Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this proposed rule. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this proposed rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in §§ 60.4305 and 60.4310. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed rule to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding
On July 6, 2006, the EPA promulgated revised new source performance standards (NSPS) for stationary combustion turbines (subpart KKKK of 40 CFR part 60) applicable to stationary combustion turbines on which construction, modification or reconstruction is commenced after February 18, 2005 (71 FR 38482). The new standards in subpart KKKK reflect advances in turbine design and nitrogen oxide (NO
A petition for reconsideration of the revised NSPS was filed by the Utility Air Regulatory Group on September 5, 2006. The EPA has decided to grant reconsideration of subpart KKKK to the extent specified in this proposed rule. The amendments proposed by this action address issues for which the petitioners specifically requested reconsideration (see docket entry EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0490-0325) and other matters as described below.
As part of this action, the EPA is also proposing to amend other rule language to correct technical omissions, typographical errors, grammatical errors and to address various other issues that have been identified since promulgation. A significant issue identified since promulgation is the development of new stationary combustion technologies that are capable of burning a variety of low-British thermal units (Btu) gases. The amendments proposed in this action include amending the sulfur dioxide (SO
Finally, the EPA is proposing to amend subpart KKKK to exempt some stationary combustion turbines from the emission standards in subpart KKKK. First, owners/operators of stationary combustion turbines that meet the applicability criteria of, and that are complying with the SO
We are proposing to amend subparts GG and KKKK of 40 CFR part 60 to clarify the intent in applying and implementing specific rule requirements, to correct unintentional technical omissions and editorial errors, and address various other issues that have been identified since the promulgation of subpart KKKK. A summary of the proposed substantive amendments to the NSPS for stationary combustion turbines and the rationale for these amendments are below.
In addition, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 60.17 (incorporations by reference) and republish subpart KKKK in its entirety. The proposed amendments include updating 40 CFR 60.17 to include additional test methods identified in subpart KKKK and revising the wording and writing style to clarify the requirements of the NSPS. We do not intend for these editorial revisions to substantively change any of the technical or administrative requirements of the subpart and have concluded that they do not do so. To the extent that we determine that the editorial revisions do effect any unintended substantive changes, we will correct the problem in taking final action on the proposed rule.
We are proposing to make five amendments to the applicability of subpart KKKK of 40 CFR part 60. First,
In the event the final rule does not include this clarification, the stationary combustion engine replaced at an existing combined cycle or CHP facility would be covered by subpart GG, and the HRSG would be covered by the applicable steam generating unit NSPS. Subpart GG would be amended to include NO
Second, we are proposing to exempt owners/operators of stationary combustion turbines that meet the applicability requirements and that are complying with the SO
Third, we are proposing to exempt owners/operators of stationary combustion turbines that are subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting fuel to gaseous fuels containing no more than 20 grains of sulfur per 100 standard cubic feet (scf) and/or liquid fuels containing no more than 0.050 weight percent sulfur (500 ppm sulfur by weight) from the SO
Fourth, we are proposing to allow owners/operators of stationary combustion turbines currently covered by subpart GG and any associated steam generating unit subject to an NSPS to have the option to petition the Administrator to comply with subpart KKKK in lieu of complying with subpart GG and any associated steam generating unit NSPS. Since the applicability of subpart KKKK encompasses any associated heat recovery equipment, owners/operators would have the flexibility to comply with one NSPS instead of multiple NSPS. The Administrator will only grant the petition if he/she determines that compliance with subpart KKKK would be equivalent to, or more stringent than, compliance with subpart GG and any associated steam generating unit NSPS. For example, assuming equal amounts of fuel are combusted in the turbine and duct burners (HRSG), an existing oil-fired combined cycle combustion turbine subject separately to subpart GG and subpart Db of 40 CFR part 60 would have an equivalent combined NO
Finally, we are requesting comment on how to address combustion turbine engines that are overhauled or refurbished off site in such a manner that neither the owner, operator nor manufacturer can identify which components have been replaced and, therefore, cannot conduct the otherwise required reconstruction analysis. The owner/operator of a turbine engine that is overhauled or refurbished in such a manner that each individual component of the engine is tracked would still perform the traditional reconstruction analysis, i.e., the owner/operator would compare the total cost of replacement components with the cost of a comparable new turbine engine. In general, a reconstructed facility is one which has had components replaced to the extent that the fixed capital costs of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely new facility. (See 40 CFR 60.15.)
