value and ranging from negligible to >100% (uptake of atmospheric methane). A major difference, however, between the majority of those studies and Czepiel et al. (1996a,b) was that the Nashua study had included all three of the following: (1) field campaigns to directly measure methane emissions [mass methane per area per day] using two techniques (tracer, chambers); (2) laboratory incubations to quantify the soil moisture and temperature dependencies for methane oxidation rates in the Nashua cover soil; and (3) use of a climate model with the oxidation rate dependencies to estimate the cumulative annual oxidation at the Nashua cover soil.
Thus the 10% oxidation was a cumulative annual value, reflecting the expected daily temperature & precipitation which, in turn, affect temporal soil temperature & moisture and temporal oxidation and emission rates. It is reasonable to point out that, in the intervening years, the expected temporal variability of oxidation rates over an annual cycle in site-specific cover materials has often been overlooked. In short, oxidation is a variable, not a constant, for each specific cover material at a specific global location.
For the CEC study, we had begun by considering various modifications to the10% default for oxidation, similar to the current "modified" HH- methodologies. However, K. Spokas had independently developed and globally-validated 0.5 deg latitude X 0.5 deg longitude global USDA climate models based on 30-year data for precipitation (GlobalRainSIM) and temperature (Global TempSIM), as well as models for surface energy balance (SOLARCALC), and soil temperature and moisture (STM2). By embedding these fully-developed, validated models into the CALMIM model, he greatly expanded the climate dependencies for site-specific determinations over an annual cycle. Unlike the Czepiel et al. (1996a,b) site-specific climate modeling, CALMIM was now applicable to sites globally. Also (Appendix B), CALMIM includes 1-dimensional diffusive transport equations for CH4 and O2, as well as functional relationships for oxidation rates relative to the modeled soil moisture and temperature profiles. The oxidation rates were based on extensive incubations by K Spokas using a variety of California landfill cover soils over the full range of temperature and soil moisture potential conditions (Spokas and Bogner, 2011). CALMIM thus includes: site-specific cover soils; site-specific climate including climate interactions with specific cover soils; modeling of both methane transport & oxidation at 10-min timesteps and 2.5 cm depth increments over a typical annual cycle; and calculation of total annual site emissions as the sum of daily emissions from each cover.
Regarding b), potential improvements to the underlying IPCC (2006) FOD gas generation model, there were many problems with trying to fit this conceptual model to a growing database of site-specific field measurements for emissions. Those problems included large mismatches between modeled & measured emissions, a primary dependency for FOD-modeled methane emissions on waste in place for the California inventory [Appendix A] irregardless of waste composition data & k values, and observational data from current California sites where measured gas recovery rates were robustly & linearly related to WIP only [Appendix A; Spokas et al., 2015]. Thus CALMIM was developed as a new "emissions-only" model as discussed in Appendix B.
Finally, I wish to initiate a conversation about including CALMIM as a possible tool for landfill methane emissions estimates under the GHGRP. Having worked more than 2 decades on Federal programs for DOE, EPA, DOD and other agencies while employed at Argonne National Laboratory from 1976-1996, I do appreciate the difficulties of modifying "official" methodologies in response to improvements in scientific understanding and modeling tools. I also worked with EPA and its contractors during 2004-2007 while I was the coordinating lead author for the Waste Management chapter for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report/ AR4 (2007) for Working Group III (Mitigation of Climate Change) (Bogner et al., 2007). In the decade since the AR4, there have been significant advances by the scientific community with regard to understanding the observed rates and variability of landfill methane emissions and oxidation. CALMIM is the product of that updated science incorporated into a field-validated global model.
[See Appendix A to the letter, "Shortcomings of current IPCC (2006) methodology for landfill methane emissions," for a list of the major deficiencies of the current IPCC (2006) model, with supporting references and datasets.]
Response: This comment relates to a section on which EPA did not solicit comment, thus this comment is outside of scope for this rulemaking and no revisions have been made because of this comment. We appreciate the explanation of CALMIM and its benefits. We also understand that there are limitations and uncertainties of the IPCC FOD model. We will continue to explore the possibilities for improving the accuracy of monitoring and calculation of GHG emissions at landfills to the extent practicable while also minimizing confusion and burden on reporters and ensuring the ability to facilitate trends analyses and comparison with the U.S. GHG Inventory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to Subpart MM (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  24
Comment: In §98.395, the EPA is proposing to amend the missing data procedures by removing item (c) which allowed companies an alternative method to determining API gravity and sulfur content of missing crude oils data. This revision is proposed to align with previous changes to §98.396(a) promulgated in 2013, where the EPA revised the reporting requirements by changing the data element from "the batch volume of crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels" to "the annual quantity of crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels."
AFPM supports this revision as it is directly related to revisions from 78 FR 71904 (November 29, 2013) that removed the requirement to measure API gravity and the sulfur content of each batch of crude oil.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: In 98.395 EPA proposes to amend the missing data procedures by removing item (c) which allowed companies an alternative method to determining API gravity and sulfur content of missing crude oils data. Starting in reporting year 2014, EPA no longer required refiners to report crude sulfur and density and thus API agrees with removing 98.395(c).
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to Subpart NN
Other comments on proposed Subpart NN Revisions (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment: In 98.403 EPA is proposing to amend Calculation Method 1 by requiring that, "The annual volume of each NGL product supplied (Fuelh) shall include any amount of that NGL supplied in a mixture or blend of two or more products listed in Tables NN-1 and NN-2 of this subpart. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall exclude any amount of that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the facility not fractionated by the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk NGLs)."
API acknowledges the proposed revisions to Subpart NN where EPA addresses the issue of double counting by excluding from reporting the bulk NGLs exiting the facility. Due to the inherent complexity and diversity in the NGL value chain; situations may arise where more precise language would be needed.
