WSR 14-01-115 PROPOSED RULES DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY [Order 13-03—Filed December 18, 2013, 11:33 a.m.]
Original Notice.
Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 13-12-032.
Title of Rule and Other Identifying Information: Ecology is proposing a new rule, chapter 173-485 WAC, Petroleum refinery greenhouse gas emission requirements.
Hearing Location(s): Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office, 3190 160th Avenue S.E., Bellevue, WA 98008 (directions http://www.ecy.wa.gov/images/offices/map_nwro.pdf), on January 22, 2014, at 10:00 a.m.
Date of Intended Adoption: April 1, 2014.
Submit Written Comments to: Margo Thompson, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, e-mail AQComments@ECY.WA.GOV, fax (360) 407-7534, by January 31, 2014.
Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact Margo Thompson at (360) 407-6827 by January 15, 2014. For special accommodations or documents in alternate format, call (360) 407-6800, 711 (relay service), or 877-833-6341 (TTY).
Purpose of the Proposal and Its Anticipated Effects, Including Any Changes in Existing Rules: This rule-making proposal is to establish reasonably available control technology (RACT) to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from petroleum refineries in Washington state.
Reasons Supporting Proposal: This rule proposal was developed under court order. In 2011, a federal district court decided that state regulations in Washington's federally approved air quality state implementation plan require us to establish RACT for petroleum refinery GHG emissions. In 2012, the district court issued an order requiring the agencies to make this RACT determination by May 2014. Because the new standards affect three or more refineries, state law requires ecology to establish the new standards in a rule. Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed the 2012 order, the 2011 court case is in appeal process and has not yet been finally resolved. Until there is resolution, ecology is proceeding with this rule-making process.
The proposed rule provides facilities with the flexibility necessary to meet the requirement and recognizes the actions of those refineries that may already implement the required efficiency measures. Ecology proposes that the five Washington petroleum refineries meet GHG RACT requirements using one of two options. They are:
1. Energy efficiency standard:
2. Emission reduction requirement:
Statutory Authority for Adoption: Chapter 70.94 RCW provides sufficient authority to adopt rule changes.
Statute Being Implemented: Chapter 70.94 RCW.
Rule is necessary because of federal court decision, this rule was developed under a federal court order in Washington Environmental Council v. Sturdevant, 834 F.Supp.2d 1209 (W.D. Wash. 2011).
Agency Comments or Recommendations, if any, as to Statutory Language, Implementation, Enforcement, and Fiscal Matters: This rule proposal was developed under court order. In Washington Environmental Council v. Sturdevant, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington decided that state rules in Washington's state implementation plan (SIP) require ecology to establish RACT for petroleum refinery GHG emissions. Because the RACT analysis and determination affects three or more refineries, state statute requires ecology to establish the new standards in rule. The order on remedies issued on March 27, 2012, established a schedule to implement the judge's decision. The order on remedies requires the rule to be effective by May 27, 2014.
Name of Proponent: Washington state department of ecology, governmental.
Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting: Margo Thompson, Department of Ecology, Lacey, Washington, (360) 407-1617; Implementation and Enforcement: Mark Buford, Northwest Clean Air Agency, Bellingham, Washington, (360) 428-6810 or Steve VanSlyke, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Seattle, Washington, (206) 689-4052.
A small business economic impact statement has been prepared under chapter 19.85 RCW.
Small Business Economic Impact Statement
Note: Due to size limitations relating to the filing of documents with the code reviser, the small business economic impact statement (SBEIS) does not contain full explanation of ecology's analysis. Additionally, it does not contain raw data or all summaries of data used in the analysis, or all of ecology's analysis of this data. However, this information is being placed in the rule-making file, and is available upon request for the rule file. A full analysis of compliance costs is available in the associated cost-benefit analysis for this rule https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1302033.html.
Executive Summary: Based on research and analysis required by the Regulatory Fairness Act, RCW 19.85.070, ecology has determined that the proposed rule, Petroleum refinery greenhouse gas emission requirements, chapter 173-485 WAC, does not have a disproportionate impact on small business. This is because the rule only impacts large businesses. (A small business is defined as having fifty or fewer employees.) Ecology did not, therefore, include language in the proposed rule to minimize disproportionate impacts.
The SBEIS is intended to be read with the associated cost-benefit analysis (ecology publication #13-02-033), which contains more in-depth discussion of the analysis.
