[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 69 (Monday, April 12, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18652-18723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6768]
[[Page 18651]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 98
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 18652]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 98
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927; FRL-9130-7]
RIN 2060-AQ00
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is revising and supplementing its initial proposed actions
to require reporting of fluorinated greenhouse gas (fluorinated GHG)
emissions from certain source categories. Specifically, EPA is revising
and supplementing its initial proposal to require reporting of
fluorinated GHG emissions from electronics manufacturing, production of
fluorinated gases, and use of electrical transmission and distribution
equipment. EPA is also proposing to require such reporting from
manufacture or refurbishment of electrical equipment and import and
export of pre-charged equipment and closed cell foams. This proposed
rule would not require control of greenhouse gases; rather it would
require only that sources above certain threshold levels monitor and
report emissions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2010. There will
be a public hearing from 9 a.m. to 12 noon on April 20, 2010 at 1310 L
St., NW., Room 152, Washington, DC 20005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927 by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: EPA Docket Center, Attention Docket OAR-2009-0927,
Mail code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading
Room, Room 3334, EPA West Building, Attention Docket OAR-2009-0927,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA's Docket Center,
Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; e-mail address:
[email protected]. For technical information contact the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule e-mail: [email protected]. To obtain
information about the public hearings or to register to speak at the
hearings, please go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional Information on Submitting
Comments: To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the
copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code
6207-J, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263, e-mail
[email protected].
As indicated above, although EPA previously proposed a version of
some parts of this rule, that proposal has not become final. This
proposal partly supplements and partly replaces that initial proposal.
Comments on the initial proposal will be considered only to the extent
they remain relevant. To ensure that their comments on newly proposed
or re-proposed provisions are considered, parties should submit or re-
submit them at this time.
Regulated Entities. The Administrator determined that this action
is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See
CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d) apply to
``such other actions as the Administrator may determine.''). This is a
proposed regulation. If finalized, these regulations would affect
owners or operators of electronics manufacturing facilities,
fluorinated gas production facilities, electric power systems, and
electrical equipment manufacturing facilities, as well as importers and
exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams. Regulated
categories and entities would include those listed in Table 1 of this
preamble:
[[Page 18653]]
Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of affected
Category NAICS facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Manufacturing......... 334111 Microcomputers
manufacturing
facilities.
334413 Semiconductor,
photovoltaic (solid-
state) device
manufacturing
facilities.
334419 LCD unit screens
manufacturing
facilities.
334419 MEMS manufacturing
facilities.
Fluorinated GHG Production........ 325120 Industrial gases
manufacturing
facilities.
Electrical Equipment Use.......... 221121 Electric bulk power
transmission and control
facilities.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture 33531 Power transmission and
or Refurbishment. distribution switchgear
and specialty
transformers
manufacturing
facilities.
Importers and Exporters of Pre- 423730 Air-conditioning
charged Equipment and Closed-Cell equipment (except room
Foams. units) merchant
wholesalers.
333415 Air-conditioning
equipment (except motor
vehicle) manufacturing.
423620 Air-conditioners, room,
merchant wholesalers.
443111 Household Appliance
Stores.
326150 Polyurethane foam
products manufacturing.
335313 Circuit breakers, power,
manufacturing.
423610 Circuit breakers merchant
wholesalers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be
affected by this action. Table 1 lists the types of facilities that EPA
is now aware could be potentially affected by the reporting
requirements. Other types of facilities and companies not listed in the
table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine
whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and the
relevant criteria in the proposed subparts related to electronics
manufacturing facilities, fluorinated gas production facilities,
electrical equipment use, electrical equipment manufacturing or
refurbishment facilities, and importers and exporters of pre-charged
equipment and closed-cell foams. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Many facilities that would be affected by the proposed rule have
GHG emissions from multiple source categories listed in 40 CFR part 98
or in this proposed rule. Table 2 of this preamble has been developed
as a guide to help potential reporters in the source categories subject
to the proposed rule identify the source categories (by subpart) that
they may need to (1) consider in their facility applicability
determination, and/or (2) include in their reporting. The table should
only be seen as a guide. Additional subparts in 40 CFR part 98 may be
relevant for a given reporter. Similarly, not all listed subparts are
relevant for all reporters.
Table 2--Source Categories and Relevant Subparts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category (and main applicable Subparts recommended for review
subpart) to determine applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity Generation................. Electrical Equipment Use.
Electronics Manufacturing.............. General Stationary Fuel
Combustion.
Fluorinated GHG Production............. General Stationary Fuel
Combustion. Suppliers of
Industrial Greenhouse Gases.
Electrical Equipment Use............... General Stationary Fuel
Combustion.
Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs Suppliers of Industrial
Inside Pre-charged Equipment and Greenhouse Gases.
Closed-Cell Foams.
Sulfur Hexafluoride and PFCs
from Electrical Equipment
Manufacture and Refurbishment.
Electrical Equipment Manufacture or General Stationary Fuel
Refurbishment. Combustion
Imports and Exports of
Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-
charged Equipment and Closed-
Cell Foams.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods
CAA Clean Air Act
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI confidential business information
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
EIA Economic Impact Analysis
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas
FTIR fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy)
FID flame ionization detector
GC gas chromatography
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HFE hydrofluoroether
HTF heat transfer fluid
ICR information collection request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kg kilograms
LCD liquid crystal displays
MEMS microelectromechanical devices
MMTCO2e million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
MRR mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule
MS mass spectrometry
N2O nitrous oxide
NACAA National Association of Clean Air Agencies
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NERC North American Energy Reliability Corporation
NESHAP National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
[[Page 18654]]
NMR nuclear magnetic resonance
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFC perfluorocarbon
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PV photovoltaic cells
QA quality assurance
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
R&D research and development
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RGGI Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
TCR The Climate Registry
TSD technical support document
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
WCI Western Climate Initiative
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Organization of This Preamble
B. Background on the Proposed Rule
C. Legal Authority
D. Relationship to other Federal, State and Regional Programs
II. Summary of and Rationale for the Reporting, Recordkeeping and
Verification Requirements for Specific Source Categories
A. Electronics Manufacturing
B. Fluorinated Gas Production
C. Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use
D. Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged
equipment and closed-cell foams
E. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment
F. Subpart A Revisions
III. Economic Impacts on the Rule
A. How were compliance costs estimated?
B. What are the costs of the rule?
C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?
D. What are the impacts of the rule on small businesses?
E. What are the benefits of the rule for society?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Background
A. Organization of This Preamble
This preamble is broken into several large sections, as detailed
above in the Table of Contents. The paragraphs below describe the
layout of the preamble and provide a brief summary of each section.
The first section of this preamble contains the basic background
information about the origin of this proposed rule, including a brief
discussion of the initial proposed requirements for electronics,
fluorinated gas production, and use of electrical transmission and
distribution equipment. This section also discusses EPA's use of our
legal authority under the CAA to collect the proposed data, and the
benefits of collecting the data.
The second section of this preamble provides a brief summary of,
and rationale for, the key design elements on which EPA is seeking
comment today for each subpart. Depending on the subpart, this section
may include EPA's rationale for (i) the definition of the source
category, (ii) selection of reporting threshold, (iii) selection of
proposed reporting and monitoring methods, (iv) selection of procedures
for estimating missing data, (v) selection of data reporting
requirements, and (vi) selection of records that must be retained. EPA
describes the proposed options for each design element, as well as the
other options considered. Throughout this discussion, EPA highlights
specific issues on which we solicit comment. Please refer to the
specific source category of interest for more details.
The third section provides the summary of the cost impacts,
economic impacts, and benefits of this proposed rule from the Economic
Analysis. Finally, the last section discusses the various statutory and
executive order requirements applicable to this proposed rulemaking.
B. Background on the Proposed Rule
The Final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule (Final MRR), (40 CFR part
98) was signed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on September 22, 2009
and published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009 (74 FR
56260). The Final MRR, which became effective on December 29, 2009,
included reporting of GHGs from the facilities and suppliers that EPA
determined should be included to appropriately respond to the direction
in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.\1\ These source categories
capture approximately 85 percent of U.S. GHG emissions through
reporting by direct emitters as well as suppliers of fossil fuels and
industrial gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161,
121 Stat. 1844, 2128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule, the
electronics, fluorinated GHG production, and electrical equipment use
source categories were included as subparts I, L, and DD. In addition,
EPA requested comment on requiring reporting under subpart OO of the
quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported and exported inside pre-charged
equipment and foams. EPA received a number of lengthy, detailed
comments regarding proposed subparts I and L, several comments
regarding the definition of ``facility'' under subpart DD, and several
comments regarding a reporting requirement for imports and exports of
fluorinated GHGs contained inside pre-charged equipment and foams.
These comments, which are described in more detail in the discussions
of the individual source categories below, raised concerns about the
costs and technical feasibility of implementing subparts I and L as
initially proposed, requested clarification of how ``facility'' should
be interpreted under subpart DD, and both favored and opposed a
requirement to report imports of fluorinated GHGs contained in imported
and exported pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams.
EPA recognized the concerns raised by stakeholders, and decided not
to finalize subparts I, L, and DD with the Final MRR, but instead to
re-propose significant pieces of these subparts. For subparts I and L
this proposal incorporates a number of changes including, but not
limited to, the addition of different methodologies that provide
improved emissions coverage at a lower cost burden to facilities as
compared to the initial proposal. Where aspects of the initial
proposals for subparts I and L are retained in this proposal, such as
in the basic mass-balance methodology for subpart L (as an option for
some facilities) and in many of the equations for subpart I, today's
proposal adds more flexibility in how and how frequently the underlying
data are gathered. In addition, EPA is proposing requirements to report
emissions from manufacture or refurbishment of electrical equipment and
to report the quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported and exported
inside pre-charged equipment and foams.
We believe the monitoring approaches proposed in this action, which
combine direct measurement and facility-specific calculations,
effectively balance
[[Page 18655]]
accuracy and costs, and that they are warranted even though the rule
does not contain any emissions reduction requirements. As we stated in
the Final MRR, the data collected by the rule are expected to be used
in analyzing and developing a range of potential CAA GHG policies and
programs. A consistent and accurate data set is crucial to serve this
intended purpose.
Under this proposed rule, facilities not already reporting but
required to report under this rule would begin data collection in 2011
following the methods outlined in the proposed rule and would submit
data to EPA by March 31, 2012. As is the case under the Final MRR,
facilities would have the option to use Best Available Monitoring
Methods (BAMM) for the first quarter of the first reporting year for
the source categories included in this proposed rule. Thus, for these
source categories, facilities could use BAMM through March 31, 2011.
C. Legal Authority
EPA is proposing this rule under its existing CAA authority,
specifically authorities provided in CAA section 114. As discussed
further below and in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's
Response to Public Comments, Legal Issues'' (available in EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508), EPA is not citing the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations
Act as the statutory basis for this action. While that law required
that EPA spend no less than $3.5 million on a rule requiring the
mandatory reporting of GHG emissions, it is the CAA, not the
Appropriations Act, that EPA is citing as the authority to gather the
information proposed by this rule.
As stated in the Final MRR, CAA section 114 provides EPA broad
authority to require the information proposed by this rule because such
data would inform and are relevant to EPA's carrying out a wide variety
of CAA provisions. As discussed in the initial proposed rule (74 FR
16448, April 10, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) authorizes the
Administrator to require emissions sources, persons subject to the CAA,
or persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary
information to monitor and report emissions and provide such other
information the Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out
any provision of the CAA. EPA notes that while climate change
legislation approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, and pending
in the U.S. Senate, would provide EPA additional authority for a GHG
registry similar to this proposed rule, and would do so for purposes of
that pending legislation, this proposed rule is authorized by, and the
information being gathered by this proposed rule is relevant to
implementing, the existing CAA. EPA expects, however, that the
information collected by this proposed rule would also prove useful to
legislative efforts to address GHG emissions.
For further information about EPA's legal authority, see the
proposed and Final MRR.
D. Relationship to Other Federal, State and Regional Programs
In developing this proposed rule, EPA reviewed monitoring methods
included in international guidance (e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change), as well as Federal voluntary programs (e.g., EPA PFC
Reduction/Climate Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry and the
U.S. Department of Energy Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
Program (1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act), corporate protocols (e.g.,
World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable
Development GHG Protocol) and industry guidance (e.g., 2006 ISMI
Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process
Equipment).
EPA also reviewed State reporting programs (e.g., California and
New Mexico) and Regional partnerships (e.g., Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative, Western Climate Initiative, The Climate Registry). These
are important programs that not only led the way in reporting of GHG
emissions before the Federal government acted but also assist in
quantifying the GHG reductions achieved by various policies. Many of
these programs collect different or additional data as compared to this
proposed rule. For example, State programs may establish lower
thresholds for reporting, request information on areas not addressed in
EPA's reporting rule, or include different data elements to support
other programs (e.g., offsets). For further discussion on the
relationship of this proposed rule to other programs, please refer to
the preamble to the Final MRR.
II. Summary of and Rationale for the Reporting, Recordkeeping and
Verification Requirements for Specific Source Categories
A. Electronics Manufacturing
1. Overview of Reporting Requirements
Electronics manufacturing includes, but is not limited to, the
manufacture of semiconductors, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), micro-
electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), and photovoltaic cells (PV). The
electronics industry uses multiple long-lived fluorinated greenhouse
gases (fluorinated GHGs) such as perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and
nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), as well as nitrous oxide
(N2O). This proposed rule would apply to electronics
manufacturing facilities where emissions from electronics manufacturing
processes such as plasma etching, chemical vapor deposition, chamber
cleaning, and heat transfer fluid use as well as stationary fuel
combustion units equal or exceed 25,000 metric tons of CO2e
per year.\2\ In this action, we are proposing methods to estimate
emissions from cleaning and etching for semiconductor, LCD, MEMS, and
PV manufacture and also methods for estimating N2O emissions
from chemical vapor deposition and other manufacturing processes such
as chamber cleaning. We are also clarifying methods for estimating
emissions from heat transfer fluids. And lastly, we are proposing
methods for reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As discussed further below, EPA is proposing that
uncontrolled emissions be used for purposes of determining whether a
facility's emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000
mtCO2e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Major Changes Since Initial Rule Proposed
In the initial proposal for electronics manufacturing, we included
the following provisions for reporting emissions from electronics
manufacture: (1) A capacity-based threshold for semiconductors, LCDs,
and MEMS facilities and an emissions-based threshold for PV facilities;
(2) methods for estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from etching and
cleaning; (3) methods for estimating N2O emissions during
etching and cleaning; (4) methods for verifying destruction or removal
efficiency (DRE) of abatement systems; and (5) methods for estimating
emissions from heat transfer fluids.
As noted in the preamble to the Final MRR, we received a number of
lengthy, detailed comments regarding the electronics manufacturing
subpart. In total, we received comments from approximately 10 entities
on the proposed rule regarding electronics manufacture. The commenters
generally opposed the proposed reporting requirements for large
semiconductor facilities and stated that excessive monitoring and
reporting were required. For example, commenters asserted that they do
not currently collect the data required to report using an IPCC Tier 3
[[Page 18656]]
approach, and that to collect such data would entail significant burden
and capital costs. In most cases, commenters provided alternative
approaches to each of the reporting requirements.
We have carefully reviewed the comments, issues, and suggestions
raised by stakeholders regarding electronics manufacturing. In
response, we are revising our initial proposal and are proposing the
following reporting provisions for electronics manufacture: (1) A
single emissions-based reporting threshold for all semiconductor, LCD,
MEMS, and PV facilities; (2) modified methods for estimating emissions
from cleaning and etching activities for semiconductor facilities and
other electronics facilities including those that manufacture LCDs,
MEMS, and PVs; (3) modified methods for estimating facility
N2O emissions; (4) clarified methods for estimating
emissions from heat transfer fluids; and (5) revised methods for
reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems.
In the paragraphs below, we summarize the main provisions included
in the initial proposal for reporting emissions from electronics
manufacturing and we briefly summarize the major changes that are being
proposed today. For more detailed information on the initial proposal,
see the electronics manufacturing section of EPA's proposed MRR (74 FR
16448, April 10, 2009).
Reporting Threshold. In the initial proposal, we proposed a
capacity-based threshold, requiring those facilities with emissions
equal to or greater than the thresholds to report their GHG emissions.
We proposed production capacity-based thresholds of 1,080 m \2\, 1,020
m \2\, and 236,000 m \2\ of substrate for semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD
manufacturing facilities, respectively. The capacity-based threshold
proposed were equivalent to 25,000 mtCO2e using the IPCC
2006 Tier 1 default factors and assumed no abatement. Where IPCC 2006
Tier 1 default emission factors were unavailable (i.e., MEMS), the
emission factor was estimated based on relevant IPCC Tier 1 emission
factors for semiconductor production. Due to a lack of information on
use and emissions of fluorinated GHGs for PV manufacture, we proposed
an emissions-based threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e for those
facilities. We proposed to use a capacity-based threshold based on the
published capacities of facilities, as opposed to an emissions-based
threshold, where possible, because we believed that it simplified the
applicability determination.
Several commenters stated that the proposed capacity-based
threshold created ambiguity. For example, one commenter noted that it
was unclear how production capacity was defined as actual manufacturing
levels could fluctuate year by year. In response to these comments, we
are now proposing a single emissions-based threshold equal to or
greater than 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for
electronics manufacturing facilities. We have concluded that a single
emissions-based threshold will simplify the applicability determination
and that by applying the method for determining whether the threshold
is met, a facility will be able to quickly determine whether they must
report under this rule.
Estimating Emissions from Cleaning and Etching Processes. With
respect to estimating emissions from chamber cleaning and etching, in
our initial proposal, we outlined two different methods; one method for
relatively large semiconductor facilities, and another method for all
other semiconductor facilities and LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities
required to report. We defined large semiconductor facilities as those
facilities with annual capacities of greater than 10,500 m\2\ silicon
(equivalent to 29 out of 175 total semiconductor manufacturing
facilities). For large semiconductor facilities we proposed an approach
based on the IPCC Tier 3 method that required the use of company-
specific data for (1) gas consumption, (2) gas utilization,\3\ (3) by-
product formation \4\, and (4) DRE for all emissions abatement
processes at the facility. As we stated in the initial proposal, we had
concluded that large semiconductor facilities were already using Tier 3
methods and/or had the necessary data readily available either in-house
or from suppliers to apply the highest Tier method. For smaller
semiconductor facilities and LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities, we proposed
an approach based on the IPCC Tier 2b method, which required using
default emission factors for process utilization, by-product formation,
and site-specific DRE measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For purposes of electronics manufacturing, we are using the
term ``gas utilization'' to describe the fraction of input
N2O or fluorinated GHG converted to other substances
during the etching, deposition, and/or chamber/wafer cleaning
processes. Gas utilization is expressed as a rate or factor for
specific manufacturing processes. ``Utilization'' should not be
confused with ``use;'' ``use'' refers to gas consumption or the
quantity of gas fed into process at an electronics manufacturing
facility.
\4\ For purposes of electronics manufacturing, ``by-product
formation'' is the quantity of fluorinated GHGs created during
electronics manufacturing processes. Fluorinated GHG by-products may
also be formed by abatement devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments received in response to our initial proposal stated that
the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method would be overly burdensome for
semiconductor manufacturers and that process-specific emission factors
do not exist for many tools and processes. The commenters noted that
most semiconductor facilities do not track gas consumption by tool or
process-type and that currently, only one large semiconductor company
uses the Tier 3 method. Generally, commenters requested the use of the
2006 IPCC Tier 2b method.
In response to these comments, we are now proposing the use of a
``Refined Method'' for estimating these emissions from semiconductor
facilities. Our revised methodology includes a simpler approach to
estimating emissions from cleaning and etching as compared to the Tier
3 method that was initially proposed for larger semiconductor
facilities. To this end, we estimate that our proposed methodology will
result in a reduction in burden compared to the Tier 3 method for those
facilities previously defined as large semiconductor facilities, and an
improvement in accuracy of the emissions estimate as compared to the
2006 IPCC Tier 2b method. Furthermore, since we anticipate that all
semiconductor facilities already have, or have ready access to, the
information required by this proposed methodology, we are also
proposing to require all semiconductor facilities required to report to
estimate emissions using the Refined Method. We have concluded the
method we are proposing is the most appropriate method taking into
account both the cost to the reporter as well as accuracy of emissions
achieved.
For LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities, in this action we are proposing
to require an approach based on a slightly modified 2006 IPCC Tier 2b
method which would include (1) gas-and facility-specific heel factors
(consistent with the requirements we are proposing for semiconductor
facilities), (2) gas consumption apportioned to 2006 IPCC Tier 2b
process categories (i.e. clean and etch), (3) default factors
consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b factors, and (4) methods for
reporting controlled emissions from abatement systems (as proposed
below). The main difference between the method proposed in this revised
proposal and in the initial proposal is the addition of a gas-and
facility-specific heel factor to determine overall gas consumption. We
did not receive any comments on the Tier 2b method that we proposed for
LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities in our initial proposal. We are proposing
to add the requirement of gas-and-facility specific
[[Page 18657]]
heel factors based on comments received from semiconductor facilities
in response to the initial proposal. It is our understanding that LCD,
MEMS, and PV facilities have the data required to develop a gas-and-
facility specific heel factors and that it can be implemented with
minimal burden.
Estimating Facility N2O Emissions. In our initial proposal, our
approach required that facilities estimate annual N2O
emissions using a simple mass-balance method. This method assumed that
all N2O consumed is emitted (i.e., not converted or
destroyed). We also requested comment on utilization factors for
N2O as well as on data on N2O by-product
formation.
In response to our initial proposal, we received comments that
clarified that N2O is used primarily in the chemical vapor
deposition process. Commenters opposed our proposed method for
estimating N2O emissions, which assumed 100 percent
N2O used is emitted, and asserted that semiconductor
facilities should be permitted to use measured N2O emission
factors where these factors were measured using methods consistent with
the December 2006 International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's
Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process
Equipment (2006 ISMI Guidelines). Commenters also noted that facilities
that have not developed N2O emission factors should be
allowed to use a default emission factor of 60 percent, reflecting
N2O utilization of 40 percent.\5\ Lastly, commenters
asserted that those companies that have a measured DRE for
N2O abatement be allowed to apply these DREs in the emission
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The 40% utilization rate (60% emission factor) was
identified based on a survey of industry conducted by ISMI and
provided in comments in response to the initial proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are now proposing two methods for estimating N2O
emissions from electronics manufacturing: one for estimating
N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition and another for
estimating N2O emissions from all other manufacturing
processes such as chamber cleaning.
Reporting Controlled Emissions From Abatement Systems. The
emissions estimation method originally proposed accounted for
destruction by abatement systems only if facilities verified the
performance of their systems using one of two methods. In particular,
we proposed to require that the DRE be verified by either (1)
measurement by the facility using the methods described in EPA's
Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA's
DRE Protocol), or (2) purchase by the facility of abatement systems
that were tested by a third party using a standard protocol such as
EPA's DRE Protocol.
We also proposed to require that facilities use the systems within
the manufacturer's specified system lifetime, operate the system within
the manufacturer specific limits for the gas mix and exhaust flow rate
intended for the fluorinated GHG destruction, and maintain the
equipment according to the manufacturer's guidelines.
In response to the initial proposal, commenters were generally
opposed to EPA's initial approach for measuring DRE, noting that
according to the Results of the ISMI ESH Technology Center Greenhouse
Gas Facility Survey, less than one percent of installed abatement
systems have been properly tested using the draft EPA Protocol and that
generally, facilities use the IPCC default factors or manufacturer-
supplied measurements. In addition, commenters were also opposed to
EPA's proposed requirement that facilities rely on manufacturer-
specified system lifetime as properly maintained and serviced abatement
systems can last beyond the manufactures' specified lifetime. For
purposes of this reporting rule, we are now proposing that facilities
that wish to document and report fluorinated GHG and N2O
emissions reflecting the use of abatement systems adhere to a method
that would require (1) documentation to certify that the abatement
device is installed, operated, and maintained according to
manufacturers' specifications, (2) accounting for the system's uptime,
and (3) either certification that the abatement system is specifically
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement and the use
of EPA default DRE value, or directly and properly measured DRE (i.e.,
in accordance with EPA DRE Protocol) confirming abatement system's
performance.
Estimating Emissions from Heat Transfer Fluids. To estimate the
emissions from heat transfer fluids we proposed to require that
electronics manufacturers use the 2006 IPCC Tier 2 approach, which is
based on a mass-balance method. As we stated in the initial proposal,
the 2006 IPCC Tier 2 approach uses company-specific data and accounts
for differences among facilities' heat transfer fluids, leak rates, and
service practices.
In comments we received on our initial proposal, it was noted that
our proposed method for estimating emissions from heat transfer fluids
would require companies to compile a detailed inventory of all
fluorinated heat transfer equipment and its nameplate capacity.
Comments stated that such a mass balance approach would be overly
burdensome.
In evaluating these comments, we believe that there was some
confusion regarding our intended method. As a result, we are not
changing the broad outlines of our initial proposal, but we are
clarifying required data elements.
3. Definition of the Source Category
The electronics industry uses multiple long-lived fluorinated GHGs
such as PFCs, HFCs, SF6, and NF3, as well as
N2O, during manufacturing of semiconductors, LCDs, MEMS, and
PV. We understand that there are other electronics manufacturers such
as those facilities that manufacture light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and
disk readers that use fluorinated GHGs in similar manufacturing
processes as semiconductors. As a result, we are seeking information on
fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions associated with the
manufacture of these products and also comment on whether to include
them as part of the electronics manufacturing source category. It is
our intent to include these other sources as part of the electronics
manufacturing source category in the final rule where their emissions
meet or exceed our proposed threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e.
Fluorinated GHGs are used for plasma etching of silicon materials,
cleaning deposition tool chambers, and wafer cleaning. N2O
is also used in depositing certain films and chamber cleaning.
Additionally, electronics manufacturing employs fluorinated GHGs
(typically liquids at ambient temperature) as heat transfer fluids. The
most common fluorinated GHGs in use for these purposes are
CHF3 (HFC-23), CF4, C2F6,
NF3, SF6 and FluorinertTM and
Galden[reg] heat transfer fluids; other compounds such as
perfluoropropane (C3F8) and perfluorocyclobutane
(c-C4F8) are also used in smaller quantities
(EPA, 2008a). Table 3 of this preamble presents fluorinated GHGs
typically used during manufacture of electronics devices.
[[Page 18658]]
Table 3--Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by the Electronics Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluorinated GHGs used during
Product type manufacture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics (e.g., Semiconductor, MEMS, CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, c-
LCD, PV). C4F8O, C4F6, C5F8, CHF3,
CH2F2, NF3, SF6, and Heat
Transfer Fluids (CF3-(O-
CF(CF3)-CF2)n-(O-CF2)m-O-CF3,
CnF2n+2, CnF2n+1(O)CmF2m+1,
CnF2nO, (CnF2n+1)3N) \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ IPCC Guidelines do not specify the fluorinated GHGs used for MEMS
production. Literature reviews revealed that among others CF4, SF6,
and the Bosch process (consisting of alternating steps of SF6 and c-
C4F8) are used to manufacture MEMS. For further information, see the
Electronics Manufacturing TSD in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
Description of Electronics Manufacturing Processes and Activities.
Fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions result from the following
electronics processes and activities:
(1) Plasma etching;
(2) Chemical vapor deposition;
(3) Chamber cleaning;
(4) Wafer cleaning; and
(5) Heat transfer fluid use.
Plasma etching, essential to fabricating intricate, nanometer size
features in contemporary electronic devices, is the removal of solid
material from a substrate surface with gaseous reactants, in plasma, to
produce gaseous products, which are then pumped away and disposed.
Unless abated, unreacted fluorinated reactants or fluorinated GHG by-
products from etching are emitted into the atmosphere.
Typical fluorinated GHG etching reagents, used either individually
or in combination, are CF4, CHF3,
C2F6 and c-C4F8 for silicon
dioxide and nitride films; CF4, NF3 and
SF6 for polysilicon films; and CHF3 for aluminum
and SF6 for tungsten films. A typical fluorinated GHG by-
product from etching processes is CF4; in some instances
C2F6 may also be formed.
Deposition is a fundamental step in the fabrication of a variety of
electronic devices. During deposition, layers of dielectric, barrier,
or electrically conductive films are deposited or grown on a wafer or
other substrate. Chemical vapor deposition enables the deposition of
dielectric or metal films. During the chemical vapor deposition
process, gases that contain atoms of the material to be deposited react
on the wafer surface to form a thin film of solid material. Films
deposited by chemical vapor deposition may be silicon oxide, single-
layer crystal epitaxial silicon, amorphous silicon, silicon nitride,
dielectric anti-reflective coatings, low k dielectric, aluminum,
titanium, titanium nitride, polysilicon, tungsten, refractory metals or
silicides. Nitrous oxide may be the oxidizer of choice during
deposition of silicon oxide films.
Chambers used for depositing polysilicon, dielectric and metal
films are cleaned periodically using fluorinated GHGs, N2O,
and other gases. During the cleaning cycle, the gas is converted to
fluorine atoms in plasma, which etches away residual silicon-containing
material from chamber walls, electrodes, and chamber hardware.
Undissociated fluorinated gases and other fluorinated and non-
fluorinated products pass from the chamber to waste streams and, unless
emissions control systems are employed, into the atmosphere.
Typical fluorinated GHGs used for chamber cleaning are
NF3, C2F6 and
C3F8. N2O may also be used to reduce
particle formation during chamber cleaning. As with etching films,
fluorinated GHG by-products may be formed during chamber cleaning,
typically CF4.
During wafer processing, any residual photoresist material can be
removed through an ashing process, which consists of placing partially
processed wafers in an oxygen plasma to which CF4 may be
added. The edges of wafers (the bevel) may require
additional cleaning to remove yield-reducing residual material. Bevel
cleaning may also use a plasma process with fluorinated gas chemistry.
In both of these wafer cleaning processes, unused fluorinated GHGs are
emitted unless abated.
Fluorinated GHG liquids (at ambient temperature) such as fully
fluorinated linear, branched or cyclic alkanes, ethers, tertiary amines
and aminoethers, and mixtures thereof are used as heat transfer fluids
at several semiconductor facilities to cool process equipment, control
temperature during device testing, and solder semiconductor devices to
circuit boards. The fluorinated heat transfer fluid's high vapor
pressures can lead to evaporative losses during use.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927); 2006
IPCC Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our understanding is that heat transfer fluids are widely used
within semiconductor manufacturing. We are seeking comment on the
extent of use and annual replacement quantities of heat transfer fluids
in other electronics sectors, such as their use for cooling or cleaning
during LCD manufacture.
Total U.S. Emissions From Electronics Manufacturing. Emissions of
fluorinated GHGs from 216 electronics facilities were estimated to be
6.1 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. Below is a breakdown
of emissions by electronics product type.
Semiconductors. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs, including heat
transfer fluids, from 175 semiconductor facilities were estimated to be
5.9 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. Of the total estimated
semiconductor emissions, 5.4 million metric tons CO2e are
from etching/chamber cleaning and 0.5 million metric tons
CO2e are from heat transfer fluid usage.
MEMS. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 12 MEMS facilities were
estimated to be 0.1 million metric tons CO2e in 2006.
LCDs. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 9 LCD facilities were
estimated to be 0.02 million metric tons CO2e in 2006.
PV. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs from 20 PV facilities were
estimated to be 0.07 million metric tons CO2e in 2006. We
request comment on the number and capacity of PV facilities that employ
thin film technologies (i.e., amorphous silicon) and other PV
manufacturing facilities in the United States using fluorinated GHGs.
For additional background information on the electronics industry,
refer to the Electronics Manufacturing Technical Support Document (TSD)
in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
4. Threshold for Reporting
For facilities that manufacture semiconductors, LCD, MEMS, and PV,
we are proposing an emissions-based threshold of 25,000
mtCO2e. Consistent with other sections of the Final MRR, EPA
is proposing that for the purposes of determining whether a facility
emits amounts equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e, a
facility must include emissions from all source categories for which
methods are provided in the rule. For purposes of the threshold
determination under subpart I, we are proposing two different methods,
depending on whether the facility
[[Page 18659]]
manufacturers semiconductors, MEMS, LCDs or PVs (see proposed section
98.91). It is important to note that these methods are only for
determining whether a facility exceeds the threshold; the proposed
methods required for monitoring and reporting emissions data are
presented in section 5 below.
To determine whether a manufacturer falls above or below the
proposed 25,000 mtCO2e threshold, we are proposing that
semiconductor, MEMS, and LCD facilities use gas specific emission
factors assuming 100 percent manufacturing capacity to calculate annual
metric tons of emissions in CO2 equivalents. Because we
understand that heat transfer fluids are widely used within
semiconductor manufacturing, we are proposing that semiconductor
manufacturers add 10 percent of total clean and etch emissions at a
facility to their estimate. For applicability purposes, we propose that
manufacturing capacity means the facility's full planned design
capacity.
The gas specific emission factors we are proposing to use for
threshold applicability for semiconductors and LCD facilities are
consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. For MEMS,
because there are no IPCC factors available, we are assuming that
SF6 accounts for 100 percent of the sector's total
emissions. The emission factor we are proposing for threshold
applicability is based on the assumption that the MEMS SF6
emission factor is equivalent to the IPCC Tier 1 SF6
emission factor for semiconductors, scaled up by a factor of 5.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For a more detailed explanation of MEMS default factor,
please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing that PV facilities multiply annual fluorinated GHG
purchases or consumption by the gas-appropriate 100-year GWPs, as
defined in Table A-1 of subpart A of part 98, to calculate annual
metric tons of emissions in CO2 equivalents. None of these
calculations would account for emission abatement systems.
We are proposing to require an emissions estimating method that
does not account for destruction by abatement systems because actual
emissions from facilities employing abatement systems may exceed
estimates when based on the manufacturers' rated DREs of the equipment
and may therefore exceed the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold without
the knowledge of the facility operators. When abatement equipment is
used, electronics manufacturers often estimate their emissions using
the manufacturer-supplied DRE for the system. However, an abatement
system may fail to achieve its rated DRE either because it was not
installed properly, is not being properly operated and maintained, or
because the DRE value itself was incorrectly measured due to a failure
to properly account for the effects of dilution. For example, reported
DREs for CF4 can be overstated by as much as a factor of 20
to 50, and the corresponding figure for C2F6 can
be overstated by a factor of up to 10 because of failure to properly
account for dilution (Burton, 2007).
In our analysis of the emissions thresholds, we considered
thresholds of 1,000 mtCO2e, 10,000 mtCO2e, 25,000
mtCO2e, and 100,000 mtCO2e per year. To estimate
the number of semiconductor facilities that would have to report under
each of the various thresholds, we estimated emissions for each
facility in the U.S. by using IPCC Tier 1 emission factors. These
emissions estimates were then evaluated to determine how many
facilities would meet the various thresholds. To estimate the
collective emissions from the facilities that would have to report
under the various thresholds, we used information from EPA's PFC
Reduction/Climate Partnership for Semiconductors and the EPA PFC
Emissions Vintaging Model.
To estimate the number of LCD and PV facilities that would have to
report under the various thresholds, as well as the collective
emissions from these facilities, we used IPCC Tier 1 emission factors.
Because IPCC emission factors for MEMS are not available, the number of
facilities that would have to report and the collective emissions from
these facilities were determined using an emission factor based on a
relevant IPCC Tier 1 emission factor for semiconductor production.\8\
All of our analyses assumed no abatement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For a more detailed explanation of MEMS default emission
factor, please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 of this preamble shows emissions and facilities that would
be captured by the respective emissions thresholds.
Table 4--Threshold Analysis for Electronics Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions covered Facilities covered
Emission threshold level metric tons Total Total number ------------------------------------------------
CO2e/yr national of metric tons
emissions facilities CO2e/yr Percent Facilities Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000............................... 5,984,463 216 5,962,091 99.6 165 76
10,000.............................. 5,984,463 216 5,813,200 97 114 53
25,000.............................. 5,984,463 216 5,622,570 94 94 44
100,000............................. 5,984,463 216 4,737,622 79 55 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We selected the 25,000 mtCO2e per year threshold because
it maximizes emissions reporting, while excluding small facilities that
do not contribute significantly to the overall GHG emissions.
Table 5 of this preamble shows the estimated emissions and number
of facilities that would report for each type of source under the
proposed emissions-based thresholds.
Table 5--Summary of Rule Applicability Under the Proposed Thresholds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emissions covered Facilities covered
Total emissions ------------------------------------------------
Emissions source Threshold national of source
facilities (metric metric tons Percent Facilities Percent
tons CO2e) CO2e/yr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-conductors............................. 25,000 Mt CO2 Eq.............. 175 5,741,676 5,492,066 96 91 52
[[Page 18660]]
MEMS........................................ 25,000 Mt CO2 Eq.............. 12 146,115 96,164 66 2 17
LCD......................................... 25,000 Mt CO2 Eq.............. 9 23,632 0 0 0 0
PV.......................................... 25,000 Mt CO2 Eq.............. 20 73,039 34,340 47 1 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed emissions-based thresholds are estimated to include
approximately 50 percent of semiconductor facilities and between
approximately 5 percent and 17 percent of the facilities manufacturing
PV and MEMS, respectively. At the same time, the thresholds are
expected to cover nearly 96 percent of fluorinated GHG emissions from
semiconductor facilities, 66 percent of fluorinated GHG emissions from
facilities manufacturing MEMS, and 47 percent of fluorinated GHG
emissions from facilities manufacturing PV. Combined, these emissions
are estimated to account for close to 94 percent of fluorinated GHG
emissions from the electronics industry as a whole.
Based on our current analysis, facilities manufacturing LCDs are
not expected to meet the proposed threshold. In addition, only 2 MEMS
facilities and 1 PV facility are expected to be covered. The data and
information that we currently have on MEMS, LCD, and PV manufacturing,
however, is limited and incomplete. We are including these sectors
because they have similar fluorinated GHG and N2O use and
manufacturing processes as those of semiconductor manufacturing and
they are high growth sectors. We estimate that emissions from MEMS,
LCD, and PV may be higher than our data show currently and we expect
them to increase in the future.
For additional background information on the threshold analysis,
refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD. For specific information on
costs, including unamortized first year capital expenditures, please
refer to the EIA and the EIA cost appendix.
5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods
We are proposing methods to monitor and estimate fluorinated GHG
and N2O emissions from semiconductor, LCD, MEMS, and PV
manufacture. The proposed methods discussed below include the
following: (a) Estimating emissions from cleaning and etching
processes; (b) estimating facility N2O emissions; (c)
estimating emissions from heat transfer fluids; and (d) reporting
controlled emissions from abatement equipment. The methods described
and proposed in this section are for estimating emissions that would be
required to be reported under this subpart (see proposed sections 98.93
and 98.94). It is important to note that these methods differ from
those proposed in the section above which are for determining
applicability of the subpart.
a. Methods for Estimating Emissions From Cleaning and Etching Processes
We are proposing different methods for estimating fluorinated GHG
emissions from etching and cleaning based on whether the facility is a
semiconductor manufacturer or an LCD, MEMS, or PV manufacturer.
Method for Semiconductor Facilities. Under this proposal, all
semiconductor manufacturers that have emissions equal to or greater
than 25,000 mtCO2e would be required to estimate and report
emissions from etching and cleaning using one of two approaches. First,
we are proposing an approach, hereinafter referred to as the ``Refined
Method,'' that is based on:
(1) Gas consumption as calculated using the facility's purchase
records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors,
(2) Facility-specific methods for apportioning gas consumption by
process category \9\ using indicators of GHG-using activity (e.g.,
wafer passes),
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For purposes of electronic manufacturing, ``process
category'' is a set of similar manufacturing steps, performed for
the same purpose, associated with substrate (e.g., wafer) processing
during device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG and
N2O emissions and fluorinated GHG and N2O
usages are calculated and reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Emission factors for utilization and by-product formation rates
based on refined process categories (e.g., categories with more
specificity than the simpler cleaning and etching categories listed in
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines), and
(4) Methods for reporting controlled emissions (as proposed below).
Alternatively, we are proposing to permit those facilities that
have monitoring infrastructure or the necessary data to estimate
emissions obtained through recipe-specific measurements to report their
emissions using their data by following an approach consistent with the
2006 IPCC Tier 3 method. In addition, for those semiconductor
manufacturers that fabricate electronic devices on wafers of measuring
greater than 300 mm in diameter, we are proposing to require that they
estimate and report their emissions using recipe-specific measurements
and follow an approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method. Each of
these approaches is discussed below.
Refined Method.
The Refined Method would apply to all covered semiconductor
facilities and would not make a distinction between relatively large
and other facilities. In the paragraphs below, we discuss in detail
each one of the components we are proposing to require under this
approach.
Gas consumption as calculated using the facility's purchase
records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors.
Notwithstanding the definition of ``heel'' in subpart A of this
rule,\10\ we are proposing that for purposes of electronics
manufacturing that a heel means, ``the amount of gas that remains in a
gas cylinder or container after it is discharged or off-loaded (this
may vary by cylinder or container type and facility).'' We are not
planning to use the subpart A definition because it contains a default
value of 10 percent. In this action, we are proposing to require
facilities to calculate gas- and facility-specific heel factors rather
than using a default value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Pursuant to subpart A of the Final MRR, ``heel'' means the
amount of gas that remains in a shipping container after it is
discharged or off-loaded (that is no more than ten percent of the
volume of the container).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of determining each facility's overall usage of each gas
for a reporting period, we are proposing that a facility use their
purchase records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel
factors. More specifically, for each cylinder/container type for each
gas used, we are proposing that semiconductor facilities be required to
base their heel factors on the residual
[[Page 18661]]
weight or pressure of the gas cylinder or container that a facility
uses to change out that cylinder/container. This is common practice in
the industry and is typically referred to as the ``trigger point for
change out.'' These points, one for each gas and cylinder/container
type, together with the initial container mass or pressure, are used to
calculate the unused gas for each container, which when expressed as a
fraction of the initial amount in the container is the ``heel'' (or
unused fraction of the container). This gas- and facility-specific heel
factor would then be applied to each container for that gas to
determine the net amount of that gas used at a facility. In cases where
the ``trigger point for change out'' used at a facility differs by more
than one percentage point from that used to calculate the previous gas-
specific heel factor, we propose that the gas- and facility-specific
heel factor must be recalculated.