We are requesting comment on two potential approaches for dealing with circumstances where there is insufficient information to determine which components of a particular combustion turbine engine have been replaced. The first approach would base the reconstruction test on changes to the combustor alone. (That is, the test would be whether the fixed capital cost of the replacement combustor exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to install a comparable new combustor.) The alternate approach would be based on the number of times a particular turbine engine has been refurbished. Potential language for both approaches is as follows:
1. An overhauled or refurbished turbine engine where neither the owner/operator nor manufacturer can identify which components have been replaced shall be considered reconstructed if the combustor itself is either replaced or reconstructed (as specified under § 60.15). When such information is known, an owner or operator of a turbine engine that is overhauled or refurbished shall perform a reconstruction analysis on the entire turbine engine as described under § 60.15.
The corresponding definition for a combustor would be:
A combustor means a component or area in a combustion turbine engine where fuel is added to the pressurized air molecules and combustion takes place. It is also known as a burner or flame can.
2. An overhauled or refurbished turbine engine where neither the owner/operator nor manufacturer can identify which components have been replaced during the most recent and previous two refurbishments shall be considered reconstructed. When such information is known, an owner or operator of a turbine engine that is overhauled or refurbished shall perform a reconstruction analysis on the turbine engine as described under § 60.15.
If this provision is adopted, it would provide an owner/operator with relative certainty that they could potentially operate a combustion turbine for approximately 90,000 hours, or over 10 years of continuous operation, before triggering the reconstruction provisions in subpart KKKK. (Assuming that turbine exchanges take place at approximately 30,000 operating hour intervals.) This approach would provide relative regulatory certainty for both the owner/operator of the combustion turbine and the turbine manufacturer.
We are also requesting comment on the frequency of an entire combustor replacement. It is our understanding that combustion liners and the fuel injection system are replaced at intervals similar to major overhauls, but that the combustor need not be replaced in entirety. If this is the case, then the “combustor” approach could inadvertently hinder emissions improvements by providing an incentive to replace only the critical components of the combustor instead of upgrading the entire combustor. A potential alternative approach would be to limit the applicability of the combustor to the combustion liner and fuel injection system such that once those components are replaced the combustion turbine would be considered reconstructed. Assuming the replacement intervals are similar to overhaul intervals, if we adopt this approach in the final rule, we would consider two replacements prior to triggering reconstruction.
Finally, we are requesting comment on whether a similar approach should be adopted for turbines that are overhauled onsite. It is our understanding that larger combustion turbines operating on natural gas have overhaul schedules of approximately every 50,000 operating hours. Under these assumptions, a combustion turbine could potentially operate continuously for over 17 years prior to triggering the amended reconstruction provision under subpart KKKK.
If we adopt reconstruction triggers that differ from the general provisions, we intend to maintain the qualification that it is technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable standards for each combustion turbine that triggers the amended reconstruction provisions. Instances where it might not be economically feasible would be made on a case-by-case basis by the Administrator. Examples of situations where it might not be economically feasible to meet the emissions standard include low NO
In addition to the above proposed amendments to the applicability of Subpart KKKK to new, reconstructed, and modified stationary combustion
We are proposing to amend the NO
We are also proposing to add a provision allowing for a site-specific NO
Since startup and shutdowns are part of the regular operating practices of stationary combustion turbines, we are proposing that the NO
Since we only used performance test data and did not analyze NO
We have concluded that the net power supplied to the end user is a better indication of environmental performance than gross output from the power producer. Therefore, we intend to amend the optional output-based standard from gross to net output in the final rule. Net output is the combination of the gross electrical (or mechanical) output of the turbine engine and any output generated by the HRSG minus the parasitic power requirements. A parasitic load for a stationary combustion turbine is any of the loads or devices powered by electricity, steam, hot water or directly by the gross output of the stationary combustion turbine that does not contribute electrical, mechanical or thermal output. One reason for this amendment is that while combustion turbine engines that require high fuel gas feed pressures typically have higher gross
In addition, we are proposing to recognize the environmental benefit of electricity generated by CHP facilities to account for the benefit of on-site generation avoiding losses from the transmissions and distribution of the electricity. Actual line losses vary from location to location, but we are proposing a benefit of five percent avoided transmission and distribution losses when determining the electric output for CHP facilities. To avoid CHP facilities only providing a trivial amount of thermal energy from qualifying for the transmission and distribution benefit, we are proposing to restrict the 5 percent benefit to CHP facilities where at least 20 percent of the annual output is useful thermal output.