Ecology determined that the parent companies that own the five refineries to which the proposed rule applies are not small businesses as defined by chapter 19.85 RCW (employing fifty or fewer people). From firm annual reports and statements to the public and shareholders, ecology identified the approximate employment of the parent companies as:
Ecology did not involve small businesses in the development of the proposed rule. Similarly, ecology did not involve local governments beyond the two local air agencies involved in the RACT determination and rule-making process.
We used the Washington state office of financial management's 2002 Washington input-output model (OFM-IO) to estimate the proposed rule's first round impact on jobs across the state. This methodology estimates the impact as reductions or increases in spending in certain sectors of the state economy flow through to purchases, suppliers, and demand for other goods. Compliance costs incurred by an industry are entered in the OFM-IO model as a decrease in spending and investment.
We estimated that up to thirteen jobs statewide, over twenty years, are likely to be lost under the proposed rule, based on the overall highest possible present-value of compliance costs, occurring in the petroleum refining industry. This includes direct job losses in the petroleum refining industry, additional employment or utilization of existing petroleum refinery employees performing reporting and recordkeeping tasks, and transfer payments to licensed professional external engineers for report review.
Section 1: Background:
Based on research and analysis required by the Regulatory Fairness Act, RCW 19.85.070, ecology has determined that the proposed rule, Petroleum refinery greenhouse gas emission requirements, chapter 173-485 WAC, does not have a disproportionate impact on small business. This is because the rule only impacts large businesses. (A small business is defined as having fifty or fewer employees.) Ecology did not, therefore, include language in the proposed rule to minimize disproportionate impacts.
The SBEIS is intended to be read with the associated cost-benefit analysis (ecology publication #13-02-033), which contains more in-depth discussion of the analysis.
Description of the Proposed Rule:
The proposed rule requires:
Reasons for the Proposed Rule: Ecology initially undertook this rule making in response to a March 27, 2012, order on remedies entered in the United States District Court – Western District of Washington at Seattle (Case No. C11-417 MJP, Washington Environmental Council, et al. vs. Sturdevant, et al.). In that order, ecology, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), and Northwest Clean Air Agency (NWCAA) were ordered to complete a RACT determination process pursuant to RCW 70.94.154 within twenty-six months, addressing GHGs for each of five Washington state petroleum refineries owned and operated by:
Because the RACT analysis and determination affects three or more refineries, state law requires ecology to establish the new standards in rule. The order on remedies established a schedule to implement the judge's decision, and required the rule to be effective by May 27, 2014.
On July 10, 2013, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal of the district court decision. On October 17, 2013, the court ruled the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a citizen suit under the Clean Air Act to force state and local air agencies to regulate greenhouse gas. At the time of this publication, the 2011 court case is still in the appeal process and pending resolution. At this time, ecology is proceeding with rule making per the original schedule unless alternate instruction is received.
Petroleum refineries in Washington state: The proposed rule applies specifically to five petroleum refineries in Washington state, as listed above in section 1.3. Ecology estimated relevant2 2010 emissions for the five petroleum refineries as follows:
Table 1: Petroleum Refinery Emissions
All confidential business information (CBI) data used in making the determination was provided only to NWCAA or PSCAA, depending on which refineries they regulate. Ecology has not received any of the data covered under CBI requirements. Because of this, we do not have comprehensive data on specific facility attributes, emissions and energy efficiency, completed or planned projects, reports made to Solomon Associates, or evaluations and results provided by Solomon Associates. We feel that, despite lack of this data and information, this analysis addresses the assessments required under the Regulatory Fairness Act.
Section 2: Analysis of Compliance Costs for Washington Businesses:
Emissions reduction costs: We did not have sufficient public data to develop refinery-specific estimates of costs based on technology and processes specific to each refinery. Due to the need to maintain the confidentiality of business data, within the petroleum refinery owner companies, and throughout the rule-making process (especially as regards recordkeeping), we did not have comprehensive data on specific facility attributes, emissions and energy efficiency, completed or planned projects, reports made to Solomon Associates, or evaluations and results provided by Solomon Associates.
