Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38001 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0181] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations; Marine 

Events, Breton Bay; St. Mary’s County, 

Leonardtown, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

withdrawing its proposed rule 

concerning amendments to the regattas 

and marine parades regulations. The 

rulemaking was initiated to establish 

special local regulations during the 

‘‘Annual Leonardtown Wharf Boat 

Races,’’ a marine event to be held on the 

waters of Breton Bay in St. Mary’s 

County, Maryland on July 13, 2013, and 

July 14, 2013. The Coast Guard was 

notified on April 23, 2013, that the 

event had been cancelled. 

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn 

on June 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking is available for 

inspection or copying at the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2013–0181 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice, 

call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, 

Waterways Management Division, 

Sector Baltimore, MD, U.S. Coast Guard; 

telephone 410–576–2674, email 

Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing material in the 

docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 12, 2013, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking entitled 

‘‘Special Local Regulations; Marine 

Events, Breton Bay; St. Mary’s County, 

Leonardtown, MD’’ in the Federal 

Register (78 FR 21864). The rulemaking 

concerned the Coast Guard’s proposal to 

establish temporary special local 

regulations on specified waters of 

Breton Bay, in St. Mary’s County, MD, 

effective from 8 a.m. on July 13, 2013 to 

5 p.m. on July 14, 2013. The regulated 

area included all waters of Breton Bay, 

from shoreline to shoreline, within an 

area bounded to the east by a line drawn 

along latitude—38°16′45′′ N, and 

bounded to the west by a line drawn 

along longitude 076°38′30′′ W, located at 

Leonardtown, MD. The regulations were 

needed to temporarily restrict vessel 

traffic during the event to provide for 

the safety of participants, spectators and 

other transiting vessels. 

Withdrawal 

The Coast Guard is withdrawing this 

rulemaking because the event has been 

cancelled. 

Authority 

We issue this notice of withdrawal 

under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

Dated: June 3, 2013. 

Kevin C. Kiefer, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Baltimore. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15095 Filed 6–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234; EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0044, FRL–9827–1] 

RIN 2060–AR62 

Reconsideration of Certain Startup/ 

Shutdown Issues: National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units and Standards 

of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired 

Electric Utility, Industrial-CommercialInstitutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; Reopening of 

Comment Period. 

SUMMARY: On November 30, 2012, the 

EPA published in the Federal Register 

the proposed rule, ‘‘Reconsideration of 

Certain New Source and Startup/ 

Shutdown Issues: National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units and Standards 

of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired 

Electric Utility, Industrial-CommercialInstitutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Units.’’ That proposal 

opened for reconsideration certain 

issues, including those related to startup 

and shutdown. On April 24, 2013, we 

finalized reconsideration of all the 

issues included in the proposed rule 

except those related to startup and 

shutdown. The EPA is reopening the 

public comment period for the proposed 

reconsideration to solicit additional 

input on specific issues raised during 

the initial public comment period 

related to the proposed revisions to the 

requirements and definitions related to 

periods of startup and shutdown. The 

EPA also requests comment on the 

additional technical analyses it 

conducted in response to public 

comments on this subject in Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234. The 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

rule is referred to as the Mercury and 

Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and the 

New Source Performance Standards rule 

is referred to as the Utility NSPS. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before August 26, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0044 (NSPS 

action) or Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234 (NESHAP/MATS action), by 

one of the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. The EPA requests a 

separate copy also be sent to the contact 

person identified below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, U.S. 

EPA, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 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. All submissions must 

include agency name and respective 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking. All comments will be 

posted 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 confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38002 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1 In the May 3, 2011, proposed MATS rule (76 FR 

25028), the EPA proposed default diluent gas values 

of 10 percent for oxygen or of the fuel-specific 

carbon dioxide concentration (obtained from a 

stoichiometric analysis of fuel combustion), as well 

as a default nominal electrical production rate of 5 

percent of rated capacity to be used when 

calculating emissions rates during periods of 

startup and shutdown. The EPA did not finalize the 

provision because the agency finalized a work 

practice standard for startup and shutdown periods 

instead of numerical emission limits. Commenters 

indicated that the EPA should have retained the 

proposed diluent cap because the rule requires 

monitoring during startup and shutdown periods 

when continuous emission monitoring systems 

(CEMS) or sorbent traps are used to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission standards. 

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 email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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, the 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 the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the 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 form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room 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: For 

the NESHAP action: Mr. William 

Maxwell, Energy Strategies Group, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243–01), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; Telephone number: (919) 541– 

5430; Fax number (919) 541–5450; 

Email address: maxwell.bill@epa.gov. 