Currently most semiconductor facilities rely upon the IPCC default
heel factor of 10 percent and apply that value to each cylinder/
container. Based on information provided in an industry study of
facility-specific, gas-specific heel factors, the heel factor in a
given facility for individual cylinders/containers can vary from 3
percent to 25 percent. Given this variation, we conclude that gas- and
facility-specific heel factors would provide improved accuracy in
emissions estimates over the use of the IPCC default heel factor.
We understand that there are exceptional circumstances when
facilities do not always change cylinders/containers exactly when they
reach the targeted residual weight or pressure. In those instances,
which we expect are infrequent, we are proposing that the cylinder/
container must be weighed or the pressure measured using a pressure
gauge; as opposed to using the facility-wide gas-specific heel factor
as part of determining the net amount of gas used at a facility. We are
proposing to define an exceptional circumstance as one which the
cylinder/container is changed at a residual mass or pressure that
differs by more than 20 percent from the ``trigger point for change
out.'' We request comment on the frequency of these exceptional
circumstances and also the percentage difference (i.e. 20 percent) for
which we are proposing to require that the exceptional cylinder/
container be weighed or the pressure measured.
When taking an annual inventory, we understand that multiple
cylinders/containers are in service. We request comment on the
significance of accounting for the quantity of fluorinated GHGs or
N2O remaining in cylinders/containers in service at the end
of the reporting period. We also request comment and detailed
information on other methods and technologies (i.e. other than purchase
records) that facilities may be using for determining annual gas
consumption (e.g., recorded data from an automated gas inventory
system).
We are proposing that all flowmeters, weigh scales, pressure
gauges, and thermometers used to measure quantities that are monitored
or used in calculations in this proposal have an accuracy and precision
of 1 percent of full scale or better. We request comment on this
requirement including alternative accuracy and precision requirements
and detailed information about why particular instruments can not meet
the proposed 1 percent standard.
Apportioning gas consumption to process categories. Estimating
facility emissions requires apportioning annual facility-wide gas
consumption across a facility's emitting process categories by way of
applying facility-specific apportioning factors. A facility's
uncontrolled emissions are the product of that apportioned gas
consumption and the corresponding emission factor. To determine the
share of each gas used by each process category, we are proposing to
require that semiconductor facilities use a quantifiable indicator (or
metric) of gas usage activity. More specifically, we are proposing
facilities track wafer passes as an indicator of activity with which to
apportion the facility's gas consumption. Wafer passes is a count of
the number of times a silicon wafer is processed for a specific process
category. The total number of wafer passes over a reporting year is the
number of wafer passes per tool times the number of operational process
tools during the reporting year.
To illustrate a case where wafer passes is used as a facility-
specific engineering model, consider a facility that uses
NF3 for chamber cleaning with remote plasma systems and for
etching polysilicon and oxide films. With knowledge of the
NF3-specfic heel and the number of NF3 containers
used, the facility knows the amount of NF3 consumed. To
estimate emissions, the facility must now apportion NF3
usage between the chamber cleaning and oxide and polysilicon etching
processes. To do this it might use the total number of wafer passes
through each and every NF3-cleaning system together with the
time and nominal (not measured actual) gas flow rate for each and every
NF3-cleaning system and the corresponding figures for oxide
and polysilicon etch processes to arrive at the proportion of
NF3 used for cleaning chambers and etching oxide and
polysilicon films. Once developed, these apportioning factors would be
used to estimate NF3 gas usage for the cleaning and etching
process categories proposed in our method. This example is illustrated
further in Table 6 of this preamble.
Table 6--Illustrative Calculation for NF3 Example at One Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process
category
Gas type--annual usage, kg. Process category Apportioning factor gas usage,
kg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NF3--56,286 kg.......................... RPS Chamber Cleaning....... 82% 46,202
Polysilicon Etch........... 17% 9,561
Oxide Etch................. 1% 523
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual gas usage presented is the modeled usage not the nominal usage.
We request comment on using wafer passes as an appropriate
quantifiable indicator of activity, and on our description and example
of how it would be used.
We recognize that facilities may use other types of quantifiable
indicators of gas-usage activity data to develop facility-specific
engineering models to estimate gas consumption. We may include
additional indicators as options in the final rule if they are
quantifiable and if we receive adequate information regarding how they
were developed and how they are used, including descriptions, examples,
and any additional information that may be necessary to understand how
such indicators of activity would be developed and used in a facility-
specific engineering model to apportion annual
[[Page 18662]]
facility-wide gas usage across a facility's emitting process
categories. The use of engineering judgment, for example, is not based
on a quantitative metric and would not be considered an acceptable
quantifiable indicator of gas usage. We also request comment on the use
of a representative sampling method for tracking activity indicators
such as wafer passes that may be used in the engineering model.
In many cases, EPA anticipates that the development of apportioning
factors will result in a facility-wide consumption estimates that are
independent of the estimates calculated using purchase records,
inventory, and facility-specific heel factors. In such cases, we
propose that facilities report these consumption estimates.
Emission factors for refined process categories. We are proposing
that semiconductor facilities estimate their emissions using a specific
set of process categories. Our proposed method would simplify the
reporting requirements as compared to the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method by
lowering the number of emitting process categories from up to 455 per
facility down to a fixed figure of approximately nine. Our goal in
establishing the process categories is to account for most of the
variability in emission factors across processes while limiting the
total number of process categories whose gas usage must be tracked by
semiconductor facilities.
Under this approach, we are proposing to require reporting of
fluorinated GHG emissions for the following nine emitting process
categories: four subcategories for wafer patterning (etching), three
subcategories for chamber cleaning, and two subcategories for wafer
cleaning. The nine process categories we are proposing account for
distinct and widely-used manufacturing activities during production of
discrete, logic and memory devices. We anticipate that these nine
categories effectively capture current and projected processes and the
differences in emission factors across various semiconductor
manufacturing technologies.
Our proposed definitions of these nine emitting categories are:
Wafer patterning subcategories:
Oxide etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to
selectively remove SiO2, SiOx-based or fully
organic-based thin-film material that has been deposited on a wafer
during semiconductor device manufacturing.
Nitride etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to
selectively remove SiN, SiON, Si3N4, SiC, SiCO,
SiCN, etc. (represented by the general chemical formula,
SiwOxNyXz where w,x,y and z
are zero or integers and X can be some other element such as carbon)
that has been deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.
Silicon etch also often called polysilicon etch means any process
using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively remove silicon during
semiconductor manufacturing.
Metal etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents
associated with removing metal films (such as aluminum or tungsten)
that have been deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.
Chamber cleaning subcategories:
In situ plasma means cleaning thin-film production chambers, after
processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent
that is dissociated into its cleaning constituents by a plasma
generated inside the chamber where the film was produced.
Remote plasma system means cleaning thin-film production chambers,
after processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning
reagent dissociated by a remotely located (e.g., upstream) plasma
source.
In situ thermal means cleaning thin-film production chambers, after
processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning reagent
that is thermally dissociated into its cleaning constituents inside the
chamber where the thin-film (or thin films) was (were) produced.
Wafer cleaning subcategories:
Bevel cleaning means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents
with plasma to clean the edges of wafers during semiconductor
manufacture.
Ashing means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents with plasma
to remove photoresist materials during wafer manufacture.
We request comment on the nine process categories we are proposing,
their definitions as specified above, and whether they clearly define a
specific process without ambiguity. In addition we request comment on
whether the categories should be further refined to better capture the
variability in emission rates among fluorinated GHG using manufacturing
activities (e.g., whether any additional categories should be added or
whether the proposed categories should be combined, and the definition
of those categories).
Under this approach of defining a specific set of process
categories, we are also considering additional patterning and chamber
cleaning subcategories. The alternative patterning subcategories, which
may replace or complement the four thin-film based subcategories
defined previously, are: contact etch, self-alignment contact etch,
gate etch, deep trench etch, isolation trench etch, through silicon
vias and regular vias. Each of these subcategories represents a
specific feature achieved through etching (instead of subcategories
based on the type of thin film etched).
Alternative chamber cleaning categories may distinguish between the
types of films being removed from the chamber during cleaning. These
might include distinguishing between chambers coated with tungsten and
silicon-based films, or distinguishing between thin-film deposition
equipment manufacturers. We request comment on these additional process
categories and whether or not we should include alternative process
categories in addition to the nine process categories that we are
proposing. We also request comment on other methods of categorizing
processes and detailed information on those categories.
We are proposing nine process categories differentiated by
production technology generation (i.e., wafer size). For each of the
proposed nine process categories, we are proposing to establish a
default emission factor within a range of values presented in Tables I-
6, I-7, I-8 of subpart I. Within each process category, factors account
for (1) the mass fraction of the input gas that is utilized during
(i.e., not emitted from) the process and (2) the mass of each
fluorinated GHG by-product formed as a fraction of the mass of the
dominant fluorinated GHG input gas used.\11\ EPA is proposing a range
of values for each default emission factor because the Agency has not
yet received sufficient data to select a specific value within each
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In the case of mixtures of fluorinated GHGs, the
``dominant'' fluorinated GHG constitutes the largest mass of gas
used for that process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop the proposed ranges for each emission factor, EPA
requested from semiconductor device manufacturers and equipment
suppliers, information on utilization and by-product formation rates
and details on the associated measurement approach (e.g., measured in
accordance with the 2006 ISMI Guidelines). EPA evaluated the data
received as well as the standard deviations provided in Table 6.9 from
Chapter 3 of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. For additional information on
how the ranges were developed, please refer to the Electronics
Manufacturing TSD (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
In a final rule, EPA intends to publish default emission factors
for gas utilization and by-product formation rates for each process
category,
[[Page 18663]]
differentiating amongst 150 mm, 200 mm and 300 mm wafer technology to
the extent feasible. To this end, EPA requests additional utilization
and by-product formation rates and supporting information on how they
were developed. More specifically, EPA requests emission factors and
by-product formation rates and information including but not limited to
the specific measurement method used (e.g., measurement using the 2006
ISMI Guidelines), the date of measurement, achievement of fluorine mass
balance, associated standard deviations of measured factors, the
relevant emissions process types and categories (for the patterning/
etching process type noting both film type and etched feature where
applicable), substrate size (i.e., 150 mm, 200 mm, or 300 mm), the
number of wafers used in the measurement study, and the equipment
manufacturer name and model number where not considered confidential.
Using additional data received, EPA intends to develop default
emission factors for each process category using a method of
aggregation similar to the 2006 IPCC factor development
methodology.\12\ Where available emission factor data are very limited
or produce highly uncertain average factors, EPA may develop emissions
factors that are conservative and less likely to underestimate actual
emissions. If additional data are received in a timely fashion, EPA may
develop draft emission factors prior to issuance of the final rule and
will determine an appropriate way to promptly and clearly inform the
regulated community. We welcome comments on such draft emission
factors, recognizing that depending on when the emission factors are
made available, such comments could be submitted after the close of the
formal comment period. We will make every effort to consider such
comments, including late comments, to the extent practicable in the
development of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For additional information on the 2006 IPCC factor
development methodology, see Emission Factors for Semiconductor
Manufacturing: Sources, Methods, and Results (February 2006)
available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing emission factors for the final rule, EPA is also
considering developing weighted average emission factors, for each
wafer technology, with the weights based on the market penetration
rates of process recipes used in current device manufacturing
practices.\13\ Such weighted emission factors, if possible, may better
represent actual emissions from installed manufacturing equipment and
operating processes. We request comment on using a weighting scheme and
detailed information on how it would be developed and implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Note, in the creation of the IPCC factors, sufficient
information was not available to weigh each general process type
(i.e., etch and clean categories for the IPCC Tier 2b method).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The uncertainties associated with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method are
associated with aggregating, for each gas, all usage into just two
process categories (i.e., etching and chamber cleaning) and all wafer
technologies (i.e., 150 mm, 200 mm, and 300 mm wafer sizes) into one,
and giving equal weights to all process recipes. A method based on
refined processes categories keeps those processes separate, which
reflects actual device manufacturing practices and as a result,
produces a more representative and accurate emissions estimate.
As an alternative, we are also considering an approach where each
facility would develop for themselves or acquire from process equipment
manufacturers emission factors (i.e., gas utilization and by-product
formation rates) for the nine process categories. Under this approach,
we would require the gas utilization and by-product formation rates to
be developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines. Facilities would be
required to construct and apply averages for each process category. One
advantage of this approach is that these facility-specific emission
factors would be expected to be more representative of the particular
processes at that facility than the default emission factors. On the
other hand, we estimate the burden associated with each facility
developing its own emission factors would be greater compared to using
the factors published by EPA. We request comment on this approach.
We recognize that given the dynamic manufacturing processes by the
industry, updates to the process categories and emission factors may be
necessary. We request comment on the frequency with which those should
be updated.
We estimate that our Refined Method will result in a reduction in
burden for the large semiconductor facilities (annual capacities
greater than 10,000 m \2\ silicon) and an increase in accuracy as
compared to the IPCC Tier 2b method. We estimate the uncertainty from
using a set of refined process categories to be roughly one-half the
uncertainty of the Tier 2b method, assuming similar methods for
apportioning gas usage for each method. For the Tier 2b method the
fluorinated GHG consuming processes used during semiconductor
production are collapsed into just two categories, resulting in
considerable variability for each category. For the Refined Method
there are nine fluorinated GHG-using categories, resulting in less
variability, on average, per category. Please refer to the Electronics
Manufacturing TSD for a more detailed discussion of our uncertainty
analysis.
For the relatively smaller semiconductor facilities (annual
production of less than 10,500 m \2\ of silicon) we estimate an
increase in burden as compared to our initial proposal where we
required the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method; however, we
anticipate that these facilities have the necessary data available to
comply. The increase in burden for estimating emissions using the
Refined Method, as opposed to the IPCC Tier 2b method, can be
attributed to the increased level of effort to distinguish between nine
refined process categories in comparison to two broad clean and etch
categories, respectively.
Recipe-specific measurements. As an alternative to the Refined
Method where EPA default factors would be used, we are also proposing
to permit those facilities that have monitoring infrastructure or the
necessary data to estimate emissions obtained through recipe-specific
measurements to report their emissions using their data (see proposed
sections in 98.93 98.94(d)). This approach, consistent with the 2006
IPCC Tier 3 method, is based on (1) gas consumption as calculated using
the facility's purchase records, inventory, and gas-and facility-
specific heel factors (as described above), (2) facility-specific
methods for apportioning gas consumption by individual process using
indicators of GHG-using activity, (3) recipe-specific gas utilization
and by-product formation factors, and also (4) methods for reporting
controlled emissions from abatement devices (as proposed below). Under
this approach, gas utilization and by-product formation rates would be
required to be developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all
fluorinated GHG-using process types at that facility.
According to information provided by one of the commenters in
response to our initial proposal, only one company currently estimates
their emissions using an approach consistent with the Tier 3 method.
Nevertheless, if a facility is using a method that provides more
accurate data, then we believe that they should be permitted to use
such method. We request comment on the number of companies that are
currently
[[Page 18664]]
or expecting to in the near future, report their emissions using this
method.
We are also proposing to require semiconductor manufacturers that
fabricate devices on wafers measuring larger than 300 mm in diameter to
estimate their emissions based on an approach consistent with the IPCC
Tier 3 method and gas- and facility-specific heel factors for
estimating and reporting GHG emissions. Under this approach, gas
utilization and by-product formation rates would be required to be
developed using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all fluorinated GHG using
process types at that facility. We understand the industry's conversion
to 450 mm is expected to begin in 2011 or shortly thereafter. We are
proposing this requirement because we estimate that this method that
uses recipe-specific gas utilization and by-product formation factors
results in the most accurate facility-specific emission estimate. By
including this requirement for only the 450 mm or larger wafers in this
proposal, we anticipate a reduction in burden as compared to requiring
existing large semiconductor facilities to estimate their emissions
using an approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method for the
smaller sized wafers as well (i.e. 300 mm and smaller). We anticipate a
reduction in burden because emission factors (i.e. gas utilization and
by-product formation rates) can be developed over a number of years as
semiconductor manufacturers begin to transition to 450 mm tools and
develop the estimating and reporting infrastructure. The commissioning
process for new tools is an ideal opportunity for emission factor
development and/or verification. We request comment on requiring
semiconductor manufacturers that fabricate electronic devices on wafers
of diameter 450 mm or larger to estimate their emissions based on an
approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method.
During the development of this proposal, the 2006 International
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental
Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment was revised and
republished (December 2009). We request comment on requiring the use of
the revised version of the ISMI Guidelines to measure emission factors
as opposed to the 2006 version of the ISMI Guidelines, and also
information on emission factors (including utilization by-product
formation rates) measured using the revised ISMI Guidelines.
Method for LCD, MEMS, and PV Facilities. In this action for LCD,
MEMS, and PV facilities, we are proposing an approach based on a
slightly modified 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method which would include (1) gas
consumption calculated using the facility's purchase records,
inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors (as described
above for semiconductor manufacturing facilities), (2) gas consumption
apportioned to 2006 IPCC Tier 2b broad process categories, clean and
etch, (3) default emission factors consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier
2b factors, and (4) methods for reporting controlled emissions from
abatement equipment (as proposed below).
The method proposed to develop the gas- and facility-specific heel
factors for LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities is the same as proposed for
semiconductor facilities including the provisions for exceptional
circumstances. Although we don't have complete information on how LCD,
MEMS, and PV facilities are currently estimating their emissions from
manufacture and how they are currently accounting for heels, their gas
use and manufacturing processes are similar to that of semiconductor
manufacturing. As a result, we have concluded these facilities have the
data required to develop a gas- and facility-specific heel factors and
this method can be implemented with minimal burden. Similar to the
semiconductor manufacturing case, the use of a gas- and facility-
specific heel factor is expected to result in improved accuracy when
compared to the IPCC's 10 percent default factor. We request comment on
our proposal to require LCD, MEMS, and PV facilities to use gas- and
facility-specific heel factors and our understanding that these
facilities have the data to develop such a factor with minimal burden.
Under this approach consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method,
we propose that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing facilities use the
calculated mass of gas consumed and apportion this amount to the
simplified process categories (i.e. etch and chemical vapor deposition
chamber cleaning.) The associated emission factors including
utilization and by-product formation rates, would then be used to
calculate uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions. The emission factors
being proposed are consistent with the 2006 IPCC default values. For
MEMS manufacturing, where an IPCC default value does not exist, we
propose the use of factors consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b
factors for semiconductor manufacturing. We selected these factors
because we understand MEMS manufacturing is silicon wafer-based and
uses processes similar to those found in semiconductor manufacturing.
Additionally, we are proposing that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing
facilities abide by the requirements proposed for reporting controlled
emissions from abatement systems as proposed below.
We are requesting information on emissions and emission factors
from LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturing. We are requesting such
information as a means to verify that the Tier 2b emission factors for
each of the manufacturing types are reflective of current fluorinated
GHG emitting processes. Based on new information we receive, we may
consider updating the emission factors in the final rule.
We expect that LCD, MEMS, and PV manufacturers may also use
engineering models and quantifiable indicators (e.g., substrate-area
based) of manufacturing activity for apportioning gas consumption by
process category similar to the approach described for semiconductors
above (e.g., wafer passes). We request detailed information on those
indicators, how they were developed, and how they are used in a
facility-specific engineering model to apportion annual facility-wide
gas usage across a facility's emitting process categories.
We request comment on permitting those LCD, MEMS, and PV
manufacturing facilities that have monitoring infrastructure or the
necessary data to estimate emissions obtained through recipe-specific
measurements to report their emissions using their data by following an
approach consistent with the 2006 IPCC Tier 3 method.
Review of Existing Reporting Programs and Methodologies and
Consideration of Alternative Methods. EPA considered various methods
for estimating emissions from etching and cleaning processes for
electronics manufacturing facilities including the 2006 IPCC Tier 1,
2a, 2b, and Tier 3 method as well as a Tier 2b/3 hybrid which would
apply Tier 3 to the most heavily used fluorinated GHGs in all
facilities. For a detailed description of our evaluation of these
options, please see the Electronics Manufacturing section of the
initial Mandatory Reporting Rule (74 FR 16499).
For this proposal, to estimate emissions from all semiconductor
manufacturing facilities, we are also considering the alternative of a
modified Tier 2b method (our preferred option for other electronics
manufacturers) which would require the use of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b
default factors and gas- and facility-specific data on heels and gas
[[Page 18665]]
use by process category. This approach would be based on a modified
version of the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b method for estimating emissions and
would require semiconductor facilities to report emissions using (1)
gas consumption as calculated using the facility's purchase records,
inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel factors (as described
above), (2) facility-specific methods for apportioning gas usage by
process category using indicators of activity (as described above,
e.g., wafer pass), (3) IPCC Tier 2b emission factors, and (4) methods
for reporting controlled emissions using our proposed approach
discussed below. We request comment on this approach.
As an alternative to the Refined Method, we are also considering
requiring all semiconductor manufacturing facilities to estimate their
emissions using an approach consistent with the IPCC Tier 3 method
based on (1) gas consumption as calculated using the facility's
purchase records, inventory, and gas- and facility-specific heel
factors, (2) facility-specific methods for apportioning gas consumption
by individual process using indicators of GHG-using activity, (3)
recipe-specific gas utilization and by-product formation factors, and
also (4) methods for reporting controlled emissions from abatement
devices (as proposed below). Under this approach, facilities would be
required to develop gas utilization and by-product formation rates
using the 2006 ISMI Guidelines for all fluorinated GHG-using process
types at that facility. We request comment on this approach.
Another option we are considering is to evaluate emissions from
electronics manufacturing using continuous emission monitoring
system(s) (CEMS). Under this approach, facilities would be required to
install and operate CEMS to measure process emissions. A typical
electronics manufacturing facility may have many individual process
tools that influence emissions. Process tool exhaust is managed within
the facility using stainless steel plumbing and ductwork. Due to the
complexity of the manufacturing layout, CEMS would be attached either
to every tool or to one or more final exhaust points (e.g., scrubber
stacks). One possible option is to use Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectrometers (FTIRs) in scrubber stacks to measure facility emissions.
FTIR spectroscopy is presently used to conduct short-term fluorinated
GHG emission measurements from single tools. EPA requests comment on
the use of CEMS at electronics manufacturing facilities. We also
request data and other information evaluating the use of CEMS in
electronics facilities to determine fluorinated GHG and N2O
emissions.
(b) Method for Estimating N2O Emissions
We are proposing that electronics manufacturers estimate
N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition processes and
all other electronics manufacturing processes such as chamber cleaning,
and that they estimate those emissions using the following proposed
methods.
To estimate N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition
we are proposing the use of a facility-specific emission factor based
on facility measurements of N2O utilization for chemical
vapor deposition, using 2006 ISMI Guidelines. Under this approach, we
propose to permit the facility to apply the average N2O
utilization emission factor to all N2O using chemical vapor
deposition recipes. In cases where a facility has not developed a
facility-specific N2O utilization factor for chemical vapor
deposition processes, we are proposing a default value in the range of
0 to 40 percent. We are taking comment on this range due to a lack of
information for N2O utilization for chemical vapor
deposition processes.
In comments received in response to our initial proposal, industry
provided information to support a N2O utilization factor of
40 percent, primarily in 300 mm chemical vapor deposition processes.
Taking the industry-provided 40 percent utilization into account, we
propose to select a N2O utilization factor in the range from
0 to 40 percent. In the industry's survey, the measured utilization
factors are largely from newer 300 mm manufacturing equipment. We do
not expect these data fairly represent the entire population of all
N2O processes and installed equipment, many of which are
older tools. In addition, the industry comments did not fully identify
the specific processes from which the average N2O
utilization factor was calculated. For these reasons, and because we
understand that N2O is most commonly used for chemical vapor
deposition as opposed to other processes, we are proposing to establish
a default value within a range of values with 40 percent as the upper
bound and 0 percent as the lower bound to be conservative, reducing
potential for underestimating emissions.
To estimate N2O emissions from all other manufacturing
processes (e.g., chamber cleaning), we are proposing either a facility-
specific utilization factor based on measurements using 2006 ISMI
Guidelines, or applying a default utilization factor of 0 percent which
assumes N2O is not converted or destroyed during the
manufacturing process. We are proposing this method due to a lack of
information regarding other processes for which N2O is used
and N2O utilization data in those processes.
We request comment on values within the range that we are proposing
to estimate N2O emissions from chemical vapor deposition
processes and our approach for estimating N2O emissions from
all other manufacturing processes. We also request additional
information on N2O uses and N2O utilization in
electronics manufacturing processes. More specifically, we request
N2O emission factors and detailed supporting information
including but not limited to the specific measurement method used, date
of measurement, standard deviation of measured factors, identification
of manufacturing process or process category, substrate size, and
equipment manufacturer name and model number where not considered
confidential.
In addition, we request comment on using wafer passes or other
appropriate quantifiable indictors of activity for apportioning
N2O consumption to chemical vapor deposition and other
manufacturing processes.
We are proposing that as part of determining annual facility
N2O emissions, if a facility employs abatement systems and
it wishes to report N2O emission reductions due to these
systems it must adhere to the methods for reporting controlled
emissions included in this proposal.
(c) Method for Estimating Emissions of Heat Transfer Fluids
To estimate the emissions of heat transfer fluids, we propose that
electronics manufacturers use the 2006 IPCC Tier 2b approach, which is
a mass-balance approach. We are not changing the broad outlines of our
initial proposal; however, we are clarifying required data elements.
In evaluating the comments we received, we understand that there
was some confusion regarding our intended method. The proposed method
required data on the total nameplate capacity \14\ of equipment that
``is installed during the reporting year.'' We intended ``installed
during the reporting year'' to mean newly installed during the period,
[[Page 18666]]
not in place from the beginning of that period. To eliminate confusion,
we are clarifying that facilities are required to provide the total
nameplate capacity (charge) of equipment that is ``newly installed''
during the reporting year. We anticipate that facilities will find it
straightforward to track the nameplate capacities of equipment that is
newly installed or retired during the reporting year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Nameplate capacity means the full and proper charge of gas
specified by the equipment manufacturer to achieve the equipment's
specified performance. The nameplate capacity is typically indicated
on the equipment's nameplate; it is not necessarily the actual
charge, which may be influenced by leakage and other emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we are also clarifying that a facility may only
subtract the amount of fluorinated heat transfer fluids sent off site
if the heat transfer fluids are properly recovered, stored, and sent
off site for verifiable recycling or destruction during the reporting
year. We are adding this clarification because we understand that
facilities may be recovering, storing, and removing from their
facility, fluorinated heat transfer fluids in a manner that does not
effectively prevent the substance(s) from evaporating to the
atmosphere. In such cases, the users of the chemicals would be required
to account for these emissions using the mass-balance calculation
provided.
As we stated in our initial proposal, in developing our proposal
for estimating heat transfer fluid emissions, we reviewed both the IPCC
Tier 1 and IPCC Tier 2 approaches. The Tier 1 approach for heat
transfer fluid emissions is based on the utilization capacity of the
semiconductor facility multiplied by a default emission factor.
Although the Tier 1 approach has the advantages of simplicity, it is
less accurate than the Tier 2 approach according to the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines. The IPCC Tier 2 approach uses company-specific data and
accounts for differences among facilities' heat transfer fluids (which
vary in their GWPs), leak rates, and service practices. It has an
uncertainty on the order of 20 percent at the 95 percent
confidence interval according to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines.
(d) Method for Reporting Controlled Emissions From Abatement Systems
For this proposed rule, we are defining DRE as the efficiency of a
control system designed to destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs,
N2O, or both. The DRE is equal to one minus the ratio of the
mass of all relevant GHGs exiting the emission abatement system to the
mass of GHGs entering the emission abatement system. When fluorinated
GHGs are formed in an abatement system, DRE is expressed as one minus
the ratio of amounts of exiting GHGs to the amounts entering the system
in units of CO2-equivalents. In addition, we are clarifying
facilities may account for all abatement systems (e.g., multi-chamber
POU, central devices) provided that they abide by the requirements
below.
We are proposing to use the term destruction or removal efficiency
(DRE) as opposed to ``destruction efficiency'' or ``destruction,''
terms that are already defined in subpart A of the Final MRR. We are
proposing to use DRE because it is the term generally used by the
electronics manufacturing industry. Furthermore, in addition to
capturing the destruction of materials in the exhaust, the term also
captures materials in the exhaust that are recycled or captured for
reuse.
For purposes of this reporting rule, we propose that facilities
that wish to document and report fluorinated GHG and N2O
emissions reflecting the use of abatement systems adhere to a method
that would require: (1) Documentation to certify that the abatement
system is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with
manufacturers' specifications, (2) accounting for the system's
uptime,\15\ and (3) either certification that the abatement system is
specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement
and the use of an EPA default DRE value, or direct, proper DRE
measurement to confirm the performance of the abatement system. Proper
DRE measurement means measured in accordance with EPA's Protocol for
Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse
Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (EPA's DRE
Protocol). EPA's DRE Protocol is available for review in the docket
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). Our proposed approach is depicted as a decision
tree in Figure 1 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Uptime means the total time during the reporting year when
the abatement system for which controlled emissions will be reported
was properly installed, operated, and maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed approach requires annual certification to ensure that
abatement systems for which controlled emissions are reported are
installed, operating, and maintained according to manufacturers'
specifications. Our approach would also require that any DRE used in
reporting emissions be based on an EPA default DRE value or on recent
on-site measurements and actual uptime of the system, accounting for
system redundancy. When process tools are equipped with multiple
abatement systems designed for fluorinated GHGs and N2O, the
facility may account for the combined uptime for the specific
calculation of controlled emissions. Each one of these components is
discussed in detail in the paragraphs below. We anticipate this method
for reporting controlled emissions will ensure that abatement systems
have been properly installed, operated and maintained during each
reporting period and that best available measured DRE values are used
to estimate and report emissions.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 18667]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.037
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
Proper Installation, Operation, and Maintenance. We are proposing
that all facilities that use abatement systems and would like to
reflect these emissions reductions in their annual emissions
estimations be required to document and certify the abatement
equipment's proper installation, operation, and maintenance. There are
many manufacturers, and for each manufacturer multiple models, that are
marketed as fluorinated GHG-destruction capable (Beu, 2005). While some
abatement systems may be capable of destroying some fluorinated GHGs,
they may not be effective in abating CF4 (Beu, 2005), which
in some processes can constitute 10 percent--20 percent (by volume) of
fluorinated GHG exhaust composition (EPA, 2006). It appears that this
variability may be partially attributable to installation as well as
operating and maintenance practices although variations in how
destruction is measured may also contribute to this variability (Beu,
2005). Evidence indicates abatement devices must be properly installed
to ensure achievement of the manufacturer's design goals. For this
reason, we propose devices be installed in
[[Page 18668]]
accordance with manufacturers' specifications.
In terms of operation and maintenance, we also propose to require
that abatement systems be operated and maintained in accordance with
the manufacturers' specifications. It is well known across the industry
that abatement system performance varies greatly depending on a variety
of abatement device and process parameters such as temperature, flow
and exhaust composition (Beu, 2005, EPA 2006, 2007)). Our proposed
requirement that abatement systems be operated and maintained in
accordance with manufacturers' specifications is intended to ensure
best performance.
We understand that many times a facility may have an independent
quality assurance expert certify the installation, operation, and
maintenance of abatement equipment. We are considering the inclusion in
the final rule, a requirement for annual, on-site independent
inspections of abatement system installation, operation, and
maintenance, which could include a review of records and physical
inspection of installed equipment. We request comment on whether to
require an independent quality assurance audit/inspection for abatement
system installation, operation, and maintenance.
Accounting for Abatement System Uptime. We are proposing that
facilities account for abatement systems' uptime to report controlled
emissions. Uptime is the total time during the reporting year when the
abatement systems for which controlled emissions are being reporting
was properly installed, operated, and maintained. Uptime is calculated
as the sum of time during the reporting period that an abatement system
is in a standby, productive, and engineering state as described in SEMI
Standard E10-0304, Specification for Definition and Measurement of
Equipment Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (2004).
Abatement system uptime is expressed as the sum of an abatement
system's operational productive, standby, and engineering times divided
by the total operations time of its associated manufacturing tool. For
example, the time during which a system is in by-pass mode, undergoing
maintenance, or not operating with O2-flow (in the case of a
CF4 combustion system) is not included in uptime. An
exception to this is time during which exhaust flows are passed through
a redundant abatement system that is in the same abatement system class
(discussed below) as the primary abatement system. Such time may be
included in the uptime of the primary system.
We are proposing this requirement because we anticipate accounting
for uptime (i.e., tracking incidents when abatement systems may be
``bypassed'' or otherwise not in service) will produce a more accurate
emissions estimate. We request comment on our proposal to account for
and report the uptime of abatement systems. We also request detailed
information on how uptime may be monitored and calculated.
EPA Default DRE Value. In addition to certifying that an abatement
system is installed, operated, and maintained according to
manufacturers' specifications, and accounting for the system's uptime,
the first approach we are proposing includes the following two key
elements: (1) Certification that the abatement system is specifically
designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement, and (2) an
EPA default DRE value. By applying the EPA default DRE value, the
facility is not required to measure the DRE of their abatement
system(s). We are proposing the use of a default DRE value of 60
percent if the facility certifies that the abatement systems for which
this value is applied are specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and
N2O abatement.
To develop the default DRE of 60 percent, we reviewed the
individual DREs measured under our in-fab DRE measurement program and
selected those that constituted discrete values \16\ for systems that
had been properly installed, operated and maintained. Of the data from
the DRE measurement program, those that met the stated criteria were
values for CF4. We calculated the mean and the lower one
sided tolerance interval of the (CF4) DRE data set. This
yielded an understated, default DRE, reducing the likelihood that the
DRE of any particular system will be either overestimated or greatly
underestimated. For additional information on how the EPA default DRE
was developed, please refer to the Electronics Manufacturing TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Using data available from the in-fab DRE measurement
program, we selected discrete numbers rather than the lower bound
(e.g., >= 99%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we are now proposing the use of an EPA default DRE value,
consistent with our initial proposal we are not planning to permit use
of the 2006 IPCC default factors or the manufacturer's DRE values. We
are not permitting their use because once installed, abatement
equipment may fail to achieve the default or a supplier's claimed DRE.
DRE performance claimed by equipment suppliers and upon which the 2006
IPCC default factors were based may have been incorrectly measured due
to a failure to account for the effects of dilution (e.g.,
CF4 can be off by as much as a factor of 20 to 50 and
C2F6 can be off by a factor of up to 10 [Burton,
2007].) This understanding is supported by industry assessments as
presented in Beu, 2005.
We are permitting the use of our default DRE value because we
estimate that it strikes an appropriate balance between being
conservative and being representative where equipment is properly
operated and maintained. Our default DRE value was calculated using
data from measurements assured to properly account for the effects of
dilution. In addition, the tested systems were properly installed,
operated, and maintained.
We request comment on our proposed default DRE value, and
additional data and supporting documentation on DREs from studies that
have been conducted on properly installed, operated, and maintained
abatement systems and consistent with EPA's DRE Protocol.
Proper Measurement of the Abatement DRE. The second proposed
approach for quantifying, documenting, and reporting controlled
emissions from abatement systems, described below, would require proper
measurement of the abatement system DRE in addition to documentation to
certify that the abatement system is installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with manufacturers' specifications, and
accounting for uptime.
Consistent with our initial proposal, this second proposed method
permits facilities to account for destruction if the abatement system
performance is measured and verified using EPA's DRE Protocol. To
measure DRE, we propose requiring facilities to conduct annual sampling
through a random sampling abatement system testing program (RSASTP),
spanning all abatement classes using the methods outlined in EPA's DRE
Protocol. ``Class'' refers to a category of abatement systems grouped
by manufacturer model number(s) and by gas for which the system is used
to abate, including N2O and CF4 direct and by-
product formation, and all other fluorinated GHG gas direct and by-
product formation.\17\ ``Classes'' may also include any other abatement
systems for which the reporting facility wishes to report controlled
emissions provided that class is identified. For each class, the
representative or average DRE
[[Page 18669]]
factors would then be applied to the yet unmeasured abatement devices
of that class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ CF4 is a very stable chemical and especially
difficult to effectively destroy. It may be used as an input gas and
generated as a byproduct of other fluorinated GHG process reactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An annual representative sample as part of the RSASTP would consist
of three or 20 percent of installed abatement systems, whichever is
greater, for each class each year, measuring the DRE for a different
three or 20 percent set of systems each year. Where 20 percent of total
abatement systems do not equal a whole number, the number of systems to
be tested would be rounded up to the nearest integer (e.g., 16
abatement devices, 20 percent of which equals 3.2; therefore, four
abatement systems would be measured each year). Using the RSASTP and
our rounding convention, all systems in each class would be tested
within a five-year period. EPA is seeking comment on the required
frequency of abatement system performance measurement.
When reporting controlled emissions from manufacturing, we propose
that the facility either use the measured DRE or, in those instances
where an individual abatement system has not yet undergone proper DRE
testing, a simple average of the measured DREs for systems of that
class would be used. If redundant abatement systems were used during
periods of maintenance or repair, then we propose that the measured or
average DRE for that system's class would be used. In any of these
cases, the DRE used to report emissions would be adjusted to account
for the actual uptime of the system. For example, if the uptime for a
device is 98 percent over the reporting period, then the measured DRE
(or class average of measured DREs when a system has not yet been
measured) would be multiplied by 0.98.
Under the RSASTP, all systems in each class would be tested within
a five-year period, after which the process would be repeated as long
as controlled emissions were reported. There are two reasons for
requiring the DRE to be measured for each abatement device over a time
period and by specific class. Some fluorinated GHGs, particularly
CF4, are harder to destroy than others; thus, the
performance of abatement systems with one fluorinated GHG cannot
necessarily be assumed to apply to other fluorinated GHGs.\18\ Second,
even if abatement systems rely on the same operating principle (e.g.,
thermal oxidation) and are used on the same gases, their performance
can vary depending on their operation and maintenance.\19\ Moreover,
maintenance that is adequate for abatement systems in some applications
may not be adequate for abatement systems in others (e.g., those that
handle high volumes of etched or cleaned material, which can be
deposited inside abatement equipment and clog lines). This argues for
gradually testing all of the abatement systems within a class, and for
retesting individual abatement systems over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ There are many manufacturers, and for each manufacturer
many models, that are marketed as fluorinated GHGs-destruction
capable (Beu, 2005). While some abatement devices may be capable of
destroying some fluorinated GHGs, they may not be effective in
abating CF4 (Beu, 2005), which in some processes can constitute 10%-
20% (by volume) of fluorinated GHGs exhaust composition (EPA, 2006).
\19\ Some variability in performance may be partially
attributable to installation as well as operating and maintenance
practices although variations in how destruction is measured may
also contribute to this variability (Beu, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on the method proposed for proper measurement of
DRE at a facility and the proposed RSASTP for abatement systems by
class.
6. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data
In general, it is not expected that data to estimate emissions from
electronics manufacturing would be missing; gas consumption data and
indicators of activity data (e.g., wafer passes) is collected as
business as usual. For this reason, we are not proposing procedures for
estimating missing data from emissions from cleaning, etching or
deposition processes. Because our proposal includes an EPA default DRE
value for estimating and reporting controlled emissions, we propose
that no missing data procedures would apply.
When estimating heat transfer fluid emissions during electronics
manufacture, the use of the mass-balance approach requires facilities
to correct records for all inputs. Should the facility be missing
records for a given input, heat transfer fluid emissions may be
estimated using the arithmetic average of the emission rates for the
year immediately preceding the period of missing data and the months
immediately following the period of missing data. Alternatively it may
be possible that the heat transfer fluid supplier has information in
their records for the facility.
7. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements
We are proposing that owners and operators be required to report
fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions for the facility for each
electronics manufacturing process as well as all heat transfer fluid
use. In addition, facilities would be required to report the following:
method used to calculate emissions; factors used for gas utilization
and by-product formation rates and the source for each factor for each
fluorinated GHG and N2O; production in terms of substrate
surface area (e.g., silicon, PV-cell, LCD); for each fluorinated GHG
and N2O, annual gas consumed during the reporting year and
gas- and facility-specific heel factors used; the apportioning factors
used, a description of the engineering model used for apportioning gas
usage, and facility-wide consumption estimates based upon development
of the apportioning factors, independent of the consumption value
calculated using purchase records; fraction of each gas fed into each
process type that is fed into tools with abatement systems;
descriptions and information about abatement systems through which
fluorinated GHGs and N2O flow; inputs in the mass-balance
equation (for heat transfer fluid emissions); and example calculations.
Where process categories defined in the Refined Method and/or default
gas utilization and by-product formation rates are not used, we propose
that facilities provide descriptions of individual processes or
processes categories used to estimate emissions consistent with the
IPCC Tier 3 method.