Finally, we are requesting comment on limiting the use of the 30-day average. The existing rule provides a 30-day averaging period for owners/operators of combined cycle and CHP turbines regardless of if they elect to comply with the input or output-based standard. However, based on the review of CEMS data, NO
We are proposing to amend the rule language to clarify the intent of the rule in that if a source elects to perform fuel analysis to demonstrate compliance with the SO
In recognition that ultra-low sulfur diesel is available for transportation purposes in Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, we are removing these areas from the definition of noncontinental area. The only difference for owners/operators of affected stationary combustion turbines located in noncontinental areas is the ability to burn higher sulfur fuels. We have concluded that since these areas have low sulfur diesel oil available it is not appropriate to include these locations in the noncontinental area definition. This amendment would still allow the use of higher sulfur fuels in Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and offshore platforms where lower sulfur fuels are not necessarily as readily accessible.
For stationary combustion turbines combusting 50 percent or more biogas (based on total heat input) per calendar month, the existing Subpart KKKK establishes a maximum allowable SO
To account for the environmental benefit of productive use and simplify compliance for low-Btu gases, we have concluded that it is appropriate to base the SO
The EPA has proposed standards in this proposed rule that apply at all times and is proposing to add an affirmative defense to civil penalties that are caused by malfunctions. The EPA's finding to support the malfunction affirmative defense is available in the docket.
The EPA is proposing that owners/operators of stationary combustion turbines submit electronic copies of required performance test reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database. The EPA's finding to support this requirement is available in the docket.
We are also proposing several additional amendments. First, we have concluded that it is not appropriate to require an affected facility that is not currently in operation to startup to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS. Commencing operation strictly for the purposes of demonstrating compliance is an unnecessary cost and increases emissions. Therefore, we are proposing to exempt units that are out of operation at the time of the required performance test from conducting the required performance test until 45 days after the facility is brought back into operation.
Similarly, owner/operators of a combustion turbine that has operated 50 hours or less since the previous performance test was required to be conducted can request an extension of the otherwise required performance test from the appropriate EPA Regional Office until the turbine has operated over 50 hours. This provision is fuel specific and an owner/operator permitted to burn a backup fuel, but that rarely does so, can request an extension on testing on that particular fuel until it has been burned for over 50 hours.
In addition, for similar, separate affected facilities using identical control equipment, the Administrator or delegated authority may authorize a single emissions test as adequate demonstration for up to four other similar, separate affected facilities as long as: (1) The most recent performance test for each affected facility shows that performance of each affected facility is 75 percent or less of the applicable emissions standard; (2) the manufacturer's recommended maintenance procedures for each control device are followed; and (3) each affected facility conducts a performance test for each pollutant for which they are subject to a standard at least once every five years. DLN combustion controls are the primary method for compliance with the NSPS requirements and result in relatively stable emission rates. Furthermore, the DLN combustor is a fundamental part of a combustion turbine and as long as similar maintenance procedures are followed we have concluded that emission rates will likely be comparable between similar combustion turbines. Therefore, the additional compliance costs associated with testing each affected turbine would not result in significant emissions reductions.