For the NSPS action: Mr. Christian 

Fellner, Energy Strategies Group, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (D243– 

01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone 

number: (919) 541–4003; Fax number 

(919) 541–5450; Email address: 

fellner.christian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 16, 2012, the EPA issued the 

final MATS and Utility NSPS (77 FR 

9304). In the final MATS rule, the EPA 

included a work practice standard 

applicable during periods of startup and 

shutdown rather than finalizing the 

proposed requirement that sources 

comply with numerical limits during 

such periods. In the Utility NSPS, the 

EPA included the same work practice 

for particulate matter (PM) emissions 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

The work practice standard was 

designed to minimize emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and PM 

during periods of startup and shutdown 

by requiring sources to maximize the 

use of clean fuels during such periods 

when electric utility steam generating 

unit (EGU) temperatures and air flow 

may not be sufficient to effectively 

engage certain air pollution control 

devices (APCD). Because the agency did 

not propose a work practice standard for 

periods of startup and shutdown, the 

EPA determined that it was appropriate 

to reconsider the startup and shutdown 

provisions to allow the public an 

opportunity to comment on the 

requirements. 

On November 30, 2012, the EPA 

published in the Federal Register the 

proposed rule, ‘‘Reconsideration of 

Certain New Source and Startup/ 

Shutdown Issues: National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility 

Steam Generating Units and Standards 

of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired 

Electric Utility, Industrial-CommercialInstitutional, and Small IndustrialCommercial-Institutional Steam 

Generating Units’’ (77 FR 71323). The 

November 30, 2012, action announced, 

among other things, reconsideration of 

certain new source standards for MATS 

and the requirements applicable during 

periods of startup and shutdown for 

MATS and the startup and shutdown 

provisions related to the PM standard in 

the Utility NSPS and proposed revisions 

to these identified provisions. The EPA 

also proposed certain technical 

corrections. On April 24, 2013, the EPA 

finalized reconsideration on all issues 

except those related to startup and 

shutdown (including related technical 

corrections) (78 FR 24073). 

During the comment period, the EPA 

received data and other information 

from industry about EGU startup, and 

the industry commenters recommended 

that the startup and shutdown 

provisions as proposed be further 

amended. The comments raised several 

significant issues regarding the 

definition of startup, the types of ‘‘clean 

fuels’’ that must be used during startup, 

the means by which non-mercury (Hg) 

emissions are calculated during periods 

of startup and shutdown (e.g., requests 

for the use of a default diluent cap and 

for the use of a default electrical 

production rate),1 and the manner in 

which EGUs that share a common stack 

demonstrate compliance during periods 

of startup and shutdown. Given the 

significance of these comments, the EPA 

believes it is appropriate to request 

additional comment on these issues. 

Therefore, we are reopening the public 

comment period so that the public can 

review the industry-provided 

information and data and comment on 

the suggested revisions to the startup 

and shutdown provisions. We are only 

reopening for comment the startup and 

shutdown provisions in the MATS rule 

and the startup and shutdown 

provisions related to PM in the Utility 

NSPS. We are not seeking comment on 

any other issues and will not respond to 

comments outside the scope of this 

notice. 

In the November 2012 reconsideration 

proposal, the EPA proposed to revise 

the definitions of startup and shutdown 

to clarify the definitions and include a 

reference to making useful thermal 

energy. Specifically, in § 63.10042 we 

proposed to define the end of ‘‘startup’’ 

as being ‘‘. . .when the EGU generates 

electricity that is sold or used for any 

other purpose (including on site use), or 

the EGU makes useful thermal energy 

(such as heat or steam) for industrial, 

commercial, heating, or cooling 

purposes. . .whichever is earlier.’’ 77 

FR 71339. We also proposed several 

revisions to the finalized work practice 

standards. These revisions included the 

addition of certain synthetic natural gas, 

syngas, propane and ultra low-sulfur 

diesel (ULSD) to the list of clean fuels. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38003 

2Fluidized bed combustor (FBC) EGUs as a class 

include circulating fluidized bed (CFB) EGUs. 

3See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20257, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20271, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20277, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20279, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20282. 

4See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20248, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20251, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20255, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20267, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20269, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20272, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20275, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20280, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20286, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20289, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20306, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20308. 

5See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20291. 

6See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20297. 

7See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20254. 

8See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20272. 

9See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20254 

(‘‘natural gas pipeline capacity has limited 

supply’’), EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20269 (‘‘lacks 

sufficient natural gas capacity for the unit to 

complete the startup process,’’ ‘‘units do not have 

easy access to natural gas due to distributional 

limitations’’), EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20321 

(‘‘[a]dditional natural gas transmission capacity 

would also have to be constructed to increase 

delivery to the JEA units’’). 

10See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20246, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20248, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20252, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20254, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20269, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20272, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20283, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20287, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20303, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20321. 