For each abatement system for which a facility is reporting
controlled emissions, we propose that facilities be required to report
the following: certification that the abatement device is installed,
operated, and maintained according to manufacturers' specifications;
the uptime and the calculations to determine uptime for that reporting
year; the DRE used (i.e. either the EPA default DRE value or a properly
measured DRE); and documentation for the EPA default DRE value or a
properly measured DRE.
These data form the basis of the calculations and are needed for us
to understand the reported emissions and verify their reasonableness.
8. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained
We propose that facilities keep records of data used to estimate
emissions, records supporting values used to estimate emissions,
purchase records, and invoices for gas purchases and sales. For those
facilities that use facility-specific, recipe-specific gas utilization
and by-production formation rates, we are proposing that the following
records be maintained: documentation that the rates were measured using
the 2006 ISMI Guidelines, documentation that the measurements made are
representative of fluorinated GHG and N2O emitting
[[Page 18670]]
processes at the facility, and the date and results of the initial and
any subsequent tests to determine process tool gas utilization and by-
product formation rates.
For those facilities that are reporting controlled emissions, we
propose that the following records be kept: documentation to certify
that each abatement device used at the facility is installed,
maintained, and operated in accordance with manufacturers'
specifications; records of the uptime and the calculations to determine
uptime; abatement system calibration and maintenance records;
documentation for the EPA default DRE value or a properly measured DRE.
These records consist of values that are directly used to calculate
the emissions that are reported and are necessary to enable
verification that the GHG emissions monitoring and calculations are
done correctly.
B. Fluorinated Gas Production
1. Overview of Reporting Requirements
Under this proposal, subpart L would require facilities that
produce fluorinated gases to report their fluorinated GHG emissions
from fluorinated gas production and transformation and from fluorinated
GHG destruction. Fluorinated gases include fluorinated GHGs (HFCs,
PFCs, SF6, NF3, HFEs, etc.), CFCs, and HCFCs.
Certain emissions subject to other subparts or authorities are excluded
from this subpart. Specifically, emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22
production are addressed under subpart O and are therefore excluded
from this subpart. Similarly, as discussed in the Final MRR, emissions
of ozone depleting substances (e.g., CFCs and HCFCs) are subject to
Title VI of the CAA and are therefore excluded from this subpart.
Under this proposed rule, facilities would be required to estimate
their emissions from fluorinated GHG production processes using either
a mass-balance approach or an approach based on measured (or in some
cases, calculated) emission factors. Facilities would be required to
estimate their emissions from CFC and HCFC production processes and
from fluorinated gas transformation processes using an emission-factor-
based approach. Consistent with the Final MRR, this proposal would
establish an annual frequency for reporting and would include
provisions to ensure the accuracy of emissions data through monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Reporting would be at the
facility level.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since Initial Proposal
In the April 2009 proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule (74 FR
16448; April 10, 2009), the fluorinated GHG production source category
was included as proposed subpart L. That initial proposal would have
required reporting from facilities emitting more than 25,000
mtCO2e from fluorinated GHG production and other source
categories (e.g., stationary combustion). We proposed monitoring based
on a daily mass-balance or yield approach that included measurements of
the reactants and the fluorinated GHG product and byproducts. Under
that approach, facilities would have had to calculate the difference
between the expected production of each fluorinated GHG based on the
consumption of reactants and the measured production of that
fluorinated GHG, accounting for yield losses related to byproducts and
wastes and accounting for streams that were recaptured and destroyed.
Facilities would have been required to measure the various inputs and
outputs daily using scales and flow meters with an accuracy and
precision of 0.2 percent of full scale, and to measure concentrations
in streams using methods with an accuracy and precision of 5 percent.
(For more detailed information on the initial proposal, see the
fluorinated gas production section of the April 10, 2009 proposed
rule.)
We received numerous comments on the proposed approach. Commenters
stated that there may be significant uncertainty associated with the
mass-balance approach, that EPA's stated accuracy and precision
requirement of 0.2 percent for flow meters and weigh equipment was
costly and not technically achievable for many streams, that daily
calculations were excessive and likely to introduce errors, that it was
sometimes impracticable to perform a mass-balance for more than one
reactant, and that the mass-balance approach was not appropriate for
batch processes.
Commenters also suggested alternatives to the mass-balance
approach. Several commenters focused on the use of site-specific or
process-specific emission factors. These commenters noted that many
facilities in this source category already measure emissions during
performance testing to verify compliance with their emission limits
under other EPA regulations. Commenters also noted that some
fluorinated GHG producers currently estimate their emissions of
fluorinated GHG using the emission factor approach and that this
approach is both more cost effective and more accurate than the mass-
balance approach. One commenter using the emission factor approach
stated that the estimated uncertainty of its overall fluorinated GHG
emissions estimate was 13 percent (expressed as one standard deviation)
and that the uncertainty associated with the estimates that it would
develop using the proposed mass-balance approach would be significantly
higher. Commenters suggested both emissions testing and chemical
engineering calculations as appropriate techniques to develop site-
specific emissions factors.
Partly in response to the comments received on the April 2009
proposed MRR (74 FR 16448; April 10, 2009), today's proposed subpart L
rule incorporates a number of changes compared to the original
proposal, including but not limited to:
Inclusion of additional emission estimation methodologies,
including process-specific, site-specific emission factors, which allow
facilities to estimate emissions using methods that may already be in
place;
Revisions to the mass-balance approach, including
provisions to allow monthly rather than daily monitoring; greater
flexibility in the accuracy and precision of flowmeters, weigh scales,
and concentration measurements (as long as the final estimate meets an
overall accuracy and precision requirement); and the use of one rather
than two reactants in the mass-balance equation;
Inclusion of fluorinated GHGs emitted as a by-product of
the production of CFCs and HCFCs; and
Inclusion of fluorinated GHGs emitted as a feedstock or
by-product of transformation processes that are not intended to produce
any fluorinated gases (when those transformation processes are co-
located with fluorinated gas production processes).
3. Definition of Source Category
This source category covers emissions of fluorinated GHGs that
occur during the production of fluorinated gases, where fluorinated
gases include fluorinated GHGs (HFCs, PFCs, SF6,
NF3, and fluorinated ethers, among others), CFCs, and HCFCs
(except HCFC-22).\20\ It also covers emissions of
[[Page 18671]]
fluorinated GHGs from transformation and destruction processes that
occur at fluorinated gas production facilities. EPA estimates that
total emissions from this source category were 10.6 million metric tons
of CO2e in 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In the April 2009 proposal, EPA requested comment on
whether emissions of fluorinated GHGs from CFC and HCFC production
processes should be subject to the subpart L reporting requirements.
While no public comments were received on this topic, EPA has
determined that HFCs and PFCs are likely to be generated during the
production of several CFCs and HCFCs, and that the quantities
generated may be significant. According to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
and fluorinated gas producers, production of CFCs and HCFCs can
generate and emit fluorinated GHGs such as various HFCs and some
PFCs. (These HFCs exclude HFC-23 generated during HCFC-22
production, which is already covered under Subpart O). These
emissions are by-product emissions that occur due to the chemical
similarities between HFCs, PFCs, HCFCs, and CFCs and the common use
of halogen replacement chemistry to produce them. HFC-23 generated
during HCFC-22 production is already covered under Subpart O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions from fluorinated gas production facilities can occur from
vents, from leaks at flanges and connections in the production line,
and from control devices (e.g., thermal oxidizers). Undesired by-
products may be deliberately vented, and some product (or reactant) may
be vented at the same time due to imperfect separation of by-products,
products, and reactants. Emissions can also occur during occasional
service work on the production equipment, during blending and recycling
of fluorinated GHGs, and during the evacuation and filling of tanks or
other containers that are distributed by the producer (e.g., on trucks
and railcars).
Fluorinated GHG Emissions from Fluorinated GHG Production.
Emissions that occur during fluorinated GHG production include
fluorinated GHG products that are emitted before the production
measurement and fluorinated GHG byproducts that are generated and
emitted either without or despite recapture or destruction.\21\ These
emissions are not counted as ``mass produced'' under the final
requirements for suppliers of industrial GHGs in 40 CFR part 98,
subpart OO (74 FR 56260; October 30, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Byproducts that are emitted or destroyed at the production
facility are excluded from the Subpart OO definition of ``produce a
fluorinated GHG.'' Any HFC-23 generated during the production of
HCFC-22 is also excluded from this definition, even if the HFC-23 is
recaptured. However, other fluorinated GHG byproducts that are
recaptured for any reason are considered to be ``produced.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluorinated GHG emissions from U.S. facilities producing
fluorinated GHGs are estimated to range from 0.8 percent to 2 percent
of the amount of fluorinated GHG produced, depending on the facility.
In 2006, 12 U.S. facilities produced over 350 million metric tons
CO2e of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and NF3, and
an additional 6 facilities produced approximately 1 million metric tons
CO2e of fluorinated anesthetics. Based on an emission rate
of 1.5 percent, facilities are estimated to have emitted approximately
5.3 million metric tons CO2e of HFCs, PFCs, SF6,
and NF3, and approximately 15,000 metric tons
CO2e of fluorinated anesthetics.
Fluorinated GHG Emissions from CFC and HCFC Production. Our
proposal to include fluorinated GHG emissions that occur during CFC and
HCFC production processes is based on two important considerations.
First, while the quantity of by-product emissions is uncertain, we
believe that it is significant and could be similar to total estimated
emissions from fluorinated GHG production. Second, many CFC and HCFC
production processes are co-located with fluorinated GHG production
facilities, allowing for efficiencies in the application of estimation
methods and monitoring and reporting infrastructures. These issues are
discussed in more detail in the Fluorinated Gas Production Technical
Support Document in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0927).
Although we do not have precise estimates of the magnitude of
fluorinated GHG emissions from production of CFCs and HCFCs, we
estimate that if CFC and HCFC production processes emitted fluorinated
GHGs equivalent to one percent of their CFC and HCFC production
(excepting HCFC-22 production), U.S. emissions from this source would
be 5.3 mtCO2e, the same as from fluorinated GHG production.
EPA requests comment on the extent to which fluorinated GHGs are
generated and emitted during CFC and HCFC production. EPA also requests
comment on the extent to which fluorinated GHGs may be generated and
emitted during production of other ozone-depleting substances such as
methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride and on whether such
emissions should be reported under this rule.
CFCs and HCFCs are often produced at the same facilities that
produce fluorinated GHGs. In these cases, these facilities would need
to quantify their fluorinated GHG emissions from a few processes in
addition to those producing fluorinated GHGs. In other cases, CFCs or
HCFCs are produced at facilities that do not produce fluorinated GHGs.
In these cases, which EPA estimates include 2 facilities, the
facilities would not have been covered by the initially proposed
subpart L, but would be covered by today's proposal. This coverage is
reflected in the threshold analysis discussed below.
Fluorinated GHG Emissions from Other Processes. Facilities
producing fluorinated gases would also be required to report emissions
of fluorinated GHG feedstocks that occur during the transformation of
these feedstocks into other fluorinated substances such as
fluoropolymers, as well as emissions of fluorinated GHGs that occur
during destruction of fluorinated GHGs that are removed from the supply
of industrial gases.
The reasons for requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions
from transformation processes that are co-located with fluorinated gas
production processes are similar to those for requiring reporting of
fluorinated GHG emissions from CFC and HCFC production. First, although
EPA does not have precise estimates of the magnitude of fluorinated GHG
emissions from transformation processes, discussions with fluoropolymer
producers indicate that these emissions do occur. Second, facilities
could apply similar methods and monitoring approaches to estimate
emissions from both fluorinated gas production and fluorinated gas
transformation. The rationale for requiring reporting of emissions from
the destruction of fluorinated GHGs that are removed from the supply of
industrial gases is discussed below under Relationship between
emissions covered under subpart L and those covered under subpart OO.
EPA is also considering requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG
emissions from two other types of processes. The first type includes
processes (other than CFC and HCFC production processes) in which
fluorinated GHGs are neither reactants nor products of the process but
are nevertheless generated as by-products or intermediates. To the
extent that such processes may generate or emit significant amounts of
fluorinated GHGs, it may be appropriate to require reporting of those
emissions. This would be particularly true if the processes were co-
located with fluorinated GHG production processes, permitting
effiencies in the application of estimation methods and reporting
infrastructures. EPA requests comment on whether, how often, and where
such processes occur (i.e., at fluorinated gas production facilities or
elsewhere). The second type of process includes fluorinated gas
transformation processes that are not co-located with fluorinated gas
production facilities. Again, it may be appropriate to require
reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions from such processes if these
emissions are significant. EPA requests comment on both of these
options.
Relationship between emissions covered under subpart L and those
covered under subpart OO. Subpart L would require reporting from many
of
[[Page 18672]]
the same facilities (fluorinated GHG producers) that are required to
report under subpart OO, which contains the industrial gas supply
reporting provisions of the final MRR. In general, subpart OO is
intended to capture the quantities of fluorinated GHGs that are
entering and leaving the U.S. supply of industrial gases,\22\ while
subpart L is intended to capture the quantities of fluorinated GHGs
emitted at fluorinated gas production facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Specifically, subpart OO tracks the quantities of
fluorinated GHGs that are (1) produced, (2) transformed, (3)
destroyed, (4) imported, and (5) exported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several areas of possible overlap between the emissions
that could be reported under this subpart and those reported under
subpart OO. The areas of overlap all concern emissions that occur at
the fluorinated GHG production facility after (downstream of) the
fluorinated GHG production measurement. These include emissions from:
Fluorinated GHG transformation processes (including
polymerization),
Destruction of fluorinated GHGs that are removed from the
supply of industrial gases,
Cylinder filling (if this occurs after the production
measurement),
Blending of fluorinated GHGs,
Recycling or reclamation of fluorinated GHGs, and
Evacuation of fluorinated GHG heels from returned
cylinders.
The MRR is intended to inform a range of possible policies for
reducing emissions of GHGs, including both upstream and downstream
approaches. Under a policy that focused primarily on supply, the
fluorinated GHGs added to and subtracted from the gas supply would be
tracked, and only the on-site emissions that occurred before (upstream
of) the fluorinated GHG production measurement would need to be covered
for completeness. On-site emissions that occurred after the production
measurement would be assumed to be captured by the production
measurement. Under a policy that focused on actual emissions (i.e.,
``downstream coverage'') rather than supply, on-site emissions that
occurred both before and after the production measurement would need to
be tracked.
Maintaining flexibility to adopt either upstream or downstream
approaches argues for some counting under L of emissions that are
counted upstream (as supply) under OO.\23\ (See the October 30, 2009
Final MRR, 74 FR 56260, for more discussion of the rationale for
including both upstream and downstream emissions under the rule.) As
noted above, EPA is proposing to require reporting of fluorinated GHG
emissions from transformation and destruction processes that are
located at fluorinated gas production facilities. However, EPA is also
considering requiring reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions from the
other activities that occur at fluorinated GHG production facilities
downstream of the production measurement. EPA requests comment on the
magnitude of these other on-site emissions and on whether or not they
should be required to be reported under subpart L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ In theory, it might be possible to track emissions from
transformation and destruction simply using quantities reported
under OO. However, this would require that (1) fluorinated GHGs that
are produced only to be transformed or destroyed be tracked
separately, (2) production, transformation, and destruction be
measured to very good precision and accuracy (e.g., 0.2 percent),
and (3) that no by-products be formed or emitted during these
processes. If all of these conditions were met, emissions could be
equated to the differences between production and transformation and
production and destruction. In practice, however, it would be
difficult to meet all of these conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Selection of Reporting Threshold
Under today's proposed rule, owners and operators of fluorinated
gas production facilities would be required to estimate and report GHG
emissions if those emissions, including both combustion and fluorinated
GHG emissions, would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of
control technology (e.g., thermal oxidation).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Following the precedents set by other Clean Air Act
regulations, EPA is using the term ``uncontrolled'' to describe such
emissions. Specifically, EPA is proposing to define ``uncontrolled
fluorinated GHG emissions'' as a gas stream containing fluorinated
GHG which has exited the process (or process condenser, where
applicable), but which has not yet been introduced into an air
pollution control device to reduce the mass of fluorinated GHGs in
the stream. The term does not imply that the emissions are never
controlled, but is synonymous with ``pre-control emissions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the threshold, we considered multiple controlled and
uncontrolled emissions thresholds, including 1,000, 10,000, 25,000, and
100,000 metric tons CO2e. For fluorinated GHG production
processes (including fluorinated anesthetics production processes),
uncontrolled (pre-control) emissions were estimated by multiplying a
factor of 3 percent by the estimated production at each facility. For
CFC and HCFC production processes (except for HCFC-22 production
processes), uncontrolled emissions were estimated by multiplying a
factor of 2 percent by the estimated production at each facility.
Uncontrolled emissions are strongly influenced by by-product generation
rates, which are known to vary between zero and several percent for
fluorinated gas production processes; thus, these estimates are
uncertain. Controlled emissions were assumed to be half of uncontrolled
emissions at each facility. Because EPA has little information on
combustion-related emissions at fluorinated gas production facilities,
these emissions were not included in the analysis. The results of the
analysis for production of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3,
CFCs, and HCFCs are shown in Tables 7 and 8 of this preamble.
Table 7--Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHG Emissions From Production of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, CFCs, and
HCFCs
[Uncontrolled Emissions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total national Emissions covered Facilities covered
Threshold level (metric tons CO2e/ emissions Number of ------------------------------------------------
r) (metric tons facilities Metric tons
CO2e ) CO2e Percent Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000.............................. 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100
10,000............................. 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100
25,000............................. 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100
100,000............................ 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 13 93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18673]]
Table 8--Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHG Emissions From Production of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3, CFCs, and
HCFCs
[Controlled Emissions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total national Emissions covered Facilities covered
Threshold level (metric tons CO2e/ emissions Number of ------------------------------------------------
r) (metric tons facilities Metric tons
CO2e ) CO2e Percent Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000.............................. 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100
10,000............................. 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100
25,000............................. 10,600,000 14 10,600,000 100 14 100
100,000............................ 10,600,000 14 10,300,000 97 10 71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen from the tables, most HFC, PFC, SF2e ,
NF3, CFC, and HCFC production facilities would be covered by
all the thresholds considered. Although we do not have facility-
specific production information for producers of fluorinated
anesthetics, we believe that few or none of these facilities are likely
to have uncontrolled emissions above the proposed threshold.
EPA is proposing to use a threshold based on uncontrolled (pre-
control) rather than controlled (post-control) emissions to ensure that
facilities that generate significant quantities fluorinated GHGs fully
characterize and quantify their emissions, even if they initially
believe those emissions to be small. Discussions with fluorinated gas
manufacturers indicate that occasionally, fluorinated GHG by-products
may be generated and emitted from production processes unexpectedly. If
these by-products are relatively difficult to destroy (e.g.,
CF4), facilities' post-control emissions may be
significantly higher than expected.\25\ The initial scoping test
described in the next section is intended to identify the full range of
fluorinated GHGs in potentially emitted streams. Applying the full
methodologies on the basis of the initial scoping study will provide
EPA and the facilities with critical information on the extent to which
control technologies are actually reducing emissions and therefore on
the actual emissions from the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ It is important to note that even if a threshold based on
controlled emissions were adopted, failure to report as required
when a source's actual emissions were above that threshold would be
a violation of these regulations and the Clean Air Act. Lack of test
data or other errors of omission do not excuse such violations as
the Clean Air Act is a strict liability statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is requesting comment on an alternative approach in which all
fluorinated gas production facilities, regardless of their estimated
pre-control emissions, would analyze their emissions using the initial
scoping test discussed in the next section. This approach would ensure
that facilities understood the identities, and therefore the GWPs, of
the fluorinated GHGs potentially emitted. EPA requests comment on this
option, as well as on the option of simply eliminating the threshold
for fluorinated gas production facilities and making this an ``all-in''
category.
As is true for the source categories covered by the Final MRR,
fluorinated GHG production facilities could cease reporting if their
controlled (post-control) emissions were less than 25,000
mtCO2e per year for five consecutive years or less than
15,000 mtCO2e per year for three consecutive years. This
approach may be appropriate if control technologies are effective and
there is no evidence of unexpected uncontrolled emissions. However, EPA
requests comment on an alternative ``off-ramp'' for this source
category. Under this alternative approach, the 25,000 and 15,000
mtCO2e triggers would be based on the level of emissions
that is estimated before accounting for the use of any control
technology (e.g., thermal oxidation). EPA is requesting comment on this
approach because emissions can become quite large if the destruction
device malfunctions, is not operated properly, or is not used for some
other reason.
As noted above, EPA estimates that under this proposal, all HFC,
PFC, SF6, and NF3 production facilities would be
covered, and few or no anesthetics producing facilities would be
covered. However, it is possible that EPA has underestimated total pre-
control emissions from anesthetics. In its threshold analysis for
fluorinated GHG production, EPA has assumed that emissions have GWPs
similar to those of the product produced. However, fluorinated
anesthetics are hydrofluoroethers, and other HFE production processes
of which EPA is aware generate by-products with higher GWPs than the
product. EPA requests comment on this issue.
A full discussion of the threshold selection analysis is available
in the revised Fluorinated Gas Production TSD. For specific information
on costs, including unamortized first year capital expenditures, please
refer to the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for this rulemaking.
5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods
a. Summary of Proposed Monitoring Methods
We are proposing to allow facilities to use either a mass-balance
approach or a site-specific, process-vent-specific emission factor
(PSEF) approach to estimate their fluorinated GHG emissions from
fluorinated GHG production. Facilities would be required to use the
PSEF approach to estimate their fluorinated GHG emissions from CFC and
HCFC production or from fluorinated gas transformation. The mass-
balance approach is similar to that proposed in April, 2009, but has
been modified in some details in response to comments. Facilities using
either approach would be required to perform a one-time scoping test to
identify the fluorinated GHGs in certain emitted streams and to verify
the destruction efficiency (DE) of any destruction devices every five
years. These approaches are discussed in more detail below.
b. Initial Scoping Test of Potentially Emitted Fluorinated GHGs
In today's action, we are proposing that facilities that produce
fluorinated gases perform an initial scoping test (proposed 40 CFR part
98.124(a)). The purpose of the scoping test is to ensure that all of
the fluorinated GHGs that occur in emitted streams are properly
identified. EPA is concerned that without the test, facilities could
mischaracterize the set of fluorinated GHGs that was emitted, leading
to inaccurate emissions estimates. We are aware that in general,
facilities will have already identified most if not all of the
fluorinated GHGs occurring in emitted streams during process design and
bench and pilot scale testing. However, as noted above, we are also
aware of
[[Page 18674]]
situations in which producers have analyzed process or emissions
streams and found fluorinated GHGs that they were not expecting. Such
by-product fluorinated GHGs can have high GWPs, making their
CO2-equivalent emissions significant.
Under this requirement, which would be one-time for any given
process, facilities would be required to sample the vent(s) or
stream(s) that, alone or together, would be expected to contain all the
fluorinated GHG by-products of the process. Facilities would be
required to use EPA Method 18 (GC/ECD, GC/MS), EPA Method 320 (FTIR),
or ASTM D6348-03 (FTIR) to identify fluorinated GHGs that occur in
concentrations above 0.1 percent in emitted streams.
For facilities using the mass-balance approach, the scoping test
could be used to determine whether some emissions that are assumed to
occur in the form of the product are actually occurring as by-products.
For facilities using the process-vent-specific emission factor approach
(PSEF), the test would identify by-products to measure in subsequent
emissions testing to develop emission factors.
To avoid the need to survey a large number of processes with
relatively small fluorinated GHG emissions, EPA is proposing to limit
the scoping test requirement to processes that would emit more than one
metric ton per year of fluorinated GHGs before the imposition of
control technologies. We are proposing a limit in tons of fluorinated
GHGs rather than in tons of CO2e because the identities, and
therefore the GWPs, of some fluorinated GHG constituents of the stream
may not be known. Acquiring this information is the purpose of the
test. We developed the one-ton limit by starting with a limit of 10,000
mtCO2e for each process and making the reasonably
conservative assumption that the unknown fluorinated GHG could have a
GWP of 10,000. For purposes of estimating the mass of fluorinated GHG
emitted from the process, facilities could use the same types of
engineering calculations that they would use to determine whether
process vent testing was required under the PSEF approach (described in
more detail below). They could assume that the mass of carbon,
fluorine, or another relevant element is emitted in the form of
fluorinated GHGs that were previously identified in bench- or pilot-
scale testing.
We are proposing that the one-metric-ton trigger be applied to
emissions before rather than after control because some byproducts,
particularly CF4, are very difficult to destroy. If these
by-products occurred unexpectedly in a stream and if the trigger were
applied to emissions after control, the facility would underestimate
controlled emissions. Consequently, the facility could fail to
undertake the scoping test when it was actually appropriate and could
overlook the occurrence and emissions of the by-products.\26\ We are
proposing that facilities test the streams before the control device
because emissions streams are often diluted during destruction
processes (e.g., due to fuel and air feeds), which would make it more
difficult to detect and identify fluorinated GHGs that survived the
destruction process. However, we request comment on this requirement as
well as on the scoping test requirement as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ For example, suppose that a facility believed that all of
the fluorinated GHG by-products from a certain process consisted of
HFCs, which its destruction device destroyed with a destruction
efficiency of 99.9 percent, but that one of these by-products was
actually CF4, which the destruction device destroyed with
an efficiency of only 50 percent. In this case, the facility could
underestimate its fluorinated GHG emissions by more than an order of
magnitude, neither seeking nor finding the CF4 that it
was actually emitting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Mass-Balance Approach
We are proposing that facilities producing fluorinated GHGs have
the option of monitoring emissions using the mass-balance approach. In
this approach, facilities would calculate the difference between the
expected production of each fluorinated GHG based on the consumption of
reactants and the measured production of that fluorinated GHG,
accounting for yield losses related to byproducts (including
intermediates permanently removed from the process) and wastes. Yield
losses that could not be accounted for would be attributed to emissions
of the fluorinated GHG product. This calculation could be performed for
any fluorine- or carbon-containing reactant (e.g., HF or hydrocarbon)
to estimate emissions of the fluorinated GHG product for that reactant
(i.e., the mass balance may be based on a carbon balance or a fluorine
balance). If fluorinated GHG byproducts were produced and were not
completely recaptured or completely destroyed, facilities would also
estimate emissions of each fluorinated GHG by-product.
Because the mass-balance approach assumes that losses from the
process are emissions of the product, EPA believes that the mass-
balance approach would only be appropriate for estimating emissions
from fluorinated GHG production, not production of CFCs, HCFCs, or
polymers. (In the last three situations, the product is not a
fluorinated GHG.) However, EPA requests comment on this issue.
To be eligible to use the mass-balance approach, facilities would
have to demonstrate that their planned measurements could meet a
statistical error limit required in the rule (described below). If the
facility could not demonstrate that it could meet the error limit, it
would have to improve the accuracy and/or precision of its monitoring
and measurement devices or opt to use another monitoring approach
offered in the rule.
To carry out the mass-balance approach, the facility would choose a
reactant for yield calculation purposes. The facility would then weigh
or meter the mass of that reactant fed into the process, any primary
fluorinated GHG produced by the process, the mass of the reactant
permanently removed from the process (i.e., sent to the thermal
oxidizer or other equipment, not immediately recycled back into the
process), any fluorinated GHG byproducts generated, and any streams
that contain the product or fluorinated GHG byproducts and that are
recaptured or destroyed. These measurements would be tracked monthly or
more frequently and consolidated and recorded on a monthly basis. If
monitored streams (including relevant process streams, emissions
streams, and destroyed streams) included more than one component
(product, byproducts, or other materials) in more than trace
concentrations,\27\ the facility would be required to monitor
concentrations of products and byproducts in these streams. Finally,
the facility would be required to perform monthly mass-balance
calculations for each product produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ EPA is proposing to define ``trace concentration'' as any
concentration less than 0.1 percent by mass of the stream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical Error Estimate. To estimate the statistical error
associated with use of the mass-balance approach, facilities would be
required to use error propagation, considering the accuracy and
precision of their measurements and the calculation methods of the
mass-balance approach. This approach is described in more detail in the
TSD for this proposal. Under this approach, EPA would not specify
precision and accuracy requirements for individual mass or
concentration measurements. Instead, EPA would require that the error
associated with the overall estimate of fluorinated GHG emissions fall
under 30 percent (relative error) or under 3,000 mtCO2e
(absolute error). (Both errors are expressed as halves of 95 percent
confidence intervals; for normal distributions, this is quite close
[[Page 18675]]
to two standard deviations). Facilities could achieve this level of
precision however they chose.
We are proposing to require the error estimate to ensure that the
use of the mass-balance approach yields accurate emission estimates. As
observed by several groups that commented on the initial proposal, the
mass-balance approach can result in large errors if measurements of the
flow of fluorinated GHGs in one or more streams have significant
errors.\28\ We recognize that the proposed approach requires facilities
to calculate the overall error of their own estimates, which adds
complication and introduces opportunities for mistakes. We therefore
plan to develop a calculation tool that would permit reporters to
develop an error estimate, reducing both their burden and the
likelihood of errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The mass-balance approach works by subtracting the masses
of process outputs from those of process inputs. As a result, errors
that are a relatively small share of these masses become a large
share of the difference between them. Errors are particularly a
concern for streams where the fluorinated GHG is only one component
of the total flow, and where, therefore, fluorinated GHG
concentrations must be measured. In general, the accuracy and
precision of concentration measurements is expected to be
approximately +/-10 percent, although this can be as low as five
percent and as high as 20 percent, depending on the circumstances.
If this 10 percent error applies to a stream that constitutes a
significant input or (more likely) output of the process, it can
lead to an emissions estimate with a high relative error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing a maximum relative error of 30 percent because
this error is comparable to that cited by the facility that has used an
emission factor approach to estimate its fluorinated GHG emissions.\29\
It is also comparable to the error that EPA calculates for a facility
with an emission rate of two percent and with good precisions and
accuracies for its mass flow measurements (+/-0.2 percent) and for its
concentration measurement (+/-10 percent) of a waste stream
constituting five percent of the process's fluorinated GHG output flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ A 13 percent error expressed as a standard deviation
translates into a 26 percent error expressed as one half of a 95
percent confidence interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For facilities whose emissions constitute a very small share of
their inputs and outputs (e.g., one percent or less), a relative error
of 30 percent will be very difficult to achieve using a mass-balance
approach. At the same time, the absolute error of such a facility's
estimate may be smaller than the absolute error of a facility that
meets the relative error test but that has a higher emission rate. EPA
is therefore proposing a maximum permissible absolute error of 3,000
mtCO2e for facilities whose estimates have relative errors
greater than 30 percent. This absolute error is equivalent to 30
percent of the 10,000 mtCO2e threshold that is used
elsewhere in the subpart to establish requirements for different
sources (e.g., process vents). Under this approach, processes whose
emissions were lower than 10,000 mtCO2e could have relative
errors higher than 30 percent so long as they met the limit on absolute
error. This approach avoids penalizing processes and facilities with
low emissions. EPA requests comment on the absolute error limit of
3,000 mtCO2e. EPA is also considering a higher limit, e.g.,
5,000 mtCO2e.
Another approach that would avoid penalizing facilities with low
emission rates would be to express the maximum relative error as a
fraction of the total mass of reactants fed into (or consumed by) the
process. For a given process, this mass would remain relatively
constant regardless of the emission rate. For the model facility
described above, with errors of 0.2 percent in its mass flow
measurements and of 10 percent in its concentration measurements, the
error of the emissions estimate relative to the total mass of reactants
is about 0.3 percent. One advantage of this approach compared to the
absolute limit is that this approach limits the relative errors for
processes with small throughputs, while the absolute limit could permit
very large relative errors for processes with small throughputs. EPA
requests comment on this approach.
In developing the approach to specifying maximum absolute and/or
relative errors for the overall emissions estimate, we considered the
alternative of specifying the maximum allowable errors (precisions and
accuracies) of the individual measurements that feed into the mass-
balance equation. This is the approach that EPA took in the initial
proposal. This approach limits error, but it also limits flexibility, a
concern raised by several commenters. Even a facility with a relatively
large error in one stream may be able to bring the total error of its
emissions estimate to a tolerable level by improving the accuracy and
precision of other measurements that are used in the mass-balance
equation, such as the mass flows of reactants and products.
Nevertheless, EPA requests comment on the option of reverting to
specific tolerances for individual measurements that feed into the
mass-balance equation, as originally proposed.
Choice of Reactant Whose Yield Is Measured. EPA is today proposing
to allow facilities to estimate emissions under the mass-balance
approach using one of the reactants rather than both as originally
proposed.\30\ Some fluorinated GHG producers noted that, for various
reasons, it is sometimes considerably more difficult to track the
yields of some reactants than others (e.g., HF vs. an organic
feedstock). EPA notes that facilities estimating their emissions based
on the yield of one reactant would still need to be able to demonstrate
that their estimate passed the statistical error test discussed above.
EPA requests comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Under the initial proposed rule, facilities would have been
required to perform the mass-balance calculations for each reactant
(e.g., both HF and the chlorocarbon or hydrocarbon) and to take the
average of the two results as the emissions estimate. This would be
expected to lead to the most robust estimate (i.e., the estimate
with the lowest uncertainty) if the uncertainties in both yield
calculations were similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency of Measurement and Calculation. In today's proposed rule,
EPA is proposing to require that facilities using the mass-balance
approach measure and calculate their emissions monthly. A number of
fluorocarbon producers who commented on the initial proposal noted that
daily measurements were burdensome and led to large errors in the
estimates of daily emissions. They observed that many streams contain
acidic and reactive constituents such as HF, and that sampling from
these streams can create safety hazards. They also noted that daily
yield measurements can vary significantly (sometimes exceeding 100
percent) for three reasons. First, when continuous processes are first
started, there is a lag time between the time the reactants are fed
into the process and the time products emerge. Second, even after the
process has been running for a while, the quantity of material in the
process can vary based on weather, changes in production rates, and
other conditions. Third, the relatively large errors in measurements of
in-process product holding tanks (e.g., based on sight-glass readings)
have a significant impact on daily mass balances. Over time, all of
these effects smooth out, making longer term mass balances far more
reliable than daily mass balances.
EPA has carefully considered these comments. The goal of the rule
is to gather information on annual, not daily, emissions. The advantage
of more frequent measurements and calculations is that, where mass
flows and concentrations are variable, more frequent measurements and
calculations will lead to more accurate and precise estimates than less
frequent measurements and calculations. However, in this case the
disadvantages of daily measurement and calculation
[[Page 18676]]
appear to outweigh the advantages. EPA believes that monthly mass-
balance calculations will lead to acceptably accurate estimates at
reasonable cost. Nevertheless, EPA requests comment on whether the
variability of the mass flows or concentrations in some production
processes may be sufficiently large to justify more frequent
measurement and calculation, e.g., weekly.
EPA also requests comment on whether annual or less frequent
characterizations of fluorinated GHG concentrations in some streams
should be permitted under the mass-balance approach. Some fluorinated
GHG producers have stated that it is difficult to measure fluorinated
GHG concentrations in some streams. In some cases, this is because
waste streams contain hydrofluoric acid (HF), which, due to its acidity
and reactivity, can damage sampling and analytical equipment. As
discussed in the TSD, there may be technical solutions to this problem.
To the extent that these approaches could be relatively difficult or
expensive to implement, however, it might be appropriate to permit very
infrequent measurements. The disadvantage of this approach is that it
might lead to large errors, particularly for processes that vary over
time. A series of measurements might be required to (1) reduce the
error and (2) quantify the error for purposes of the statistical error
test. Such measurements would be analogous to those used to develop
emission factors.
Reactant and Byproduct Emissions. EPA recognizes that the proposed
mass-balance approach would assume that all yield losses that are not
accounted for are attributable to emissions of the fluorinated GHG
product. In some cases, the losses may be untracked emissions (or other
losses) of reactants or fluorinated by-products. In general, EPA
understands that reactant flows are measured at the inlet to the
reactor; thus, any losses of reactant that occur between the point of
measurement and the reactor are likely to be small. However, reactants
that are recovered from the process, whether they are recycled back
into it or removed permanently, may experience some losses that the
proposed method does not account for.
Fluorocarbon by-products, according to the IPCC Guidelines,
generally have ``radiative forcing properties similar to those of the
desired fluorochemical.'' However, EPA is aware of at least one
facility where byproducts often have much larger GWPs than the
products. In this case, assuming by-product emissions are product
emissions would lead to large errors in estimating overall fluorinated
GHG emissions. EPA believes that the initial scoping test of emitted
streams that is discussed above would help to determine whether this
was an issue for a given process.\31\ If it was, then the facility
could elect to pursue the PSEF approach rather than the mass-balance
approach for that process, or, if the facility was still interested in
pursuing the mass-balance approach, it could perform more emissions
testing to develop a robust break-out among the fluorinated GHGs
assumed to be emitted under the mass-balance approach. Such emissions
testing would be similar to that performed for the PSEF approach below,
except it would focus on the partitioning of emissions among the
various fluorinated GHGs. This approach is discussed in more detail in
the TSD. EPA requests comment on this and other possible approaches for
distinguishing between emissions of fluorinated GHG products and
emissions of fluorinated by-products under the mass-balance approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ For example, if the survey indicated that attributing all
unaccounted-for losses to product emissions would lead to more than
a ten percent error in the CO2e emitted, the facility
could be required to adjust its emissions estimate to account for
by-product losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative approach based on measurements of balanced element
(e.g., total fluorine). EPA is considering an alternative to the mass-
balance approach described above in which facilities would not be
required to speciate their streams (including relevant process streams,
destroyed streams, and emitted streams) monthly. Instead, they could
make monthly measurements of the total fluorine (or other element of
interest other than carbon) in the streams, e.g., by burning them. This
approach, which is described in more detail in the TSD, could be
particularly useful for processes with multiple by-products. Facilities
would still be required to perform an initial survey of the fluorinated
GHGs in the stream(s) to identify the fluorinated GHG constituents. In
addition, as discussed above, it may be appropriate to require
facilities to perform emissions testing to ensure that emissions are
properly allocated among the product and various by-products. However,
facilities would perform this testing relatively infrequently (e.g.,
every five years) rather than monthly. One potential concern regarding
this variant of the mass-balance approach is the potential difficulty
of performing analysis of combustion products that are likely to
include HF and HCl. It may be appropriate to require facilities to
validate this approach against the mass-balance method described above.
EPA requests comment on this approach.
d. Process-Specific Emission Factor Approach
EPA is proposing an additional monitoring approach based on site-
specific, process-specific emissions factors. This approach includes
either calculation or measurement of process vent emission factors
depending on the size and fate of the emissions from the vent. Under
this approach, facilities would develop preliminary emissions estimates
to determine the level of annual uncontrolled emissions from each
process vent in processes subject to this subpart. For process vents
with uncontrolled emissions of less than 10,000 mtCO2e (or
less than 1 metric ton for emissions that include a fluorinated GHG
whose GWP does not appear in Table A-1 of subpart A), facilities could
conduct either engineering calculations or emissions testing to develop
emission factors. Facilities could also conduct either engineering
calculations or emissions testing to develop emission factors for
emissions that were vented to a destruction device demonstrated to
achieve a destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent (for fluorinated
GHGs), as long as equipment or procedures \32\ were in place to ensure
that uncontrolled emissions did not occur. For other vented emissions,
facilities would be required to conduct emissions testing to determine
the process vent emission factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Such equipment or procedures could include, for example,
holding tank capacity, monitoring of by-pass streams, or compulsory
process shutdowns in the event the destruction device remains off
line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate annual fluorinated GHG emissions from each vent,
facilities would multiply each emission factor by the appropriate
activity data and account for the use (and uptime) of destruction
devices. The fluorinated GHG emissions for all vents at the facility
would be summed to obtain the total emissions from process vents for
the facility as a whole.
To ensure that the emissions estimate encompassed all sources of
emissions within the processes that would be subject to this subpart,
facilities using the emission factor approach would also be required to
estimate emissions from equipment leaks.\33\ Leaks would be
[[Page 18677]]
monitored annually using EPA Method 21 and the Protocol for Equipment
Leak Estimates U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Publication
No. EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ As noted above, process vents are only one of the sources
of emissions from production, transformation, and destruction
processes. Another source is equipment leaks, specifically, leaks
from piping and connections. The mass-balance approach does not need
to be supplemented with equipment leak assessment because it
accounts for all emissions between the measurements of inputs and
outputs, whether these emissions occur from vents or leaks. (This
assumes that the production measurement used to estimate and report
emissions under the mass-balance approach is the same as that used
to report additions to the industrial gas supply. EPA is proposing
that these two measurements be identical.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing less demanding measurement requirements for small
and destroyed emission streams to ensure that the effort and resources
expended to measure emissions are commensurate with the size of those
emissions. This principle has been adopted both for other source
categories in the MRR and for numerous other EPA programs. However, EPA
is requesting comment on some aspects of its proposed approaches.
First, we request comment on the appropriateness of the
CO2e cutoff below which calculations are permitted. One
potential concern associated with this approach is that 10,000
mtCO2e equates to relatively low mass emissions of
fluorinated GHGs with high GWPs. For example, 10,000 mtCO2e
equates to 923 pounds of SF6 and 1,282 pounds of
NF3. Our understanding is that SF6 can be
detected at extremely low emission rates and concentrations, but we
request comment on whether emissions of other high-GWP compounds at
this level may be difficult to detect. An option on which we are
requesting comment is to relax the CO2e emissions cutoff and
to include an unweighted emissions cutoff (i.e., in tons of fluorinated
GHG) along with it. For example, for process vents with less than
25,000 mtCO2e uncontrolled and less than 10,000 pounds of
fluorinated GHG uncontrolled, facilities would have the option to
conduct emissions testing or engineering calculations or assessments.