Additionally, turbine engine performance can deteriorate with operation and age and operational parameters need to be verified periodically to assure proper operation of emission controls. Therefore, we are proposing to require facilities using the water or steam to fuel ratio as a demonstration of continuous compliance with the NO
The existing rule does not state how multiple combustion turbine engines that are exhausted through a single HRSG would demonstrate compliance with the NO
Finally, for turbine engines replaced with an identical overhauled engine as part of an exchange program, we are proposing that the new turbine undergo a new performance test to verify proper operation, for owner/operators using water or steam to fuel ratio to verify the proper ratio, and for owner/operators using parametric monitoring to verify that the operating parameters are still valid.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not subject to review under the Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. The amended reconstruction provisions would not significantly impact owners/operators of stationary combustion turbines within the next 5 years, and the other proposed amendments result in no changes to the information collection requirements of the existing standards of performance and would have no impact on the information collection estimate of projected cost and hour burden made and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the development of the existing standards of performance. Therefore, the information collection requests have not been amended. However, OMB previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKKK) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0582. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 the proposed amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The required emissions control technology and other requirements have not been significantly changed. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. The proposed amendments would allow flexibility in the timing of performance testing of idle turbines and fuel blending to achieve the SO
We therefore concluded that today's proposed rule would relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
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 1 year. Since the best system of emissions reduction is unchanged and there are only minor proposed amendments to the performance testing, recordkeeping, monitoring and reporting requirements, the proposed amendments would not significantly impact the regulatory burden of this rule. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 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. The proposed amendments would reduce the overall regulatory requirements of the rule.
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
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The EPA is not aware of any stationary combustion turbine owned by an Indian tribe. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance. The proposal is not expected to produce notable changes in criteria pollutant emissions or other pollutants but does encourage the current trend towards cleaner generation, helping to protect air quality and children's health. The agency recognizes that children are among the groups most vulnerable to climate change impacts and the public is invited to submit comments or identify peer reviewed studies relevant to this proposal based solely on technology.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (
This proposed rulemaking does not involve any new technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practical 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.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects on any populations, including any minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This proposed rule would assure that all new stationary combustion turbines install appropriate controls to minimize health impacts to nearby populations.
To gain a better understanding of the source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a demographic analysis on recent installations of combustion turbines selling >25 MW of power to identify any overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations. This analysis only gives some indication of the prevalence of sub-populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources; it does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. The demographic analysis results and the details concerning their development are presented in the April 20, 2012, memorandum titled,
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
2. Section 60.17 is amended:
a. By revising paragraph (a)(9);
b. By revising paragraph (a)(16);
c. By revising paragraph (a)(18);
d. By revising paragraph (a)(22);
e. By revising paragraph (a)(25);
f. By revising paragraph (a)(40);
g. By revising paragraph (a)(50);
h. By revising paragraph (a)(57);
i. By revising paragraph (a)(59);
j. By revising paragraph (a)(61);
k. By revising paragraph (a)(64);
l. By revising paragraph (a)(68);
m. By revising paragraph (a)(71);
n. By revising paragraph (a)(72);
o. By revising paragraph (a)(75);
p. By revising paragraph (a)(76);
q. By revising paragraph (a)(81);
r. By revising paragraph (a)(88);
s. By revising paragraph (a)(106);
t. By revising paragraph (a)(107);
u. By revising paragraph (a)(108); and
v. By adding paragraphs (a)(109) through (a)(117).
w. By revising paragraph (h)(4);
x. By reserving paragraph (i);
y. By redesignating paragraph (m)(1) as paragraph (m)(4);
z. By revising paragraph (m)(2);
aa. By adding new paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(3); and
bb. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (m)(4).
The revisions and additions read as follows.
(a) * * *
(9) ASTM D129-11, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products (General High Pressure Decomposition Device Method), IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).
(16) ASTM D975-11, 11b, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, IBR approved for §§ 60.41b of subpart Db of this part, 60.41c of subpart Dc of this part, and 60.4420 of subpart KKKK of this part.
(18) ASTM D1072-06, 06, Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Fuel Gases, IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).
(22) ASTM D1266-07, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products (Lamp Method), IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).
(25) ASTM D1552-08, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products (High-Temperature Method), IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).
(40) ASTM D2622-10, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).
(50) ASTM D3246-11, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry, IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).
(57) ASTM D4057-06 (Reapproved 2011), Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, IBR approved for § 60.4360(b).
(59) ASTM D4084-07, Standard Test Method for Analysis of Hydrogen Sulfide in Gaseous Fuels (Lead Acetate Reaction Rate Method), IBR approved for § 60.4360(c).