Instead of making refinery-technology specific estimates, we estimated the results of complying with the proposed rule based on the incentives it creates: To demonstrate emissions reductions, and thus compliance with the energy efficiency standard in the first year, or invest in emissions-reduction and efficiency projects in subsequent years. To account for uncertainty as to which projects, and how many projects, would be done when, we estimated a range of present value costs associated with all five refineries complying immediately with the energy efficiency standard, through all five refineries investing in emissions-reduction and efficiency projects in 2024 (for the 2025 reporting year).
Based on estimated 2010 or 2011 emissions, we estimated the total reductions in emissions that would have to occur across all five plants as 630,759 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions, or an average reduction per refinery of 126,152. Confident and viable estimates for emissions reduction technology at petroleum refineries were only available for reductions to steam systems (e.g. boilers), with associated efficiency improvements. Using reductions in steam systems as an example, calculated the average cost of a one percent reduction to steam-system emissions and used that to estimate the equivalent reduction to total emissions for all applicable technologies at the refinery, and total cost estimation for complying with a ten percent reduction in total emissions at an average plant. We expect these estimates based on technologically based projects to generate conservatively high estimates of costs, as compared to other systems (that lacked representative data) and programmatic modifications.
We estimated that a one percent reduction in boiler emissions cost $90,000 – $137,000, and represented at 0.101 percent reduction in total emissions at the plant across all technologies, based on relative 2010 emissions from boilers and from refineries as a whole.4 Therefore, a ten percent reduction in total emissions was equivalent to a ninety-nine percent reduction in the equivalent value of boiler emissions.5
Based on this, we estimated a total cost across all five plants of $8.9 - $13.5 million, in nominal (at the time it is spent) value.6 We then calculated the discounted present value of this compliance cost for data years 2014 through 2024, allowing for variance in the year the emissions reduction is achieved. Table 2 summarizes these discounted present values of this estimated compliance cost.
Ecology also expects costs of efficiency improvements to fall over time, as new technological advances are made in efficiencies. Also as present-value costs of emissions reductions are lower for later years, ecology expects refineries complying with the ten percent reduction to delay installation of emissions reduction technology that is not currently in-use or planned.
Table 2: Discounted Present-Value Costs of Ten Percent Emissions Reduction
Reporting costs: We estimated reporting costs based on the EPA's past assumptions about the types of employees or outside contractors required for reporting greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the amounts of time those workers would require for the task.7 We also included assumed hours required for a licensed professional engineer to review and certify reports and supporting data. These assumptions are summarized in Table 3, which also includes the associated wage by type of worker, and loading factors to account for overhead and current dollar values.8 The loading factor accounts for 4.35 percent benefits loading, and seventeen percent overhead loading.9
Table 3: Inputs to Reporting Costs with Loading Factor
The resulting estimates of total reporting costs for all five refineries are listed in present values, based on year of expenditure, in Table 4. Unlike emissions reduction or efficiency technology or other measures, reporting costs are assumed to be spent in the reporting year.
Table 4: Total Present-Value Reporting Costs by Year
Recordkeeping costs: We estimated recordkeeping costs based on the EPA's past assumptions about the types of employees required for recordkeeping in GHG reporting, as well as the amounts of time those workers would require for the task.10 These assumptions are summarized in Table 5, which also includes the associated wage by type of worker, and loading factors to account for overhead and current dollar values.11 The loading factor accounts for 4.35 percent benefits loading, and seventeen percent overhead loading.12
Table 5: Inputs to Recordkeeping Costs with Loading Factor
The resulting estimates of total recordkeeping costs for all five refineries are listed in present values, based on five years of expenditure following reported compliance, in Table 6.
Recordkeeping costs are assumed to be spent during the five years following the final report (of compliance with emissions or efficiency standards).
Table 6: Total Present-Value Recordkeeping Costs by Year
Section 3: Quantification of Cost Ratios:
While the proposed rule does impact businesses in an industry (five petroleum refineries), it does not affect small businesses. It is therefore impossible to compare the impacts of the proposed rule on small businesses to the impacts on the largest businesses. Consequently, we conclude that the rule does not have a disproportionate impact on small businesses.
Not affecting small businesses, however, does not make the proposed rule exempt from the preparation of an SBEIS, and we have completed all portions of the analysis required for this document.