Second, EPA requests comment on its criteria for allowing use of
engineering calculations to characterize the emissions of process vents
that vent to destruction devices. EPA understands that many and perhaps
most destruction devices used at fluorinated GHG production facilities
can achieve DEs of 99.9 percent or better. EPA also understands that
many facilities have equipment or procedures in place to prevent
uncontrolled emissions, though some do not. It is important to note
that uncontrolled emissions during device downtime can reduce the
effective (time-weighted average) DE to 90 percent or less, increasing
emissions by a factor of 100 or more. However, one alternative to the
proposed approach would be to allow the use of engineering calculations
for any vent whose emissions, considering both the DE and the
historical uptime of the destruction device, fell below the 10,000
mtCO2e cutoff. For purposes of this calculation, the annual
time of uncontrolled emissions could be equated to the longest annual
time of uncontrolled emissions observed over the previous five years.
EPA requests comment on this alternative approach.
Preliminary estimates. To develop preliminary emissions estimates
for each vent, facilities would be permitted to use the same types of
previous measurements, engineering calculations, and engineering
assessments that they would be permitted to use to develop emission
calculation factors. These are described below under ``Process-specific
Emission Calculation Factor Approach.''
Process vent emissions testing. For process vent emissions testing,
facilities would be required to use EPA reference methods, including
EPA Method 18 and EPA Method 320, or ASTM D6348-03.\34\ Alternative
testing methods could be used if validated using EPA Method 301. EPA
reference methods are included in the rule requirements for determining
sample and velocity traverses, velocity and volumetric flow rates, gas
analysis, and stack gas moisture, along with several alternative flow
rate determination methods, such as OTM-24 and ALT-012. Commenters who
have previously estimated their emissions of fluorinated GHGs stated
that they used these approaches to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ EPA Method 320 and the ASTM method are Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) methods. For such methods, compounds are identified
by characteristic spectra, and libraries providing spectra for the
range of compounds likely to be found in emissions streams can
greatly facilitate analysis. EPA requests comment on whether such
spectral libraries are available for fluorinated GHGs, and if not,
on whether EPA might play a role in assembling a spectral library
for fluorinated GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The testing periods would be required to include representative
process operation and to exclude atypical events (such as process
upsets or malfunctions).\35\ Within any given operating scenario
(discussed further below), the full range of process operation would be
required to be represented, i.e. the emissions data must be
representative of typical process operation while also including
process variability. Facilities would be required to consider process
parameters that may potentially cause variability of the emissions,
such as catalyst degradation, seasonal variability, raw material
suppliers, etc. For example, where a facility uses a catalyst, test
runs would have to be conducted at various points over the life of the
catalyst. The production level during the testing periods would be
required to be representative of normal operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ EPA is proposing an exception if monitoring is sufficiently
long to ensure that such events are not overrepresented in the
emission factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop process-specific emissions factors, facilities would be
required to conduct at least three test runs and to analyze the
relative standard deviation (RSD) of the emission factors corresponding
to each run to determine whether additional runs were necessary. The
emission factors and their RSD would be calculated across all
fluorinated GHGs emitted from the vent in CO2e terms. If the
RSD exceeded twenty percent, the facility would be required to conduct
an additional three tests. The rationale for the RSD test is that if
the variability of a population or parameter is large, then more
samples are required to obtain a robust estimate of the mean (average)
of that parameter. EPA estimates that at a relative standard deviation
of 20 percent, an emission factor calculated as the mean of three test
runs has a 95 percent chance of being within 50 percent of the actual
mean emission rate of the process. The reasoning and calculations
behind this conclusion are discussed in more detail in the TSD.
An alternative approach would be to conduct additional runs until
the change in the running average emission factor fell under 10
percent. This approach is similar to requirements for measuring
emission factors (slope coefficients) in subpart F (Primary Aluminum)
and could provide representative emissions from the process and address
variability. However, it has two potential drawbacks in the context of
fluorinated gas production. First, for processes whose variability is
predictable (e.g., due to catalyst age) rather than random, the fourth
sample could satisfy the running average requirement but lead to a
biased emission factor, for example if two of the four samples were
taken when the catalyst was new. Second, facilities could find it
inconvenient to analyze samples and calculate emission factors between
each test run after the first three. EPA requests comment on this
alternative approach.
For continuous process vents, facilities would conduct 1-hour test
runs, and for batch process vents, facilities would test during
emissions episodes of the batch. We request comment on the appropriate
number of test runs to conduct for continuous and batch process vents
and the appropriate RSD that facilities should meet. We also request
comment of the appropriateness
[[Page 18678]]
of testing batch process vents during emissions episodes only. Another
option is to require testing of vents for the full duration of the
batch process, but this could significantly increase the expense of the
emissions test without necessarily improving its accuracy.
Where multiple processes vent into a common vent or control device,
EPA is proposing that facilities do one of the following: sample each
process in the ducts before the emissions are combined, sample when
only one process is operating, or sample the combined emissions at
representative combinations of capacity utilizations for all the
processes. If the last option were selected, facilities would be
required to perform 3 times n test runs, where n is the number of
processes feeding into the common vent or add-on control device. The
emission factor would be calculated by dividing the total emissions by
the summed activity across the processes venting to the common vent,
and the PSEF would be applied whenever one or more of the processes was
operating.
Process activity data would have to be collected simultaneously
with the emissions data during the emissions test. The process activity
data would be used to develop the emissions factor. Process activity
data that could be used in development of the emissions factor includes
raw material feed, amount of product produced, or other process
activity known to have a direct effect on emissions.
Facilities would be required to define the operating scenario that
encompasses the range of operating conditions that represent typical
operation for the process and to develop representative emissions
factors for each operating scenario. To define the process operating
scenario, a facility would include information including the process
description and the specific process equipment used; the process vents,
emission episodes and durations, and the quantity of uncontrolled
fluorinated GHG emissions; the control device or destruction device
used to control emissions; and the manifolding of process vents within
the process and from other processes. Alternative operating scenarios
would also be defined for differences in operating conditions that
affect emissions. Examples of situations where process differences may
warrant separate operating scenarios include the following: Making
small volumes of a product in one set of batch process equipment part
of the year and making larger volumes in larger batch process equipment
part of the year; use of two different types of catalyst in the same
process; deliberate alterations in process conditions such as
temperature or pressure to shift the reaction to a particular product;
and making small volumes of a product in a batch process part of the
year and making large volumes in a continuous process part of the year.
A facility is required to develop a representative emissions factor for
each process operating scenario because each operating scenario for a
process will result in different emissions levels.
In general, emissions testing during process startups and shutdowns
would not be expected to lead to representative emission factors,
because emission rates tend to fluctuate during such events. Exceptions
to this could include long-term monitoring that would not over-
represent startup or shutdown conditions in the resulting emission
factor, and monitoring specifically to obtain emission factors for
startups and shutdowns conditions. Several companies indicated that
they have analyzed the emissions profile during startup events and
during shutdown events. They found that the emission rates during these
events departed from those at steady state conditions, but that
emissions profiles were consistent between one startup event and
another.
The uncertainty of the process-vent-specific emission factor
approach is anticipated to be roughly 10 percent; the uncertainty of
the emissions testing is estimated to be approximately 10 percent (as
calibration requirements for most test methods require 10
percent accuracy and precision), and the uncertainty of the process
activity measurement is 1 percent. While emissions testing
must continue if the first three test runs exhibit an RSD or 0.2 or
greater, the RSD is expected to be a measure of the variability of the
process rather than the error of the measurement.
EPA is proposing that emission factors would need to be developed
before December 31, 2011, the end of the first year of reporting under
this subpart. Throughout 2011, facilities would be responsible for
gathering monthly activity data to which the emission factors, once
developed, would be applied to estimate monthly and annual emissions
from each process.
Updates to Emission Factors. After developing their initial
process-vent-specific emission factors, facilities would be required to
update them every 5 years or when there was a process or equipment
change that would alter the process operating scenario. Process or
equipment changes would include changes in raw materials, equipment,
production levels, or operating conditions that would be expected to
affect the level of emissions. EPA is proposing periodic updates of the
emission factors because facilities that have measured and re-measured
their emission factors over a period of several years have found that
gradual, incremental changes to the process (e.g., to improve yields)
have significantly changed emission factors over time. The proposed
five-year frequency is consistent with that required for some source
categories covered in the MRR (e.g., for process vents used in HCFC-22
production processes under subpart O) but is higher than that required
for others (e.g., the 10-year frequency for measurement of slope
factors for aluminum processes). EPA requests comment on the proposed
frequency of measurement.
An alternative to regular updates to emission factors would be
updates triggered by changes to other indicators of emission rates,
such as process yields. Under such an approach, facilities could
calculate how their emission factor would change if the change in yield
were attributable solely to a change in the emission rate. If this
change exceeded 15 percent (as a fraction of the current emission
factor), the emission factor would need to be re-measured. EPA requests
comment on this alternative.
Measurements performed before the effective date of this rule. We
are proposing that emission factor measurements performed before the
effective date of this rule could be used to estimate GHG emissions if
the measurements were performed in accordance with the requirements of
the rule less than five years before the effective date. We believe
that it may also be appropriate to permit use of previously measured
emission factors whose measurement departed in some particulars from
the requirements of the rule but still substantially met most of the
requirements, making it likely that the emission factors were
representative. In this case, facilities could submit information to
EPA on areas where measurements departed from the requirements from the
rule, and EPA could review the measurements to verify that they still
substantially met most of the requirements. We request comment on this
option.
Process-Specific Emission Calculation Factor Approach. As noted
above, facilities could use engineering calculations to estimate
emissions from vents that either (1) had annual emissions below 1,000
mtCO2e or (2) vented to a control device with a destruction
efficiency of 99.9 percent
[[Page 18679]]
and had equipment and procedures in place to prevent uncontrolled
emissions. We are proposing an emission factor approach that includes
both emissions testing and engineering calculations, with the required
approach depending on the magnitude of uncontrolled emissions from the
process vent.
Engineering calculations use basic chemical engineering principles
and component property data to calculate emissions (and develop
emission factors) rather than actually measuring emissions.
Calculations for various emissions episodes could be conducted using
standard equations presented in EPA's Emissions Inventory Improvement
Process guidance documents, Pharmaceutical NESHAP, and Miscellaneous
Organic NESHAP. Calculations highlighted in these documents and in
codified rule text include vapor displacement, purging, heating,
depressurization, vacuum systems, gas evolution, air drying, and empty
vessel purging.
Engineering assessments may be conducted using previous test data
or other information available on the process. Engineering assessments
include use of previous test reports where the emissions are
representative of current operating practices; bench-scale or pilot-
scale test data that are representative of full-scale process operating
conditions; design analysis based on chemical engineering principles,
measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws or
properties. The data used in engineering assessments must be
documented.
Process activity data must be measured in conjunction with the
emissions estimate based on calculations and assessments. This process
activity data is needed to develop the emissions calculation factor.
Just as for emission factor development, facilities are required to
define the operating scenario for the emission calculation factor
development. Alternative operating scenarios would also be defined for
differences in operating conditions that affect emissions. As discussed
previously for the emission factor approach, a facility would be
required to develop a representative emission calculation factor for
each process operating scenario because each operating scenario for a
process will result in different emission levels (see discussion
above).
Facilities would update the process-vent-specific emission
calculation factors every five years or when there is a process or
equipment change that would alter the process operating scenario.
Potential use of continuous emissions monitors to measure emissions
from vents. Another option we are considering is to require that
facilities measure emissions from fluorinated gas production facilities
using continuous emissions monitors (CEMS). Under this approach,
facilities would be required to install and operate CEMS capable of
measuring fluorinated GHGs to measure process emissions. The
requirements for the CEMs would be similar to those in subpart C,
adjusted, as appropriate, to accommodate CEMS for fluorinated gases.
One possible option is to use Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometers
(FTIRs) in scrubber stacks to measure emissions. FTIR spectroscopy is
presently used to conduct short-term fluorinated GHG emission
measurements from processes.
If properly selected and maintained, CEMS would be expected to
provide estimates of emissions more accurate than either the mass-
balance or the process-vent approach. However, potential drawbacks to
requiring CEMS are that they would be relatively expensive to install
and they may not tolerate the acidic and reactive environments found in
vents at many fluorinated gas production facilities. (The latter
concern might be mitigated by installing CEMS after a scrubber, if this
is practicable.) Given these potential concerns, it may be appropriate
to require CEMS for particularly large emission streams, e.g., those
resulting in emissions of more than 50,000 mtCO2e annually.
EPA requests comment on the use and implementation of CEMS at
fluorinated gas production facilities. We also request data or other
information evaluating the use of CEMS in fluorinated gas production
facilities to determine fluorinated GHG emissions.
Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates. For completeness, EPA is
proposing that monitoring of process vents be supplemented by
monitoring of equipment leaks, whose emissions do not occur through
process vents. To estimate emissions from equipment leaks, we would
require use of EPA Method 21 and the Protocol for Equipment Leak
Estimates (EPA-453/R-95-017). Leak monitoring would be performed
annually. The Protocol includes four methods for estimating equipment
leaks. These are, from least to most accurate, the Average Emission
Factor Approach, the Screening Ranges Approach, EPA Correlation
Approach, and the Unit-Specific Correlation Approach. We are proposing
that the facility use one of the last three methods. To use these
methods, the facility would need to have (or develop) Response Factors
relating concentrations of the target fluorinated GHG (or surrogate gas
co-occurring in the stream) to concentrations of the gas with which the
leak detector is calibrated. Our understanding is that flame ionization
detectors (FIDs) are generally insensitive to fluorinated GHGs, and
that they are therefore not likely to be effective for detecting and
quantifying fluorinated GHG leaks. An exception to this would be a
situation in which the fluorinated GHG occurred in a stream along with
a substance (e.g., a hydrocarbon) to which the FID was sensitive; in
this case, the other substance could be used as a surrogate to quantify
leaks from the stream. We understand that at least two fluorocarbon
producers currently use methods in the Protocol to quantify their
emissions of fluorinated GHGs with different levels of accuracy and
precision.\36\ Other analytical techniques that are sensitive to
fluorinated compounds may be available to monitor concentrations of
equipment leaks, including photoionization, ultraviolet, infrared, and
others. EPA requests comment on the availability and use of portable
monitoring instruments for equipment leak monitoring of fluorinated
GHG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ One producer estimates HFC and other fluorocarbon emissions
by using the Average Emission Factor Approach. This approach simply
assigns an average emission factor to each component without any
evaluation of whether or how much that component is actually
leaking. The second producer estimates emissions using the Screening
Ranges Approach, which assigns different emission factors to
components based on whether the concentrations of the target
chemical are above or below 10,000 ppmv. This producer has developed
a Response Factor for HCFC-22, which is present in the same streams
as the HFC-23 whose leaks are being estimated. (HFC-23 emissions are
discussed in Section O of the October 30, 2009 MRR.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another approach for monitoring leaks from pieces of equipment
includes use of the Alternative Work Practice (AWP) for EPA Method 21
(similar to monitoring requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, 40
CFR part 60.18; 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, 40 CFR part 63.11; or 40 CFR
part 65, subpart A, 40 CFR part 65.7). This approach would include
monitoring leaking equipment with an optical gas imaging instrument.
Emissions from those pieces of equipment found to be leaking could be
estimated based on emission factors. Under this approach, facilities
would be required to image each piece of equipment associated with
processes covered under subpart L and in fluorinated GHG service, and
all
[[Page 18680]]
emissions imaged by the optical gas imaging instrument would be
considered leaks and would be subject to emissions estimation. EPA
requests comment on the technical feasibility and accuracy of this
approach for fluorinated GHG emissions.
Other Potentially Significant Emission Points. We are requesting
comment on the inclusion of fluorinated GHG emissions from storage
tanks, wastewater, and container filling, particularly where these
emissions occur before the production measurement at fluorinated GHG
production facilities. We anticipate that emissions from wastewater and
storage tanks would be small to insignificant due to the low solubility
of most fluorinated GHGs in water and the use of pressurized tanks for
storage. However, we request comment on the emission levels expected
from these emission points.
Our current understanding is that most fluorinated GHG production
facilities measure their production before container filling, e.g., by
using flowmeters just upstream of the container connection to measure
the mass flowing into the containers. If this is the case, emissions
that occur during or after filling (e.g., from hoses and connections)
would have been included in the production (supply) measurement.
However, if production is measured by weighing containers before and
after filling, then emissions during container filling would not have
been included in the production measurement. In these cases, facilities
using the emission factor approach would need to quantify container
filling emissions for completeness. Possible methods for tracking these
emissions include engineering estimates, default or site-specific
emission factors, and mass balances. These methods are discussed in
more detail in the TSD.
Destruction Device Performance Testing. EPA is proposing to require
fluorinated gas producers that destroy fluorinated GHGs to conduct an
emissions test every five years to determine the destruction efficiency
(DE) of the destruction device. As discussed further in the TSD, the
testing for determining the DE would be similar to the emissions
testing required to develop process-specific emission factors,
described above. Facilities would be required to conduct their testing
when operating at high loads reasonably expected to occur and when
destroying the most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed into the
device (or when destroying a surrogate that was more difficult to
destroy than that fluorinated GHG). The last point is particularly
important because some fluorinated GHGs (e.g., CF4 and
SF6) are extremely difficult to destroy; DEs determined for
other fluorinated GHGs would overestimate the destruction of these
fluorinated GHGs.
Facilities that have conducted an emissions test on their
destruction device within the five years prior to the effective date of
the rule would be allowed to use the DE determined during that test if
the test was conducted in accordance with the proposed test
requirements. Facilities could also use the DREs determined during
principal organic hazardous constituent testing and hazardous waste
combustor testing, provided those tests determined the DRE based on the
most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed into the device (or based
on a surrogate that was more difficult to destroy than the most-
difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG).
EPA is proposing to require reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions
from destruction of fluorinated GHGs; we request comment on whether we
should also require reporting of by-product fluorinated GHG emissions
from destruction of CFCs and HCFCs. Specifically, we request comment on
the extent to which fluorinated GHGs may be generated and emitted
during destruction of CFCs and HCFCs at facilities producing these
chemicals. Testing of destruction devices used in the electronics
sector has shown that destruction of one fluorinated compound can lead
to the emission of others under some circumstances.
6. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data
In the event that a scale or flowmeter normally used to measure
reactants, products, by-products, or wastes fails to meet a test to
verify its accuracy or precision, malfunctions, or is rendered
inoperable, we are proposing that facilities be required to estimate
these quantities using other measurements where these data are
available. For example, facilities that ordinarily measure production
by metering the flow into the day tank could use the weight of product
charged into shipping containers for sale and distribution as a
substitute. It is our understanding that the types of flowmeters and
scales used to measure fluorocarbon production (e.g., Coriolis meters)
are generally quite reliable, and therefore that it should rarely be
necessary to rely solely on secondary production measurements. In
general, production facilities rely on accurate monitoring and
reporting of the inputs and outputs of the production process.
Nevertheless, EPA is also proposing that if a secondary mass
measurement for the stream is not available, producers can use a
related parameter and the historical relationship between the related
parameter and the missing parameter to estimate the flow.
If concentration measurements are unavailable for some period, we
are proposing that the facility use the average of the concentration
measurements from just before and just after the period of missing
data.
We request comment on these proposed methods for estimating missing
data.
7. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements
Under the proposed rule, owners and operators of facilities
producing fluorinated gases would be required to report both their
fluorinated GHG emissions and the quantities used to estimate them on a
process-specific basis. They would also be required to report the
results of each scoping study, specifically, the chemical identities of
the contents of potentially emitted streams. Facilities using the mass-
balance approach would report the masses of the reactants, products,
by-products, and wastes, and, if applicable, the quantities of any
product in the by-products and/or wastes (if that product is emitted at
the facility). The chemical identities of reactants, products, and by-
products would also be reported, along with the chemical equations used
to estimate emissions. Facilities using the emission factor approach
would report the activity data used to calculate emissions (e.g., the
quantity produced, transformed, or destroyed) and the emission factors
used to estimate them. We are proposing that owners and operators
report annual totals of these quantities by process and facility.
Where fluorinated GHG production facilities have estimated missing
data, the facility would be required to report the reason the data were
missing, the length of time the data were missing, the method used to
estimate the missing data, and the estimates of those data.
We propose that facilities report these data because the data are
necessary to verify facilities' calculations of fluorinated GHG
emissions. We request comment on these proposed reporting requirements.
8. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained
Maintaining records of the information used to determine the
reported GHG emissions is necessary to enable us to verify that the GHG
emissions monitoring and calculations
[[Page 18681]]
were done correctly. Under the proposed rule, owners and operators of
facilities producing fluorinated GHGs would be required to retain
records documenting the data reported, including records of monthly
emission estimation calculations, all data that went in to the
calculations, calibration records for flowmeters, scales, and gas
chromatographs, and documentation of emission factor development
activities. These records are necessary to verify that the GHG
emissions monitoring and calculations were performed correctly.
C. Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use
In the April 2009 proposed MRR (74 FR 16448; April 10, 2009), EPA
proposed mandatory reporting of SF6 and PFC emissions from
electric power transmission and distribution system equipment in
subpart DD. As initially proposed, this source category would comprise
electric power transmission and distribution systems that operate using
gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers and other switchgear, or
power transformers containing sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) or
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and emissions would represent the annual
facility-wide emissions of SF6 and PFCs for the reporting
facility.
EPA received comment from approximately 22 entities, many of whom
requested elaboration on what is included in an electric power system
for purposes of this source category as well as the relationship of an
electric power system to a facility. The requirements of 40 CFR part 98
apply to owners and operators of any ``facility''.\37\ EPA is issuing
this supplemental proposal to provide additional detail on this source
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Unless otherwise specified in an individual subpart,
facility means any physical property, plant, building, structure,
source, or stationary equipment located on one or more contiguous or
adjacent properties in actual physical contact or separated solely
by a public roadway or other public right-of-way and under common
ownership or common control, that emits or may emit any greenhouse
gas. Operators of military installations may classify such
installations as more than a single facility based on distinct and
independent functional groupings within contiguous military
properties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In doing so, our objective is to clarify and solicit further
comment on the scope of an ``electric power system'' and what
constitutes a facility for this subpart. We also provide further detail
on options we considered. We are proposing to integrate the Energy
Information Administration of the Department of Energy (EIA) list of
examples of electric power entities into the definition of a facility
for this subpart. The EIA lists the following as electric power
entities: ``a company; an electric cooperative; a public electric
supply corporation as the Tennessee Valley authority; a similar Federal
department or agency such as the Bonneville Power Administration; the
Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers; a municipally owned
electric department offering service to the public; or an electric
public utility district (a ``PUD''); also a jointly owned electric
supply project such as the Keystone.'' \38\ We are proposing to
incorporate the EIA list of electric power entities because it is
widely used in the industry and includes the spectrum of energy supply
participants with relevant operations, i.e., vertically integrated,
generate and transmit only, transmit and distribute only, transmit only
and distribute only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of
Energy, Energy Glossary: Energy terms and definitions; http://www.eia.gov/glossary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also seeking comment on whether it would be appropriate to
use the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) definition of a
transmission and/or distribution entity in our definition of electric
power system.\39\ RGGI defines an entity as ``the assets and equipment
used to transmit and distribute electricity from an electric generator
to the electrical load of a customer.'' It includes all related assets
and equipment located within the service territory of the entity,
defined as the service territory of a load-serving entity specified by
the applicable State regulatory agency. In particular, EPA seeks
comment on whether the RGGI definition includes the spectrum of
entities identified in the EIA list and captures the full universe of
SF6-emitting entities in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Model Rule, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is requesting comments on only 40 CFR 98.300 Definition of the
Source Category in proposed subpart DD. EPA is not seeking further
comment on other elements of the initial proposal such as the selection
of the threshold and the proposed monitoring methods.
1. Definition of the Source Category
EPA proposes to define the source category as follows: ``The
electric equipment use source category includes electric power systems
as described in this paragraph. Notwithstanding the definition of
facility in subpart A, for purposes of this subpart, ``facility'' means
an electric power system. Electric power system means the collection of
SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment linked through electric
power transmission or distribution lines and operated as an integrated
unit by one electric power entity or several entities that have a
single owner. SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment includes gas-
insulated substations, circuit breakers, other switchgear, gas-
insulated lines, and power transformers containing SF6 or
PFCs. Equipment also includes gas containers such as pressurized
cylinders, gas carts, new equipment owned but not yet installed, or
other containers.''
The largest use of SF6 is as an electrical insulator and
interrupter in equipment intended for use in connection with
generation, transmission, distribution, and conversion of electric
energy. The gas has been employed by the electric power industry in the
United States since the 1950s because of its dielectric strength and
arc-quenching characteristics. SF6 has replaced flammable
insulating oils in many applications and allows for more compact
substations in dense urban areas. It has also facilitated expansion of
the electric power grid through long-distance transmission at high and
extra-high voltages. SF6 is used in gas-insulated
substations, circuit breakers and other switchgear, transformers, and
gas-insulated lines. The types and location of gas-insulated equipment
used varies depending on a number of technical, system design,
geographic and historic factors. Currently, there are no available
substitutes for SF6 in high-voltage applications. For
further information, see the SF6 from Electrical Equipment
TSD in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
Since SF6 is used in pressurized equipment, unintended
emissions of SF6 occur over the life cycle of the equipment.
SF6 can escape from gas-insulated substations and switchgear
through seals, especially from older equipment. The gas can also be
released during installation, servicing, and equipment disposal.
Emissions of SF6 from electric power systems were estimated
to be 12.4 million metric tons of CO2e in 2006. Emissions
from electrical equipment manufacture and refurbishing are being
covered in subpart SS.
PFCs are sometimes used as dielectric and as heat transfer fluids
in power transformers. PFCs are also used for retrofitting CFC-113
cooled transformers. The common PFC used in this application is
perfluorohexane (C6F14). In terms of both
absolute and carbon-weighted emissions, PFC emissions from electrical
equipment are generally believed to be much smaller than SF6
emissions. EPA does not currently have an estimate of PFC emissions
from this source category.
[[Page 18682]]
PFCs, however, are very potent and persistent greenhouse gases and an
accurate inventory of use and emissions from all sources is important.
Consequently, as stated in our initial proposal, we are proposing to
include emissions of PFCs in this subpart. Reference to gas-insulated
equipment implies SF6 and PFCs.
The electric transmission and distribution equipment use source
category includes all gas-insulated electrical equipment such as gas-
insulated substations, circuit breakers, other switchgear, gas-
insulated lines, and power transformers. This equipment is used as part
of an interconnected group of electric transmission lines and
associated equipment for the movement or transfer of electric energy in
bulk between points of supply and points at which it is transformed for
delivery to the ultimate customer. This equipment, along with lines and
other associated equipment used for the movement or transfer of
electric energy, operates as part of a contemporaneous network in real-
time and in a synchronous manner to provide stable and reliable
electricity to customers.
A clear definition of a facility for this source category is
important in order to determine whether a collection of electrical
equipment meets the reporting threshold and to ensure that double or
under reporting of emissions is minimized. In defining a facility, we
reviewed current definitions used in the CAA and by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), North American Energy Reliability
Corporation (NERC), California Air Resources Board (CARB), RGGI and
EIA; consulted with industry; and reviewed current regulations relevant
to the industry. Typically, the various regulations under the CAA
define a facility as a group of emissions sources all located in a
contiguous area and under the control of the same person (or persons
under common control). The subpart A definition of facility would
require all SF6 equipment included in the facility be
located on contiguous or adjacent properties. We are proposing not to
use the exact definition of ``facility'' found in subpart A because the
completeness and accuracy of emissions data for this source category
are dependent on reporting on all equipment regardless of location. For
completeness, reporting needs to account for and report on all sources
and activities within the facility. The purpose of transmission is to
move energy over long distances. Similarly, distribution can occur over
large geographical areas. Therefore, it is neither practical nor
appropriate to exclude certain types of equipment solely based on its
lack of physical proximity. Emissions from gas-insulated equipment
occur during installation, operation, servicing and decommissioning.
Accuracy of reporting requires that emissions are systematically
neither over nor under actual emissions; consequently including all
equipment at all periods of the life cycle is necessary. Thus, EPA has
concluded that strict adherence to the subpart A definition is not
appropriate for this source category.
In deciding where to draw the boundary between one facility and the
next, we considered the following levels of reporting: Per piece of
equipment, by substation or switchyard, corporate-level, and
aggregation of total equipment by system. Reporting per piece of
equipment was deemed costly and highly impractical for reporters.
Reporting by substation or switchyard, where multiple pieces of
equipment is often located, would also be burdensome, given that a
specific reporting protocol using the proposed mass-balance reporting
method would have to be set up for each substation, requiring cylinder
inventory and other data collection to be done on a per substation
basis. Although this may be practical for some system owners, others
have responsibility for dozens or hundreds of substations. Finally, EPA
considered corporate-level reporting based on comments submitted on our
initial proposal. We concluded, however, that given the complex and
varied corporate structures within the electric power industry that
approach would not be practical and appropriate for this source. The
full results of our assessment can be found in the SF6 from
Electrical Equipment TSD.
For this source category, EPA is proposing to define the facility
as an ``electric power system,'' which would mean that reporting would
occur at a ``system-wide'' level. The electric power system would be
defined as all electric power equipment insulated with SF6
or PFCs regardless of location linked through electric power
transmission or distribution lines and operated as an integrated unit
by one electric power entity or several entities that have a single
owner. Reporting by the electric power system would comprise all gas-
insulated equipment located between the point of generation and the
point at which the ultimate customer receives the electricity. Such
equipment includes gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers, other
switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers containing
SF6 or PFCs. EPA proposes to define an electric power entity
as a company; an electric cooperative; a public electric supply
corporation as the Tennessee Valley Authority; a similar Federal
department or agency such as the Bonneville Power Administration; the
Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers; a municipally owned
electric department offering service to the public; or an electric
public utility district (a ``PUD''); also a jointly owned electric
supply project such as the Keystone. Although the size of these
facilities will vary, and some are expected to cross State lines, a
facility is likely to encompass more than a thousand miles of lines and
hundreds of pieces of equipment located at multiple substations or
switchyards. Equipment also includes gas containers such as pressurized
cylinders, gas carts, new equipment owned but not yet installed, or
other containers.
EPA believes the proposed definition of ``facility'' for this
source category is appropriate and analogous to the 40 CFR part 98
subpart A definition of a ``facility'' used for other source categories
due to the physical interconnection and operational dependence of the
components of the system. It is also consistent with the concept of a
``transmission and distribution system,'' which is a standard term used
by the industry. The transfer of energy is dependent on the collective
functioning of all components of the system which must operate as a
contemporaneous network in real-time and in a synchronous manner.
Without system-wide use of gas-insulated equipment, operation and
system reliability is not possible. Furthermore, system-wide reporting
is consistent with the reported servicing and maintenance practices of
many SF6-insulated equipment owners making this approach
less burdensome and more efficient than using a substation or per piece
of equipment source definition. This is also consistent with the
approach used by over 80 systems from across the United States that are
participating in the ``EPA SF6 Emission Reduction
Partnership for Electric Power Systems'', and has proven to be a
practical and reasonable approach for the collection of emissions data.
In addition, the burden of using the mass-balance method proposed for
monitoring is lowest at a system-wide level.
EPA is requesting comment on whether one electric power system
should be distinguished from the next on the basis of operation,
ownership, or some combination of the two. EPA is proposing that the
electric power system be the collection of equipment operated
[[Page 18683]]
as an integrated unit by one electric power entity or several entities
that have a single owner because it best reflects the functional aspect
of the system (transmitting and distributing power) and emphasizes the
physical interconnection and operational dependence of the system
components. It also reflects current voluntary best practices for GHG
reporting from this source category. This proposed definition would not
relieve entities that own but do not operate equipment of the
obligation to report under 40 CFR 98.3. Regardless of the role that
operation or ownership plays in the final source category definition,
the obligation to report will apply to both owners and operators.
Under the proposed definition of facility, total emissions would be
derived from the entire collection of servicing inventory (cylinders
stored) and gas-insulated equipment. Reporting would be based on the
aggregation of emissions of all servicing inventory and equipment.
Installation of Electrical Equipment at Electric Power Systems. In
section E below, EPA is requesting comment on two issues related to
equipment installation and commissioning that is performed by equipment
manufacturers at electric power systems. These issues affect both users
and manufacturers of electrical equipment and could affect the
calculation methods required under both subpart DD and subpart SS.
Please see section E for a discussion of these issues.
D. Imports and Exports of Fluorinated GHGs Inside Pre-Charged Equipment
and Closed-Cell Foams
1. Overview of Reporting Requirements
Under today's proposed rule, importers and exporters of pre-charged
equipment and closed-cell foams would be required to report their
imports and exports to EPA if either their imports or their exports
contained a total of more than 25,000 mtCO2e of fluorinated
GHGs. The reports would be similar to those required of importers and
exporters of bulk GHGs under subpart OO of the final MRR published on
October 28, 2009. In addition, equipment importers would be required to
report the types and charge sizes of equipment and the number of pieces
of each type of equipment that they imported or exported, while foam
importers would be required to report the volume of foam and
fluorinated GHG density of the foam that they imported. Importers and
exporters would report at the corporate level.
2. Summary of Initial Proposed Rule and Comments Received
In the proposed MRR published on April 10, 2009, we did not propose
to require reporting of the quantities of GHGs imported and exported
inside products. We were concerned that it would be difficult for
importers and exporters to identify and quantify the quantities of GHGs
inside some products and that the number of importers and exporters
would be high. However, we requested comment on the option of requiring
reporting of imports and exports of HFCs and SF6 contained
in pre-charged air-conditioning, refrigeration, and electrical
equipment and in closed cell foams. We noted that for these products,
information on the size and chemical identity of the charge or blowing
agent is likely to be readily available to importers and exporters
(e.g., from nameplates affixed to equipment, servicing manuals, and
product information for foams). Moreover, as noted above, the total
quantities of imported and exported fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged
equipment and foams are significant.
We received a range of comments on whether or not we should require
reporting of fluorinated GHGs imported or exported inside of pre-
charged equipment and closed-cell foams. Several manufacturers and
importers of fluorinated GHGs supported such a requirement, noting that
the identities and quantities of fluorinated GHGs inside equipment and
foams are well-known, that imported and exported quantities are
significant in aggregate, that the number of importers and exporters is
small, and that information on fluorinated GHGs imported or exported
inside of equipment could help to inform legislation being considered
by Congress, which would include fluorinated GHGs imported in pre-
charged equipment under emissions caps. Some of these commenters stated
that failure to require reporting of imported equipment and foams would
be unfair to domestic manufacturers, who would be subject to reporting
from which foreign manufacturers would be exempted. They observed that
this inequity could drive production offshore, harming the U.S. economy
and possibly increasing global GHG emissions if less efficient
manufacturers in developing countries took over the lost U.S.
production.
Equipment importers and a fluorocarbon producer opposed a
requirement to report imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs in pre-
charged equipment and foams, stating that such a requirement would be
unnecessary and costly. These commenters stated that the quantities of
fluorinated GHGs inside individual pieces of equipment are small,
ranging from ounces to pounds, and that emissions from such equipment
are extremely small because the systems are hermetically sealed.
After carefully considering the comments and available information
on imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged equipment
and closed-cell foams, we are proposing to require reporting of these
imports and exports.
3. Definition of the Source Category
This source category includes importers and exporters of pre-
charged equipment and closed-cell foams that contain fluorinated GHGs.
Pre-charged equipment includes air-conditioning equipment or equipment
components that contain HFCs and electrical equipment or equipment
components that contain SF6 or PFCs. Closed-cell foams
include closed-cell foams blown with HFC blowing agents.
Air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment generally uses HFC
refrigerants. In this application, HFCs serve as substitutes for ozone-
depleting substances (ODSs), which are being phased out under the
Montreal Protocol and Title VI of the CAA. Because some ODSs (i.e.,
HCFCs) are only beginning to be phased out, the use of HFCs in
equipment such as window and residential air-conditioners is expected
to grow very quickly over the next decade. Imports and exports of HFC
pre-charged equipment may grow as well. Although the quantities of
chemical contained in each unit are small in absolute terms (i.e., a
few pounds or less), they are more significant in CO2-
equivalent terms, ranging up to eleven mtCO2e per unit for
pre-charged commercial air-conditioners. This significance is due to
the high GWPs of the HFCs.
HFCs are also used as blowing agents during the manufacture of
foams. Open-cell foams are assumed to emit 100 percent of the blowing
agent in the year they are manufactured, whereas closed-cell foams emit
only a fraction of their total HFC content upon manufacture. Foam
products that are closed-cell and imported or exported as a finished
foam product therefore have potential to emit the blowing agent
remaining in the foam after manufacture. Closed cell foams that are
imported or exported include: polyurethane (PU) rigid foam used as
insulation in domestic refrigerators and freezers; commercial
refrigeration foam; PU rigid sandwich panel continuous and
discontinuous foam; extruded
[[Page 18684]]
polystyrene (XPS) sheet foam; and XPS boardstock foam.
SF6 is used as an electrical insulator and arc-quenching
gas in electrical transmission equipment, including circuit breakers
and gas-insulated substations. Again, the quantities of SF6
in each unit are often small in absolute terms (around 14 pounds per
circuit breaker), but are larger in CO2-equivalent terms
(around 150 mtCO2e per circuit breaker).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Emissions from use and manufacture of electrical equipment
are addressed under subparts DD and SS of this rule; subpart QQ
addresses only the import and export of such equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our analysis indicates that the quantities of fluorinated GHGs
imported and exported inside of pre-charged equipment and foams are
significant. Imports are estimated to total about 21 million
mtCO2e, while exports are estimated to total about 8 million
mtCO2e. For further information, please see the TSD for
Imports and Exports of Pre-Charged Equipment and Foams (Revised) in the
docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
We are proposing to require reporting for a number of reasons.
First, we have determined that exports and particularly imports of pre-
charged equipment and foam have a substantial impact on the total U.S.
supply of fluorinated GHGs and of industrial GHGs generally. Based on
the estimates above, imports constitute between seven and ten percent
of the net U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs, while exports are
equivalent to between three and four percent of that total. (The range
is based on slightly different estimates of the net U.S. supply based
on bottom-up and top-down approaches.) We estimate that 22 million
pieces of equipment and 66 million board-feet of foam are imported
annually. Although the quantities of HFCs and SF6 in
individual pieces of equipment may be small in terms of the mass of
chemical, the high GWPs of these chemicals can make them significant in
CO2-equivalent terms. For example, a pre-charged residential
air conditioner (unitary) contains about 7 tons of CO2e,
while an average size circuit breaker with a shipping charge of
SF6 (20 percent of a full, operational charge) contains over
150 tons of CO2e.
Imported and exported fluorinated GHGs are added to or subtracted
from the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs regardless of whether they are
imported in bulk or in equipment. Every year, a part of the U.S.
fluorinated GHG supply is used to charge new equipment or to blow
closed-cell foams. If equipment is imported already containing a
charge, that charge offsets demand that would otherwise have occurred
for fluorinated GHGs that are produced domestically or imported in
bulk. Accounting for the quantities of fluorinated GHGs in equipment
therefore significantly improves our understanding of the U.S. supply
of fluorinated GHGs. Although commenters who opposed reporting noted
that leak rates from some types of imported equipment are low, this
does not distinguish fluorinated GHGs imported inside of equipment from
fluorinated GHGs that are charged into the same type of equipment after
its import or domestic manufacture. Any imported or domestically
produced fluorinated GHG may be stored for many years inside equipment
before being emitted or destroyed.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Even if the fluorinated GHG is recovered from the equipment
at the end of the equipment's life, it will ultimately be either
emitted or destroyed. Recycling delays emission or destruction (and
reduces demand for new fluorinated GHG), but it does not avoid it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second reason that we are proposing to require reporting of
imports and exports of fluorinated GHGs inside pre-charged equipment
and foams is that discussions with industry experts indicate that the
numbers of importers and exporters are relatively small, limiting the
administrative burden of the rule and increasing the cost-effectiveness
of the data gathering. Experts from the air-conditioning and
refrigeration industry estimate that there are approximately 50
importers and 25 exporters of pre-charged air-conditioning and
refrigeration equipment, and experts from the electrical equipment
industry estimate that there are approximately 8 importers and 10
exporters of pre-charged electrical equipment. Based on the membership
of various trade organizations including foam manufacturers and
distributors, EPA estimates that there are approximately 50 entities
that import and 25 entities that export foams. These numbers are
considerably smaller than the number of importers and exporters of bulk
fluorinated GHGs that are covered by the final rule published October
30, 2009.
Third, we estimate that the costs associated with identifying,
quantifying, and reporting the quantities of fluorinated GHGs imported
and exported inside pre-charged products and foams are reasonably
modest. As noted above, information on the chemical identities and
sizes of equipment charges should be readily available to importers and
exporters, and the same is true for the identities and densities of the
HFCs in foams, which strongly influence the insulating capacities of
the foams.
Inclusion of other products that contain fluorinated GHGs. EPA's
understanding is that pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams
account for the great majority of fluorinated GHGs that are imported in
or exported from the United States inside of products. However, a
variety of products containing fluorinated greenhouse gases
(fluorinated GHGs), nitrous oxide (N2O), and carbon dioxide
(CO2) are imported into and exported from the United States,
including, for example, aerosols containing HFCs. EPA requests comment
on the magnitude of imports and exports of these other products and on
whether such imports and exports should be reported under this subpart.
4. Selection of Reporting Threshold
We are proposing to require that importers and exporters of
fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment and closed cell
foams report their imports and exports if either their total imports or
their total exports, in equipment, foams, and in bulk, exceed 25,000
mtCO2e per year. This threshold is the same as that for bulk
imports and exports.