For example, a plant, where NGLs are fractionated and processed, is reporting in accordance with 40 CFR 98.403. This plant delivers to its end-use customers either individual or blended mixtures of fractionated products by truck/rail. However, the remaining fractions  -  including fractions that were fractionated earlier but not sold in the market - may be recombined and leave the plant as bulk product via pipeline to another plant downstream. This second plant then goes on to fractionate and process the bulk NGLs for delivery to customers and would also report its emissions according to 98.403.
Due to the fact that some NGLs or fractions of NGLs may be fractionated and reprocessed by several plants  -  depending on market conditions and customers' needs  -  API is requesting that EPA revise the proposed language to ensure that such situations would not lead to double counting.
API's request for language revision in 98.403 (a) (1): "The annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall exclude any amount of that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the facility not fractionated by the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk NGLs)."
Additionally, the same change should apply to the explanation of the term Fuelh in Eq. NN-1 and NN-2 that refers to the total volume of product "h" supplied:
      "The annual volume of each NGL product supplied (Fuelh) shall include any amount of that NGL supplied in a mixture or blend of two or more products listed in Tables NN-1 and NN-2 of this subpart. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall exclude any amount of that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the facility not fractionated by the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk NGLs).
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter's remarks regarding the revisions to the proposed text for 40 CFR 98.403(a)(1) and (a)(2). Fractionators reporting under subpart NN should report separately NGLs that leave the plant as bulk NGL from NGLs that leave the plant as NGL products (either as single NGL products or blended products comprised of two or more NGLs). As the commenter correctly notes, the CO2 equivalent emissions calculated by Equations NN-1 and NN-2 should exclude any quantities of NGL that are recombined with and subsequently exit the plant as bulk NGL. We have incorporated the changes as recommended by the commenter. Additionally, we have removed the words "that are not fractionated by the reporter" from 40 CFR 98.406(a)(4)(ii) where the volume of bulk NGL exiting the facility is to be reported. These final revisions are included in the Table of Revisions to this rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to Subpart OO
Improve Quality: Revising the source category to include and require reporting from facilities that that produce, import, transform, export, or destroy F-HTFs that are not also F-GHGs.
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  17
Comment: ACC does not support EPA's proposal to require reporting from suppliers of Low Vapor Pressure Heat Transfer Fluids (HTFs).
EPA is proposing to expand Subpart OO to include facilities that produce, import, transform, export, or destroy fluorinated HTFs that are not also fluorinated GHGs under the Subpart A definition, and to require these facilities to report under Subpart OO. (81 FR 2572) Currently, Subpart OO requires reporting by facilities that supply nitrous oxide and fluorinated GHGs. In this proposed rule, EPA wants to define HTFs under Subpart A (based on the definition in Subpart I - Electronics Manufacturing) and require reporting from fluorinated-HTF suppliers.
EPA is seeking this information as a means of comparing "reported supplies to the demand for fluorinated HTFs" reported under Subpart I, as well as smaller facilities that do not report under Subpart I. (81 FR 2572) According to EPA, "large differences would imply that emissions are being over- or underestimated, for example because some users or emitters of fluorinated HTFs are not accounted for. (81 FR 2572)
EPA is proposing that suppliers of fluorinated HTFs be subject to the same threshold as suppliers of fluorinated GHGs, which is no threshold (e.g., comprehensive reporting). Further, EPA asserts that "few, if any, suppliers of fluorinated HTFs would be required to begin reporting under this provision because all suppliers of fluorinated HTFs are believed to report under subpart OO already." (81 FR 2572)
First, it is ACC's view that the burden required to implement these changes is not "modest." We note that while "all suppliers of fluorinated HTFs are believed to report under subpart OO already," (81 FR 2572) any facility that produces, imports, exports or transforms any amount of HTFs would need to report "one to twelve additional compounds." (81 FR 2573) It is also our view that implementation of these proposed requirements will not be a "minor change," but will instead require significant additional activities, including additional monitoring, QA/QC, and recordkeeping.
While EPA asserts that "the incremental burden associated with reporting ... fluorinated gases that are not fluorinated GHGs is expected to be modest," the cost of the proposed Subpart OO requirements are the third highest of all the changes in this proposal. The costs associated with the proposed changes to Subpart OO account for 23% of first year costs for the all subparts (excluding Subpart FF), and 21% of costs in subsequent years.[7] Given the minor impact of fluorinated HTFs, as compared to other fluorinated GHGs for which EPA currently requires reporting, ACC concludes that the expected burden is not modest and does not justify the cost.
For these reasons, we urge EPA to reconsider this proposed revision. Should EPA insist on requiring reporting for fluorinated HTFs, we ask the reporting requirements apply to only those facilities with fluorinated-HTF emissions above the 25,000 ton-CO2e threshold. EPA's own economic analysis indicates that cost of requiring fluorinated-HTF reporting is significant, and we are concerned that this reporting will be burdensome for potential reporters as well as of questionable value to EPA.
Footnotes:
(7) Subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) costs are anomalously high  -  $1.9 million in first year costs and $950,000 in subsequent year costs  -  because EPA is requiring either the installation of CEMS for methane monitoring or the use of monthly grab samples.
Response: EPA is finalizing revisions to the definition of the source category to include entities that produce, import, export, or destroy fluorinated heat transfer fluids that are not also fluorinated greenhouse gases. See Section III.W.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. We are also finalizing minor conforming changes to clarify the dates on which the revisions apply; these changes are included in the Final Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to Subpart PP (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  William A. Collins, Jr.
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: In Subpart PP, EPA has made a minor revision in the missing data procedures at 98.425(b), simply deleting the phrase "of this subpart" from the text.[17]
We agree with all of these changes.
Footnotes:
(17) U.S. EPA, 2015 Proposed Technical Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations, p. 2,624.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to Subpart RR
Improve Quality: Reporting whether the facility is injecting a CO2 stream to enhance the recovery of oil or natural gas
Commenter Name:  William A. Collins, Jr.