Ecology determined that the parent companies that own the refineries to which the proposed rule applies are not small businesses as defined by chapter 19.85 RCW (employing fifty or fewer people). From firm annual reports and statements to the public and shareholders, ecology identified the approximate employment of the parent companies as:13
Section 4: Actions Taken to Reduce the Impact of the Rule on Small Businesses: Ecology did not take any action to reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses because the proposed rule does not have a disproportionate impact on small businesses.
Section 5: The Involvement of Small Businesses in the Development of the Proposed Rule: Ecology did not involve small businesses in the development of the proposed rule. Similarly, ecology did not involve local governments beyond the two local air agencies involved in the RACT determination and rule-making process.
Section 6: The Standard Industry Classification (SIC) Codes of Impacted Industries: The SIC system has long been replaced by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The proposed rule specifically applies to five petroleum refineries in Washington state. All of these refineries are classified as NAICS code 32411, Petroleum Refineries.
Section 7: Impacts on Jobs: We used the Washington state 2002 OFM-IO to estimate the proposed rule's first round impact on jobs across the state. This methodology estimates the impact as reductions or increases in spending in certain sectors of the state economy flow through to purchases, suppliers, and demand for other goods. Compliance costs incurred by an industry are entered in the OFM-IO model as a decrease in spending and investment.
We estimated that up to thirteen jobs, statewide over twenty years, are likely to be lost under the proposed rule, based on the overall highest possible present-value of compliance costs, occurring in the petroleum refining industry. This includes direct job losses in the petroleum refining industry, additional employment or utilization of existing petroleum refinery employees performing reporting and recordkeeping tasks, and transfer payments to licensed professional external engineers for report review.
Section 8: References:
Astra Transcor Energy (2013), "Our People" website as accessed November 2013, http://www.astratranscor.com/en/our-people/our-people.aspx.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, US (2013a). 2012 State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Washington State.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, US (2013b). Consumer Price Index for 2012 and 2013.
BP (2013), 2012 Summary Review.
Environmental Protection Agency, US (2010). Economic Impact Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Subpart W Final Rule (GHG Reporting). November 2010.
Interagency Workgroup on Social Cost of Carbon, US Government (2010). Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis – Under Executive Order 12866. February 2010.
Interagency Workgroup on Social Cost of Carbon, US Government (2013). Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis – Under Executive Order 12866. May 2013.
NWCAA, PSCAA, Ecology (2013). Washington Oil Refinery RACT Final Technical Support Document. November 25, 2013. Ecology publication number 13-02-31.
Phillips 66 (2013), 2012 Summary Annual Report.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC (2013), Annual Report Royal Dutch Shell PLC Annual Report and For 20-F for the Year Ended December 31, 2012.
Securities & Exchange Commission, US (fiscal year 2012), Form 10-K for Tesoro Corporation.
A copy of the statement may be obtained by contacting Margo Thompson, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, phone (360) 407-6827, fax (360) 407-7534, e-mail margo.thompson@ecy.wa.gov.
A cost-benefit analysis is required under RCW 34.05.328. A preliminary cost-benefit analysis may be obtained by contacting Margo Thompson, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, phone (360) 407-6827, fax (360) 407-7534, e-mail margo.thompson@ecy.wa.gov.
December 15, 2013
Polly Zehm
Deputy Director
Chapter 173-485 WAC
PETROLEUM REFINERY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REQUIREMENTS NEW SECTION
WAC 173-485-010 Policy and purpose.
The purpose of this rule is to determine reasonably available control technology for emissions of greenhouse gases emitted by petroleum refineries located in Washington state. The emission standards in this rule were developed under the requirements of RCW 70.94.154.
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-485-020 Applicability.
(1) This chapter applies to all petroleum refineries in Washington state identified in WAC 173-485-030. (2) All federal regulations referenced in this regulation are adopted as they exist on July 1, 2013.
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-485-030 Definitions.