Tables 9 and 10 of this preamble show the estimated imports and
exports (in mtCO2e) and facilities (corporations) that would
be covered under the various thresholds for imports and exports of
equipment and foam.
[[Page 18685]]
Table 9--Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHGs Imported Inside Pre-Charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFC refrigeration/AC SF6 electrical equipment Closed-cell foams
equipment -----------------------------------------------------
Threshold level ---------------------------
Imports Importers Imports Importers Imports Importers
covered covered covered covered covered covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000.......................... 15,733,523 50 1,888,932 8 3,025,285 50
10,000......................... 15,733,523 50 1,888,932 8 3,025,285 50
25,000......................... 15,733,523 50 1,888,932 8 3,025,285 50
100,000........................ 15,733,523 50 1,888,932 8 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10--Threshold Analysis for Fluorinated GHGs Exported Inside Pre-Charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exports Exporters Exports Exporters Exports Exporters
Threshold level covered covered covered covered covered covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000.......................... 5,247,905 25 153,323 10 3,025,285 25
10,000......................... 5,247,905 25 107,326 5 3,025,285 25
25,000......................... 5,247,905 25 0 ......... 3,025,285 25
100,000........................ 5,247,905 25 0 ......... 3,025,285 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of importer- and exporter-specific information, we
assumed that within the three general categories of products, each
importer and exporter imported or exported the same quantity of
fluorinated GHGs. (Exports of SF6 in electrical equipment
were the sole exception to this.) This assumption led to the conclusion
that 100 percent of imported and exported pre-charged equipment and
foams (except exported electrical equipment) would be reported at the
25,000 mtCO2e threshold. In fact, imports and exports are
likely to be concentrated among a subset of importers and exporters,
and fewer entities are therefore likely to report at the 25,000
mtCO2e threshold. We request comment on the distribution of
imports and exports among importers and exporters and on the likely
coverage (in percentage terms) of imported and exported equipment and
foams at the 25,000 mtCO2e threshold. An alternative
approach would be to lower the threshold or to require reporting by all
importers and exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed cell foams,
but EPA is concerned that this approach could burden many small
importers and exporters with reporting while gaining little additional
coverage of imports and exports in equipment and foams.
5. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods
We are proposing to require importers and exporters of equipment
and foams to estimate their imports and exports of each fluorinated GHG
by multiplying the mass of the fluorinated GHG contained in each type
of equipment or foam by the number of pieces of equipment or by the
volume of foam, as appropriate. As noted above, we believe that
information on fluorinated GHG identity and charge size (or density,
for foams) should be readily available to importers and exporters.
Under the current MRR, bulk importers and exporters of fluorinated
GHGs are not required to report individual shipments totaling less than
250 mtCO2e of fluorinated GHGs. This exemption was intended
to exclude small shipments, e.g., of chemical samples being shipped for
analysis, from reporting. We established the exemption after an
analysis of import and export shipments showed that it would decrease
reporting by less than 0.1 percent. We are not proposing a similar
exemption for small shipments of equipment and foams because we do not
believe it would be necessary and because we are concerned that it
might lead to the exclusion of a significant share of imports and
exports of these products. We do not believe the small-shipment
exemption would be necessary because the definition of import in
subpart A already excludes the bringing into the United States of
household effects such as refrigerators and window air conditioners. We
are concerned that the exemption may result in excluding a significant
share of imports and exports because 250 mtCO2e equates to a
large number of pieces of some types of equipment (e.g., over 1,300
household refrigerators).
6. Selection of Data To Be Reported
EPA is proposing to require importers and exporters of pre-charged
equipment and closed cell foams to report the following:
(1) The total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG imported
or exported in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams.
(2) For each type of pre-charged equipment, the identity of the
fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or electrical insulator, charge
size (holding charge,\42\ if applicable), and number imported or
exported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ This refers to any holding charge consisting of a
fluorinated GHG. Holding charges consisting of other gases, such as
nitrogen, are not included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) For closed-cell foams that are imported or exported inside of
appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG contained in the foam,
the quantity of fluorinated GHG contained in the foam in each
appliance, and the number of appliances imported for each type of
appliance.
(4) For closed cell-foams that are not inside of appliances, the
identity of the fluorinated GHG, the density of the fluorinated GHG in
the foam (kg fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the quantity of foam
imported or exported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell foam.
(5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams
were imported or exported.
(6) Ports of entry through which the pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foams passed.
(7) Countries from or to which the pre-charged equipment or closed-
cell foams were imported or exported.
We are proposing to collect this information because it is
necessary either to understand the total volume of fluorinated GHGs
imported or exported
[[Page 18686]]
inside of pre-charged equipment and foams (and thereby contributing to
the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs) or to verify submitted
information.
7. Selection of Recordkeeping Requirements
EPA is proposing to require importers and exporters of equipment
and closed cell foams to retain the following records:
(1) A copy of the bill of lading for the import or export,
(2) The invoice for the import or export, and
(3) For imports, the U.S. Customs entry form.
This information is necessary to verify submitted information.
E. Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment
1. Definition of the Source Category
This source category comprises electrical equipment manufacturers
and refurbishers of SF6 or PFC-insulated closed-pressure
equipment and sealed-pressure equipment including gas-insulated
substations, circuit breakers and other switchgear, gas-insulated
lines, or power transformers containing sulfur-hexafluoride
(SF6) or perfluorocarbons (PFCs).
Electrical equipment employed to transmit and distribute
electricity constitutes the largest use of SF6 in the world.
The dielectric strength and arc-quenching characteristics of
SF6 make it an extremely effective electrical insulator and
interrupter. For this reason, the electric power industry in the United
States has used this gas since the 1950s in both closed-pressure and
sealed-pressure equipment including gas-insulated substations, circuit
breakers and other switchgear, and gas-insulated lines. Closed-pressure
equipment requires periodic refilling (topping up) with gas during its
lifetime, whereas sealed-pressure equipment generally does not.
SF6 has replaced flammable insulating oils in many
applications and allows for more compact substations in dense urban
areas. SF6 insulated equipment has also made expansion of
the grid through transmission over significantly longer distances
economically practical. Currently, there are no available substitutes
for SF6 in this application. For further information, see
the SF6 from Electrical Equipment Manufacturers TSD in the
docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
Manufacturers of gas insulated electrical equipment purchase bulk
SF6 gas to: (1) Install a holding or shipping charge in
high-voltage closed-pressure equipment, (2) ship alongside closed-
pressure equipment for topping off at installation site, (3) fill
sealed-pressure equipment with its intended lifetime supply of
SF6, and (4) develop and test equipment.
Emissions of SF6 from equipment manufacturers can occur
during the development and testing of equipment and during equipment
filling, but emissions can also occur during the other uses of
SF6 at manufacturing facilities. Refurbishment of equipment
generally occurs at facilities used to manufacture new equipment and
emissions typically occur during the leak test operations for gas-
containing components as well as the disassembly and reassembly of
equipment.
PFCs are sometimes used as dielectrics and heat transfer fluids in
power transformers. PFCs are also used for retrofitting CFC-113 cooled
transformers. The most common PFC used in this application is
perfluorohexane (C6F14). In terms of both
absolute and carbon-weighted emissions, PFC emissions from electrical
equipment are generally believed to be much smaller than SF6
emissions from electrical equipment.
According to the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2007 (EPA 2009), total U.S. estimated emissions of
SF6 from electrical equipment manufacturers were 0.81
million metric tons CO2e in 2006. EPA is proposing to
require reporting from electrical equipment manufacture and
refurbishment facilities because these operations represent a
significant source, approximately 5 percent of U.S. SF6
emissions. It is estimated that ten equipment manufacturers were
responsible for these emissions.
EPA is seeking comment on whether transformers using PFCs are
currently manufactured in the United States EPA is also seeking comment
on whether PFC emissions associated with the production of this
equipment occur at the same rate as SF6 emissions from
equipment manufacture and whether emissions occur during the same
processes. EPA is proposing to include emissions of PFCs emitted during
the manufacture or refurbishment of PFC-containing power transformers
because while PFCs are known to be used in this application, the
National Inventory has no information on the magnitude of this source.
PFCs are very potent and persistent greenhouse gases and an accurate
inventory of use and emissions from all sources is important.
2. Selection of Reporting Threshold
We propose to require electrical equipment manufacturers to report
their SF6 and PFC emissions if their total annual purchases
of SF6 and PFCs exceed 23,000 lbs. This consumption-based
threshold is equivalent to an emissions-based threshold of 25,000
metric tons CO2 Eq., assuming an average manufacturer
emission rate of 10 percent.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The 10 percent emission rate is the average of the
``ideal'' and ``realistic'' manufacturing emission rates (4 percent
and 17 percent, respectively) identified in a paper prepared under
the auspices of the International Council on Large Electric Systems
(CIGRE) in February 2002 (O'Connell et al. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing this proposed threshold, we considered several
emission-based threshold options including 1,000 metric tons
CO2e; 10,000 metric tons CO2e; 25,000 metric tons
CO2e: and 100,000 metric tons CO2e.
SF6 and PFC consumption thresholds of 922; 9,220; and 92,200
lbs of SF6 and PFC were also considered, corresponding to
the emission threshold options of 1,000; 10,000; and 100,000 metric
tons CO2e, respectively. Summaries of the threshold options
(consumption-based and emissions-based) and the number of equipment
manufacturers and emissions covered under each threshold are presented
in Table 11 of this preamble.
Table 11--Threshold Analysis for Electrical Equipment Manufacture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions covered Facilities covered
Emission threshold level (metric Total national Total -------------------------------------------------
tons CO2e/yr) emissions number of Metric tons
facilities CO2e/yr Percent Facilities Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000............................. 814,128 10 814,128 100 10 100
10,000............................ 814,128 10 814,128 100 10 100
25,000............................ 814,128 10 814,128 100 10 100
[[Page 18687]]
100,000........................... 814,128 5 569,890 70 5 50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed consumption threshold and the corresponding emissions
threshold level is consistent with general requirements of the Final
MRR (74 FR 56260) and provides comprehensive coverage of emissions for
this sector. A consumption-based threshold was selected because it
permits equipment manufacturers to quickly determine whether they are
covered by referring to SF6 and PFC purchase records.
3. Selection of Proposed Monitoring Methods
We are proposing that all electrical equipment manufacturing
facilities where SF6 and PFC purchases exceed 23,000 lbs per
year report all SF6 and PFC emissions using a mass-balance
approach. This would include all emissions from equipment testing,
manufacturing (including filling), decommissioning and disposal,
refurbishing, and from storage cylinders. We are proposing this
approach because it is the most accurate and because all equipment
manufacturers should be able to conduct the mass-balance analysis using
readily available information.
The proposed monitoring methods are similar to the methodologies
described in the 2006 IPCC Guidelines Tier 3 methods for emissions from
electrical equipment manufacturing. These methodologies outline a mass-
balance approach that is comparable to the proposed approach for
subpart DD Electric Power System Equipment.
The mass-balance approach we are proposing for electrical equipment
manufacturers works by tracking and systematically accounting for all
facility uses of SF6 and PFCs during the reporting year. The
quantities of SF6 and PFCs that cannot be accounted for are
assumed to have been emitted to the atmosphere. The emissions of
SF6 and PFCs would be estimated and reported separately.
The following equation describes the proposed facility-level mass-
balance approach. (For brevity, the equation refers only to
SF6; however, the method would also apply to PFCs in power
transformers.)
Equipment Manufacturing Emissions = Decrease in SF6
Inventory + Acquisitions of SF6-Disbursements of
SF6
Where:
Decrease in SF6 Inventory = SF6 stored in
containers at the beginning of the year-SF6 stored in
containers at the end of the year
Acquisitions of SF6 = SF6 purchased from
chemical producers or distributors in bulk + SF6 returned
by equipment users or distributors with or inside equipment +
SF6 returned to site after off-site recycling
Disbursements of SF6 = SF6 contained in
new equipment delivered to customers + SF6 delivered to
equipment users in containers + SF6 returned to suppliers
+ SF6 sent off-site for recycling + SF6 sent
to destruction facilities.
EPA is seeking comment on the proposed methods for determining
disbursements of SF6 or PFCs, specifically, with respect to
SF6 or PFCs contained in new equipment delivered to
customers and SF6 or PFCs delivered to equipment users in
cylinders. Two methods are being proposed. Disbursement of
SF6 or PFCs to customers in new equipment or cylinders could
be estimated by weighing containers before and after gas from the
containers was used to fill equipment or cylinders, or by using flow
meters to measure the amount of gas used to fill equipment or
cylinders. EPA requests comment on these two options.
Alone, both of these options would inappropriately count as
``disbursements'' emissions that occurred between the flow meter or
weighed container and the equipment being filled. These emissions could
include losses from coupling and decoupling of fill valves and leaks
from hoses or other flow lines that connect the container to the
equipment that being filled. EPA is therefore proposing to require that
these emissions be quantified and subtracted from the disbursement
total.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to require that these emissions be
estimated using measurements and/or engineering assessments or
calculations based on chemical engineering principles or physical or
chemical laws or properties. Such assessments or calculations could be
based on, as applicable, the internal volume of the hose or line that
was open to the atmosphere during coupling and decoupling activities,
the internal pressure of the hose or line, the time the hose or line
was open to the atmosphere during coupling and decoupling activities,
the frequency with which the hose or line was purged and the flow rate
during purges. Such methods could also include the use of leak
detection methods (e.g., EPA Method 21 and the Protocol for Equipment
Leak Emission Estimates) to determine a loss factor appropriate to
calculate emissions. Unexpected or accidental emissions from the
filling lines or hoses would be required to be included in the total.
EPA is seeking comment on the specific methods that should be
employed to estimate emission losses from hoses or flow lines and on
whether a particular method or set of methods should be required for
this estimate. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether emissions
downstream of the containers dispensing the SF6 or PFCs
consist solely of emissions from lines or hoses. EPA's understanding is
that electrical equipment is at a vacuum and is sealed prior to being
filled with SF6 or PFCs; however, if it contains air or
nitrogen and this gas is purged during the filling process, then the
method should also account for SF6 and PFC emissions that
occur during such purging.
EPA is also considering other options for accurately measuring the
quantities of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to equipment users in
equipment. (These options are described in more detail in the TSD.) One
option being considered is to assume that the mass of SF6 or
PFCs disbursed to customers in equipment is equal to the nameplate
capacity of the equipment (or, where the equipment is shipped with a
partial charge, equal to the nameplate capacity of the equipment times
the ratio of the densities of the partial charge and the full charge.)
Although the nominal nameplate capacity could be used for this
calculation, EPA is concerned that the actual mass of SF6 or
PFCs charged into each piece of equipment may vary by a few percent
from the nominal capacity (e.g., because there is some variability in
the internal volume of the
[[Page 18688]]
equipment or in the density to which the equipment is charged). Because
the mass-balance approach requires precise inputs, inaccuracies of even
two or three percent could lead to very large inaccuracies in the
facility's emissions estimate.
One way of developing a more precise estimate of the nameplate
capacity of equipment would be to fill the equipment with a fluid and
then to carefully recover the fluid, measuring what was recovered. This
fluid could be SF6, another gas, or a liquid. If
SF6 was used, the equipment would be charged to its
operational or shipping SF6 density using the facility's
usual methods and then emptied. The mass of the SF6
recovered, adjusted slightly for the residual pressure of the
SF6 that would remain in the equipment even at a deep
vacuum, could be equated to the full or shipping charge, as applicable.
One advantage of this approach is that it would reflect the actual
SF6 charging practices of the facility; one disadvantage is
that it could result in small SF6 emissions during the
charging and recovery steps.
If a liquid was used, the equipment would be filled carefully,
ensuring that the full volume was filled, and then emptied. The volume
of the liquid recovered would be equated to the internal volume of the
equipment.\44\ This volume times the SF6 density at the full
charge would yield the nameplate capacity of the equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The temperature of the liquid would need to be kept
constant throughout this exercise to obtain an accurate measurement
of the volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To account for variability, a certain number of these measurements
would need to be performed to develop a robust and representative
average nameplate capacity (or shipping charge) for each make and
model. The specific number of measurements would depend on the
variability of the nameplate capacity within each make and model, as
discussed in the TSD. It may be appropriate to select equipment samples
filled at different times to reflect day-to-day variability in the
facility's filling practices and conditions. EPA seeks comment on these
other options for accurately measuring the quantities of SF6
and PFCs disbursed to customers in equipment and/or cylinders.
Another option is to require that the equipment filled with
SF6 or the PFC from the container be weighed before and
after filling. The tare weight of the equipment would then be
subtracted from the weight of the filled equipment to determine the
weight of the gas in the equipment, and therefore, the weight of the
actual disbursement. One potential concern regarding this option is
that the mass of the SF6 or PFC charged into the equipment
is likely to be low relative to the mass of the equipment; thus, it may
be difficult to obtain a precise measurement of the mass of the
SF6 or PFC using this method (i.e., within 1 percent) even
if the scale is precise and accurate to within 1 percent of full scale.
EPA requests comment on this approach.
Installation of Electrical Equipment at Electric Power Systems. EPA
also requests comment on two issues related to equipment installation
and commissioning that is performed by equipment manufacturers at
electric power systems. The first issue is whether an equipment
installation mass-balance equation is required to measure emissions
from equipment installation and commissioning that is performed by
equipment manufacturers at utility locations. Where the manufacturer
filled the equipment before transferring custody to the equipment user,
EPA is assuming that the manufacturer would be responsible for the
associated emissions. This would also apply to equipment that was
filled at the factory but whose charge leaked out before being
delivered to the customer. Quantitative methods for addressing these
issues are discussed in more detail in the TSD.
The second issue is whether manufacturers should be required to
certify to equipment users the actual quantity (mass) of SF6
or PFCs charged into the equipment at installation. EPA understands
that in some cases, manufacturers may deliberately exceed the nameplate
capacity of equipment when charging it, e.g., to postpone the re-fill
of the equipment in the event that the equipment develops a leak. If
this is the case, then the actual initial charge of the equipment
should be conveyed clearly to the equipment user, and the mass-balance
approach used by the equipment user should be adjusted to reflect the
over-charge. If it is not, the user will underestimate emissions.
(These issues are discussed in more detail in the TSD.) EPA requests
comment on how frequently equipment is over-charged at installation,
and on quantitative methods for compensating for this overcharge in
user emissions estimates (i.e., under proposed subpart DD).
Other Options Considered. In developing the proposed approach, we
reviewed the 2006 IPCC Guidelines, the United States GHG Inventory, DOE
1605(b), EPA's Climate Leaders Program, and The Climate Registry. In
our review of the IPCC Guidelines, we also considered the IPCC Tier 1
and the IPCC Tier 2 methods for calculating and reporting
SF6 and PFC emissions. Although the IPCC Tier 1 and IPCC
Tier 2 methods are simple, IPCC does not provide default emission
factors for the United States due to lack of data. Furthermore,
SF6 use in electrical equipment manufacturing is largely
dependent on the type of equipment being produced and the specific
handling practices at facilities. Applying an emission factor to all
equipment manufacturers would not take into account the different types
of equipment being produced at each facility or the variation in
handling practices among facilities. Nor would it provide data of
sufficient accuracy for the source or on a per facility basis. As a
result, we are not proposing the IPCC Tier 1 or Tier 2 method.
We are not proposing to require continuous emissions monitoring
(CEMs) because of insufficient information on which to base a decision
and because CEMs is not expected to be practical for this source
category at this time due to the intermittent and widespread nature of
the emissions. EPA seeks comment on whether continuous emissions
monitoring is technically feasible for this source category.
4. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data
It is expected that equipment manufacturers should be able to
obtain 100 percent of the data needed to perform the mass-balance
calculations for both SF6 and PFCs. The use of the mass-
balance approach requires correct records for all inputs. However, if
needed, missing data can be replaced using data from similar
manufacturing operations, and from similar equipment testing and
decommissioning activities for which data are available.
5. QA/QC Requirements
We propose that electrical equipment manufacturers be required to
use flowmeters or scales that are accurate and precise to within one
percent of full scale. In addition, we are proposing to require
manufacturers to establish procedures for and document their
measurements and calculations under this subpart, including check-out
sheets and weigh-in procedures for cylinders, residual gas amounts in
cylinders sent back to suppliers, invoices for gas and equipment
purchases or sales, and documentation of recycling and destruction. The
records that are being proposed are the minimum needed to reproduce and
confirm emission calculations.
[[Page 18689]]
6. Selection of Data Reporting Requirements
We propose annual reporting for the electrical equipment
manufacturing and refurbishing industry. Equipment manufacturers would
report all SF6 and PFC emissions, including those from
equipment testing, equipment manufacturing, and bulk SF6 and
PFC handling. However, the emissions would not need to be broken down
and reported separately for testing, manufacturing, or bulk
SF6 and PFC handling. Along with their emissions, electrical
equipment manufacturers would be required to submit the following
supplemental data: SF6 and PFCs with or inside equipment
delivered to customers, the nameplate capacity of the equipment
delivered to customers, SF6 and PFCs returned by customers
with or inside equipment, bulk SF6 and PFC purchases,
SF6 and PFCs sent off-site for destruction or to be
recycled, SF6 and PFCs returned from offsite after
recycling, SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the
beginning and end of the year, SF6 and PFCs returned to
suppliers. For any missing data, manufacturers would be required to
report the reason the data were missing, the length of time the data
were missing, the method used to estimate emissions in their absence,
and the quantity of emissions thereby estimated.
These data would be submitted because they are the minimum data
that are needed to understand and reproduce the emission calculations
that are the basis of the reported emissions.
7. Selection of Records That Must Be Retained
We propose that electrical equipment manufacturers be required to
keep records documenting (1) their adherence to the QA/QC requirements
specified in the proposed rule, and (2) the data that would be included
in their emission reports, as specified above.
F. Subpart A Revisions
Amendments to the General Provisions. In a separate rulemaking
package that was recently published (March 16, 2010), EPA issued minor
harmonizing changes to the general provisions for the GHG reporting
rule (40 CFR part 98, subpart A) to accommodate the addition of source
categories not included in the 2009 final rule (e.g., subparts proposed
in April 2009 but not finalized in 2009, any new subparts that may be
proposed in the future). The changes update 98.2(a) on rule
applicability and 98.3 regarding the reporting schedule to accommodate
any additional subparts and the schedule for their reporting
obligations (e.g., source categories finalized in 2010 would not begin
data collection until 2011 and reporting in 2012).
In particular, we restructured 40 CFR 98.2(a) to move the lists of
source categories from the text into tables. A table format improves
clarity and facilitates the addition of source categories that were not
included in calendar year 2010 reporting and would begin reporting in
future years. A table, versus list, approach allows other sections of
the rule to be updated automatically when the table is updated; a list
approach requires separate updates to the various list references each
time the list is changed. In addition to reformatting the 98.2(a)(1)-
(2) lists into tables, other sections of subpart A were reworded to
refer to the source category tables because the tables make it clear
which source categories are to be considered for determining the
applicability threshold and reporting requirements for calendar years
2010, 2011, and future years.
The source categories proposed in this notice would be added within
40 CFR 98.2 as follows. The following source categories would be added
to the list of ``all-in'' source categories referenced in 40 CFR
98.2(a)(1), because they have a production capacity or gas consumption
threshold rather than a CO2e emission threshold:
Electric power systems that include electrical equipment
with a total nameplate capacity that exceeds 17,820 lbs (7,838 kg) of
SF6 or perfluorocarbons (PFCs) (subpart DD).
Electric power equipment manufacturing with total annual
SF6 and PFC purchases (combined) that exceed 23,000 lbs per
year (subpart SS).
The following source categories would be subject to the rule if
facility emissions exceed 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year.
Therefore, these source categories would be added to the list of
emission threshold source categories referenced in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(2).
Fluorinated gas production facilities whose emissions
would exceed 25,000 mtCO2e in the absence of control
technologies (subpart L).
Facilities with electronics manufacturing processes (as
defined in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart I).
In addition, importers and exporters of pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foam products containing fluorinated GHGs, N2O,
or CO2 would be added to the list of suppliers referenced in
40 CFR 98.2(a)(4). For all of these source categories, facilities would
be required to begin collecting data in 2011 for reporting in 2012.
Today's proposed rule includes a number of definitions applicable
to specific source categories. The agency is not planning to add these
definitions to the definitions section in Subpart A because these
definitions relate to these specific subparts and do not have broader
applicability to EPA's mandatory reporting regulations. Instead, EPA
intends to include these definitions in the applicable subparts. EPA
has sought to avoid any conflict between these subpart-specific
definitions and the definitions in Subpart A. In one instance, the
supplemental proposal for electric power systems, EPA is proposing to
use a category-specific definition of facility rather than the general
definition of facility in the General Provisions. The reasons for this
category-specific definition of facility are set forth in section II.C
of this preamble. The remaining definitions are intended as supplements
to the definitions section in the General Provisions. EPA does not
believe these definitions create conflicts with the General Provisions,
although it welcomes comments on this issue. To the extent regulated
entities are in doubt as to which definition applies, they should
assume that the category-specific definitions are controlling.
We propose to amend 40 CFR 98.7 (incorporation by reference) to
include standard methods used in the proposed subparts. In particular,
we would add the 2006 International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's
Guidelines for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process
Equipment and SEMI E10-0304 Specification for Definition and
Measurement of Equipment Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability
(2006), which are referenced in proposed 40 CFR 98.94 (Monitoring and
QA/QC Requirements for 40 CFR part 98, subpart I, electronics
manufacturing) and 40 CFR 98.97 (Records that must be retained). In
addition, we propose to revise the paragraphs listing several ASME
standards that are already contained in 40 CFR 98.7 to indicate that
these standards are also referenced by proposed 40 CFR 98.124
(Monitoring and QA/QC requirements in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart
L, fluorinated gas production).
III. Economic Impacts of the Rule
This section of the preamble examines the costs and economic
impacts of the proposed rulemaking and the estimated economic impacts
of the rule on affected entities, including estimated impacts on small
entities. Complete detail of the economic impacts of the proposed rule
can be found in the text of the economic
[[Page 18690]]
impact analysis (EIA) in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927).
A. How were compliance costs estimated?
1. Summary of Method Used To Estimate Compliance Costs
EPA used available industry and EPA data to characterize conditions
at affected sources. Incremental monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting activities were then identified for each type of facility and
the associated costs were estimated. The annual costs reported in
2006$. EPA's estimated costs of compliance are discussed below and in
greater detail in section 4 of the economic impact analysis (EIA).
Labor Costs. The vast majority of the reporting costs include the
time of managers, technical, and administrative staff in both the
private sector and the public sector. Staff hours are estimated for
activities, including:
Monitoring (private): Staff hours to operate and maintain
emissions monitoring systems.
Recordkeeping and Reporting (private): Staff hours to
gather and process available data and reporting it to EPA through
electronic systems.
Assuring and releasing data (public): Staff hours to
quality assure, analyze, and release reports.
Staff activities and associated labor costs will potentially vary
over time. Thus, cost estimates are developed for start-up and first-
time reporting, and subsequent reporting. Wage rates to monetize staff
time are obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Equipment Costs. Equipment costs include both the initial purchase
price and any facility modification that may be required. Based on
expert judgment, the engineering costs analyses annualized capital
equipment costs with appropriate lifetime and interest rate
assumptions. One-time capital costs are amortized over a 10-year cost
recovery period at a rate of 7 percent.
B. What are the costs of the rule?
1. Summary of Costs
The total annualized costs incurred under the fluorinated GHG
reporting rule would be approximately $6.1 million in the first year
and $3.9 million in subsequent years ($2006). This includes a public
sector burden estimate of $384,000 for program implementation and
verification activities. EPA also considered an alternative national
cost scenario in order to assess national cost estimates if selected
subpart I facilities validate the DRE of abatement devices. Under this
scenario, the total annualized costs incurred under the fluorinated GHG
reporting rule would be approximately $1.7 million higher (or $7.8
million first year; $5.6 million subsequent years). Table 12 shows the
first year and subsequent year costs by subpart. In addition, it
presents the cost per ton reported, and the relative share of the total
cost represented by each subpart.
Table 12--National Annualized Mandatory Reporting Costs Estimates (2008$): Subparts I, L, OO and SS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First year Subsequent years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart Millions Millions
2006$ $/ton Share (%) 2006$ $/ton Share (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart I--Electronics Industry $2.9 $0.51 42 $2.6 $0.45 67
Subpart L--Fluorinated Gas 2.1 0.20 47 0.3 0.08 7
Production....................
Subpart OO--Imports and Exports 0.7 0.02 10 0.6 0.02 16
of Fluorinated GHGs...........
Subpart SS--Electrical 0.02 0.01 0.3 0.02 0.01 1
Equipment Manufacture and
Refurbishment and
Manufacturing of Electrical
Components....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Sector, Total...... 5.7 ........... 94 3.5 ........... 90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Sector, Total....... 0.4 ........... 6 0.4 ........... 10
================================================================================
Total.................. 6.1 ........... 100 3.9 ........... 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?
1. Summary of Economic Impacts
EPA prepared an economic analysis to evaluate the impacts of the
proposed rule on affected industries. To estimate the economic impacts,
EPA first conducted a screening assessment, comparing the estimated
total annualized compliance costs by industry, where industry is
defined in terms of North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code, with industry average revenues. Average cost-to-sales
ratios for establishments in affected NAICS codes are typically less
than 1 percent.
These low average cost-to-sales ratios indicate that the rule is
unlikely to result in significant changes in firms' production
decisions or other behavioral changes, and thus unlikely to result in
significant changes in prices or quantities in affected markets. Thus,
EPA followed its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (EPA, 2002,
p. 124-125) and used the engineering cost estimates to measure the
social cost of the rule, rather than modeling market responses and
using the resulting measures of social cost. Table 13 of this preamble
summarizes cost-to-sales ratios for affected industries.
Table 13--Estimated Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Affected Entities
[First Year, 2006$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost
NAICS NAICS description Subpart per entity ($/ All enter-
entity) prises
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334413................................ Semiconductor and Related I $31,748 0.05%
Device Manufacturing
(Semiconductors).
[[Page 18691]]
334413................................ Semiconductor and Related I 5,239 0.01
Device Manufacturing (MEMS).
334413................................ Semiconductor and Related I 7,598 0.01
Device Manufacturing (LCD).
334119................................ Other Computer Peripheral I 8,777 0.04
Equipment Manufacturing
(Photovoltaics).
325120................................ Industrial Gas Manufacturing. L 151,045 1.44
326140................................ Polystyrene Foam Product OO 3,364 0.03
Manufacturing.
326150................................ Urethane and Other Foam OO 3,364 0.03
Product (except Polystyrene)
Manufacturing.
333415................................ Air-Conditioning and Warm Air OO 3,364 0.01
Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial
Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.
335313................................ Switchgear and Switchboard OO 3,364 0.02
Apparatus Manufacturing.
336391................................ Motor Vehicle Air- OO 3,364 0.01
Conditioning Manufacturing.
423610................................ Electrical Apparatus and OO 3,364 0.05
Equipment, Wiring Supplies,
and Related Equipment
Merchant Wholesalers.
423620................................ Electrical and Electronic OO 3,364 0.02
Appliance, Television, and
Radio Set Merchant
Wholesalers.
423720................................ Plumbing and Heating OO 3,364 0.05
Equipment and Supplies
(Hydronics) Merchant
Wholesalers.
423730................................ Warm Air Heating and Air- OO 3,364 0.07
Conditioning Equipment and
Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers.
423740................................ Refrigeration Equipment and OO 3,364 0.10
Supplies Merchant
Wholesalers.
443111................................ Household Appliance Stores... OO 3,364 0.27
443112................................ Radio, Television and Other OO 3,364 0.15
Electronics Stores.
424610 \b\............................ Plastics Materials and Basic OO 3,364 0.04
Forms and Shapes Merchant
Wholesalers.
33361................................. Engine, Turbine, and Power SS 2,213 0.01
Transmission Equipment
Manufacturing.
33531................................. Electrical Equipment SS 2,213 0.02
Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\b\ The 2002 SUSB data uses 1997 NAICS codes. For this industry, the relevant code is NAICS 422610.
D. What are the impacts of the rule on small businesses?
1. Summary of Impacts on Small Businesses
As required by the RFA and SBREFA, EPA assessed the potential
impacts of the rule on small entities (small businesses, governments,
and non-profit organizations). (See Section IV.C of this preamble for
definitions of small entities.)
EPA conducted a screening assessment comparing compliance costs for
affected industry sectors to industry-specific receipts data for
establishments owned by small businesses. This ratio constitutes a
``sales'' test that computes the annualized compliance costs of this
rule as a percentage of sales and determines whether the ratio exceeds
some level (e.g., 1 percent or 3 percent).
The cost-to-sales ratios were constructed at the establishment
level (average reporting program costs per establishment/average
establishment receipts) for several business size ranges. This allowed
EPA to account for receipt differences between establishments owned by
large and small businesses and differences in small business
definitions across affected industries. The results of the screening
assessment are shown in Table 14 of this preamble.
As shown, the cost-to-sales ratios are typically less than 1
percent for establishments owned by small businesses that EPA considers
most likely to be covered by the reporting program (e.g.,
establishments owned by businesses with 20 or more employees).
Table 14--Estimated Cost-to-Sales Ratios by Industry and Enterprise Size
[First Year, 2006$] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBA size Owned by enterprises with:
standard Average -----------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS NAICS description Sub-part (effective cost per All enter- 1,000 to
March 11, entity ($/ prises 1 to 20 20 to 99 100 to 499 500 to 749 750 to 999 1,499
2008) entity) employees employees employees employees employees employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
334413........................ Semiconductor and I 500 $31,748 0.05% 2.07% 0.40% 0.12% 0.08% 0.02% 0.04%
Related Device
Manufacturing
(Semiconductors).
334413........................ Semiconductor and I 500 5,239 0.01% 0.34% 0.07% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01%
Related Device
Manufacturing
(MEMS).
334413........................ Semiconductor and I 500 7,598 0.01% 0.50% 0.10% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01%
Related Device
Manufacturing
(LCD).
[[Page 18692]]
334119........................ Other Computer I 1,000 8,777 0.04% 0.56% 0.09% 0.03% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01%
Peripheral
Equipment
Manufacturing
(Photovoltaics).
325120........................ Industrial Gas L 1,000 151,045 1.44% 31.03% 1.03% 4.26% NA NA NA
Manufacturing.
326140........................ Polystyrene Foam OO 500 3,364 0.03% 0.28% 0.07% 0.04% NA NA 0.01%
Product
Manufacturing.
326150........................ Urethane and OO 500 3,364 0.03% 0.21% 0.06% 0.02% 0.02% NA NA
Other Foam
Product (except
Polystyrene)
Manufacturing.
333415........................ Air-Conditioning OO 750 3,364 0.01% 0.25% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%
and Warm Air
Heating
Equipment and
Commercial and
Industrial
Refrigeration
Equipment
Manufacturing.
335313........................ Switchgear and OO 750 3,364 0.02% 0.26% 0.06% 0.02% NA NA NA
Switchboard
Apparatus
Manufacturing.
336391........................ Motor Vehicle Air- OO 750 3,364 0.01% 0.37% 0.08% NA NA NA NA
Conditioning
Manufacturing.
423610........................ Electrical OO 100 3,364 0.05% 0.11% 0.03% 0.04% 0.05% 0.03% 0.04%
Apparatus and
Equipment,
Wiring Supplies,
and Related
Equipment
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423620........................ Electrical and OO 100 3,364 0.02% 0.08% 0.02% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01%
Electronic
Appliance,
Television, and
Radio Set
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423720........................ Plumbing and OO 100 3,364 0.05% 0.12% 0.02% 0.04% 0.07% 0.03% 0.10%
Heating
Equipment and
Supplies
(Hydronics)
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423730........................ Warm Air Heating OO 100 3,364 0.07% 0.15% 0.06% 0.06% 0.12% 0.03% NA
and Air-
Conditioning
Equipment and
Supplies
Merchant
Wholesalers.
423740........................ Refrigeration OO 100 3,364 0.10% 0.18% 0.05% 0.11% 0.09% 0.05% NA
Equipment and
Supplies
Merchant
Wholesalers.
443111........................ Household OO $9 M 3,364 0.27% 0.47% 0.10% 0.08% NA NA NA
Appliance Stores.
443112........................ Radio, Television OO $9 M 3,364 0.15% 0.59% 0.17% 0.26% NA NA NA
and Other
Electronics
Stores.
424610 \b\.................... Plastics OO 100 3,364 0.04% 0.10% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.06%
Materials and
Basic Forms and
Shapes Merchant
Wholesalers.
33361......................... Engine, Turbine, SS 500-1,000 2,213 0.01% 0.19% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%
and Power
Transmission
Equipment
Manufacturing.
33531......................... Electrical SS 750-1,000 2,213 0.02% 0.22% 0.04% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01%
Equipment
Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The Census Bureau defines an enterprise as a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control. The enterprise
and the establishment are the same for single-establishment firms. Each multi-establishment company forms one enterprise--the enterprise employment and annual payroll are summed from the
associated establishments. Enterprise size designations are determined by the summed employment of all associated establishments. Since the SBA's business size definitions (http://www.sba.gov/size) apply to an establishment's ultimate parent company, we assume in this analysis that the enterprise definition above is consistent with the concept of ultimate parent
company that is typically used for Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) screening analyses.
[[Page 18693]]
\b\ The 2002 SUSB data uses 1997 NAICS codes. For this industry, the relevant code is NAICS 422610.
EPA acknowledges that several enterprise categories have ratios
that exceed this threshold (e.g., enterprise with one to 20 employees).
The Industrial Gas Manufacturing industry (NAICS 325120) has sales test
results over 1 percent for all enterprises. The following enterprise
categories have sales test results over 1 percent and for entities with
less than 20 employees: Industrial Gas Manufacturing (325120) and
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing (334413).
EPA took a more detailed look at the categories noted above as
having sales test ratios above 1 percent. EPA collected information on
the entities likely to be covered by the rule as part of the expert
sub-group process.
Industrial Gas Manufacturing (325120). Subpart L covers facilities
included in NAICS codes for Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS
325120). Within this subpart, EPA identified 13 ultimate parent company
names covered by the proposed rule. Using publicly available sources
(e.g., Hoovers.com), we collected parent company sales and employment
data and found that only one company could be classified as a small
entity. Using the cost data for a representative entity (see Section
4), EPA determined the small entity's cost-to-sales ratio is below one
percent.
Electronic Computer Manufacturing (334111) and Semiconductor and
Related Device Manufacturing (334413). Data on the number of
electronics facilities comes from the World Fab Watch and the Flat
Panel Display Fabs on Disk datasets. The census data categories cover
more establishments than just those facilities covered in the rule.
Subpart I covers facilities included in NAICS codes for Semiconductor
and Related Device Manufacturing (334413) and Other Computer Peripheral
Equipment Manufacturing (334119). The World Fab Watch dataset includes
216 facilities (94 of which exceed the 25,000 ton threshold), while the
sum of the two NAICS codes include 1,903 establishments. Covered
facilities with emissions greater than 25,000 MtCO2e per
year are unlikely to be included in the 1 to 20 employees size
category. Emissions are roughly proportional to production, and
establishments with 1 to 20 employees total only 1.6 percent of total
receipts, while the proposed threshold excludes 6 percent of industry
emissions from the least-emitting facilities. Although this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, EPA nonetheless took several steps to reduce the impact of
this rule on small entities. For example, EPA is proposing monitoring
and reporting requirements that build off of the UIC program. In
addition, EPA is proposing equipment and methods that may already be in
use by a facility for compliance with its UIC permit. Also, EPA is
requiring annual reporting instead of more frequent reporting.
In addition to the public hearing that EPA plans to hold, EPA has
an open door policy, similar to the outreach conducted during the
development of the proposed and final MRR. Details of these meetings
are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927).
E. What are the benefits of the rule for society?
EPA examined the potential benefits of the Fluorinated GHG
Reporting Rule. EPA's previous analysis of the GHG reporting rule
discussed the benefits of a reporting system with respect to policy
making relevance, transparency issues, market efficiency. Instead of a
quantitative analysis of the benefits, EPA conducted a systematic
literature review of existing studies including government, consulting,
and scholarly reports.
A mandatory reporting system will benefit the public by increased
transparency of facility emissions data. Transparent, public data on
emissions allows for accountability of polluters to the public
stakeholders who bear the cost of the pollution. Citizens, community
groups, and labor unions have made use of data from Pollutant Release
and Transfer Registers to negotiate directly with polluters to lower
emissions, circumventing greater government regulation. Publicly
available emissions data also will allow individuals to alter their
consumption habits based on the GHG emissions of producers.
The greatest benefit of mandatory reporting of industry GHG
emissions to government will be realized in developing future GHG
policies. For example, in the EU's Emissions Trading System, a lack of
accurate monitoring at the facility level before establishing
CO2 allowance permits resulted in allocation of permits for
emissions levels an average of 15 percent above actual levels in every
country except the United Kingdom.
Benefits to industry of GHG emissions monitoring include the value
of having independent, verifiable data to present to the public to
demonstrate appropriate environmental stewardship, and a better
understanding of their emission levels and sources to identify
opportunities to reduce emissions. Such monitoring allows for inclusion
of standardized GHG data into environmental management systems,
providing the necessary information to achieve and disseminate their
environmental achievements.