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: "EPA has proposed a new data element under 98.446(g) that enables EPA and the public to identify which Subpart RR facilities inject CO2 into non-EOR geologic storage formations and which inject CO2 for EOR."
We also agree that this data element will provide information and improve the public's understanding regarding which and how many facilities reporting under Subpart RR conduct EOR and which are injecting CO2 into geologic storage sites (e.g., using Class VI wells under the Underground Injection Control program). This differentiation is important because, as described in the following sections, the release of data on the quantity CO2 received and CO2 produced at EOR sites could cause severe competitive harm to companies like Occidental, whereas such harms are unlikely for sites injecting CO2 for the purpose of geologic storage.
Occidental strongly supports EPA's proposal, as it will ensure that confidential data associated with the quantity of CO2 received and CO2 produced at EOR facilities reporting under Subpart RR will be protected. Occidental initially submitted comments to EPA on this issue in March 2012, in response to EPA's proposed 2012 Confidentiality Determinations.[4] In the final 2012 rule, EPA acknowledged that for EOR operators, data on the quantity of CO2 received and produced at a facility was not publicly available and that public disclosure could cause substantial competitive harm. However, without a data element that could distinguish EOR and non-EOR facilities under Subpart RR, any CBI determinations on the quantity of CO2 received and CO2 produced would be made on a case-by-case basis.[5]
We believe that the approach proposed in the current rule-making, when finalized, will provide a consistent and predictable framework for EOR operators that might opt into Subpart RR and affirm that the data associated with the amounts of CO2 received and produced at EOR facilities will remain confidential. EPA should finalize this data element as proposed.
Footnotes:
(4) U.S. EPA, 2012 Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, 77 FR 1,434, January 10, 2012.
(5) U.S. EPA, 2015 Final Confidentiality Determinations for Regulations Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, 77 FR 48,072, August 13, 2012, p. 48,083.
Response: No substantive amendments to subpart RR are being finalized in this rulemaking. See Section III.Y and Section IV.C.1 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Ann Brewster Weeks
Commenter Affiliation:  Clean Air Task Force
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0062
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: CATF supports the advancement and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies in order to achieve the near term reductions in climate change pollution from energy production and other U.S. industry that are essential to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. From that perspective, CATF supports changes to the subpart RR reporting rules that enhance EPA's ability to track the fate of injected carbon dioxide, particularly but not exclusively anthropogenic carbon dioxide, for enhanced oil recovery or for the purpose of permanent sequestration, and where the intention is to prevent further atmospheric release. We also support changes that can satisfy both private companies' need to guard their business information, and the need to ensure that the public can track the fate of the injected carbon dioxide so as to feel confident that the injection and storage component of carbon capture and sequestration technology (whether in enhanced oil recovery operations or saline injection), is successfully isolating the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
For these reasons, CATF supports EPA's proposal to add a data element indicating whether carbon dioxide injections are undertaken for enhanced oil recovery (proposed section 98.446(g)), and that this information is not confidential business information ("CBI").
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to Subpart TT
Improve Quality: Revisions to default DOC values in Table TT-1 (includes comments re: EPA's analysis of industrial waste DOC data)
Commenter Name:  Brad Upton
Commenter Affiliation:  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: The Agency proposes to provide default degradable organic carbon (DOC) values for four specific pulp and paper industry waste types in Table TT-1 [boiler ash (0.06); kraft recovery wastes (0.025); wastewater sludge (0.12); other pulp and paper wastes (not otherwise listed) (0.20)]. This change is aligned with the available data and will allow improved accuracy in emissions estimates. NCASI recommends that the agency provide an additional new default DOC value for "pulp and paper manufacturing wastes, general" in Table TT-1, with value 0.10 (wet basis), which could be used by pulp and paper manufacturing facilities that do not segregate their wastes into separate streams. The value of 0.10 is the weighted average of the waste stream-specific DOC values reported to the greenhouse gas reporting program within subpart TT by pulp and paper facilities in 2013[2], and is therefore appropriate for estimating industrial landfill methane emissions from general pulp and paper manufacturing wastes.
Footnotes:
(2) National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2016. Comments on public review draft US inventory of greenhouse gases and sinks: 1990-2014. Letter from B. Upton to Leif Hockstad (EPA). March 23. Attached as Appendix A.
[Appendix A is provided and is described in Footnote 2 above.]
Response: EPA agrees that an additional general category and corresponding DOC value should be retained in Table TT-1 for pulp and paper manufacturing wastes that do not segregate wastes (except to account for industrial sludge), but is finalizing a DOC value of 0.15 for this waste type. See Section III.Z.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  14
Comment: AF&PA and AWC are particularly pleased to see that EPA has proposed to use default degradable organic carbon (DOC) values for four specific pulp and paper industry waste types that are more consistent with findings of NCASI studies and which we supplied in our 2013 comments. We agree with the proposed values of 0.06 for boiler ash, 0.025 for kraft recovery wastes, 0.12 for pulp and paper wastewater treatment sludge, and 0.20 for "other pulp and paper wastes".
We would like to recommend an additional default DOC category and value for "pulp and paper manufacturing wastes, general" in Table TT 1, with value 0.10 (wet basis), which could be used by pulp and paper manufacturing facilities that do not segregate their wastes into separate streams. The value of 0.10 is the weighted average of the waste stream-specific DOC values reported to the greenhouse gas reporting program within subpart TT by pulp and paper facilities in 2013, and is therefore appropriate for estimating industrial landfill methane emissions from general pulp and paper manufacturing wastes. EPA should not preclude this option for pulp and paper mills that, for whatever reason, find it more appropriate to report their waste DOC values in the aggregate.