Definitions in chapter 173-400 WAC apply to this chapter. Definitions specific to this chapter include: "Baseline greenhouse gas emissions" means greenhouse gas emissions, reported to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to comply with 40 C.F.R. Part 98. The baseline greenhouse gas emissions are for calendar year 2010. If petroleum refinery operations during 2010 were not representative of typical refinery operations, then the petroleum refinery must use its 2011 emissions. Emissions must be provided in units of metric tons of CO2e. Emissions attributable to the production of electricity from on-site cogeneration equipment are not included in the baseline emissions. Emissions attributable to the production of steam by the cogeneration equipment are included in the baseline emissions. "Carbon dioxide equivalent" or "CO2e" means the number of metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions with the same global warming potential as one metric ton of another greenhouse gas. CO2e is calculated using Equation A-1 of 40 C.F.R. Part 98.2 and the global warming potential values contained in Table A-1 of 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart A. "Credit" means the reduction of CO2e emitted resulting from one or more projects performed at a petroleum refinery during or prior to a reporting year. A credit is established according to WAC 173-485-060. "Energy efficiency standard" means the EII® value representing the fiftieth percentile EII® of similar sized United States refineries, using the EPA EnergyStar® calculation methodology, which is based on the United States refineries participating in the EII® process in 2006. "Energy Intensity Index®" or "EII®" means the Solomon Associates proprietary petroleum refinery energy efficiency metric that compares actual energy consumption for a petroleum refinery with the standard energy consumption for a petroleum refinery of similar size. The standard energy consumption is based on an analysis of refining capacity as contained in the data base maintained by Solomon Associates. The ratio of a facility's actual energy consumption to the standard energy consumption is multiplied by one hundred to arrive at the EII® for a refinery. "Greenhouse gases (GHGs)" include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. "Petroleum refinery" or "petroleum refineries" means the following facilities, regardless of future changes in ownership or name: (a) BP Cherry Point Refinery in Blaine, WA; (b) Phillips 66 Company Refinery in Ferndale, WA; (c) Shell Oil Company Refinery in Anacortes, WA; (d) Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, LLC Anacortes Refinery in Anacortes, WA; and (e) U.S. Oil & Refining Co. Tacoma Refinery in Tacoma, WA. "RACT" means reasonably available control technology. "Similar sized United States refineries" means refineries determined to be of similar size using the petroleum refinery capacity categories established for EPA's EnergyStar® program. "Typical refinery operation" means a calendar year during which the petroleum refinery experienced no planned turnaround projects or unplanned upsets to unit operations neither of which resulted in cessation of the processing of crude petroleum oil for more than thirty days.
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-485-040 Greenhouse gas reasonably available control technology emission standard.
(1) Energy efficiency standard. The owner/operator of each petroleum refinery subject to this rule shall meet the requirement to use reasonably available control technology (RACT) for greenhouse gas emissions by demonstrating the petroleum refinery has a calculated EII® equal to or more efficient than the EII® value representing the fiftieth percentile EII® of similar sized United States refineries, based on 2006 data and the EPA EnergyStar® calculation methodology. The petroleum refinery must demonstrate compliance with WAC 173-485-050 in the annual report required in WAC 173-485-090 using any EII® report issued between 2006 and the first annual report. If a petroleum refinery is unable to or chooses not to demonstrate compliance with the energy efficiency standard in the first annual report required in WAC 173-485-090, the petroleum refinery shall document that it has met the requirements of subsection (2) of this section no later than October 1, 2025. (2) Emission reduction requirement. A petroleum refinery that does not meet the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, must: (a) No later than October 1, 2025, have implemented greenhouse gas reduction projects that: (i) Result in cumulative annual emissions reduction(s) equivalent to ten percent of the facility's baseline greenhouse gas emissions (as CO2e); or (ii) Result in the petroleum refinery meeting the energy efficiency standard in subsection (1) of this section. (b) Demonstrate compliance with the emission reduction requirement in WAC 173-485-060.
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-485-050 Demonstrating compliance with the energy efficiency standard.
(1) Owners/operators of a petroleum refinery demonstrating compliance with the energy efficiency standard shall as part of the annual report required in WAC 173-485-090(1) submit the following information: (a) The letter from Solomon Associates certifying that the petroleum refinery has a calculated EII® for the refinery that meets the requirements in WAC 173-485-040(1); (b) Identification of the calendar year of the petroleum refinery's operational data submitted to Solomon Associates to reach that conclusion. The calendar year used may be any year between 2006 through 2024; and (c) Confirmation that the operational data submitted to Solomon Associates for these calculations were reviewed and certified by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington, including the date the operational data was certified and the name and license number of the professional engineer who made the certification. (2) According to WAC 173-485-090, once this certification has been made, no additional annual reports are required.
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-485-060 Demonstrating compliance with the emission reduction requirement.