Standardization will also be a benefit to industry, once facilities
invest in the institutional knowledge and systems to report emissions,
the cost of monitoring should fall and the accuracy of the accounting
should improve. A standardized reporting program will also allow for
facilities to benchmark themselves against similar facilities to
understand better their relative standing within their industry.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not by itself an
``economically significant regulatory action'' because it is unlikely
to have an annual economic effect of less than $100 million. EPA's cost
analysis, presented in Section 4 of the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA),
estimates that for the minimum reporting under the recommended
regulatory option, the total annualized cost of the rule will be
approximately $6.1 million (in 2006$) during the first year of the
program and $3.9 million in subsequent years (including $0.4 million of
programmatic costs to the Agency). This proposed action adds subparts
I, L, OO, and SS to the MRR, which was a significant regulatory action.
Thus, EPA has chosen to analyze the impacts of this proposed rule as if
it were significant. EPA submitted this proposed action to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866,
and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this proposed action.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs
associated with this proposed action. This analysis is contained in the
Economic Impact Analysis (EIA), Economic Impact Analysis for the
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions F-Gases Subparts I, L,
OO, and SS (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). A copy of the analysis is available
in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly
[[Page 18694]]
summarized here. In this report, EPA has identified the regulatory
options considered, their costs, the emissions that would likely be
reported under each option, and explained the selection of the option
chosen for the rule. Overall, EPA has concluded that the costs of the
F-Gases Rule are outweighed by the potential benefits of more
comprehensive information about GHG emissions.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number [2373.01].
EPA has identified the following goals of the mandatory GHG
reporting system:
Obtain data that is of sufficient quality that it can be
used to analyze and inform the development of a range of future climate
change policies and potential regulations.
Balance the rule's coverage to maximize the amount of
emissions reported while excluding small emitters.
Create reporting requirements that are, to the extent
possible and appropriate, consistent with existing GHG reporting
programs in order to reduce reporting burden for all parties involved.
The information from fluorinated GHG facilities will allow EPA to
make well-informed decisions about whether and how to use the CAA to
regulate these facilities and encourage voluntary reductions. Because
EPA does not yet know the specific policies that will be adopted, the
data reported through the mandatory reporting system should be of
sufficient quality to inform policy and program development. Also,
consistent with the Appropriations Act, the reporting rule covers a
broad range of sectors of the economy.
This information collection is mandatory and will be carried out
under CAA section 114. Information identified and marked as
Confidential Business Information (CBI) will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. However,
emissions information collected under CAA section 114 generally cannot
be claimed as CBI and will be made public.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Although CBI determinations are usually made on a case-by-
case basis, EPA has issued guidance in an earlier Federal Register
notice on what constitutes emissions data that cannot be considered
CBI (956 FR 7042-7043, February 21, 1991). As discussed in Section
II.R of the preamble to the Final MRR, EPA will be initiating a
separate notice and comment process to make CBI determinations for
the data collected under this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projected cost and hour respondent burden in the ICR, averaged
over the first three years after promulgation, is $4.51 million and
81,500 hours per year. The estimated average burden per response is 272
hours; the frequency of response is annual for all respondents that
must comply with the rule's reporting requirements; and the estimated
average number of likely respondents per year is 276. The cost burden
to respondents resulting from the collection of information includes
the total capital and start-up cost annualized over the equipment's
expected useful life (averaging $44,000 per year) a total operation and
maintenance component (averaging $24,000 per year), and a labor cost
component (averaging $4.44 million per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR Part 1320.3(b).
These cost numbers differ from those shown elsewhere in the EIA
because ICR costs represent the average cost over the first three years
of the rule, but costs are reported elsewhere in the EIA for the first
year of the rule. Also, the total cost estimate of the rule in the EIA
includes the cost to the Agency to administer the program. The ICR
differentiates between respondent burden and cost to the Agency,
estimated to be $384,000.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in the
final rule.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and
OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after [date of publication], a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by
[publication plus 30]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection requirements contained in this
proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, For the fluorinated GHG Reporting Rule, small entity is
defined as a small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; according to these size
standards, criteria for determining if ultimate parent companies owning
affected facilities are categorized as small vary by NAICS. Small
entity criteria range from total number of employees at the firm fewer
than 100 to number of employees fewer than 1000; one affected NAICS,
44311, defines small entities as those with sales below $9 million. EIA
tables 5-11 and 5-12 present small business criteria and enterprise
size distribution data for affected NAICS.EPA assessed the potential
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities using a sales test,
defined as the ratio of total annualized compliance costs to firm
sales. Details are provided in section 5.3 of the EIA. These sales
tests examine the average establishment's total annualized mandatory
reporting costs to the average establishment receipts for enterprises
within several employment categories.\46\ The average entity costs used
to compute the sales test are the same across all of these enterprise
size categories. As a result, the sales-test will overstate the cost-
to-receipt ratio for establishments owned by small businesses, because
the reporting costs are likely lower than average entity estimates
provided by the engineering cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ For the one to 20 employee category, we exclude SUSB data
for enterprises with zero employees. These enterprises did not
operate the entire year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18695]]
The results of the screening analysis show that for most NAICS, the
costs are estimated to be less than 1 percent of sales in all firm size
categories. For two NAICS, however, the costs exceed 1 percent of sales
for the 1-20 employee size category; for these NAICS, a more detailed
assessment was conducted. For NAICS 334413, firms with fewer than 20
employees produce less than 2 percent of output; firms below the 25,000
Mt CO2e threshold release approximately 6 percent of
emissions. Because emissions and production levels are highly
correlated, firms with fewer than 20 employees are generally not
expected to be affected by the proposed rule; if they are, their costs
are likely to be lower than the overall average costs used in the
screening analysis. Thus, EPA does not expect the proposed rule to
impose significant costs to a substantial number of small entities in
NAICS 334413. Subpart L covers facilities included in NAICS codes for
Industrial Gas Manufacturing (NAICS 325120). Within this subpart, EPA
identified 13 ultimate parent company names covered by the proposed
rule. Using publicly available sources (e.g.,hoovers.com), we collected
parent company sales and employment data and found that only one
company could be classified as a small entity. Using the cost data for
a representative entity (see Section 4 of the EA), EPA determined the
small entity's cost-to-sales ratio is below one percent.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I therefore certify that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Although this rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, the Agency nonetheless tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities, including seeking
input from a wide range of private- and public-sector stakeholders.
When developing the rule, the Agency took special steps to ensure that
the burdens imposed on small entities were minimal. The Agency
conducted several meetings with industry trade associations to discuss
regulatory options and the corresponding burden on industry, such as
recordkeeping and reporting. The Agency investigated alternative
thresholds and analyzed the marginal costs associated with requiring
smaller entities with lower emissions to report. The Agency also
selected a hybrid method for reporting, which provides flexibility to
entities and helps minimize reporting costs.
In addition to the public hearing that EPA plans to hold, EPA has
an open door policy, similar to the outreach conducted during the
development of the proposed and final MRR.
Details of these meetings are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0927).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in
expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. Overall, EPA estimates that the total annualized costs of this
proposed rule are approximately $6.1 million in the first year, and
$3.9 million per year in subsequent years. Thus, this proposed rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Facilities
subject to the proposed rule include facilities that manufacture, sell,
import or export fluorinated GHG related products. None of the
facilities currently known to undertake these activities are owned by
small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This regulation applies to
facilities that manufacture, sell, import, or export fluorinated GHG
related products. Few State or local government facilities would be
affected. This regulation also does not limit the power of States or
localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG emissions. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.''
This proposed rule is not expected to have Tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. This regulation applies to
facilities that manufacture, sell, import, or export fluorinated GHG
related products. Few facilities expected to be affected by the rule
are likely to be owned by Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed
rule, EPA sought opportunities to provide information to Tribal
governments and representatives during development of the MRR rule. In
consultation with EPA's American Indian Environment Office, EPA's
outreach plan included Tribes. During the proposal phase, EPA staff
provided information to Tribes through conference calls with multiple
Indian working groups and organizations at EPA that interact with
Tribes and through individual calls with two Tribal board members of
TCR. In addition, EPA prepared a short article on the GHG reporting
rule that appeared on the front page of a Tribal newsletter--Tribal Air
News--that was distributed to EPA/OAQPS's network of Tribal
organizations. EPA gave a presentation on various climate efforts,
including the mandatory reporting rule, at the National Tribal
Conference on Environmental Management in June, 2008. In addition, EPA
had copies of a short information sheet distributed at a meeting of the
National Tribal Caucus. EPA participated in a conference call with
Tribal air coordinators in April 2009 and prepared a guidance sheet for
Tribal governments on the proposed rule. It was posted on the MRR Web
site and published in the Tribal Air Newsletter. For a complete list of
Tribal contacts, see the ``Summary of EPA Outreach Activities for
Developing the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,'' in the Docket for the
initial proposed rule
[[Page 18696]]
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-055). In addition to the consultation activities
supporting the MRR, EPA continues to provide requested information to
Tribal governments and representatives during development of the Track
II rules such as this proposed rulemaking. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed action from Tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. This
proposed rule relates to monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping at
facilities that manufacture, sell, import, or export fluorinated GHG
related products and does not impact energy supply, distribution or
use. Therefore, we conclude that this proposed rule is not likely to
have any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA will use
voluntary consensus standards from at least seven different voluntary
consensus standards bodies, including the following: ASTM, ASME, ISO,
Gas Processors Association, American Gas Association, American
Petroleum Institute, and National Lime Association. These voluntary
consensus standards will help facilities monitor, report, and keep
records of GHG emissions. No new test methods were developed for this
proposed rule. Instead, from existing rules for source categories and
voluntary greenhouse gas programs, EPA identified existing means of
monitoring, reporting, and keeping records of greenhouse gas emissions.
The existing methods (voluntary consensus standards) include a broad
range of measurement techniques, such as methods to measure gas or
liquid flow; and methods to gauge and measure petroleum and petroleum
products. The test methods are incorporated by reference into the
proposed rule and are available as specified in 40 CFR 98.7.
By incorporating voluntary consensus standards into this proposed
rule, EPA is both meeting the requirements of the NTTAA and presenting
multiple options and flexibility in complying with the proposed rule.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this proposed regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of
Fluorinated GHGs (Page 229 of 363)
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rule does not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment because it is a rule
addressing information collection and reporting procedures.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Suppliers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 22, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 98--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Section 98.7 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (d)(1).
b. By revising paragraph (d)(2).
c. By revising paragraph (d)(3).
d. By revising paragraph (d)(4).
e. By revising paragraph (d)(5).
f. By revising paragraph (d)(6).
g. By revising paragraph (d)(7).
h. By revising paragraph (d)(8).
i. By revising paragraph (e)(30).
j. By adding paragraph (k).
k. By adding paragraph (l).
Sec. 98.7 What standardized methods are incorporated by reference
into this part?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) ASME MFC-3M-2004 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved
for Sec. 98.34(b), Sec. 98.124(k), Sec. 98.244(b), Sec. 98.254(c),
Sec. 98.344(c), and Sec. 98.364(e).
(2) ASME MFC-4M-1986 (Reaffirmed 1997) Measurement of Gas Flow by
Turbine Meters, IBR approved for Sec. 98.34(b), Sec. 98.124(k), Sec.
98.244(b), Sec. 98.254(c), Sec. 98.344(c), and Sec. 98.364(e).
(3) ASME MFC-5M-1985 (Reaffirmed 1994) Measurement of Liquid Flow
in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters, IBR
approved for Sec. 98.34(b), Sec. 98.124(k), and Sec. 98.244(b).
(4) ASME MFC-6M-1998 Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Vortex Flowmeters, IBR approved for Sec. 98.34(b), Sec. 98.124(k),
Sec. 98.244(b), Sec. 98.254(c), Sec. 98.344(c), and Sec. 98.364(e).
[[Page 18697]]
(5) ASME MFC-7M-1987 (Reaffirmed 1992) Measurement of Gas Flow by
Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles, IBR approved for Sec.
98.34(b), Sec. 98.124(k), Sec. 98.244(b), Sec. 98.254(c), Sec.
98.344(c), and Sec. 98.364(e).
(6) ASME MFC-9M-1988 (Reaffirmed 2001) Measurement of Liquid Flow
in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method, IBR approved for Sec. 98.34(b),
Sec. 98.124(k), and Sec. 98.244(b).
(7) ASME MFC-11M-2006 Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of
Coriolis Mass Flowmeters, IBR approved for Sec. 98.124(k), Sec.
98.244(b), Sec. 98.254(c), and Sec. 98.344(c).
(8) ASME MFC-14M-2003 Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small Bore
Precision Orifice Meters, IBR approved for Sec. 98.124(k), Sec.
98.244(b), Sec. 98.254(c), Sec. 98.344(c), and Sec. 98.364(e).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
* * * * *
(30) ASTM D6348-03 Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, IBR approved for Sec. 98.54(b), Sec.
98.124(c), and Sec. 98.224(b).
* * * * *
(k) The following material is available from the International
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative, http://ismi.sematech.org.
(1) Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor
Process Equipment, International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative
Technology Transfer 06124825B-ENG. (2006).
(l) The following material is available for purchase from SEMI,
3081 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95134, (408) 943-6900, http://www.semi.org.
(1) SEMI E10-0304 Specification for Definition and Measurement of
Equipment Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (2004).
(2) [Reserved]
3. Add subpart I to read as follows:
Subpart I--Electronics Manufacturing
Sec.
98.90 Definition of the source category.
98.91 Reporting threshold.
98.92 GHGs to report.
98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
98.95 Procedures for estimating missing data.
98.96 Data reporting requirements.
98.97 Records that must be retained.
98.98 Definitions.
Table I-1 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for Threshold
Applicability Determination
Table I-2 of Subpart I--Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by the
Electronics Industry
Table I-3 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for MEMS
Manufacturing
Table I-4 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for LCD
Manufacturing
Table I-5 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for PV
Manufacturing
Table I-6 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined Process
Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150 mm Wafer Size
Table I-7 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined Process
Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 200 mm Wafer Size
Table I-8 of Subpart I-Default Emission Factors for Refined Process
Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 300 mm Wafer Size
Subpart I--Electronics Manufacturing
Sec. 98.90 Definition of the source category.
(a) The electronics source category consists of any of the
processes listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section.
Electronics manufacturing facilities include, but are not limited to,
facilities that manufacture semiconductors, liquid crystal displays
(LCDs), micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), and photovoltaic cells
(PV).
(1) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which the
etching process uses plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other reactive
fluorine-containing fragments, which chemically react with exposed
thin-films (e.g., dielectric, metals) and silicon to selectively remove
portions of material.
(2) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which
chambers used for depositing thin films are cleaned periodically using
plasma-generated fluorine atoms and other reactive fluorine-containing
fragments from fluorinated and other gases.
(3) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which
wafers are cleaned using plasma generated fluorine atoms or other
reactive fluorine-containing fragments to remove residual material from
wafer surfaces.
(4) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which some
fluorinated compounds can be transformed in the plasma processes into
different fluorinated compounds which are then exhausted, unless
abated, into the atmosphere.
(5) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which the
chemical vapor deposition process or other manufacturing processes use
N2O.
(6) Each electronics manufacturing production process in which
fluorinated GHGs are used as heat transfer fluids to cool process
equipment, control temperature during device testing, and solder
semiconductor devices to circuit boards.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 98.91 Reporting threshold.
You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if your facility
contains an electronics manufacturing process and the facility meets
the requirements of either Sec. 98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2). To calculate GHG
emissions for comparison to the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per
year emission threshold in paragraph Sec. 98.2(a)(2), calculate
process emissions from electronics manufacture by using either
paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section, as appropriate.
(a) Semiconductor manufacturers shall calculate process emissions
for applicability purposes using the default emission factors shown in
Table I-1 of this subpart and Equation I-1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.038
Where:
ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability
purposes (metric tons).
1.1 = Factor accounting for heat transfer fluid emissions,
estimated as 10 percent of total clean and etch emissions at a
facility.
S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity of a facility (m\2\).
EFi = Emission factor for input gas i.
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
(b) LCD manufacturers shall calculate process emissions for
applicability purposes using the default emission factors shown in
Table I-1 of this subpart and Equation I-2 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.039
Where:
ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability
purposes (metric tons).
S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity of a facility (m\2\).
EFi = Emission factor for input gas i.
0.000001 = Conversion factor from g to metric tons.
(c) MEMS manufacturers shall calculate process emissions for
applicability purposes using the default emission factors shown in
Table I-1 of this subpart and Equation I-3 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.040
Where:
ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability
purposes (metric tons).
S = 100 percent of manufacturing capacity of a facility (m\2\).
EFi = Emission factor for input gas i.
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
[[Page 18698]]
(d) PV manufacturers shall calculate process emissions for
applicability purposes using gas-appropriate GWP values shown in Table
A-1 to subpart A and equation I-4 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.041
Where:
ET = Total annual process emissions for applicability
purposes (metric tons).
Ci = Annual fluorinated GHG (gas i) purchases or
consumption (kg).
GWPi = Gas-appropriate GWP.
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
Sec. 98.92 GHGs to report.
(a) You shall report emissions of N2O and fluorinated
GHGs (as defined in Sec. 98.6). The fluorinated GHGs that are emitted
from electronics production processes include, but are not limited to,
those listed in Table I-2 of this subpart. You must report:
(1) Fluorinated GHGs from plasma etching.
(2) Fluorinated GHGs from chamber cleaning.
(3) Fluorinated GHGs from wafer cleaning.
(4) N2O from chemical vapor deposition and other
manufacturing processes.
(5) Fluorinated GHGs from heat transfer fluid use.
(b) CO2, CH4, and N2O combustion
emissions from each stationary combustion unit. You must calculate and
report these emissions under subpart C of this part (General Stationary
Fuel Combustion Sources) by following the requirements of subpart C.
Sec. 98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.
(a) You shall calculate annual facility-level emissions for each
fluorinated GHG used at your facility, for each process type used at
your facility (plasma etching, chamber cleaning, or wafer cleaning) as
appropriate, using equations I-5 and I-6 of this section and according
to the procedures in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.042
Where:
processtypeEi = Annual emissions of input gas i from
the processes type (metric tons).
Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from individual
process j or process category j (metric tons).
N = The total number of individual processes j or process
categories j, which depend on the electronics manufacturing facility
and emission calculation methodology.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.043
Where:
processtypeBEk = Annual emissions of by-product gas k
from the processes type (metric tons).
BEkij = Annual emissions of by-product k formed from
input gas i during individual process j or process category j
(metric tons).
N = The total number of individual processes j or process
categories j, which depend on the electronics manufacturing facility
and emission calculation methodology.
(1) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices on wafers
measuring 300 mm or less in diameter shall calculate annual facility-
level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at a facility for each
fluorinated GHG-using process type, either from all individual
processes at that facility in accordance with Sec. 98.94(d), or from
process categories as defined in this paragraph (a)(1).
(i) All etching process categories for which annual fluorinated GHG
emissions shall be calculated are defined in this paragraph (a)(1)(i).
(A) Oxide etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents to
selectively remove SiO2, SiOx-based or fully
organic-based thin-film material that has been deposited on a wafer
during semiconductor device manufacturing.
(B) Nitride etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents
to selectively remove SiN, SiON, Si3N4, SiC,
SiCO, SiCN, etc. (represented by the general chemical formula,
SiwOxNyXz where w, x, y and
z are zero or integers and X can be some other element such as carbon)
that has been deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.
(C) Silicon etch also often called polysilicon etch means any
process using fluorinated GHG reagents to selectively remove silicon
during semiconductor manufacturing.
(D) Metal etch means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents
associated with removing metal films (such as aluminum or tungsten)
that have been deposited on a wafer during semiconductor manufacturing.
(ii) All chamber cleaning process categories for which annual
fluorinated GHG emissions shall be calculated are defined in this
paragraph (a)(1)(ii).
(A) In situ plasma means cleaning thin-film production chambers,
after processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning
reagent that is dissociated into its cleaning constituents by a plasma
generated inside the chamber where the film was produced.
(B) Remote plasma system means cleaning thin-film production
chambers, after processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG
cleaning reagent dissociated by a remotely located (e.g., upstream)
plasma source.
(C) In situ thermal means cleaning thin-film production chambers,
after processing one or more wafers, with a fluorinated GHG cleaning
reagent that is thermally dissociated into its cleaning constituents
inside the chamber where the thin-film (or thin films) was (were)
produced.
(iii) All wafer cleaning process categories for which annual
fluorinated GHG emissions shall be calculated are defined in this
paragraph (a)(1)(iii).
(A) Bevel cleaning means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents
with plasma to clean the edges of wafers during semiconductor
manufacture.
(B) Ashing means any process using fluorinated GHG reagents with
plasma to remove photoresist materials during wafer manufacture.
(2) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices on wafers
measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter shall calculate annual
facility-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at a facility for
all individual processes at that facility in accordance with Sec.
98.94(d).
(3) All other electronics facilities shall calculate annual
facility-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG used at a facility for
each process type, including etching and chemical vapor deposition
chamber cleaning.
(b) You shall calculate annual facility-level emissions for each
fluorinated GHG used at your facility, for each individual process,
process category, or process type used at your facility as appropriate,
using Equations I-7 and I-8 of this section, and according to the
procedures in either paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this
section.
[[Page 18699]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.044
Where:
Eij = Annual emissions of input gas i from individual
process, process category, or process type j (metric tons).
Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed in individual
process, process category, or process type j, as calculated in
Equation I-10 (kg) of this section and apportioned pursuant to Sec.
98.94(c).
Uij = Process utilization for input gas i during
individual process, process category, or process type j.
aij = Fraction of input gas i used in individual
process, process category, or process type j with abatement systems.
dij = Fraction of input gas i destroyed in abatement
systems connected to individual process, process category, or
process type j, accounting for uptime as specified in Sec.
98.94(f)(2). This is zero unless the facility adheres to
requirements in Sec. 98.94(f).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.045
Where:
BEijk = Annual emissions of by-product k formed from
input gas i during individual process, process category, or process
type j (metric tons).
Bijk = Amount of gas k created as a by-product per
amount of input gas i (kg) consumed in individual process, process
category, or process type j (kg).
Cij = Amount of input gas i consumed in individual
process, process category, or process type j, as calculated in
Equation I-10 of this section (kg) and apportioned pursuant to Sec.
98.94(c).
aij = Fraction of input gas i used in individual
process, process category, or process type j with abatement systems.
dkj = Fraction of by-product gas k destroyed in
abatement systems connected to individual process, process category,
or process type j, accounting for uptime as specified in Sec.
98.94(f)(2). This is zero unless the facility adheres to
requirements in Sec. 98.94(f).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
(1) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices on wafers
measuring 300 mm or less in diameter shall use the procedures in either
paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii), you shall use
default process category emission factors for process utilization and
by-product formation rates shown in Tables I-6, I-7, and I-8 of this
subpart as appropriate.
(ii) You may use recipe-specific measurements instead of the
process category default factors provided that you follow methods in
Sec. 98.94(d).
(2) Semiconductor facilities that fabricate devices on wafers
measuring greater than 300 mm in diameter shall use recipe-specific
measurements and follow methods in Sec. 98.94(d) to calculate
emissions from each fluorinated GHG-using process type. You shall use
Equations I-5 through I-8 of this section to calculate fluorinated GHG
emissions from all fluorinated GHG-using process recipes.
(3) All other electronics facilities shall use the default process
type-specific emission factors for process utilization and by-product
formation rates shown in Tables I-3, I-4, and I-5 of this subpart for
MEMS, LCD, and PV manufacturing, respectively.
(c) You shall calculate annual facility-level N2O
emissions from electronics manufacturing processes, using Equation I-9
of this section and the methods in this paragraph (c).
(1) You shall use a factor for N2O utilization for
chemical vapor deposition processes pursuant to either paragraph
(c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) You shall develop a facility-specific N2O
utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using recipes used
for chemical vapor deposition processes in accordance with Sec.
98.94(e).
(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O
utilization factor for chemical vapor deposition processes, you shall
use 20 percent as the default utilization factor for N2O
from chemical vapor deposition processes.
(2) You shall use a factor for N2O utilization for other
manufacturing processes pursuant to either paragraph (c)(2)(i) or
(c)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) You shall develop a facility-specific N2O
utilization factor averaged over all N2O-using recipes used
for manufacturing processes other than chemical vapor deposition
processes in accordance with Sec. 98.94(e).
(ii) If you do not use a facility-specific N2O
utilization factor for manufacturing processes other than chemical
vapor deposition, you shall use the default utilization factor of 0
percent for N2O from manufacturing processes other than
chemical vapor deposition.
(3) If your facility employs abatement systems and you wish to
quantify and document N2O emission reductions due to these
systems, you must adhere to the requirements in Sec. 98.94(f).
(4) You shall calculate annual facility-level N2O
emissions for all processes at your facility using Equation I-9 of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.046
Where:
E(N2O) = Annual emissions of N2O (metric
tons/year).
CN2O,j = Amount of N2O consumed
for N2O-using process j, as calculated in Equation I-10
of this section and apportioned to N2O process j (kg).
UN2O,j = Process utilization for
N2O-using process j.
aN2O,j = Fraction of N2O used
in N2O-using process j with abatement systems.
dN2O,j = Fraction of N2O for
N2O-using process j destroyed by abatement systems
connected to process j, accounting for uptime as specified in Sec.
98.94(f)(2). This is zero unless the facility adheres to
requirements in Sec. 98.94(f).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
(d) You shall calculate gas consumption for each fluorinated GHG
and N2O used at your facility using facility-wide gas-
specific heel factors, as determined in Sec. 98.94(b), and using
Equation I-10 of this section.
[[Page 18700]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.047
Where:
Ci = Annual consumption of input gas i (metric tons/
year).
IBi = Inventory of input gas i stored in cylinders or
other containers at the beginning of the year, including heels (kg).
IEi = Inventory of input gas i stored in cylinders or
other containers at the end of the year, including heels (kg).
Ai = Acquisitions of gas i during the year through
purchases or other transactions, including heels in cylinders or
other containers returned to the electronics manufacturing facility
(kg).
Di = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of
gas i through sales or other transactions during the year, including
heels in cylinders or other containers returned by the electronics
manufacturing facility to the chemical supplier, calculated using
equation I-11 of this section (kg).
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
(e) You shall calculate disbursements of gas i using Equation I-11
of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.048
Where:
Di = Disbursements of gas i through sales or other
transactions during the year, including heels in cylinders or other
containers returned by the electronics manufacturing facility to the
gas distributor (kg).
hi = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for input
gas i (%), as determined in Sec. 98.94(b) of this subpart.
Ni = Number of cylinders or other containers returned
to the gas distributor containing the standard heel of gas i.
Fi = Full capacity of cylinders or other containers
containing gas i (kg).
Xi = Disbursements under exceptional circumstances of
gas i through sales or other transactions during the year. These
include returns of containers whose contents have been weighed due
to an exceptional circumstance as specified in Sec. 98.94(b)(5) of
this subpart (kg).
(f) For facilities that use fluorinated heat transfer fluids, you
shall report the annual emissions of fluorinated GHG heat transfer
fluids using the mass balance approach described in Equation I-12 of
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.049
Where:
EHi = Emissions of fluorinated GHG heat transfer
fluid i, (metric tons/year).
Density = Density of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i (kg/l).
Iio = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i
(kg) (in containers, not equipment) at the beginning of the
reporting year (l). The inventory at the beginning of the reporting
year must be the same as the inventory at the end of the previous
reporting year.
Pit = Acquisitions of fluorinated heat transfer fluid
i (kg) during the current reporting year (l). Includes amounts
purchased from chemical suppliers, amounts purchased from equipment
suppliers with or inside of equipment, and amounts returned to the
facility after off-site recycling.
Nit = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper charge)
of equipment that uses fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that is
newly installed during the reporting year (kg).
Rit = Total nameplate capacity (full and proper charge)
of equipment that uses fluorinated heat transfer fluid i and that is
removed from service during the current reporting year (kg).
Iit = Inventory of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i (kg)
(in containers, not equipment) at the end of current reporting year
(l).
Dit = Disbursements of fluorinated heat transfer fluid i
(kg) during the current reporting year (l). Includes amounts
returned to chemical suppliers, sold with or inside of equipment,
and sent off site for verifiable recycling or destruction.
Disbursements should include only amounts that are properly stored
and transported so as to prevent emissions in transit.
0.001 = Conversion factor from kg to metric tons.
Sec. 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the
provisions of Sec. 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) for best available
monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring requirements of
this section. For purposes of subpart I, any reference to the year 2010
in Sec. 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) shall mean 2011.
(b) For purposes of Equation I-10 of this section, you must
estimate facility-wide gas-specific heel factors for each cylinder/
container type for each gas used according to the procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.
(1) You shall base your facility-wide gas-specific heel factors on
the residual weight or pressure of a gas cylinder/container that your
facility uses to change out that cylinder/container for each cylinder/
container type for each gas used.
(2) The residual weight or pressure you use for Sec. 98.94(b)(1)
shall be determined by monitoring the mass or the pressure of your
cylinders/containers. If you monitor the pressure, you shall convert
the pressure to mass using the ideal gas law, as displayed in Equation
I-13 of this section, with an appropriately selected Z value.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.050
Where:
p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa)
V = Volume of the gas (m\3\)
Z = Compressibility factor
n = Amount of substance of the gas (moles)
R = Gas constant (8.314 Joule/Kelvin mole)
T = Absolute temperature (K)
(3) You shall use the facility-wide gas-specific cylinder/container
residual mass, determined from Sec. 98.94(b)(1) and (b)(2), to
calculate the unused gas for each container, which when expressed as
fraction of the initial mass in the cylinder/container is the heel
factor.
(4) The initial mass used to calculate the facility-wide gas-
specific heel factor may be based on the weight of the gas provided to
you in the gas supplier documents; however, you remain responsible for
the accuracy of these masses and weights under this subpart.
(5) In the exceptional circumstance that you change a cylinder/
container at a residual mass or pressure that differs by more than 20
percent from your facility-wide gas-specific determined values, you
shall weigh that cylinder, or measure the pressure of that cylinder
with a pressure gauge, in place of using a heel factor.
(6) You shall recalculate facility-wide gas-specific heel factors
applied at your facility in the event that the residual weight or
pressure of the gas cylinder/container that your facility uses to
change out that cylinder/container differs by more than 1 percentage
point from that used to calculate the previous gas-specific heel
factor.
(c) Semiconductor facilities shall apportion fluorinated GHG
consumption by process category, as defined in Sec. 98.93(a)(1)(i)
through (a)(1)(iii), or by individual process using
[[Page 18701]]
a facility-specific engineering model based on wafer passes.
(d) If you use factors for fluorinated GHG process utilization and
by-product formation rates other than the defaults provided in Tables
I-6 through I-8 of this subpart, you must use factors that have been
measured using the International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's
Guideline for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process
Equipment (December 2006). You may use factors for fluorinated GHG
process utilization and by-product formation rates measured by
manufacturing equipment suppliers if the conditions in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section are met.
(1) The manufacturing equipment supplier has measured the GHG
emission factors for process utilization and by-product formation rates
using the International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline
for Environmental Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment
(December 2006).
(2) The conditions under which the measurements were made are
representative of your facility's fluorinated GHG emitting processes.
(e) If you use N2O utilization factors other than those
defaults provided in Sec. 98.93(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2)(ii), you must use
factors that have been measured using the International SEMATECH
Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental Characterization
of Semiconductor Process Equipment (December 2006). You may use
utilization factors measured by manufacturing equipment suppliers if
the conditions in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section are met.
(1) The manufacturing equipment supplier has measured the
N2O utilization factors using the International SEMATECH
Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental Characterization
of Semiconductor Process Equipment (December 2006).
(2) The conditions under which the measurements were made are
representative of your facility's N2O emitting processes.
(f) If your facility employs abatement systems and you wish to
reflect emission reductions due to these systems in appropriate
calculations in Sec. 98.93, you must adhere to the procedures in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section. If you use the default
destruction or removal efficiency of 60 percent, you must adhere to
procedures in paragraph (f)(3) of this section. If you use either a
properly measured destruction or removal efficiency, or a class average
of properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies during a
reporting year, you must adhere to procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of
this section.
(1) You must certify and document that the systems are properly
installed, operated, and maintained according to manufacturers'
specifications by adhering to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)
and (f)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Proper installation must be verified by certifying the systems
are installed in accordance with the manufacturers' specifications.
(ii) Proper operation and maintenance must be verified by
certifying the systems are operated and maintained in accordance with
the manufacturers' specifications.
(2) You shall take into account and report the uptime of abatement
systems when using destruction or removal efficiencies to reflect
emission reductions. Abatement system uptime is expressed as the sum of
an abatement system's operational productive, standby, and engineering
times divided by the total operations time of its associated
manufacturing tool(s) as referenced in SEMI Standard E-10-0340
Specification for Definition and Measurement of Equipment Reliability,
Availability, and Maintainability (2004).
(3) To report controlled emissions using the default destruction or
removal efficiency, you shall certify and document that the abatement
systems at the facility for which you are reporting controlled
emissions are specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and
N2O abatement and you shall use a default destruction or
removal efficiency of 60 percent for those abatement systems.
(4) If you do not use the default destruction or removal efficiency
value to report controlled emissions, you shall use either a properly
measured destruction or removal efficiency, or a class average of
properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies during a
reporting year, determined in accordance with procedures in paragraphs
(f)(4)(i) through (f)(4)(v) of this section.
(i) Destruction or removal efficiencies must be properly measured
in accordance with EPA's Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal
Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in
Electronics Manufacturing (March 2010).
(ii) A facility must annually select and properly measure the
destruction or removal efficiency for a random sample of abatement
systems to include in a random sampling abatement system testing
program (RSASTP) in accordance with procedures in paragraphs
(f)(3)(ii)(A) and (f)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.
(A) Each reporting year a random sample of three or 20 percent of
installed abatement systems, whichever is greater, for each abatement
system class shall be tested. In instances where 20 percent of the
total number of abatement systems in each class does not equate to a
whole number, the number of systems to be tested shall be determined by
rounding up to the nearest integer.
(B) You shall select the random sample each reporting year for the
RSASTP without repetition of systems in the sample, until all systems
in each class are properly measured in a 5-year period.
(iii) If a facility has measured the destruction or removal
efficiency of a particular abatement system during the previous two-
year period, the facility shall calculate emissions from that system
using the destruction or removal efficiency most recently measured for
that particular system.
(iv) If an individual abatement system has not yet undergone proper
destruction or removal efficiency testing during the previous two-year
period, the facility may apply a simple average of the properly
measured destruction or removal efficiencies for all systems of that
class, in accordance with the RSASTP. The facility shall maintain or
exceed the RSASTP schedule and regime if it wishes to apply class
average destruction or removal efficiency factors to abatement systems
that have not been properly measured as per the RSASTP.
(v) In instances where redundant abatement systems are used, the
facility may account for the total abatement system uptime calculated
for a specific exhaust stream during the reporting year.
(g) You shall adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this paragraph when
estimating fluorinated GHG and N2O emissions from all
electronics manufacturing processes:
(1) You shall follow the QA/QC procedures in the International
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental
Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment (December 2006)
when estimating facility-specific, recipe-specific fluorinated GHG and
N2O utilization and by-product formation rates.
(2) You shall follow the QA/QC procedures in EPA's Protocol for
Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse
Gas Abatement Equipment in
[[Page 18702]]
Electronics Manufacturing (March 2010) when estimating abatement
systems destruction or removal efficiency.
(3) You shall certify that gas consumption is tracked to a high
degree of precision as part of normal facility operations ensuring that
the inventory at the beginning of the reporting is the same as the
inventory at the end of the previous year.
(h) You shall adhere to the QA/QC procedures of this paragraph when
estimating fluorinated GHG emissions from heat transfer fluid use and
annual gas consumption for each fluorinated GHG and N2O used
at your facility:
(1) You shall review all inputs to Equations I-10 and I-12 of this
section to ensure that all inputs and outputs to the facility's system
are accounted for.
(2) You shall not enter negative inputs into the mass balance
Equations I-10 and I-12 of this section and shall ensure that no
negative emissions are calculated.
(3) You shall ensure that the beginning of year inventory matches
the end of year inventory from the previous year.
(i) All instruments (e.g., mass spectrometers and fourier transform
infrared measuring systems) used to determine the concentration of
fluorinated GHG and N2O in process streams shall be
calibrated just prior to destruction or removal efficiency, gas
utilization, or by-product formation measurement through analysis of
certified standards with known concentrations of the same chemicals in
the same ranges (fractions by mass) as the process samples. Calibration
gases prepared from a high-concentration certified standard using a gas
dilution system that meets the requirements specified in Method 205, 40
CFR part 51, Appendix M may also be used.
(j) All flowmeters, weigh scales, pressure gauges, and thermometers
used to measure quantities that are monitored under this section or
used in calculations under Sec. 98.93 shall have an accuracy and
precision of one percent of full scale or better.
Sec. 98.95 Procedures for estimating missing data.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph Sec. 98.95(b), a complete
record of all measured parameters used in the fluorinated GHG and
N2O emissions calculations in Sec. 98.93 and Sec. 98.94 is
required.
(b) If you use heat transfer fluids at your facility and are
missing data for one or more of the parameters in Equation I-12 of this
subpart, you shall estimate heat transfer fluid emissions using the
arithmetic average of the emission rates for the year immediately
preceding the period of missing data and the months immediately
following the period of missing data. Alternatively, you may estimate
missing information using records from the heat transfer fluid
supplier. You shall document the method used and values estimated for
all missing data values.
Sec. 98.96 Data reporting requirements.
In addition to the information required by Sec. 98.3(c), you shall
include in each annual report the following information for each
electronics facility.
(a) Annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG and N2O
emitted from each individual process, process category, or process type
as applicable and from all heat transfer fluid use as applicable.
(b) The method of emissions calculation used in Sec. 98.93.
(c) Production in terms of substrate surface area (e.g., silicon,
PV-cell, LCD).
(d) Emission factors used for process utilization and by-product
formation rates and the source for each factor for each fluorinated GHG
and N2O.
(e) Where process categories for semiconductor facilities as
defined in Sec. 98.93(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) are not used,
descriptions of individual processes or process categories used to
estimate emissions.
(f) For each fluorinated GHG and N2O, annual gas
consumed during the reporting year and facility-wide gas-specific heel-
factors used.
(g) The apportioning factors for each process category (i.e.,
fractions of each gas fed into each individual process or process
category used to calculate fluorinated GHG and N2O
emissions) and a description of the engineering model used for
apportioning gas usage per Sec. 98.94(c). If the method used to
develop the apportioning factors permits the development of facility-
wide consumption estimates that are independent of the estimates
calculated in Equation I-10 of this subpart (e.g., that are based on
wafer passes for each individual process or process category), you
shall report the independent facility-wide consumption estimate for
each fluorinated GHG and N2O.
(h) Fraction of each gas fed into each process type that is fed
into tools with abatement systems.
(i) Description of all abatement systems through which fluorinated
GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, including the number of
devices of each manufacturer, model numbers, manufacturers guaranteed
destruction or removal efficiencies, if any, and record of destruction
or removal efficiency measurements over its in-use life. The inventory
of abatement systems shall also include a description of the associated
tools and/or processes for which these systems treat exhaust.
(j) For each abatement system through which fluorinated GHGs or
N2O flow at your facility, for which you are reporting
controlled emissions, the following:
(1) Certification that each abatement system used at your facility
is installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with
manufacturers' specifications.
(2) The uptime and the calculations to determine uptime for that
reporting year.
(3) The default destruction or removal efficiency value or properly
measured destruction or removal efficiencies for each abatement system
used in that reporting year to reflect controlled emissions.
(4) Where the default destruction or removal efficiency value is
used to report controlled emissions, certification that the abatement
systems for which controlled emissions are being reported are
specifically designed for fluorinated GHG and N2O abatement.
(5) Where properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies or
class averages of destruction or removal efficiencies are used to
report controlled emissions, the following:
(i) A description of the class including the abatement system
manufacturer and model number, and the fluorinated GHG and
N2O in the process effluent stream;
(ii) The total number of systems in that class for the reporting
year.
(iii) The total number of systems for which destruction or removal
efficiency was measured in that class for the reporting year.
(iv) A description of the calculation used to determine the class
average, including all inputs of the calculation.
(vi) A description of method of randomly selecting class members
for testing.
(k) For heat transfer fluid emissions, inputs in the mass-balance
equation, Equation I-12 of this subpart for each fluorinated GHG.
(l) Example calculations for fluorinated GHG, N2O, and
heat transfer fluid emissions.
Sec. 98.97 Records that must be retained.
In addition to the information required by Sec. 98.3(g), you must
retain the following records:
(a) Data and copies of calculations used to estimate emissions
including all spreadsheets.
(b) Documentation for the values used for fluorinated GHG and
N2O utilization and by-product formation rates. If you use
facility-specific, recipe-specific gas
[[Page 18703]]
utilization and by-product formation rates, the following records must
be retained:
(1) Documentation that these were measured using the International
SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative's Guideline for Environmental
Characterization of Semiconductor Process Equipment (December 2006).
(2) Documentation that the measurements made are representative of
fluorinated GHG and N2O emitting processes at your facility.
(3) The date and results of the initial and any subsequent tests to
determine process tool gas utilization and by-product formation rates.
(c) For each abatement system through which fluorinated GHGs or
N2O flows at your facility, for which you are reporting
controlled emissions, the following:
(1) Documentation to certify that each abatement system used at
your facility is installed, maintained, and operated in accordance with
manufacturers' specifications.
(2) Records of the uptime and the calculations to determine how the
uptime was accounted for at your facility.
(3) Abatement system calibration and maintenance records.
(4) Where the default destruction or removal efficiency value was
used, documentation from the abatement system supplier describing the
equipment's designed purpose and emission control capabilities.