Response: EPA agrees that an additional general category and corresponding DOC value should be retained in Table TT-1 for pulp and paper manufacturing wastes that do not segregate wastes (except to account for industrial sludge), but is finalizing a DOC value of 0.15 for this waste type. See Section III.Z.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to Subpart UU (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  William A. Collins, Jr.
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: In Subpart UU, EPA has made another minor edit at 98.474(c)(2), capitalizing the "s" in "Standard."[19]
We agree with all of these changes.
Footnotes:
(19) U.S. EPA, 2015 Proposed Technical Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations, p. 2,625.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Confidentiality Determinations and Data Category Assignments
Comments re: proposed new and revised data elements assigned to data categories with categorical confidentiality determinations
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: EPA determined that the seven new data elements that would result from the proposed changes in the 2015 GHGRP Revisions should all be Confidential Business Information (CBI). TFI supports EPA's determination that these additional data elements should be CBI because they are either raw materials or production information that could be used by competitors to determine production.
[Note: The commenter refers to the seven new data elements proposed for subpart G, including 40 CFR 98.76(a)(3): annual ammonia production; 40 CFR 98.76(b)(2): annual gaseous feedstock consumption, annual liquid feedstock consumption, annual solid feedstock consumption; and 40 CFR 98.76(b)(7):  annual average carbon contents of the gaseous feedstock, annual average carbon contents of the liquid feedstock, and annual average carbon contents of the solid feedstock.]
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kimberly S. L. Bauman
Commenter Affiliation:  Mississippi Lime Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Under the proposed Subpart S revisions, lime plants that do not utilize Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) to measure CO2 and other greenhouse gases from lime kilns and other applicable process equipment must report - beginning in reporting year 2017 - the following data:  Annual emission factors for each lime product type produced; annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold. The annual average emission factors USEPA is seeking in the proposal are highly Confidential Business Information, not only to Mississippi Lime, but to the entire lime industry. The annual average data elements are informed by monthly data elements that are currently entered in to the Inputs Verifier Tool (IVT) during annual GHG reporting, as recognized by USEPA in Section III.J of the proposed rule preamble. As such, the proposed annual data elements would provide information to competitors on product composition, production rates, and breakdown of product types on an annual basis. The lime industry is highly competitive, and ALL information about the chemical composition, including emission factors which are derived from confidential chemical composition data, of products produced at Mississippi Lime is highly sensitive. Mississippi Lime strongly believes that USEPA should refrain from collecting and retaining highly Confidential Business Information unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Mississippi Lime urges USEPA to drop from the final rule the proposed data elements for the lime industry in Subpart S of the GHGRR due to the significant concerns or Confidential Business Information.
Mississippi Lime's previous comments explained that the domestic lime industry is highly concentrated with U.S. and foreign producers and is very competitive. Moreover, there are commodity aspects to production and marketing of some grades of lime, as well as critical but often subtle differences between lime products based on regional and local lime attributes and how it is produced at different lime plants. Accordingly, many of the data elements on emissions inputs and other elements are very sensitive to each lime producer's competitive position. Access to CBI can be used to reverse engineer a specific lime plant's production efficiency, cost per unit of lime, and process for lime production. This threatens unfair competition, price pressure on rivals, and ultimately harm to the competitive process. Notably, manufacturers of lime substitutes or lime process replacements could also obtain an unfair advantage in competition for specific types of applications, including cement companies and Chinese magnesite producers.
Mississippi Lime is aware that the National Lime Association ("NLA") has submitted comments germane to the collective interests of all lime industry participants. Mississippi Lime, a long-standing member of the NLA, fully supports those comments.
Response: As indicated in section III.J of the preamble to the final rule, EPA is requiring reporting of annual average emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual average emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold, and annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined byproduct/waste sold. See Section III.J.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's reasoning for requiring the reporting of this information.
As noted in Section III.J of the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA proposed to determine that these data elements are CBI and therefore eligible for confidential treatment. EPA received no adverse comment on the proposed determinations. EPA has minimally revised these data elements in the final rule, such that the same information will be collected. Therefore, we are finalizing the proposed confidentiality determinations for these data elements. See Section III.J.2 and IV.B of the preamble to the final rule for additional information. EPA will only publish information related to these data based on the criteria outlined for aggregation and publication of CBI information in Federal Register Notification - 9911 - 98 - OAR (e.g. national averages based on GHGRP facility-level data).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation:  National Lime Association (NLA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0031
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: Under the proposed Subpart S revisions, for lime plants that do not use CEMS to measure CO2 emissions, beginning in reporting year 2017, reporters must now include annual emission factors for each lime product type produced and for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold. The emission factors EPA is seeking in the proposal are highly confidential business information in the lime industry. They would potentially provide information to competitors on product composition, production rates, and breakdown of product types on an annual basis. The lime industry is highly competitive, and information about what products are being produced at plants across various market areas is highly sensitive.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  16
Comment: ACC is concerned that mistakes made by EPA regarding the confidentiality determinations for the proposed new data elements could result in the public release of confidential information.
"On page 2563 of the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA proposes for Subpart CC  -  Soda Ash Manufacturing to revise 40 CFR 98.296 to add two new data elements to be reported at the facility-level related to the annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. These proposed revisions are in 40 CFR sections 98.296(a)(1) and (b)(5). The preamble then directs the reader to section IV of the preamble for EPA's proposed confidentiality determinations for these two data elements, see discussion beginning at p.2574 and Tables 7 and 8.
Unfortunately, there is no discussion in subpart IV on the CBI determination for these two new data elements, nor are they included in either Table 7 or 8. However, there is an EPA memorandum in the docket, entitled "To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526" from Ms. Rachel Schmeltz, et al., dated December 11, 2015 that proposes confidentiality determinations for various data elements in the proposed 2015 revisions and it includes Subpart CC sections 98.296(a)(1) and 98.296(a)(5) (sic). The memorandum proposes that these two data elements are determined to be CBI.