(1) Requesting credit. Owners/operators of a petroleum refinery demonstrating compliance through the emission reduction requirement in WAC 173-485-040(2) shall submit, as part of each annual report required in WAC 173-485-090(1), requests for a credit against the greenhouse gas emission reduction requirement. A credit request must be based on specific projects that have been completed at the petroleum refinery since the previous annual report. Each request must include the following information: (a) An engineering description and analysis of the project, including the emission reduction and energy efficiency objectives for the project. (b) A quantitative analysis of the project documenting the annual metric tons of CO2e emission reductions achieved as a result of completing the project. (c) Information supporting the quantitative analysis including engineering assumptions, measurements, or monitoring data. (d) Requests for credits shall be submitted as part of the first annual report submitted after the petroleum refinery project has been completed. (2) Processing a credit request. (a) Each request for credit shall be reviewed and certified by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington. The certification must contain the name and license number of the professional engineer who performed the review and certified the submittal. (b) Within thirty days after the receipt of a request for credit, the permitting authority may require the submission of additional information needed to review the request. (c) Within thirty days after all required information has been received, the permitting authority shall propose to approve or deny the request for credit. Final approval or denial of a request shall be established through the issuance of a regulatory order. The regulatory order must be issued in accordance with the procedures of the permitting authority for issuing such orders. Each regulatory order issued to approve a request shall include both the quantity of greenhouse gas reduction credit awarded and any conditions necessary to support the validity of the credit award. (3) Improvements in the efficiency of existing electrical equipment or electrical equipment upgrades are not eligible for credits. (4) Greenhouse gas reductions for the replacement of direct fired or steam-driven equipment with electrical equipment will be credited based on the calculated difference between the greenhouse gas emissions reduced at the refinery and the greenhouse gas emissions calculated for the electricity required. The greenhouse gas emissions for electricity used will be the greenhouse gas emissions specific to the petroleum refinery's source of electricity. (5) Greenhouse gas emission reductions at the petroleum refinery that occurred prior to January 1, 2010, are not eligible for credits.
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-485-070 Monitoring.
(1) Each petroleum refinery must use monitoring measures that satisfy requirements for petroleum refinery owners/operators reporting greenhouse gas emissions to EPA under 40 C.F.R. Part 98. Unless additional monitoring is required by the credit order issued under WAC 173-485-060 (2)(c), the 40 C.F.R. Part 98 monitoring is considered sufficient for quantifying annual emissions for this regulation. (2) The permitting authority may require additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting to document compliance with a credit established through this regulation. The additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting must be identified in the credit order issued under WAC 173-485-060 (2)(c).
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-485-080 Recordkeeping.
(1) All records used for preparing submittals to Solomon Associates or for preparing reports to the permitting authority shall be retained at least five years beyond the date of the last annual report required by WAC 173-485-090(2). (2) Records related to emission calculations and reports shall be provided to the permitting authority upon request. The petroleum refinery owner/operator retains the rights to keep specified records and information confidential as provided in RCW 70.94.205.
NEW SECTION
WAC 173-485-090 Reporting.
(1) Annual reports. Starting on October 1, 2014, and by October 1 of each year until October 1, 2025, unless compliance has been demonstrated on an earlier date, the owners/operators of a petroleum refinery subject to this standard shall submit reports to their permitting authority that include the following information: (a) Identification of the option the petroleum refinery intends to use to demonstrate compliance with this standard, including the baseline greenhouse gas emissions year the refinery has selected and justification to utilize that year. (b) Activities completed since the last annual report to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (c) Any changes since the last annual report regarding the compliance option utilized by the petroleum refinery. (d) Baseline greenhouse gas emissions for the petroleum refinery, actual greenhouse gas emissions for the previous calendar year, total greenhouse gas emission reductions already credited to the petroleum refinery, and any emission reductions previously approved through regulatory order to comply with WAC 173-485-040(3), since the effective date of this regulation. (e) All compliance documentation submittals required in WAC 173-485-050 or 173-485-060(1), as applicable. (f) If the first annual report does not indicate compliance with the requirements in WAC 173-485-040, the first report must contain an overview plan of how the refinery intends to comply with the requirements of WAC 173-485-040. (2) Annual reports must be submitted to the permitting authority until compliance has been demonstrated with either WAC 173-485-040 (2) or (3). The owner/operator of a petroleum refinery shall identify in the annual report that the report is the final report that will be submitted to the authority.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||