(5) Where properly measured destruction or removal efficiency is
used to report controlled emissions, dated certification by the
technician who made the measurement that the destruction or removal
efficiency was calculated according to methods in EPA's Protocol for
Measuring Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse
Gas Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing, complete
documentation of the results of any initial and subsequent tests, and
the final report as specified in EPA's Protocol for Measuring
Destruction or Removal Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas
Abatement Equipment in Electronics Manufacturing (March 2010).
(d) Purchase records for gas purchased.
(e) Invoices for gas purchases and sales.
Sec. 98.98 Definitions.
Except as provided below, all of the terms used in this subpart
have the same meaning given in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this
part. If a conflict exists between a definition provided in this
subpart and a definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this
subpart shall take precedence for the reporting requirements in this
subpart.
Abatement system means a device or equipment that destroys or
removes fluorinated GHGs and/or N2O in waste streams from
one or more electronics manufacturing tool chamber(s).
By-product formation means the creation of fluorinated GHGs during
electronics manufacturing processes or the creation of fluorinated GHGs
by an abatement system. By-product formation is expressed as rate of
the mass of the by-product formed to the mass of the fluorinated GHG
used with the largest flow rate.
Destruction or removal efficiency means the efficiency of a control
system to destroy or remove fluorinated GHGs, N2O, or both.
The destruction or removal efficiency is equal to one minus the ratio
of the mass of all relevant GHGs exiting the emission abatement system
to the mass of GHG entering the emission abatement system. When
fluorinated GHGs are formed in an abatement system, destruction or
removal efficiency is expressed as one minus the ratio of amounts of
exiting GHGs to the amounts entering the system in units of
CO2-equivalents.
Gas utilization means the fraction of input N2O or
fluorinated GHG converted to other substances during the etching,
deposition, and/or wafer and chamber cleaning processes. Gas
utilization is expressed as a rate or factor for specific manufacturing
processes.
Heat transfer fluids are fluorinated GHGs used for temperature
control, device testing, and soldering in certain types of electronic
manufacturing. Heat transfer fluids used in the electronics sector
include perfluoropolyethers, perfluoroalkanes, perfluoroethers,
tertiary perfluoroamines, and perfluorocyclic ethers. Heat transfer
fluids commonly used in electronics manufacturing include those sold
under the trade names ``Galden[reg]'' and ``FluorinertTM.''
Electronics manufacturers may also use these same fluorinated chemicals
to clean substrate surfaces and other parts.
Heel means the amount of gas that remains in a gas cylinder or
container after it is discharged or off-loaded (this may vary by
cylinder or container type and facility).
Nameplate capacity means the full and proper charge of gas
specified by the equipment manufacturer to achieve the equipment's
specified performance. The nameplate capacity is typically indicated on
the equipment's nameplate; it is not necessarily the actual charge,
which may be influenced by leakage and other emissions.
Proper destruction or removal efficiency measurement means measured
in accordance with EPA's Protocol for Measuring Destruction or Removal
Efficiency of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Abatement Equipment in
Electronics Manufacturing (March 2010).
Uptime means the total time during the reporting year when the
abatement system for which controlled emissions will be reported was
properly installed, operated, and maintained.
Wafer passes is a count of the number of times a silicon wafer is
processed in a specific process category. The total number of wafer
passes over a reporting year is the number of wafer passes per tool
times the number of operational process tools in use during the
reporting year.
Process category is a set of similar manufacturing steps, performed
for the same purpose, associated with substrate (e.g., wafer)
processing during device manufacture for which fluorinated GHG and
N2O emissions and fluorinated GHG and N2O usages
are calculated and reported.
Table I-1 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for Threshold Applicability Determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission factors EFi
Product type -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 C3F8 NF3 SF6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semiconductors (kg/m2 Si)............................... 0.90 1.00 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.20
LCD (g/m2 LCD).......................................... 0.50 NA NA NA 0.90 4.00
MEMs (kg/m2 Si)......................................... NA NA NA NA NA 1.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
[[Page 18704]]
Table I-2 of Subpart I--Examples of Fluorinated GHGs Used by the
Electronics Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluorinated GHGs used during
Product type manufacture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics........................... CF4, C2F6, C3F8, c-C4F8, c-
C4F8O, C4F6, C5F8, CHF3, CH2F2,
NF3, SF6, and HTFs (CF3-(O-
CF(CF3)-CF2)n-(O-CF2)m-O-CF3,
CnF2n+2, CnF2n+1(O)CmF2m+1,
CnF2nO, (CnF2n+1)3N).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I-3 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for MEMS Manufacturing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Gas i
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process type factors NF3
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 remote NF3 SF6 C4F6\a\ C5F8\a\ C4F8O\a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etch 1-Ui.................................. 0.7 \1\ 0.4 \1\ 0.4 \1\ NA \1\ 0.2 NA 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 NA
0.06
Etch BCF4.................................. NA \1\ 0.4 \1\ \1\ NA 0.2 NA NA NA \1\ 0.3 0.2 NA
0.07 0.08
Etch BC2F6................................. NA NA NA NA NA 0.2 NA NA NA \1\ 0.2 0.2 NA
CVD 1-Ui................................... 0.9 0.6 NA NA 0.4 0.1 0.02 0.2 NA NA 0.1 0.1
CVD BCF4................................... NA 0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1 \2\ \2\ 0.1 NA NA 0.1 0.1
0.02
CVD BC3F8.................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
\1\ Estimate includes multi-gas etch processes.
\2\ Estimate reflects presence of low-k, carbide and multi-gas etch processes that may contain a C-containing fluorinated GHG additive.
Table I-4 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for LCD Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process gas i
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process type factors NF3
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 remote NF3 SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etch 1-Ui...................... 0.6 NA 0.2 NA NA 0.1 NA NA 0.3
Etch BCF4...................... NA NA 0.07 NA NA 0.009 NA NA NA
Etch BCHF3..................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.02 NA NA NA
Etch BC2F6..................... NA NA 0.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA
CVD 1-Ui....................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.03 0.3 0.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
Table I-5 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for PV Manufacturing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Gas i
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process type factors NF3
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 Remote NF3 SF6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etch 1-Ui...................... 0.7 0.4 0.4 NA NA 0.2 NA NA 0.4
Etch BCF4...................... NA 0.2 NA NA NA 0.1 NA NA NA
Etch BC2F6..................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 NA NA NA
CVD 1-Ui....................... NA 0.6 NA NA 0.1 0.1 NA 0.3 0.4
CVD BCF4....................... NA 0.2 NA NA 0.2 0.1 NA NA NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
[[Page 18705]]
Table I-6 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for Refined Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150 mm Wafer Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process gas i
Refined process category -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PATTERNING/ETCHING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxide etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.7 0.02-0.3 NA 0.1-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.01-0.8 0.05-0.1 NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.4 0.02-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.3 0.02-0.3 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Nitride etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.7 0.02-0.3 NA 0.1-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.01-0.8 0.05-0.1 NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.4 0.02-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.3 0.02-0.3 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Silicon etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.7 0.02-0.3 NA 0.1-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.01-0.8 0.05-0.1 NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.4 0.02-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.3 0.02-0.3 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Metal etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.7 0.02-0.3 NA 0.1-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.01-0.8 0.05-0.1 NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.4 0.02-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.3 0.02-0.3 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAMBER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situ plasma cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.8-0.95 0.4-0.8 NA NA 0.2-0.6 0.05-0.3 0.05-0.3 NA NA 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.2
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.2 NA NA 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.2 NA NA 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.2
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.02-0.08
Remote plasma cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
In situ thermal cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAFER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bevel cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Ashing:
1-Ui.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
[[Page 18706]]
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
[[Page 18707]]
Table I-7 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for Refined Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 200 mm Wafer Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process gas i
Refined process category -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PATTERNING/ETCHING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxide etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.7 0.02-0.3 NA 0.1-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.5 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.01-0.8 0.05-0.1 NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.4 0.02-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.3 0.02-0.3 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Nitride etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.1-0.7 0.02-0.3 NA 0.05-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.01-0.8 0.05-0.1 NA 0.02-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.4 0.02-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.005-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.3 0.02-0.3 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Silicon etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.7 0.02-0.3 NA 0.1-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.01-0.8 0.05-0.1 NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.4 0.02-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.3 0.02-0.3 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Metal etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.7 0.02-0.3 NA 0.1-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.01-0.8 0.05-0.1 NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.4 0.02-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.3 0.02-0.3 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAMBER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situ plasma cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.8-0.95 0.4-0.8 NA NA 0.2-0.6 005-0.3 0.05-0.2 NA NA 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.2
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.2 NA NA 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.1 NA NA 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.2
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.02-0.08
Remote plasma cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.005-0.03 NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.0001-0.2 NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
In situ thermal cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAFER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bevel cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Ashing:
1-Ui.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
Table I-8 of Subpart I--Default Emission Factors for Refined Process Categories for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 300 mm Wafer Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process gas i
Refined process category -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C3F8 c-C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PATTERNING/ETCHING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxide etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.4 0.1-0.8 NA 0.05-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.3 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.005-0.03 0.001-0.01 NA 0.005-0.1 NA NA 0.02-0.4 0.02-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.005-0.1 NA NA 0.02-0.3 0.02-0.3 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Nitride etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.4 0.1-0.8 NA 0.08-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.003-0.1 0.01-0.1 NA 0.02-0.3 NA NA 0.05-0.4 0.05-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.02-0.3 NA NA 0.05-0.4 0.05-0.4 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
[[Page 18708]]
Silicon etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.7 0.02-0.3 NA 0.1-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.01-0.8 0.05-0.1 NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.4 0.02-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.3 0.02-0.3 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Metal etch:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.7 0.2-0.7 0.02-0.3 NA 0.1-0.3 0.1-0.4 0.1-0.4 0.05-0.2 0.05-0.3 NA
BCF4.................................................... NA 0.05-0.5 0.01-0.8 0.05-0.1 NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.4 0.02-0.4 NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA 0.01-0.3 NA NA 0.02-0.3 0.02-0.3 NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAMBER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situ plasma cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.1-0.4 NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001-0.6 NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Remote plasma cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.002-0.03 NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.001-0.05 NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
In situ thermal cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.1-0.4 NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.005-.05 NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAFER CLEANING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bevel cleaning:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.3-0.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Ashing:
1-Ui.................................................... 0.3-0.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF4.................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA denotes not applicable based on currently available information.
4. Add subpart L to read as follows:
Subpart L--Fluorinated Gas Production
Sec.
98.120 Definition of the source category.
98.121 Reporting threshold.
98.122 GHGs to report.
98.123 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
98.125 Procedures for estimating missing data.
98.126 Data reporting requirements.
98.127 Records that must be retained.
98.128 Definitions.
Subpart L--Fluorinated Gas Production
Sec. 98.120 Definition of the source category.
(a) The fluorinated gas production source category consists of
processes that produce a fluorinated gas from any raw material or
feedstock chemical, except for processes that generate HFC-23 during
the production of HCFC-22.
(b) To produce a fluorinated gas means to manufacture a fluorinated
gas from any raw material or feedstock chemical. Producing a
fluorinated gas includes producing a fluorinated GHG as defined at
Sec. 98.410(b). Producing a fluorinated gas also includes the
manufacture of a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or hydrochlorofluorocarbon
(HCFC) from any raw material or feedstock chemical, including
manufacture for use in a process that will result in the transformation
of the CFC or HCFC either at or outside of the production facility.
Producing a fluorinated gas does not include the reuse or recycling of
a fluorinated gas, the creation of HFC-23 during the production of
HCFC-22, or the creation of by-products that are released or destroyed
at the production facility.
Sec. 98.121 Reporting threshold.
You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if your facility
contains a fluorinated gas production process that generates or emits
fluorinated GHG and the facility meets the requirements of either Sec.
98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this part. To calculate GHG emissions for
comparison to the 25,000 metric ton CO2e per year emission
threshold in Sec. 98.2(a)(2), calculate process emissions from
fluorinated gas production using uncontrolled GHG emissions.
Sec. 98.122 GHGs to report.
(a) You must report CO2, CH4, and
N2O combustion emissions from each stationary combustion
unit. You must calculate and report these emissions under subpart C of
this part (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by following the
requirements of subpart C.
[[Page 18709]]
(b) You must report under subpart O of this part (HCFC-22
Production and HFC-23 Destruction) the emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22
production processes and HFC-23 destruction processes. Do not report
the generation and emissions of HFC-23 from HCFC-22 production under
this subpart.
(c) You must report the total mass of each fluorinated GHG from:
(1) Each fluorinated gas production process and all fluorinated gas
production processes combined.
(2) Each fluorinated gas transformation process that is not part of
a fluorinated gas production process and all such fluorinated gas
transformation processes combined.
(3) Each fluorinated gas destruction process that is not part of a
fluorinated gas production process or a fluorinated gas transformation
process and all such fluorinated gas destruction processes combined.
Sec. 98.123 Calculating GHG emissions.
For fluorinated GHG production processes, you must calculate the
fluorinated GHG emissions from each process using either the mass
balance method specified in paragraph (a) of this section or the
emission factor or emission calculation factor method specified in
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, as appropriate. For
processes that manufacture CFCs or HCFCs or that transform fluorinated
gases into substances other than fluorinated GHGs, you must use the
procedures in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section. For
destruction processes that destroy fluorinated GHGs that were
previously ``produced'' as defined at 98.410(b), you must use the
procedures in paragraph (e) of this section.
(a) Mass balance method. Before using the mass balance approach to
estimate your fluorinated GHG emissions from a process, you must
estimate the absolute and relative errors associated with using the
mass balance approach on that process using Equations L-1 through L-4
of this section in conjunction with Equations L-7 through L-12 of this
section. If this calculation shows that use of the mass-balance
approach to estimate emissions from the process will result in an
absolute error exceeding 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year and
a relative error exceeding 30 percent, then you cannot use the mass-
balance approach to estimate emissions from the process. Instead, you
must use the emission factor approach detailed in paragraphs (b), (c),
and (d) of this section to estimate emissions from the process. To
perform the calculation, you shall first calculate the absolute and
relative errors associated with the quantities calculated using
Equations L-8 through L-11. Once errors have been calculated for the
quantities in these equations, those errors shall be used to calculate
the errors in Equations L-7 and L-12. Where the measured quantity is a
mass, the error in the mass shall be equated to the accuracy or
precision (whichever is larger) of the flowmeter, scale, or combination
of volumetric and density measurements at the flow rate or mass
measured. Where the measured quantity is a concentration, the error of
the concentration shall be equated to the accuracy or precision
(whichever is larger) of the analytical technique used to measure the
concentration at the concentration measured.
(1) Equation L-1 of this section provides the general formula for
calculating the absolute errors of sums and differences where the sum,
S, is the summation of variables measured, a, b, c, etc. (e.g., S = a +
b + c):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.051
Where:
eSA = absolute error of the sum, expressed as one
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
ea = relative error of a, expressed as one half of a
95 percent confidence interval.
eb = relative error of b, expressed as one half of a
95 percent confidence interval.
ec = relative error of c, expressed as one half of a
95 percent confidence interval.
(2) Equation L-2 of this section provides the general formula for
calculating the relative errors of sums and differences:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.052
Where:
eSR = relative error of the sum, expressed as one
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
eSA = absolute error of the sum, expressed as one
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
a+b+c = sum of the variables measured.
(3) Equation L-3 provides the general formula for calculating the
absolute errors of products (e.g., flow rates of GHGs calculated as the
product of the flow rate of the stream and the concentration of the GHG
in the stream), where the product, P, is the result of multiplying the
variables measured, a, b, c, etc. (e.g., P = a*b*c):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.053
Where:
ePA = absolute error of the product, expressed as one
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
ea = relative error of a, expressed as one half of a
95 percent confidence interval.
eb = relative error of b, expressed as one half of a
95 percent confidence interval.
ec = relative error of c, expressed as one half of a
95 percent confidence interval.
(4) Equation L-4 of this section provides the general formula for
calculating the relative errors of products:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.054
Where:
ePR = relative error of the product, expressed as one
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
ePA = absolute error of the product, expressed as one
half of a 95 percent confidence interval.
a*b*c = product of the variables measured.
(5) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG product emitted annually
from all fluorinated gas production processes shall be estimated by
using Equation L-5 of this section:
[[Page 18710]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.055
Where:
EP = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG product
emitted annually from all production processes (metric tons).
EPip = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG product emitted
from production process i over the period p (metric tons, defined in
Equation L-7 of this section).
n = Number of concentration and flow measurement periods for the
year.
m = Number of production processes.
(6) The total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product k emitted annually
from all fluorinated gas production processes shall be estimated by
using Equation L-6 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.056
Where:
EBk = Total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product k emitted
annually from all production processes (metric tons).
EBkip = Total mass of fluorinated GHG by-product k
emitted from production process i over the period p (metric tons,
defined in Equation L-8 on this section).
n = Number of concentration and flow measurement periods for the
year.
m = Number of production processes.
(7) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG product emitted from
production process i over the period p shall be estimated at least
monthly by calculating the difference between the expected production
of the fluorinated GHG based on the consumption of one of the reactants
(e.g., HF or a chlorocarbon reactant) and the measured production of
the fluorinated GHG, accounting for yield losses related to by-products
and wastes. This calculation shall be performed using Equation L-7 of
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.057
Where:
EPip = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG product emitted
from production process i over the period p (metric tons).
P = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG produced by production process
i over the period p (metric tons).
R = Total mass of the reactant that is consumed by production
process i over the period p (metric tons, defined in Equation L-8 of
this section).
MWP = Molecular weight of the fluorinated GHG produced.
MWR = Molecular weight of the reactant.
SCP = Stoichiometric coefficient of the fluorinated GHG
produced.
SCR = Stoichiometric coefficient of the reactant.
CP = Concentration (mass fraction) of the fluorinated GHG
product in stream j of destroyed wastes. If this concentration is
only a trace concentration, CP is equal to zero.
WDj = Mass of wastes removed from production process i in
stream j and destroyed over the period p (metric tons, defined in
Equation L-9 of this section).
LBkip = Yield loss related to by-product k for production
process i over the period p (metric tons, defined in Equation L-10
of this section).
q = Number of waste streams destroyed in production process i.
u = Number of by-products generated in production process i.
(8) The total mass of the reactant that is consumed by production
process i over the period p shall be estimated by using Equation L-8 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.058
Where:
R = Total mass of the reactant that is consumed by production
process i over the period p (metric tons).
RF = Total mass of the reactant that is fed into
production process i over the period p (metric tons).
RR = Total mass of the reactant that is permanently
removed from production process i over the period p (metric tons).
(9) The mass of wastes removed from production process i in stream
j and destroyed over the period p shall be estimated using Equation L-9
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.059
Where:
WDj = The mass of wastes removed from production process
i in stream j and destroyed over the period p (metric tons).
WFj = The total mass of wastes removed from
production process i in stream j and fed into the destruction device
over the period p (metric tons).
DE = Destruction efficiency of the destruction device
(fraction).
(10) Yield loss related to by-product k for production process i
over period p shall be estimated using Equation L-10 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.060
Where:
LBkip = Yield loss related to by-product k for
production process i over the period p (metric tons).
Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by production
process i over the period p (metric tons, defined in Equation L-11
of this section).
MWP = Molecular weight of the fluorinated GHG
produced.
MEBk = Moles of the element shared by the reactant,
product, and by-product k per mole of by-product k.
MWBk = Molecular weight of by-product k.
MEP = Moles of the element shared by the reactant,
product, and by-product k per mole of the product.
(11) If by-product k is responsible for yield loss in production
process i and occurs in any stream (including process streams,
emissions streams, or destroyed streams) in more than trace
concentrations, the mass of by-product k generated by production
process i over the period p shall be estimated using Equation L-11 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.061
Where:
Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by production
process i over the period p (metric tons).
cBkj = Concentration (mass fraction) of the by-
product k in stream j of production process i over the period p. If
this concentration is only a trace concentration, cBkj is
equal to zero.
Sj = Mass flow of stream j of production process i
over the period p.
[[Page 18711]]
q = Number of streams in production process i.
(12) If by-product k is responsible for yield loss, is a
fluorinated GHG, occurs in any stream (including process streams,
emissions streams, or destroyed streams) in more than trace
concentrations, and is not completely recaptured or completely
destroyed; the total mass of by-product k emitted from production
process i over the period p shall be estimated at least monthly using
Equation L-12 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.062
Where:
EBkip = Mass of by-product k emitted from production
process i over the period p (metric tons).
Bkip = Mass of by-product k generated by production
process i over the period p (metric tons).
cBkj = Concentration (mass fraction) of the by-
product k in stream j of destroyed wastes over the period p. If this
concentration is only a trace concentration, cBjk is
equal to zero.
WDj = The mass of wastes that are removed from
production process i in stream j and that are destroyed over the
period p (metric tons, defined in Equation L-9 of this section).
cBkl = The concentration (mass fraction) of the by-
product k in stream l of recaptured material over the period p. If
this concentration is only a trace concentration, cBkl is
equal to zero.
SRl = The mass of materials that are removed from
production process i in stream l and that are recaptured over the
period p.
q = Number of waste streams destroyed in production process i.
x = Number of streams recaptured in production process i.
(b) Emission factor and emission calculation factor methods. To use
the method in this paragraph, you must first make a preliminary
estimate of the emissions from each individual process vent under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Then, compare the preliminary
estimate to the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to
determine whether the process vent meets the criteria for using the
emission factor method described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section or
whether the process vent meets the criteria for using the emission
calculation factor method described in paragraph (b)(4) of this
section.
(1) Preliminary estimate of emissions by process vent. You must
estimate the annual uncontrolled emissions of fluorinated GHG for each
process vent within a process. You may determine uncontrolled emissions
of fluorinated GHG by process vent using existing measurements and/or
calculations based on chemical engineering principles and chemical
property data or you may conduct an engineering assessment. You must
document all data, assumptions, and procedures used in the calculations
or engineering assessment and keep a record of the uncontrolled
emissions determination (in Sec. 98.127(a)).
(i) Engineering calculations. For process vent emission
calculations, you may use paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this
section.
(A) Emissions Inventory Improvement Process, Volume II: Chapter 16,
Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Chemical Manufacturing
Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 2007.
(B) You may determine the uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions
from any process vent within the process using the procedures specified
in 40 CFR Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i), except as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i)(B)(1) through (b)(1)(i)(B)(7) of this section. For the
purposes of this subpart, use of the term ``HAP'' in Sec.
63.1257(d)(2)(i) shall mean ``fluorinated GHG''.
(1) To calculate emissions caused by the heating of a vessel
without a process condenser to a temperature lower than the boiling
point, you must use the procedures in Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(3).
(2) To calculate emissions from depressurization of a vessel
without a process condenser, you must use the procedures in Sec.
63.1257(d)(2)(i)(D)(10).
(3) To calculate emissions from vacuum systems, the terms used in
Equation 33 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG, are defined as follows:
(i) Psystem = absolute pressure of the receiving vessel;
(ii) Pi = partial pressure of the fluorinated GHG
determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure conditions of the
condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated receiver;
(iii) Pj = partial pressure of condensables (including
fluorinated GHG) determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure
conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated
receiver;
(iv) MWFluorinated GHG = molecular weight of the
fluorinated GHG determined at the exit temperature and exit pressure
conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of the dedicated
receiver.
(4) To calculate uncontrolled emissions when a vessel is equipped
with a process condenser, you must use the procedures in 40 CFR
63.1257(d)(3)(i)(B), except as follows:
(i) You must determine the flowrate of gas (or volume of gas),
partial pressures of condensables, temperature (T), and fluorinated GHG
molecular weight (MWFluorinated GHG) at the exit temperature
and exit pressure conditions of the condenser or at the conditions of
the dedicated receiver.
(ii) You must assume that all of the components contained in the
condenser exit vent stream are in equilibrium with the same components
in the exit condensate stream (except for noncondensables).
(iii) You must perform a material balance for each component.
(iv) For the emissions from gas evolution, the term for time, t,
must be used in Equation 12 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG.
(v) Emissions from empty vessel purging shall be calculated using
Equation 36 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG and the exit temperature and
exit pressure conditions of the condenser or the conditions of the
dedicated receiver.
(C) Commercial software products that follow chemical engineering
principles, including the calculation methodologies in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
(ii) Engineering assessments. For process vent emissions
determinations, you may conduct an engineering assessment to calculate
uncontrolled emissions for each emission episode. An engineering
assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(A) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of
current operating practices of the process.
(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the
process under representative operating conditions.
(C) Maximum flow rate, fluorinated GHG emission rate,
concentration, or other relevant parameters specified or implied within
a permit limit applicable to the process vent.
(D) Design analysis based on chemical engineering principles,
measureable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws or
properties.
[[Page 18712]]
(2) Process vent annual mass limit and control determination.
(i) If the individual process vent meets the criteria in either
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) or (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section, then you may
comply with either paragraph (b)(3) (Emission Factor approach) or
paragraph (b)(4) (Emission Calculation Factor approach).
(A) Uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions for the individual
process vent as estimated using procedures in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section are less than 10,000 metric tons CO2e per year or,
for emissions including fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in
Table A-1, 1 metric ton per year.
(B) The individual process vent is vented to a destruction device
demonstrated to achieve a destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent for
the fluorinated GHGs in the vent stream, and the facility has equipment
(e.g., holding tank capacity; monitoring of by-pass streams) or
procedures (e.g., compulsory process shutdowns) in place that ensure
that uncontrolled emissions do not occur. For each process, you should
either track the amount of production or other process activity that is
vented to the destruction device or track production or other process
activity that by-passes the destruction device.
(ii) If the individual process vent does not meet the criteria in
either paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) or (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section, then the
facility must comply with the emission factor method specified in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(3) Process-vent-specific emission factor method. For each process
vent, conduct an emission test and measure uncontrolled fluorinated GHG
emissions from the process and measure the process activity, such as
the feed rate, production rate, or other process activity rate, during
the test as described in this paragraph (b)(3). All emissions test data
and procedures used in developing emission factors shall be documented
according to Sec. 98.127.
(i) You must measure the process activity, such as the process feed
rate, process production rate, or other process activity rate, as
applicable, during the emission test according to the procedures in
Sec. 98.124 and calculate the rate for the test period, in kg per hour
or in kg per batch.
(ii) For continuous processes, you must calculate the hourly
uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emission rate using Equation L-13 of this
section and determine the hourly uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emission
rate per process vent for the test run. For batch processes, you must
calculate the uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions during each
emission episode over the batch using Equation L-14 of this section and
determine the fluorinated GHG emissions per process based on the batch
runs conducted for the test.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.063
Where:
EContPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from production process i during the emission test
during test run r (kg/hr).
CPV = Concentration of fluorinated GHG f during test
run r of the emission test (ppmv).
MW = Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG f (g/g-mole).
QPV = Flow rate of the process vent stream during
test run r of the emission test (m\3\/min).
SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 m\3\/g-mole at 68[deg]
F and 1 atm).
1/10\3\ = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000 gram).
60/1 = Conversion factor (60 minutes/1 hour).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.064
Where:
EBatchPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from production process i during the emission test
during test run r (kg/batch).
CPV-ee = Concentration of fluorinated GHG f during
emission episode ee during test run r of the emission test (ppmv).
QPV-ee = Flow rate of the process vent stream during
emission episode ee during test run r of the emission test (m\3\/
min).
Dee = Duration of emission episode ee during test run
r of the emission test (minutes).
MW = Molecular weight of fluorinated GHG f (g/g-mole).
SV = Standard molar volume of gas (0.0240 m\3\/g-mole at
68[deg]F and 1 atm).
1/10\3\ = Conversion factor (1 kilogram/1,000 gram).
ee = Number of emission episodes ee from process vent v during
process i.
(iii) You must calculate a site-specific, process-vent-specific
emission factor for each process vent, in kg of uncontrolled
fluorinated GHG per process activity rate (e.g., kg of feed or
production), as applicable, using Equation L-15 of this section. For
continuous processes, divide the hourly fluorinated GHG emission rate
during the test by the hourly process activity rate during the test
runs. For batch processes, divide the fluorinated GHG emissions by the
process activity rate for the batch runs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.065
[[Page 18713]]
Where:
EFPV = Average emission factor for fluorinated GHG f
emitted from process vent v during production process i (kg emitted/
kg product).
EPV = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from process
vent v from production process i during the emission test during
test run r, for either continuous or batch (kg emitted/hr for
continuous, kg emitted/batch for batch).
ActivityEmissionTest = Process feed, process
production, or other process activity rate during the emission test
during test run r (e.g., kg product/hr for continuous, calculated in
Equation L-13 of this section, kg product/batch for batch,
calculated in Equation L-14 of this section).
r = Number of test runs (i.e., batches) performed during the
emission test.
(iv) You must calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for the process
vent for the reporting period by multiplying the process-vent-specific
emission factor by the total process activity, as applicable, for the
reporting period, using Equation L-16 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.066
Where:
EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted
from process vent v from production process i, for the reporting
period, either monthly or annually (kg/month or kg/year).
EFPV = Average emission factor for fluorinated GHG f
emitted from process vent v during production process i (kg emitted/
activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg product).
ActivityRptPeriod = Process feed, process production,
or other process activity during the reporting period.
(v) If the process vent is vented to a destruction device, apply
the demonstrated destruction efficiency of the device to the
fluorinated GHG emissions for the process vent, using Equation L-17 of
this section. You may apply the destruction efficiency only to the
portion of the process activity that is vented to the destruction
device (i.e., controlled).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.067
Where:
EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted
from process vent v from production process i, for the reporting
period, either monthly or annually, considering destruction
efficiency (kg/month or kg/year).
EFPV = Emission factor for fluorinated GHG f emitted
from process vent v during production process i (kg emitted/kg
product).
ActivityRptPeriod-U = Total process feed, process
production, or other process activity during the reporting period
for which the process vent is not vented to the destruction device
(e.g., kg product).
ActivityRptPeriod-C = Total process feed, process
production, or other process activity during the reporting period
for which the process vent is vented to the destruction device
(e.g., kg product).
DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of the destruction
device (weight fraction).
(vi) Sum the emissions from all process vents in the process for
the reporting period to estimate total fluorinated GHG process
emissions, using Equation L-18 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.068
Where:
EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
production process i, for the reporting period, either monthly or
annually (kg).
EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted
from process vent v from production process i, for the reporting
period, either monthly or annually, considering destruction
efficiency (kg/month or kg/year).
v = Number of process vents in production process i.
(vii) Sum the emissions from all processes for the reporting period
to estimate total fluorinated GHG process vent emissions, using
Equation L-19 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.069
Where:
EP = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all
process vents at the facility, for the reporting period, either
monthly or annually (kg).
EPij = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
production process i, for the reporting period, either monthly or
annually (kg).
i = Number of production processes i at the facility.
(4) Process-vent-specific emission calculation factor method. For
each process vent, determine fluorinated GHG emissions by calculations
and determine the process activity rate, such as the feed rate,
production rate, or other process activity rate, associated with the
emission rate.
(i) You must calculate uncontrolled emissions of fluorinated GHG by
individual process vent, EPV, using measurements and/or
calculations based on chemical engineering principles and chemical
property data or you may conduct an engineering assessment, using the
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, except
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this section. The uncontrolled emissions
must be based on a typical batch or production rate under a defined
operating scenario. The process activity rate associated with the
uncontrolled emissions must be determined. All data, assumptions, and
procedures used in the calculations or engineering assessment shall be
documented according to Sec. 98.127.
(ii) You must calculate a site-specific, process-vent-specific
emission calculation factor for each process vent, in kg of fluorinated
GHG per activity rate (e.g., kg of feed or production) as applicable,
using Equation L-20 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.070
[[Page 18714]]
Where:
ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated
GHG f emitted from process vent v during production process i (kg
emitted/kg product).
EPV = Average mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted,
based on calculations, from process vent v from production process i
during the period or batch for which emissions were calculated, for
either continuous or batch (kg emitted/hr for continuous, kg
emitted/batch for batch).
ActivityRepresentative = Process feed, process
production, or other process activity rate corresponding to average
mass of emissions based on calculations (e.g., kg product/hr for
continuous, kg product/batch for batch).
(iii) You must calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for the process
vent for the reporting period by multiplying the process-vent-specific
emission calculation factor by the total process activity, as
applicable, for the reporting period, using Equation L-21 of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.071
Where:
EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from production process i, for the reporting period,
either monthly or annually (kg/month or kg/year).
ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated GHG f
emitted from process vent v during production process i (kg emitted/
activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg product).
ActivityRptPeriod = Process feed, process production, or
other process activity during the reporting period.
(iv) If the process vent is vented to a destruction device, apply
the demonstrated destruction efficiency of the device to the
fluorinated GHG emissions for the process vent, using Equation L-22 of
this section. You may apply the destruction efficiency only to the
portion of the process activity that is vented to the destruction
device (i.e., controlled).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.072
Where:
EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from production process i, for the reporting period,
either monthly or annually, considering destruction efficiency (kg/
month or kg/year).
ECFPV = Emission calculation factor for fluorinated GHG f
emitted from process vent v during production process i (kg emitted/
kg product).
ActivityRptPeriod-U = Total process feed, process
production, or other process activity during the reporting period
for which the process vent is not vented to the destruction device
(e.g., kg product).
ActivityRptPeriod-C = Total process feed, process
production, or other process activity during the reporting period
for which the process vent is vented to the destruction device
(e.g., kg product).
DE = Demonstrated destruction efficiency of the destruction device
(weight fraction).
(v) Sum the fluorinated GHG emissions from all process vents in the
process for the reporting period to estimate total process emissions,
using Equation L-23 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.073
Where:
EPfi = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from production
process i, for the reporting period, either monthly or annually
(kg).
EPV-RptPeriod = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from
process vent v from production process i, for the reporting period,
either monthly or annually, considering destruction efficiency (kg/
month or kg/year).
v = Number of process vents in production process i.
(vi) Sum the emissions from all processes for the reporting period
to estimate total fluorinated GHG process emissions, using Equation L-
24 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.074
Where:
EP = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all processes
at the facility, for the reporting period, either monthly or
annually (kg).
EPij = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from production
process i, for the reporting period, either monthly or annually
(kg).
i = Number of production processes i at the facility.
(c) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions for equipment leaks (EL).
If you comply with paragraph (b) of this section, you must calculate
the fluorinated GHG emissions from pieces of equipment associated with
processes covered under this subpart and in fluorinated GHG service.
The emissions from equipment leaks must be calculated using one of the
following methods in the Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission
Estimates, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Publication No.
EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995: the Screening Ranges Approach; the EPA
Correlation Approach; or the Unit-Specific Correlation Approach. You
may not use the procedure in the protocol for Average Emission Factor
Approach.
(1) You must develop response factors for each fluorinated GHG or
for each surrogate to be measured using EPA Method 21, 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A-7. For each fluorinated GHG measured, the response factor
shall be less than 10. The response factor is the ratio of the known
concentration of a fluorinated GHG to the observed meter reading when
measured using an instrument calibrated with the reference compound.
(2) You must collect information on the number of each type of
equipment; the service of each piece of equipment (gas, light liquid,
heavy liquid); the concentration of each fluorinated GHG in the stream;
and the time period each piece of equipment was in service. Depending
on which approach you follow, you must collect information for
equipment on the associated screening data concentrations for greater
than or equal to 10,000 ppmv and associated screening data
concentrations for less than 10,000 ppmv; associated actual screening
data concentrations; and associated screening data and leak rate data
(i.e., bagging) used to develop a unit-specific correlation.
(3) Calculate and sum the emissions of each fluorinated GHG in kg/
yr for equipment pieces for all processes, EEL.
(d) Calculate total fluorinated GHG emissions for the facility/
source category. Estimate annually the total mass of fluorinated GHG
emissions from process vents in either paragraph (c)(3) or (c)(4) of
this section, as appropriate, and from equipment leak emissions in
paragraph (d) using Equation L-25 of this section.
[[Page 18715]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.075
Where:
E = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f emitted from the facility,
annual basis (kg/year).
EP = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from all process
vents at the facility, annually (kg).
EEL = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted from equipment
leaks for pieces of equipment for the facility, annually (kg/year).
(e) Calculate fluorinated GHG emissions from destruction of
fluorinated GHGs that were previously ``produced'' as defined at
98.410(b). Estimate annually the total mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted
from destruction of fluorinated GHGs that were previously ``produced''
as defined at 98.410(b) using Equation L-26 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.076
Where:
ED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs emitted annually from
destruction of fluorinated GHGs that were previously ``produced'' as
defined at 98.410(b) (metric tons).
RED = The mass of fluorinated GHGs that were previously
``produced'' as defined at 98.410(b) and that are fed annually into
the destruction device (metric tons).
DE = Destruction efficiency of the destruction device (fraction).
Sec. 98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
(a) Initial scoping test for fluorinated GHGs. You must conduct an
initial scoping test to identify all fluorinated GHGs that may be
generated from processes that are subject to this subpart and that have
uncontrolled emissions (i.e., pre-control emissions levels) of 1.0
metric ton or more of fluorinated GHGs. For each process, you must
conduct the initial scoping test on the stream(s) (including process
streams or destroyed streams) or process vent(s) that would be expected
to individually or collectively contain all of the fluorinated GHG by-
products of the process. Initial scoping testing must be conducted
according to the procedures in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section.
(b) Mass Balance monitoring. If you determine fluorinated GHG
emissions using the mass balance method under Sec. 98.123(a), you must
estimate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from the
process at least monthly.
(1) You must conduct the following mass measurements on a monthly
or more frequent basis using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination
of volumetric and density measurements with accuracy and precision that
allow the facility to meet the error criteria in Sec. 98.123(a):
(i) Total mass of each fluorinated GHG produced shall be estimated
using the methods and measurements set forth in Sec. 98.413(a) and (b)
and in Sec. 98.414(a) and (b). For each fluorinated GHG, the mass
produced used for the mass-balance calculation shall be the same as the
mass produced that is reported under subpart OO.
(ii) Total mass of each reactant fed into the production process
shall be measured.
(iii) Total mass of each reactant permanently removed from the
production process shall be measured.
(iv) If the waste permanently removed from the production process
and fed into the destruction device contains more than trace
concentrations of fluorinated GHG product, then the mass of waste fed
into the destruction device shall be measured.
(v) If a by-product is responsible for yield loss and occurs in any
stream (including process steams, emissions streams, or destroyed
streams) in more than trace concentrations, then the mass flow of each
stream that contains more than trace concentrations of the by-product
shall be measured.
(vi) If a by-product is a fluorinated GHG (other than HFC-23
generated during HCFC-22 production), occurs in more than trace
concentrations in any stream (including process streams, emissions
streams, or destroyed streams), occurs in more than trace
concentrations in any stream that is recaptured or is fed into a
destruction device, and is not completely recaptured or completely
destroyed, then the mass flow of each stream that contains more than
trace concentrations of the by-product and that is recaptured or is fed
into the destruction device shall be measured.
(2) The following concentration measurements shall be measured on a
regular basis using equipment and methods (e.g., gas chromatography)
with an accuracy and precision that allow the facility to meet the
error criteria in Sec. 98.123(a):
(i) If the waste permanently removed from the production process
and fed into the destruction device contains more than trace
concentrations of fluorinated GHG product and if the stream mass
includes more than trace concentrations of materials other than the
product, then the concentration of the product shall be measured.
(ii) If a by-product is responsible for yield loss and occurs in
any stream (including process streams, emissions streams, or destroyed
streams) in more than trace concentrations and if the stream mass
includes more than trace concentrations of materials other than the by-
product, then the concentration of the by-product shall be measured.
(iii) If a by-product is a fluorinated GHG, occurs in more than
trace concentrations in any stream (including process streams,
emissions streams, or destroyed streams), occurs in more than trace
concentrations in any stream that is recaptured or is fed into a
destruction device, and is not completely recaptured or completely
destroyed, and if the measured stream mass includes more than trace
concentrations of materials other than the by-product, then the
concentration of the by-product shall be measured.
(c) Emission factor testing. If you determine fluorinated GHG
emissions using the site-specific process-vent-specific emission
factor, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through
(c)(8) of this section.
(1) Process vent testing. Conduct an emissions test every 5 years
that is based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on
the normal operating scenario) of the affected process. For each
continuous process vent, develop a process-vent-specific emission
factor for the representative operating scenario. For each batch
process vent, develop a process-vent-specific emission factor for the
representative operating scenario, i.e., the typical batch process.
Atypical events, such as process shutdowns or startups, may be included
in the monitoring for batch processes and may be included for
continuous process, if the monitoring is sufficiently long or
comprehensive to ensure that such events are not overrepresented in the
emission factor. Malfunction events shall not be included in the
monitoring.
(2) Different operating conditions. Develop separate process-vent-
specific emission factor for other operating scenarios as needed. If
your process operates under different conditions as part of normal
operations, you must perform emission testing and develop separate
emission factors for these different process operating scenarios. For
continuous process vents, determine the emissions based on the process
activity at each specific different condition. For batch process vents,
determine emissions based on the process feed rate, process production
rate, or other process activity rate for each typical batch operating
scenario (i.e., each specific condition).
(3) Number of runs. For continuous processes, sample the process
vent for a minimum of 3 runs of 1 hour each. For batch processes,
sample the process vent for all emission episodes over a minimum of 3
complete batch cycles. If the RSD of the emission factor
[[Page 18716]]
calculated based on the first 3 runs is greater than or equal to 0.2
for the emissions factor, continue to sample the process vent for an
additional 3 runs of 1 hour each or an additional 3 batch cycles. If
more than one fluorinated GHG is measured, and if all measured
fluorinated GHGs have GWPs listed in Table A-1, the emissions factor
and RSD shall be expressed in terms of total CO2
equivalents. Otherwise, the emissions factor and RSD shall be expressed
in terms of kilograms of each species.