This omission and error raises serious concern for ACC and some of its member companies. If the rule is finalized as proposed, Subpart CC facilities will be required to report the annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock but without needed CBI protection since EPA did not properly "notice" that issue for comment. Based on the attached EPA memorandum, it is clear that EPA believes these two data elements should have CBI protection, but EPA failed to include a discussion of that in the preamble and failed to include them in either Table 7 or 8 of the preamble to the proposed rule. Lastly, EPA's memorandum erroneously identifies the regulatory citation for soda ash manufacturing facilities not using a CEMS to measure carbon dioxide emissions, to report the annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline as 98.296(a)(5) rather than 98.296(b)(5).
ACC strongly supports EPA's determination in its Dec. 11, 2015 memorandum that the two data elements proposed to be reported at 98.296(a)(1) and (b)(5) should be protected as CBI. At this time, we do not believe that EPA should promulgate a requirement that these two data elements be reported without first providing notice and an opportunity for the public to comment on whether the data should be protected from disclosure as CBI. To do so would contravene the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. We therefore urge EPA not to finalize a reporting requirement for these data unless and until EPA proposes for comment that the data be afforded protection as confidential business information.
While there may be more than one way for EPA to address this problem, one option would be for EPA not to finalize the proposed revised reporting requirements in section 98.296(a)(1) and (b)(5) in this rulemaking. Instead, EPA could publish a notice for supplemental comment on EPA's proposed CBI determination for these two data elements. Once that supplemental comment period closes, EPA then could consider at the same time the comments submitted in this January 15, 2016 rulemaking on the need for this data to be reported and the supplemental comments submitted on whether, if reported, this data should be protected as CBI. Of course there is also the possibility that commenters may oppose the proposed revisions to sections 98.296(a)(1) and (b)(5) and convince EPA that the data is not needed "to improve the quality of data collected under subpart CC", in which case EPA may decide not to promulgate these reporting requirements and the issue of whether the reported data should be afforded CBI protection then becomes moot."
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA failed to propose confidentiality determinations for these new data elements. However, we are not finalizing confidentiality determinations for these data elements because we are not finalizing the addition of these reporting requirements in the final rule. See Section IV.A of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Chris Greissing
Commenter Affiliation:  Industrial Minerals Association-North America (IMA-NA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0068
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: EPA cannot proceed with implementing the changes proposed, as the Confidential Business Information (CBI) determinations have not been properly made. In the preamble to the rule, EPA proposes adding two new data elements related to the annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. These data elements are 98.296(a)(1) and (b)(5). However, EPA failed to include these data elements in any of the CBI tables in Section IV of the preamble. While EPA has determined, in a supporting memo in the docket, that both of these data elements are properly classified as CBI, the proposed rule omits this determination. Furthermore, in that memo, EPA has mislabeled the data element that applies to non-CEMs reporters. In the memo, it is referenced as 98.296(a)(5), rather than the proper reference of 98.296(b)(5).
Response: EPA disagrees with the comment that EPA failed to propose confidentiality determinations for these new data elements. However, we are not finalizing confidentiality determinations for these data elements because we are not finalizing the addition of these reporting requirements in the final rule. See Section IV.A of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments re: proposed individual confidentiality determinations for new and revised data elements in two direct emitter data categories and two supplier data categories
Commenter Name:  David Isaacs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0043
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: The new information being sought raises confidentiality issues. The industry considers product and technology information to be confidential business information. Data EPA has added is specific to products and technology and would be considered CBI.
Certain of the proposed data requirements  -  such as film type being manufactured, technology node and linewidth  -  move in the direction of recipe specific emission factors that were the problem with the original Subpart I and resulted in SIA's petition for reconsideration and EPA's grant of our petition. SIA objected to recipe specific testing several years ago because of technical infeasibility, high cost of compliance, and the disclosure of valuable intellectual property. The EPA proposal gives rise to these same concerns.
EPA contends that linewidth or technology data are not confidential because this data is publicly available in the World Fab Forecast. This database is compiled from publicly available information, which may or may not be accurate, and has not necessarily been verified by the companies. Disclosing linewidth or technology node with a specific emissions characterization data set threatens the disclosure of intellectual property.
Response: EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirements for facilities to provide the film type, the substrate type, and the linewidth or technology node (see Section III.F of the preamble to the final rule for further explanation); therefore, we are not finalizing the confidentiality determinations for these data elements.  EPA is finalizing the remaining revisions to the Triennial Report requirement at 40 CFR 98.96(y), with minor changes that do not significantly change the data to be reported, as shown in Table 6 in Section IV.B of the preamble to the final rule. We received no adverse comment on the proposed determinations for these data elements, and data sets including the same data elements are already in the public record for previous subpart I rulemakings. Thus, we are finalizing the proposed confidentiality determinations for these data elements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kimberly S. L. Bauman
Commenter Affiliation:  Mississippi Lime Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: Under the proposed Subpart S revisions, lime plants that do not utilize Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) to measure CO2 and other greenhouse gases from lime kilns and other applicable process equipment must report - beginning in reporting year 2017 - the annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced/waste sold.
The annual average chemical composition analyses USEPA is seeking in the proposal are highly Confidential Business Information, not only to Mississippi Lime, but to the entire lime industry. The annual average data elements are informed by monthly data elements that are currently entered in to the Inputs Verifier Tool (IVT) during annual GHG reporting, as recognized by USEPA in Section III.J of the proposed rule preamble. As such, the proposed annual data elements would provide information to competitors on product composition, production rates, and breakdown of product types on an annual basis. As previously noted in this letter, as well as historic comment letters to USEPA concerning GHGRR CBI, the lime industry is highly competitive, and ALL information about the chemical composition, including emission factors which are derived from confidential chemical composition data, of products produced at Mississippi Lime is highly sensitive. Mississippi Lime strongly believes that USEPA should refrain from collecting and retaining highly Confidential Business Information unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Mississippi Lime urges USEPA to drop from the final rule the proposed data elements for the lime industry in Subpart S of the GHGRR due to the significant concerns or Confidential Business Information.