(4) Emission Test Methods. Conduct the emissions testing using the
following methods:
(i) Sample and velocity traverses. Use EPA Method 1 or 1A in
Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60.
(ii) Velocity and volumetric flow rates. Use EPA Method 2, 2A, 2B,
2C, or 2D, 2F, or 2G in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60. Alternatives
that may be used for determining flow rates include Other Test Method
24 (OTM-24) (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7) and Emission
Measurement Center Alternative Test Method (EMC ALT-012) (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(iii) Gas analysis. Use EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B in Appendix A-1 of
40 CFR part 60.
(iv) Stack gas moisture. Use EPA Method 4 in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR
part 60.
(v) Fluorinated GHG concentrations. Use EPA Method 18 (with GC and
either MS or ECD) in Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60; EPA Method 320 in
Appendix A of 40 CFR part 63; Draft EPA DRE Protocol; or ASTM D6348-03
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 98.7).
(vi) Alternative fluorinated GHG concentration methods.
Alternatives that may be used for determining fluorinated GHG
concentrations include EPA TO-15 or other alternative test methods
conducted in conjunction with EPA Method 301 for validation.
(5) Process activity measurements. Determine the mass rate of
process feed, process production, or other process activity as
applicable during the test using flow meters, weigh scales, or other
measurement devices or instruments with an accuracy and precision of
1 percent of full scale or better. These devices may be the
same plant instruments or procedures that are used for accounting
purposes (such as weigh hoppers, belt weigh feeders, combination of
volume measurements and bulk density, etc.) if these devices or
procedures meet the requirement. For monitoring ongoing process
activity, use flow meters, weigh scales, or other measurement devices
or instruments with an accuracy and precision of 1 percent
of full scale or better.
(6) Sample each process. If process vents from separate processes
are manifolded together to a common vent or to a common destruction
device, you must sample each process in the ducts before the emissions
are combined, sample when only one process is operating, or sample the
combined emissions at representative combinations of capacity
utilizations for all the processes. If the last option is selected, 3
times n test runs shall be required, where n is the number of processes
feeding into the common vent or destruction device, and the process-
vent-specific emission factor shall be applied whenever one or more of
the processes is operating. In this case, calculate the emission factor
for each sample by dividing the total emissions by the summed process
activity across the processes venting to the common vent. Derive the
process-vent-specific emission factor by averaging the 3n emission
factors.
(7) Emission test results. The results of an emission test must
include the analysis of samples, determination of emissions, and raw
data. The emissions test report must contain all information and data
used to derive the process-vent-specific emission factor, as well as
key process conditions during the test. Key process conditions include
those that are normally monitored for process control purposes and may
include but are not limited to yields, pressures, temperatures, etc.
(e.g., of reactor vessels, distillation columns).
(8) Previous measurements. If you have conducted an emissions test
less than 5 years before the effective date of this rule, and the
emissions testing meets the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) through
(7) of this section, you may use the previous emissions testing to
develop process-vent-specific emission factors.
(d) Emission calculation factor monitoring. If you determine
fluorinated GHG emissions using the site-specific process-vent-specific
emission calculation factor, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section.
(1) Revise the emission calculation factor for each process every 5
years based on representative operation (i.e., performance based on the
normal operating scenario) of the affected process. For each continuous
process vent, develop the emission calculation factor for the
representative operating scenario. For each batch process vent, develop
the emission calculation factor for the representative operating
scenario, i.e., the typical batch process.
(2) Different operating conditions. You must develop separate
emissions calculation factors for other operating scenarios as needed.
If your process operates under different conditions as part of normal
operations, you must conduct emissions calculations and develop
separate emission factors for these different process operating
scenarios. For continuous process vents, determine the emissions based
on the process activity at each specific different condition. For batch
process vents, determine emissions based on the process feed rate,
process production rate, or other process activity rate for each
typical batch operating scenario and for each non-typical batch
operating scenario (i.e., each specific condition).
(3) Process activity measurements. Use flow meters, weigh scales,
or other measurement devices or instruments with an accuracy and
precision of 1 percent of full scale or better for
monitoring ongoing process activity.
(e) Emission monitoring for pieces of equipment. Conduct the
screening level concentration measurements using EPA Method 21 in 40
CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to determine the screening level
concentration data or actual screening level concentration data for the
Screening Ranges Approach or the EPA Correlation Approach. Conduct the
screening level concentration measurements using EPA Method 21 and the
bagging procedures to measure mass emissions for developing the Unit-
Specific Correlation Approach in the Protocol for Equipment Leak
Emission Estimates, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Publication No. EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995. Concentration
measurements of bagged samples must be conducted using gas
chromatography following EPA Method 18 analytical procedures. Use
methane as the calibration gas.
(f) Destruction device performance testing. If you vent fluorinated
GHG emissions or otherwise feed fluorinated GHGs into a destruction
device and apply the destruction efficiency of the device in Sec.
98.123, you must conduct an emissions test every 5 years to determine
the destruction efficiency.
(1) You must sample the inlet and outlet of the destruction device
for a minimum of three runs of 1 hour each to determine the destruction
efficiency. You must conduct the emissions testing using the methods in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section. To determine the destruction
efficiency, emission testing shall be conducted when operating at high
loads reasonably expected to occur (i.e., representative of high total
fluorinated GHG load that will be sent to the device) and when
destroying the
[[Page 18717]]
most-difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG (or a surrogate that is still
more difficult to destroy) that is fed into the device from the
processes subject to this subpart.
(2) Previous testing. If you have conducted an emissions test
within the last 5 years prior to the effective date of this rule, and
the emissions testing meets the requirements in paragraph (f)(1) of
this section, you may use the destruction efficiency determined during
this previous emissions testing.
(3) Part 264, 266, and 270 principal organic hazardous constituent
(POHC) testing. If a destruction device used to destroy fluorinated GHG
is subject to 40 CFR part 264 or 266 and is permitted under 40 CFR part
270 with a demonstrated DRE of at least 99.99 percent for the most-
difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed into the device from the
processes subject to this subpart, the emissions testing under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section is not required and you may use the
destruction efficiency determined during this previous testing.
(4) Hazardous Waste Combustor testing. If a destruction device used
to destroy fluorinated GHG is subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE
and has a demonstrated DRE of at least 99.99 percent for the most-
difficult-to-destroy fluorinated GHG fed into the device from the
processes subject to this subpart, the emissions testing under
paragraph (f)(1) of this section is not required and you may use the
destruction efficiency determined during this previous testing.
(5) Process change. For process changes that require a new or
revised operating scenario, you must determine whether the
concentrations and the fluorinated gas compounds vented to the
destruction device following the process change affects the DE (i.e.,
compare the post-process-change fluorinated GHG load and the most-
difficult-to-combust fluorinated GHG with the test conditions). If the
operating conditions and DE demonstrated in the destruction device
performance testing are not sufficient to achieve the DE for the
concentrations and fluorinated gas compounds vented to the destruction
device following the process change then, you must conduct another
emissions test to demonstrate the DE.
(g) Mass of previously produced fluorinated GHGs fed into
destruction device. You must measure the mass of fluorinated GHGs that
are fed into the destruction device and that were previously produced
as defined at 98.410(b). Such fluorinated GHGs include but are not
limited to quantities that are shipped to the facility by another
facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the
facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated
and are therefore destroyed. You must use flowmeters, weigh scales, or
a combination of volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy
and precision of 1 percent of full scale or better. If the measured
mass includes more than trace concentrations of materials other than
the fluorinated GHG being destroyed, you must measure the
concentrations of fluorinated GHG being destroyed. You must multiply
this concentration (mass fraction) by the mass measurement to obtain
the mass of the fluorinated GHG fed into the destruction device.
(h) Emissions due to deviations of destruction device. In their
estimates of the mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed, fluorinated GHG
production facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs shall account for
any temporary reductions in the destruction efficiency that result from
any malfunctions of the destruction device, including deviations from
the operating conditions defined in State or local permitting
requirements and/or oxidizer manufacturer specifications.
(i) Emissions due to process startup, shutdown, or malfunctions.
Fluorinated GHG production facilities shall account for fluorinated GHG
emissions that occur as a result of startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions, either recording fluorinated GHG emissions during these
events, or documenting that these events do not result in significant
fluorinated GHG emissions.
(j) Initial scoping testing, emissions testing, and emissions
factor development must be completed by December 31, 2011.
(k) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and combinations of
volumetric and density measures using monitoring instruments traceable
to the International System of Units (SI) through the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or other recognized
national measurement institute. Recalibrate all flow meters, weigh
scales, and combinations of volumetric and density measures at the
minimum frequency specified by the manufacturer. Use any of the
following applicable flow meter test methods or the calibration
procedures specified by the flow meter, weigh-scale, or other
volumetric or density measure manufacturer.
(1) ASME MFC-3M-2004, Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
98.7).
(2) ASME MFC-4M-1986 (Reaffirmed 1997), Measurement of Gas Flow by
Turbine Meters (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(3) ASME-MFC-5M-1985, (Reaffirmed 1994), Measurement of Liquid Flow
in Closed Conduits Using Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(4) ASME MFC-6M-1998, Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Vortex Flowmeters (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(5) ASME MFC-7M-1987 (Reaffirmed 1992), Measurement of Gas Flow by
Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 98.7).
(6) ASME MFC-9M-1988 (Reaffirmed 2001), Measurement of Liquid Flow
in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 98.7).
(7) ASME MFC-11M-2006, Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of
Coriolis Mass Flowmeters (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(8) ASME MFC-14M-2003, Measurement of Fluid Flow Using Small Bore
Precision Orifice Meters (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(l) All analytical equipment, including gas chromatographs, GC/MS,
GC/ECD, FTIR and NMR devices, used to determine the concentration of
fluorinated GHG in streams shall be calibrated at least monthly through
analysis of certified standards with known concentrations of the same
chemicals in the same ranges (fractions by mass) as the process
samples. Calibration gases prepared from a high-concentration certified
standard using a gas dilution system that meets the requirements
specified in Method 205, 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M may also be used.
(m) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the
provisions of Sec. 98.3(d)(1) through (3) for best available
monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring requirements of
this section. For purposes of subpart L, any reference to the year 2010
in Sec. 98.3(d)(1) through (3) shall mean 2011.
Sec. 98.125 Procedures for estimating missing data.
(a) A complete record of all measured parameters used in the GHG
emissions calculations in Sec. 98.123 is required. Therefore, whenever
a quality-assured value of a required parameter is unavailable, a
substitute data value for the missing parameter shall be used in the
calculations as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
You must document and keep records of the procedures used for all such
estimates.
[[Page 18718]]
(b) For each missing value of the fluorinated GHG concentration,
the substitute data value shall be the arithmetic average of the
quality-assured values of that parameter immediately preceding and
immediately following the missing data incident.
(c) For each missing value of the mass produced, fed into the
production process, fed into the transformation process, fed into
destruction devices, sent to another facility for transformation, or
sent to another facility for destruction, the substitute value of that
parameter shall be a secondary mass measurement where such a
measurement is available. For example, if the mass produced is usually
measured with a flowmeter at the inlet to the day tank and that
flowmeter fails to meet an accuracy or precision test, malfunctions, or
is rendered inoperable, then the mass produced may be estimated by
calculating the change in volume in the day tank and multiplying it by
the density of the product. Where a secondary mass measurement is not
available, the substitute value of the parameter shall be an estimate
based on a related parameter. For example, if a flowmeter measuring the
mass fed into a destruction device is rendered inoperable, then the
mass fed into the destruction device may be estimated using the
production rate and the previously observed relationship between the
production rate and the mass flow rate into the destruction device.
Sec. 98.126 Data reporting requirements.
(a) All facilities. In addition to the information required by
Sec. 98.3(c), you shall report the following information.
(1) The chemical identities of the contents of the stream(s)
(including process, emissions, and destroyed streams) analyzed under
the initial scoping test of fluorinated GHG at Sec. 98.124(a), by
process.
(2) The location and function of the stream(s) (including process
streams, emissions streams, and destroyed streams) that were analyzed
under the initial scoping test of fluorinated GHG at Sec. 98.124(a),
by process.
(3) The annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG by process, for
equipment leaks, and for the facility as a whole.
(4) The method used to determine the mass emissions of each
fluorinated GHG, i.e., mass balance, process-vent-specific emission
factor, or process-vent-specific emission calculation factor, for each
process and process vent at the facility.
(5) The chemical formula and total mass produced of the fluorinated
gas product in metric tons, by chemical and process.
(b) Reporting for mass balance approach. For processes whose
emissions are determined using the mass-balance approach under Sec.
98.123(a), you shall report the following for each process:
(1) The absolute and relative uncertainties calculated under
paragraphs Sec. 98.123(a)(1) through (a)(4), as well as the data
(including quantities and their uncertainties) used in these
calculations.
(2) The balanced chemical equation that describes the reaction used
to manufacture the fluorinated GHG product (specifically, the equation
that provides the stoichiometric coefficients in Equation L-7 of this
subpart).
(3) The total mass and chemical formula of each reactant fed into
the production process in metric tons, by chemical.
(4) The total mass of each reactant permanently removed from the
production process in metric tons, by chemical.
(5) The total mass of the fluorinated GHG product removed from the
production process and destroyed.
(6) The mass and chemical formula of each by-product generated.
(7) The mass of each by-product destroyed at the facility.
(9) The mass of each by-product recaptured and sent off-site for
destruction.
(10) The mass of each by-product recaptured for other purposes.
(c) Reporting for emission factor and emission calculation factor
approach. For processes whose emissions are determined using the
emission factor approach under Sec. 98.123(b)(3) or the emission
calculation factor under Sec. 98.123(b)(4), you shall report the
following for each process:
(1) The process activity used to estimate emissions (e.g., tons of
product produced or tons of reactant consumed).
(2) The site-specific, process-vent-specific emission factor or
emission calculation factor for each process vent.
(3) The mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted, including the mass of
each fluorinated GHG emitted from equipment leaks.
(d) Reporting for missing data. Where missing data have been
estimated pursuant to Sec. 98.125, you shall report the reason the
data were missing, the length of time the data were missing, the method
used to estimate the missing data, and the estimates of those data.
(e) Reporting of destruction device monitoring data. A fluorinated
GHG production facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs shall report the
monitoring results for the destruction device that are deviations from
the monitoring limit set (e.g., parametric monitoring of incinerator
temperature, outlet concentration checks, etc.) during the emissions
test.
(f) Reporting of destruction device testing. A fluorinated GHG
production facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs shall submit the
emissions test report for the emission test conducted every 5 years.
The emissions testing report must contain the following information:
(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each destruction unit for each
fluorinated GHG, or if a surrogate was used, the DE of the surrogate.
(2) Test methods used to determine the destruction efficiency.
(3) Methods used to record the mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed.
(4) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used in the
performance test conducted to determine DE, including surrogates, and
information on why the surrogate is sufficient to demonstrate DE for
all fluorinated GHG vented to the destruction unit.
(5) Name of all applicable Federal or State regulations that may
apply to the destruction process.
(6) If process changes affect the destruction efficiency of the
destruction device or the methods used to record mass of fluorinated
GHG destroyed, then the revised emission testing report must be
submitted to reflect the changes. The revised report must be submitted
to EPA within 60 days of the change.
(g) Reporting for destruction of previously produced fluorinated
GHGs. A fluorinated GHG production facility that destroys fluorinated
GHGs shall report the following for each previously produced
fluorinated GHG destroyed:
(1) The mass of the fluorinated GHG fed into the destruction
device.
(2) The mass of the fluorinated GHG emitted from the destruction
device.
Sec. 98.127 Records that must be retained.
In addition to the records required by Sec. 98.3(g), you must
retain the dated records specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of
this section, as applicable.
(a) Process information records.
(1) Identify all products and processes subject to this subpart.
Include the unit identification as appropriate.
(2) Monthly and annual records of all analyses and calculations
conducted, including all information reported as required under
Sec. Sec. 98.123 and 98.126.
(b) Emission factor and emission calculation factor method. Retain
the
[[Page 18719]]
following records for each process at the facility.
(1) Identify all process vents above and below the 10,000 metric
tons CO2e per year uncontrolled emission limit for
fluorinated GHG.
(2) For vents above the 10,000 metric tons CO2e per year
uncontrolled emission limit, identify those that vent to a destruction
device demonstrated to achieve a destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent
for fluorinated GHGs, and for which the facility has equipment (e.g.,
holding tank capacity; monitoring of by-pass streams) or procedures
(e.g., compulsory process shutdowns) in place that ensure that
uncontrolled emissions do not occur.
(3) For each vent, identify the method used to develop the factor
(i.e., emission factor by emissions test or emissions calculation
factor).
(4) The emissions test data and reports and the calculations used
to determine the process-vent-specific emissions factor, including the
actual process-vent-specific emission factor, the average hourly
fluorinated GHG emission rate from the process vent during the test or
the average fluorinated GHG emissions per batch and the process feed
rate, process production rate, or other process activity rate during
the test.
(5) The calculations used to determine the process-vent-specific
emissions calculation factor and the actual emissions calculation
factor.
(6) The ongoing monthly, campaign, or batch process production
quantity and annual process production quantity or other process
activity information in the appropriate units, along with the dates and
time period during which the process was operating.
(7) For continuous processes, identify whether the process was
representative or whether it was another operating scenario. For batch
processes, identify whether each batch operated was considered a
typical batch or whether it was another operating scenario. For both
continuous and batch processes, identify and provide the measurements
during the test of the key process parameters that define the operating
scenario (e.g., process equipment, process vents, destruction device)).
(8) Calculations used to determine annual emissions of each
fluorinated GHG for each process and the total fluorinated GHG
emissions for all processes, i.e., total for facility.
(9) The dates and time periods when the process vent emissions from
a campaign or batch were vented to the destruction device.
(c) Missing data records. Where missing data have been estimated
pursuant to Sec. 98.125, you shall record the reason the data were
missing, the length of time the data were missing, the method used to
estimate the missing data, and the estimates of those data.
(d) 5-year process vent emission testing. A fluorinated GHG
production facility that conducts process vent emission testing to
determine process-vent-specific emission factor for fluorinated GHGs
shall retain the results of the emission testing, including data in
Sec. 98.124(c)(7) and:
(1) Test methods used to determine the flow rate and fluorinated
GHG concentrations of the process vent stream.
(2) Flow rate of fluorinated GHG stream.
(3) Concentration (mass fraction) of each fluorinated GHG.
(4) Emission factor calculated from paragraph (b)(4) of this
section in metric tons per activity.
(e) 5-year destruction efficiency testing. A fluorinated GHG
production facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs shall retain the
emissions performance testing report containing the following
information:
(1) Destruction efficiency (DE) of each destruction device.
(2) Test methods used to determine the destruction efficiency.
(3) Methods used to record the mass of fluorinated GHG destroyed.
(4) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used in the
performance test conducted to determine DE.
(5) Name of all applicable Federal or State regulations that may
apply to the destruction process.
(6) If process changes affect the destruction efficiency of the
destruction device or the methods used to record mass of fluorinated
GHG destroyed, then the revised emission testing report must be
submitted to reflect the changes. The revised report must be submitted
to EPA within 60 days of the change.
(7) Records of test reports and other information documenting the
facility's five-year destruction efficiency report in Sec. 98.126(e)
and (g).
(f) Equipment leak records. If you are subject to Sec. 98.123(c)
of this subpart, you must maintain information on the number of each
type of equipment; the service of each piece of equipment (gas, light
liquid, heavy liquid); the concentration of each fluorinated GHG in the
stream; the time period each piece of equipment was in service, and the
emission calculations for each fluorinated GHG for all processes.
Depending on which equipment leak monitoring approach you follow, you
must maintain information for equipment on the associated screening
data concentrations for greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmv and
associated screening data concentrations for less than 10,000 ppmv;
associated actual screening data concentrations; and associated
screening data and leak rate data (i.e., bagging) used to develop a
unit-specific correlation.
(g) All facilities. Dated records documenting the initial and
periodic calibration of the gas chromatographs, GC/MS, GC/ECD, FTIR,
and NMR devices, weigh scales, flowmeters, and volumetric and density
measures used to measure the quantities reported under this subpart,
including the industry standards or manufacturer directions used for
calibration pursuant to Sec. 98.124(c), (e), (f), (k) and (l).
Sec. 98.128 Definitions.
Except as provided below, all of the terms used in this subpart
have the same meaning given in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this
part. If a conflict exists between a definition provided in this
subpart and a definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this
subpart shall take precedence for the reporting requirements in this
subpart.
Batch process or batch operation means a noncontinuous operation
involving intermittent or discontinuous feed into equipment, and, in
general, involves the emptying of the equipment after the batch
operation ceases and prior to beginning a new operation. Addition of
raw material and withdrawal of product do not occur simultaneously in a
batch operation.
Batch emission episode means a discrete venting episode associated
with a vessel in a process; a vessel may have more than one batch
emission episode. For example, a displacement of vapor resulting from
the charging of a vessel with a feed material will result in a discrete
emission episode that will last through the duration of the charge and
will have an average flow rate equal to the rate of the charge. If the
vessel is then heated, there will also be another discrete emission
episode resulting from the expulsion of expanded vapor. Other emission
episodes also may occur from the same vessel and other vessels in the
process, depending on process operations.
Completely destroyed means destroyed with a destruction efficiency
of 99.99 percent or greater.
Completely recaptured means 99.99 percent or greater of each
fluorinated GHG is removed from a stream.
Continuous process or operation means a process where the inputs
and
[[Page 18720]]
outputs flow continuously throughout the duration of the process.
Continuous processes are typically steady state.
Destruction process means a process used to destroy fluorinated GHG
in a destruction device such as a thermal incinerator or catalytic
oxidizer.
Equipment (for the purposes of 40 CFR part 98, subpart L only)
means each pump, compressor, agitator, pressure relief device, sampling
connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, connector, and
instrumentation system in fluorinated GHG service for a process subject
to this subpart; and any destruction devices or closed-vent systems to
which processes subject to this subpart are vented.
Fluorinated gas means any fluorinated GHG, CFC, or HCFC.
In fluorinated GHG service means that a piece of equipment either
contains or contacts a feedstock, byproduct, or product that contains
fluorinated GHG.
Isolated intermediate means a product of a process that is stored
before subsequent processing. An isolated intermediate is usually a
product of chemical synthesis. Storage of an isolated intermediate
marks the end of a process. Storage occurs at any time the intermediate
is placed in equipment used solely for storage.
Operating scenario means any specific operation of a process and
includes for each process: (1) A description of the process and the
specific process equipment used; (2) An identification of related
process vents, their associated emissions episodes and durations, and
calculations and engineering analyses to show the annual uncontrolled
fluorinated GHG emissions from the process vent; (3) The control or
destruction devices used, as applicable, including a description of
operating and/or testing conditions for any associated destruction
device; (4) The process vents (including those from other processes)
that are simultaneously routed to the control or destruction device(s);
and (5) The applicable monitoring requirements and any parametric level
that assures destruction or removal for all emissions routed to the
control or destruction device. A change to any of these elements not
previously reported, except for item (4) of this definition, shall
constitute a different operating scenario.
Process means all equipment which collectively function to produce
a fluorinated gas product, including an isolated intermediate (which is
also a fluorinated gas product), or to transform a fluorinated gas
product. A process may consist of one or more unit operations. For the
purposes of this subpart, process includes any, all, or a combination
of reaction, recovery, separation, purification, or other activity,
operation, manufacture, or treatment which are used to produce a
fluorinated gas product. For a continuous process, cleaning operations
conducted may be considered part of the process, at the discretion of
the facility. For a batch process, cleaning operations are part of the
process. Ancillary activities are not considered a process or part of
any process under this subpart. Ancillary activities include boilers
and incinerators, chillers and refrigeration systems, and other
equipment and activities that are not directly involved (i.e., they
operate within a closed system and materials are not combined with
process fluids) in the processing of raw materials or the manufacturing
of a fluorinated gas product.
Process condenser means a condenser whose primary purpose is to
recover material as an integral part of a process. All condensers
recovering condensate from a process vent at or above the boiling point
or all condensers in line prior to a vacuum source are considered
process condensers. Typically, a primary condenser or condensers in
series are considered to be integral to the process if they are capable
of and normally used for the purpose of recovering chemicals for fuel
value (i.e., net positive heating value), use, reuse or for sale for
fuel value, use, or reuse.
Process vent (for the purposes of 40 CFR part 98, subpart L only)
means a vent from a process vessel or vents from multiple process
vessels within a process that are manifolded together into a common
header, through which a fluorinated GHG-containing gas stream is, or
has the potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Examples of
process vents include, but are not limited to, vents on condensers used
for product recovery, bottoms receivers, surge control vessels,
reactors, filters, centrifuges, and process tanks. Process vents do not
include vents on storage tanks or pieces of equipment.
Typical batch means a batch process operated within a range of
operating conditions that are documented in an operating scenario.
Emissions from a typical batch are based on the operating conditions
that result in representative emissions. The typical batch defines the
uncontrolled emissions for each emission episode defined under the
operating scenario.
Uncontrolled fluorinated GHG emissions means a gas stream
containing fluorinated GHG which has exited the process (or process
condenser, where applicable), but which has not yet been introduced
into a destruction device to reduce the mass of fluorinated GHG in the
stream. If the emissions from the process are not routed to a
destruction device, uncontrolled emissions are those fluorinated GHG
emissions released to the atmosphere.
5. Add subpart QQ to read as follows:
Subpart QQ--Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases
Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams
Sec.
98.430 Definition of the source category.
98.431 Reporting threshold.
98.432 GHGs to report.
98.433 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
98.435 Procedures for estimating missing data.
98.436 Data reporting requirements.
98.437 Records that must be retained.
98.438 Definitions.
Subpart QQ--Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases
Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams
Sec. 98.430 Definition of the source category.
(a) The source category, importers and exporters of fluorinated
GHGs contained in pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams, consists
of the following suppliers: any entity that is importing or exporting
pre-charged equipment that contains a fluorinated GHG, and any entity
that is importing or exporting closed-cell foams that contain a
fluorinated GHG.
Sec. 98.431 Reporting threshold.
Any importer or exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-
charged equipment or closed-cell foams who meets the requirements of
Sec. 98.2(a)(4) must report each fluorinated GHG contained in the
imported or exported pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams.
Sec. 98.432 GHGs to report.
You must report the quantity of each fluorinated GHG contained in
pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams that you import or export
during the calendar year.
Sec. 98.433 Calculating GHG contained in pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foams.
(a) The total mass of each fluorinated GHG imported and exported
inside equipment or foams shall be estimated using Equation QQ-1 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.077
Where:
[[Page 18721]]
I = Total mass of the fluorinated GHG imported or exported by
the entity annually (metric tons)
t = Type of equipment/foam containing the fluorinated GHG
St = Mass of fluorinated GHG per unit of equipment or
foam type t (charge per piece of equipment or kg/cubic foot of foam,
kg)
Nt = Number of units of equipment or foam type t
imported or exported annually (pieces of equipment or cubic feet of
foam)
0.001 = Factor converting kg to metric tons
Sec. 98.434 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the
provisions of Sec. 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) for best available
monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring requirements of
this section. For purposes of this subpart, any reference to the year
2010 in Sec. 98.3(d)(1) through (3) shall mean 2011.
(b) The inputs to the annual submission shall be reviewed against
the import or export transaction records to ensure that the information
submitted to EPA is being accurately transcribed as the correct
chemical or blend in the correct pre-charged equipment or closed-cell
foam in the correct quantities (metric tons) and units (cubic feet and
kg/cubic foot).
Sec. 98.435 Procedures for estimating missing data.
Procedures for estimating missing data are not provided for
importers and exporters of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged
equipment or closed-cell foams. A complete record of all measured
parameters used in tracking fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged
equipment or closed-cell foams is required.
Sec. 98.436 Data reporting requirements.
(a) Each importer of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged
equipment or closed-cell foams shall submit an annual report that
summarizes its imports at the corporate level, except for
transshipments, as specified:
(1) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG imported in
pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams.
(2) For each type of pre-charged equipment, the identity of the
fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or electrical insulator, charge
size (holding charge, if applicable), and number imported.
(3) For closed-cell foams that are imported inside of appliances,
the identity of the fluorinated GHG contained in the foam, the quantity
of fluorinated GHG contained in the foam in each appliance, and the
number of appliances imported for each type of appliance.
(4) For imported closed cell-foams that are not imported inside of
appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG, the density of the
fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the
quantity of foam imported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell
foam.
(5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams
were imported.
(6) Ports of entry through which the pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foams passed.
(7) Countries from which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell
foams were imported.
(b) Each exporter of fluorinated GHGs contained in pre-charged
equipment or closed-cell foams shall submit an annual report that
summarizes its exports at the corporate level, except for
transshipments, as specified:
(1) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG exported in
pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams.
(2) For each type of pre-charged equipment, the identity of the
fluorinated GHG used as a refrigerant or electrical insulator, charge
size (including holding charge, if applicable), and number exported.
(3) For closed-cell foams that are exported inside of appliances, the
identity of the fluorinated GHG contained in the foam, the quantity of
fluorinated GHG contained in the foam in each appliance, and the number
of appliances exported for each type of appliance.
(4) For exported closed cell-foams that are not exported inside of
appliances, the identity of the fluorinated GHG, the density of the
fluorinated GHG in the foam (kg fluorinated GHG/cubic foot), and the
quantity of foam exported (cubic feet) for each type of closed-cell
foam.
(5) Dates on which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams
were exported.
(6) Ports of exit through which the pre-charged equipment or
closed-cell foams passed.
(7) Countries to which the pre-charged equipment or closed-cell
foams were exported.
Sec. 98.437 Records that must be retained.
(a) In addition to the data required by Sec. 98.3(g), importers of
fluorinated-GHGs in pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams shall
retain the following records substantiating each of the imports that
they report:
(1) A copy of the bill of lading for the import.
(2) The invoice for the import.
(3) The U.S. Customs entry form.
(b) In addition to the data required by Sec. 98.3(g), exporters of
fluorinated GHGs in pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams shall
retain the following records substantiating each of the exports that
they report:
(1) A copy of the bill of lading for the export and
(2) The invoice for the export.
(c) Persons who transship pre-charged equipment and closed cell
foams containing fluorinated GHGs shall maintain records that indicated
that the pre-charged equipment or foam originated in a foreign country
and was destined for another foreign country and did not enter into
commerce in the United States.
Sec. 98.438 Definitions.
Except as provided below, all of the terms used in this subpart
have the same meaning given in the Clean Air Act and subpart A of this
part. If a conflict exists between a definition provided in this
subpart and a definition provided in subpart A, the definition in this
subpart shall take precedence for the reporting requirements in this
subpart.
Appliance means any device which contains and uses a fluorinated
greenhouse gas refrigerant and which is used for household or
commercial purposes, including any air conditioner, refrigerator,
chiller, or freezer.
Closed cell foam means any foam product constructed with a closed
cell structure and a blowing agent containing a fluorinated GHG,
including but not limited to polyurethane (PU) appliance foam, PU
continuous and discontinuous panel foam, PU one component foam, PU
spray foam, extruded polystyrene (XPS) boardstock foam, and XPS sheet
foam.
Electrical Equipment means gas-insulated substations, circuit
breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers.
Fluorinated GHG refrigerant means, for purposes of this subpart,
any substance consisting in part or whole of a fluorinated greenhouse
gas and that is used for heat transfer purposes and provides a cooling
effect.
Pre-charged appliance means any appliance charged with fluorinated
greenhouse gas refrigerant prior to sale or distribution or offer for
sale or distribution in interstate commerce. This includes both
appliances that contain the full charge necessary for operation and
appliances that contain a partial ``holding'' charge of the fluorinated
greenhouse gas refrigerant (e.g., for shipment purposes).
[[Page 18722]]
Pre-charged appliance component means any portion of an appliance,
including but not limited to condensers, compressors, line sets, and
coils, that is charged with fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant
prior to sale or distribution or offer for sale or distribution in
interstate commerce.
Pre-charged equipment means any pre-charged appliance, pre-charged
appliance component, pre-charged electrical equipment, or pre-charged
electrical equipment component.
Pre-charged electrical equipment means any electrical equipment,
including but not limited to gas-insulated substations, circuit
breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers
containing a fluorinated GHG prior to sale or distribution, or offer
for sale or distribution in interstate commerce. This includes both
equipment that contain the full charge necessary for operation and
equipment that contain a partial ``holding'' charge of the fluorinated
GHG (e.g., for shipment purposes).
Pre-charged electrical equipment component means any portion of
electrical equipment that is charged with SF6 or PFCs prior
to sale or distribution or offer for sale or distribution in interstate
commerce.
6. Add subpart SS to read as follows:
Subpart SS--Sulfur Hexafluoride and Perfluorocarbons From Electrical
Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment
Sec.
98.450 Definition of the source category.
98.451 Reporting threshold.
98.452 GHGs to report.
98.453 Calculating GHG emissions.
98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
98.455 Procedures for estimating missing data.
98.456 Data reporting requirements.
98.457 Records that must be retained.
98.458 Definitions
Subpart SS--Sulfur Hexafluoride and Perfluorocarbons From
Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment
Sec. 98.450 Definition of the source category.
The electrical equipment manufacturing category consists of
processes that manufacture or refurbish gas-insulated substations,
circuit breakers, other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power
transformers (including gas-containing components of such equipment)
containing sulfur-hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons
(PFCs).
Sec. 98.451 Reporting threshold.
You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if your facility
contains an electrical equipment manufacturing process and the facility
meets the requirements of either Sec. 98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2).
Sec. 98.452 GHGs to report.
(a) You must report annual SF6 and PFC emissions
(including emissions from equipment testing, manufacturing,
decommissioning and disposal, refurbishing, and from storage cylinders
and other containers) from any facility associated with the manufacture
or refurbishment of closed-pressure and sealed-pressure equipment
(including components of such equipment).
(b) You must report CO2, N2O and
CH4 combustion-related emissions from each stationary
combustion unit. You must calculate and report these emissions under
subpart C of this part (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) by
following the requirements of subpart C.
Sec. 98.453 Calculating GHG emissions.
(a) For each electrical equipment manufacturer, you must estimate
the annual SF6 and PFC emissions using the mass-balance
approach in Equation SS-1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.078
Where:
Decrease in SF6 Inventory = (SF6 stored in
containers at the beginning of the year)--(SF6 stored in
containers at the end of the year).
Acquisitions of SF6 = (SF6 purchased from
chemical producers or distributors in bulk) + (SF6
returned by equipment users or distributors in equipment or
containers) + (SF6 returned to site after off-site
recycling).
Disbursements of SF6 = (SF6 contained in
new equipment delivered to customers) + (SF6 delivered to
equipment users in containers) + (SF6 returned to
suppliers) + (SF6 sent off site for recycling) +
(SF6 sent to destruction facilities).
(b) The mass-balance method in paragraph (a) of this section shall
be used to estimate emissions of PFCs associated with the manufacture
or refurbishment of power transformers, substituting the relevant
PFC(s) for SF6 in Equation SS-1.
(c) The disbursements of SF6 or PFCs to customers in new
equipment or cylinders shall be estimated using Equation SS-2 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.079
Where:
DGHG = The disbursement of SF6 or PFCs
over the period to customers in new equipment or cylinders.
Qp = The mass of the SF6 or PFCs charged
into equipment or containers over the period p sent to customers or
sent off-site for other purposes including for recycling, for
destruction or to be returned to suppliers.
n = The number of periods in the year.
(d) The mass of SF6 or PFCs disbursed to customers in
new equipment or cylinders over the period p may be estimated by
monitoring the mass flow of the SF6 or PFCs into the new
equipment or cylinders using a flow meter or by weighing containers
before and after gas from containers is used to fill equipment or
cylinders.
(e) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to customers
in new equipment or cylinders over the period p is estimated by
weighing containers before and after gas from containers is used to
fill equipment or cylinders, this quantity shall be estimated by using
Equation SS-3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.080
Where:
Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed
to customers over the period p.
MB = The mass of the contents of the containers used
to fill equipment or cylinders at the beginning of period p.
ME = The mass of the contents of the containers used
to fill equipment or cylinders at the end of period p.
EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted
during the period p downstream of the containers used to fill
equipment or cylinders (e.g., emissions from hoses or other flow
lines that connect the container to the equipment or cylinder that
is being filled).
(f) If the mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed to customers
in new equipment or cylinders over the period p is determined using a
flow meter, this quantity shall be estimated using Equation SS-4 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP10.081
Where:
[[Page 18723]]
Qp = The mass of SF6 or the PFC disbursed
to customers over the period p.
Mmr = The mass of the SF6 or the PFC that
has flowed through the flow meter during the period p.
EL = The mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted
downstream of the flowmeter during the period p (e.g., emissions
from hoses or other flow lines that connect the container to the
equipment that is being filled).
Sec. 98.454 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
(a) For calendar year 2011 monitoring, you may follow the
provisions of Sec. 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) for best available
monitoring methods rather than follow the monitoring requirements of
this section. For purposes of subpart SS any reference to the year 2010
in Sec. 98.3(d)(1) through (d)(3) shall mean 2011.
(b) Ensure that all the quantities required by the equations of
this subpart have been measured using scales or flow meters that are
certified with an accuracy and precision to within one percent of the
true mass or weight or better, and is periodically recalibrated per the
manufacturer's specifications. Account for the tare weights of the
containers. Either measure new or residual gas (the amount of gas
remaining in returned cylinders) or have the gas supplier measure them.
If the gas supplier weighs the new or residual gas, obtain from the gas
supplier a detailed monthly accounting, within 1 percent, of new or
residual gas amounts in the cylinders returned to the gas supplier. You
remain responsible for the accuracy of these masses and weights under
this subpart.
(c) For purposes of Equations SS-3 and SS-4 of this subpart, the
mass of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the container
or flowmeter during the period p shall be estimated using measurements
and/or engineering assessments or calculations based on chemical
engineering principles or physical or chemical laws or properties. Such
assessments or calculations may be based on, as applicable, the
internal volume of hose or line that is open to the atmosphere during
coupling and decoupling activities, the internal pressure of the hose
or line, the time the hose or line is open to the atmosphere during
coupling and decoupling activities, the frequency with which the hose
or line is purged and the flow rate during purges. The estimated mass
of SF6 or the PFC emitted downstream of the container or
flowmeter during the period p shall include unexpected or accidental
losses.
(d) Calibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and combinations of
volumetric and density measures that are used to measure or calculate
quantities that are to be reported under this subpart prior to the
first year for which GHG emissions are reported under this part.
Calibrations performed prior to the effective date of this rule satisfy
this requirement. Recalibrate all flow meters, weigh scales, and
combinations of volumetric and density measures at the minimum
frequency specified by the manufacturer. Use National Institute of
Standards and Technology-traceable standards and suitable methods
published by a consensus standards organization (e.g., ASTM, ASME, ISO,
or others).
(e) Ensure the following QA/QC methods are employed throughout the
year:
(1) Ensure that procedures are in place and followed to track and
weigh all cylinders or other containers at the beginning and end of the
year.
(2) Ensure all domestic electrical equipment manufacturing
locations have provided information to the manager compiling the
emissions report (if it is not already handled through an electronic
inventory system).
(f) You must adhere to the following QA/QC methods for reviewing
the completeness and accuracy of reporting:
(1) Review inputs to Equation SS-1 of this subpart to ensure inputs
and outputs to the company's system are included.
(2) Do not enter negative inputs and confirm that negative
emissions are not calculated. However, the decrease in SF6
inventory may be calculated as negative.
(3) Ensure that beginning-of-year inventory matches end-of-year
inventory from the previous year.
(4) Ensure that in addition to SF6 purchased from bulk
gas distributors, SF6 returned from equipment users with or
inside equipment and SF6 returned from off-site recycling
are also accounted for among the total additions.
Sec. 98.455 Procedures for estimating missing data.
A complete record of all measured parameters used in the GHG
emissions calculations is required. Replace missing data, if needed,
based on data from similar manufacturing operations, and from similar
equipment testing and decommissioning activities for which data are
available.
Sec. 98.456 Data reporting requirements.
In addition to the information required by Sec. 98.3(c), each
annual report must contain the following information at each facility
level, by chemical:
(a) SF6 and PFC sales and purchases.
(b) SF6 and PFCs sent off site for destruction.
(c) SF6 and PFCs sent off site to be recycled.
(d) SF6 and PFCs returned from off site after recycling.
(e) SF6 and PFCs returned by equipment users with or
inside equipment.
(f) SF6 and PFCs stored in containers at the beginning
and end of the year.
(g) SF6 and PFCs inside equipment delivered to
customers.
(h) SF6 and PFCs returned to suppliers.
(i) The nameplate capacity of the equipment delivered to customers
with SF6 or PFCs inside, if different from the quantity in
paragraph (g) of this section.
(j) A description of the engineering methods and calculations used
to determine emissions from hoses or other flow lines that connect the
container to the equipment that is being filled.
(k) For any missing data, you must report the reason the data were
missing, the length of time the data were missing, the method used to
estimate emissions in their absence, and the quantity of emissions
thereby estimated.
Sec. 98.457 Records that must be retained.
In addition to the information required by Sec. 98.3(g), you must
retain the following records:
(a) All information reported and listed in Sec. 98.456.
(b) Accuracy certifications and calibration records for all scales
and monitoring equipment, including the method or manufacturer's
specification used for calibration.
(c) Check-out and weigh-in sheets and procedures for cylinders.
(d) Residual gas amounts in cylinders sent back to suppliers.
(e) Invoices for gas purchases and sales.
Sec. 98.458 Definitions.
All terms used in this subpart have the same meaning given in the
Clean Air Act and subpart A of this part.
[FR Doc. 2010-6768 Filed 4-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P