Mississippi Lime is aware that the National Lime Association ("NLA") has submitted comments germane to the collective interests of all lime industry participants. Mississippi Lime, a long-standing member of the NLA, fully supports those comments.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041, Excerpt 1 in section 27.1 of this document.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation:  National Lime Association (NLA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0031
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Under the proposed Subpart S revisions, for lime plants that do not use CEMS to measure CO2 emissions, beginning in reporting year 2017, reporters must now include annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced/waste sold. The chemical composition analyses EPA is seeking in the proposal are highly confidential business information in the lime industry. They would potentially provide information to competitors on product composition, production rates, and breakdown of product types on an annual basis. The lime industry is highly competitive, and information about what products are being produced at plants across various market areas is highly sensitive.
Response: As noted in Section III.J of the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA proposed to determine that this data element is CBI and is therefore eligible for confidential treatment. EPA received no adverse comment and therefore, we are finalizing the proposed confidentiality determination for this data element.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: In Subpart O, EPA has proposed requiring facilities to report production and emissions information for each HCFC-22 production process, where previously such reporting had been required at the facility level. While ACC is not opposed to implementing these requirements, we believe that the associated CBI determinations need to be clarified.
At the end of the Subpart O preamble, EPA states "for more information on subpart O confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of the preamble." (81 FR 2556) Upon review of section IV, however, we found no information on the Subpart O confidentiality determinations. We did find a discussion of CBI determinations for Subpart O in a supporting memorandum for the rule, "Proposed Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions," dated December 11, 2015. This memo listed eleven Subpart O data elements in Table 1, ten of which were "revised to require reporting at the process level," and the last of which was identified as "new."
None of these proposed data elements  -  revised or new  -  are listed in the CBI tables in the proposed rule. (See 81 FR 2576  -  2593) Further, EPA has provided no information on how a data element that was previously applied at the facility level could, when this rule is final, be applied at the process level, without having included the data elements in the proposed CBI determinations.
We understand that the revisions to change "at the facility level" to "for each HCFC-22 production process" in section 98.156(a) is not by itself a "data element," and as such, it was not included in the CBI determination tables. Since this revision represents a significant change to the CBI data to be reported, however, we request that EPA confirm that the Agency's approach for this "revision" will not impact the CBI status of any of the data elements in this section.
Response: See Section IV.A of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment, which clarifies the EPA's handling of new or revised data elements for which the EPA proposed confidentiality determinations in the memorandum "Proposed Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions". This memorandum included proposed confidentiality determinations for all data elements, including data elements assigned to data categories with previously determined category-based confidentiality determinations that were not further discussed in the preamble.
For subpart O, EPA assigned all new and revised data elements, including data elements related to reporting for each HCFC-22 production process, to data categories with a previously determined category-based confidentiality determination. Per the memorandum, we assigned the following data elements to data categories with a categorical confidentiality determination of CBI:
 For each HCFC-22 production process, annual mass of HCFC-22 produced in metric tons. (98.156(a)(1))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, annual mass of reactants fed into the process in metric tons of reactant. (98.156(a)(3))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, mass (in metric tons) of materials other than HCFC-22 and HFC-23 (i.e., unreacted reactants, HCl and other by-products) that occur in more than trace concentrations and that are permanently removed from the process. (98.156(a)(4))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, the names of facilities to which any HFC-23 was sent for destruction. (98.156(a)(6))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, the addresses of facilities to which any HFC-23 was sent for destruction. (98.156(a)(6))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, the quantities of HFC-23 (metric tons) sent to each. (98.156(a)(6))
Per the memorandum, we also proposed to assign the following data elements to data categories with a categorical confidentiality determination of not CBI:
 For each HCFC-22 production process, the method for tracking startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions and HFC-23 generation/emissions during these events. (98.156(a)(5))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, annual mass of HFC-23 emitted in metric tons. (98.156(a)(11))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, annual mass of HFC-23 emitted from equipment leaks in metric tons. (98.156(a)(12))
 For each HCFC-22 production process, annual mass of HFC-23 emitted from process vents in metric tons. (98.156(a)(13))
 Method used to calculate revised destruction efficiency, specifying whether § 98.154(l)(1) or (2) has been used for the calculation. (98.156(d))
We received no adverse comments on the proposed confidentiality determinations. Therefore, we are finalizing the proposed confidentiality determinations for these data elements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment: In the proposal, EPA states that the year of abatement technology installation is not considered CBI. TFI opposes this determination and requests that the date of abatement technology installation be considered CBI.
Response: See Section IV.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Dow Chemical Company
Commenter Affiliation:  Dow Chemical Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: Proposed changes to Subpart X require the owner/operator to report the annual average of the measurements of CC and MW of each feedstock and product stream. We agree with EPA's assessment that this information should be treated as Business Confidential information. Furthermore, we suggest that EPA's final rule clarify that this information is to be reported through the Inputs Verification Tool instead of direct entry into the e-GGRT to ensure that it is treated as Business Confidential information.
Response: The proposed requirements to report the annual average carbon content and molecular weight of feedstocks and products under 40 CFR 98.246(a)(14) and (15) require these data elements be reported directly to EPA through e-GGRT where they will be treated as CBI following established procedures, rather than being used in the emissions calculations housed within the Inputs Verification Tool. These requirements are being finalized as proposed.
In the "Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the GHGRP" (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014), the EPA finalized the use of the Inputs Verification Tool (IVT) as a means to provide an alternative to collecting certain inputs to emission calculation equations for which reporting was deferred and disclosure concerns were identified. The IVT, which calculates GHG emissions based on the inputs to the emissions equations and performs additional verification checks on the inputs to emission equations, provides EPA with information necessary to conduct further verification once the annual report is submitted and maintains the EPA's ability to verify data and ensure compliance with the GHGRP for certain inputs to emission calculation equations. Data elements that are not inputs to emission calculations that have been determined to be CBI have been collected by the GHGRP through e-GGRT, and protected as CBI, since the inception of the program.

EPA proposed and has finalized the determination that the proposed data elements, annual average carbon content and molecular weight of feedstocks and products, should be treated as CBI, however these data elements are not inputs to emission calculations specified in Part 98 or used by sources to calculate their annual GHG emissions under Part 98. Therefore, these data elements are not eligible to be entered in IVT and will be collected through e-GGRT, used to verify the accuracy of reported emissions, and protected as CBI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  12
Comment: ACC supports EPA's proposed determinations to treat new data elements under Subpart X as confidential business information. Data elements 98.246(a)(14) and (a)(15) must be treated as CBI because they describe the facility's carbon content and annually averaged weight of the feedstocks. If this information is made public, a competitor could use it to determine a facility's feedstock composition. EPA also states that the release of such data could reveal the facility's "competitive and marketing strategies, or reveal its suppliers and sourcing strategies." (81 FR 2580) We strongly urge EPA to ensure in the final rule that these data elements are classified as CBI.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P.
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: EPA should allow reporters to declare information submitted under subpart DD as CBI. EPA proposes that there are "no disclosure concerns" for the information that would be required in the proposed amendments to the Subpart DD reporting requirements.[29] EPA further states that reporters "are public or publicly-regulated utilities that are not affected by competitive market conditions that may apply to other industries" and that "these [required] data elements do not disclose any information about a manufacturing process or operating conditions that would be proprietary."30
The Class of '85 disagrees with EPA's conclusion that there are no disclosure concerns under the proposed Subpart DD reporting requirements. Reporting detailed equipment counts, equipment types, and linked geographical data to the public will relay company-specific information that may jeopardize competitive advantage in the industry. If EPA does finalize the requirement for reporters to distinguish between hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other SF6-containing equipment, the Group requests that EPA allow reporters to declare this information as CBI.
Footnotes:
(29) 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,564. EPA proposes to determine that the following data elements are not CBI: the numbers of (i) new hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year; (ii) new SF6 or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year; (iii) retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year; and (iv) retired SF6 or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. Id. at 2,578.
(30) Id. at 2,564.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed determination of "Not CBI" for the new subpart DD reporting elements. See Section IV.B of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  18
Comment: ACC supports EPA's proposed determination that most of the new data elements added under Subpart OO should be determined to be CBI.
EPA has added several new data elements under Subpart OO related to the proposed requirement to report of [sic] supplies of fluorinated HTFs. Based on our review, ACC concludes that EPA has properly identified those data elements that should be treated as "CBI" and those that should be treated as "not-CBI."
Under Table 7, 23 new Subpart OO data elements have been added, all of which are designated as CBI in EPA's proposal.[8] Twenty of these data elements are assigned to the "production/throughput quantities and composition" category. These data must be designated as CBI because the data elements describe production and throughput quantities and product compositions. Should such data be made public, competitors could gain insight into a firm's market strength and competitive position. In addition, the release of facility-level data of this type could provide competitors with insight into a firm's local and regional market conditions and expansion plans, which could enable competitors to devise strategies to prevent expansion and steal market share. (81 FR 2581) In addition, EPA acknowledges "these data elements are the same type of data that must be reported for fluorinated GHGs, for which we have previously assigned a determination of CBI. (81 FR 2581)
The remaining three data elements in EPA's proposed rule are designated as CBI and describe dates of import and export shipments and ports of entry and exit. Release of this type of information could allow competitors to link customs records on quantities and product composition with the import and export data reported under Subpart OO, and allow competitors to determine market share and devise marketing strategies to undermine or weaken a competitor's position. In addition, as above, EPA states "these proposed data elements, which apply to fluorinated HTFs, are the same type of data that must be reported for fluorinated GHGs, for which we have previously assigned a determination of CBI." (81 FR 2585)
ACC strongly agrees with EPA's proposed determination that all of the new Subpart OO data elements designated as CBI have been correctly classified. We appreciate EPA's recognition that the public release of such data could cause substantial competitive harm. We also agree with EPA that these data elements, when applied to fluorinated HTFs, must be treated in the same manner as when applied to fluorinated GHGs.
Footnotes:
(8) The data elements assigned to the "Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition Supplier Data Category include: 98.416(a)(1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (11), (12), (14), (15); (c)(1), (2), (6), (8), (9), (10), and (d)(1) and (4), (i), and (j). 81 FR 2581  -  2584). In addition, three data elements in the "Unit/Process Operating Characteristics" Supplier Data Category are also designated as CBI: 98.416(c)(4), (d)(5), and (j).
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  19
Comment: Finally, there are four new data elements under Subpart OO with a proposed designation of "not CBI."[9] The first three of these data elements include the destruction efficiency of each fluorinated HTF destruction unit, the chemical identity of the fluorinated HTF, and the name of all applicable federal and state regulations that apply to destruction processes. EPA states that "the proposed data elements do not reveal business sensitive information about the process, nor do they reveal the technology used for the fluorinated GHG destruction, or the operating conditions for a particular technology." (81 FR 2584) The fourth data element relates to the date on which changes were made to the composition of a fluorinated HTF product. This information does not disclose "the actual composition of the product, the raw materials used to make the product, the method of manufacture, or the efficiency of the manufacturing process."
As described earlier in our Subpart OO comments, we do not support the proposed requirement to report the production of fluorinated HTFs. Should EPA finalize this requirement, however, we agree with EPA's CBI determinations.
Footnotes:
(9) These data elements, assigned to the "Unit/Process Operating Characteristics" Supplier Data Category are: 98.416(b)(1), (4), and (5), and 98.416(j).
Response: As discussed in Section III.W of the preamble to the final rule, we are finalizing a requirement to report the destruction of fluorinated HTFs. EPA acknowledges the supportive comment regarding EPA's proposed confidentiality determinations for 40 CFR 98.416(b)(1), (4), and (5), and 40 CFR 98.416(j).  We received no adverse comments on the proposed determinations and are finalizing the proposed determinations of "Not CBI."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  William A. Collins, Jr.
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA has proposed a new data element under 98.446(g) that enables EPA and the public to identify which Subpart RR facilities inject CO2 into non-EOR geologic storage formations and which inject CO2 for EOR.[2] We support EPA's determination that this data element need not be treated as CBI, and we agree with EPA's conclusion that "this data element does not reveal any significant details regarding the activities at the facility, the quantities of CO2 received, or the CO2 utilization rates at the facility."[3]
Footnotes:
(2) U.S. EPA, 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (GHGRP), 81 FR 2536, January 26, 2016., p. 2,624.
(3) Ibid., p. 2,579, Table 7.

Response: We are not finalizing the proposed data reporting element or associated confidentiality determination for this data element at this time. See Section IV.B.1 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments re: proposed categorical and confidentiality determinations for existing Part 98 data elements for which no determination has been previously established
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment: ACC agrees with EPA that the data element "annual phosphoric acid production by origin of phosphate rock" should be treated as confidential business information. (81 FR 2587) Public release of this data element could cause significant competitive harm, should competitors gain access to information on the source and composition of raw materials used in the manufacturing process. If such information were to become public, it could enable competitors to gain insight into the facility's raw material suppliers, production costs and manufacturing processes; information which they could use to gain market advantage. This data element is not an "input to emission equations," and as such can be treated as CBI based on the likelihood of competitive harm.
Response: This comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment: EPA proposes to clarify that the origin of Phosphate Rock as set forth at 40 C.F.R. §98.266(a) is production/throughput data and is considered CBI. TFI supports this clarification.
Response: This comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  25
Comment: In rule amendments published on November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71904), the EPA revised the data element under §98.396(a)(20) from "the batch volume of crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels" to "the annual quantity of crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels." However, the EPA did not make a confidentiality determination for this revised data element at that time. The EPA is proposing that the revised data element be assigned to the "Amount and Composition of Materials Received" category, which has a categorical confidentiality determination of CBI.
AFPM supports this CBI determination. Maintaining this data as CBI is consistent with the long tradition of maintaining confidentiality of similar data reported to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).[1] This data, if released, would provide valuable information to competitors that could be damaging to individual refiners.
Footnotes:
(1) Provisions regarding Confidentiality of Information from Form EIA-810: "All other information reported on Form EIA-810 will be protected and not disclosed to the public to the extent that it satisfies the criteria for exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552, the DOE regulations, 10 C.F.R. §1004.11, implementing the FOIA, and the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §1905."
Response:   This comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  William A. Collins, Jr.
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: Under Subpart PP, EPA should ensure that the amount of CO2 transferred from an electric generating unit to an EOR facility reporting under Subpart RR is treated as CBI.
In its proposed rule, EPA determined that an electric generating unit (EGU) that captures a CO2 stream and transfers it to any facility subject to Subpart RR must report the annual quantity of CO2 in metric tons that is transferred to each Subpart RR facility. EPA proposes that this data element is not CBI because "this information does not reveal any significant details regarding production or production and import/export data that may be considered CBI."[13]
We disagree with EPA's proposed determination and the accompanying rationale because the quantity of CO2 transferred from an EGU to a subpart RR facility becomes, at the point of transfer, CO2 received at the facility. As described in Section 1.2, publically releasing data on the amount of CO2 received at a Subpart RR facility that is conducting EOR is likely to cause significant competitive harm to EOR operators, as EPA acknowledged in the current proposal.[14] For that reason, EPA has proposed that such data, when received at an EOR facility, would be treated as CBI.
Because the quantity of CO2 transferred by the EGU and the amount of CO2 received at the EOR facility is essentially the same, we respectfully request that EPA reverse this determination and ensure that CO2 transferred is treated as CBI when the transfer take place between an EGU that has captured CO2 and an EOR facility reporting under Subpart RR. Publication of this data would likely cause significant competitive harm, resulting in unwillingness on the part of the EOR industry to purchase such CO2.
It is Occidental's view that this change can be readily implemented, based on the EPA's proposal to include a data element under Subpart RR that distinguishes between sites doing EOR and sites injecting CO2 into subsurface geologic formations.[15] In addition, we expect a significant amount of the CO2 transferred to Subpart RR facilities by EGUs to be injected at EOR facilities, because this approach may be more economical for EGUs than injecting into saline aquifers using Class VI wells. EPA, too, believes that EOR facilities will be the preferred type of injection.[16]
With respect to the other data elements added to Subpart PP, we support EPA's "not CBI" determinations, both of which would require reporting of the facility identification numbers for the EGU capturing a CO2 stream and for the Subpart RR facilities to which the captured CO2 is transferred. We find that these data elements are unlikely to pose any commercial risk to Subpart RR facilities injecting CO2 for EOR purposes.
Footnotes:
(13) U.S. EPA, 2015 Proposed Technical Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations, p. 2,589, Table 8, data element 98.426(h)(3).
(14) Ibid, pp. 2,589  -  2,590.
(15) Ibid., p. 2,579. See EPA's rationale: "This data element would identify whether a facility is performing enhanced oil recovery. We are proposing that this data element is not CBI because this data element does not reveal any significant details regarding the activities at the facility, the quantities of CO2 received, or the CO2 utilization rates of the facility."