Further, we proposed to require EGU 

source owners and operators, when 

firing coal, solid oil-derived fuel, or 

residual oil in the EGU during startup 

and shutdown, to vent emissions to the 

main stack(s) and operate all control 

devices necessary to meet the operating 

standards that apply at all other times 

under the final rule (with the exception 

of limestone injection in fluidized bed 

combustors (FBC) EGUs, dry scrubbers, 

selective non-catalytic reduction 

systems (SNCRs) and selective catalytic 

reduction systems (SCRs)).2 Moreover, 

we proposed that owners and operators 

of EGUs would be responsible for 

starting limestone injection in FBC 

EGUs, dry scrubbers, SNCRs and SCRs 

as expeditiously as possible, but, in any 

case, when necessary to comply with 

other CAA standards applicable to the 

source that require operation of those 

control devices. Additionally, we 

proposed to revise the final rule’s work 

practice standards to recognize 

constraints of certain EGUs and APCDs. 

The proposed revised standards would 

allow limestone injection to start after 

appropriate temperatures have been 

attained in FBC EGUs that inject 

limestone for acid gas control and allow 

SNCR, SCR and dry scrubber systems to 

start as soon as technically feasible after 

the appropriate temperature has been 

reached. With regard to integrated 

gasification combined cycle (IGCC) 

EGUs, we proposed two options for 

IGCC EGUs for the handling of syngas 

that is not fired in the combustion 

turbine: (1) Syngas must be flared, not 

vented; or (2) syngas must be routed to 

duct burners, which may need to be 

installed, and the flue gas from the duct 

burners must be routed to the heat 

recovery steam generator. 77 FR 71330– 

71331. 

The commenters’ primary issue with 

the proposed standards for startup and 

shutdown concerned the definition of 

‘‘startup’’ in the reconsideration notice 

(particularly with regard to the end of 

‘‘startup’’). Specifically, the commenters 

objected to the EPA’s proposed 

definition which defined the end of 

startup to be ‘‘. . . when the EGU 

generates electricity that is sold or used 

for any other purpose (including on site 

use),’’ or ‘‘the EGU makes useful 

thermal energy (such as heat or steam) 

for industrial, commercial, heating, or 

cooling purposes,’’ whichever is 

earlier.’’ 77 FR 71339. As discussed 

below, the commenters advocated a 

different end point for startup. The EPA 

also received comments on the types of 

fuels considered ‘‘clean,’’ the required 

use of clean fuels throughout startup, 

the specifics of startup as related to 

IGCC EGUs, the use of diluent caps and 

sorbent trap monitoring during startup, 

and the application of the work practice 

standards to EGUs with a common 

stack. Below is a summary of some 

issues raised in the industry comments 

on which we are now requesting 

comment. The complete comments are 

contained in the MATS and Utility 

NSPS rulemaking dockets (see EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0234 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0044, respectively). 

The commenters asked the EPA to 

define ‘‘startup’’ as the setting in 

operation of an affected source.3

According to the commenters, this 

involves igniting fuel in the boiler, 

producing steam to begin generating 

electricity either before or after the 

primary fuel is added to the boiler and 

getting all of the APCDs operational to 

meet the applicable requirements. The 

commenters maintained that ‘‘startup’’ 

does not end ‘‘when any steam from the 

boiler is used to generate electricity for 

sale over the grid or for any other 

purpose’’ as the EPA proposed. The 

commenters asserted that an EGU 

remains in ‘‘startup’’ mode beyond the 

first generation of electricity because, 

according to the commenters, at that 

point in time many of the APCDs 

needed to comply with the requirements 

of this subpart may not be technically or 

safely capable of operation and those 

that are may be operating far from 

design conditions because the requisite 

temperature(s) and/or flow conditions 

have not been achieved. For example, 

the commenters expressed concern that 

operating electrostatic precipitators 

(ESPs) at temperatures less than the 

temperatures recommended by the 

manufacturer/supplier could create a 

safety risk.4

The commenters also stated that 

electricity generation may begin when 

the boiler’s steam load is as low as 10 

percent of nameplate capacity.5 At this 

point, the commenters stated that 

startup fuel is still being burned, either 

alone or in combination with primary 

fuel, but many major components of the 

EGU (e.g., APCDs) may neither be 

online nor fully functioning. The 

commenters further noted that at many 

EGUs the boiler igniters have low 

capacity (e.g., 5 percent of the EGU 

capacity).6 So, according to these 

commenters, the igniters as currently 

constructed may not be able to bring an 

EGU to flue gas temperatures at which 

APCD can be made operational. The 

commenters stated that this inability to 

use igniters alone to bring the EGU and 

APCD to the proper temperatures stems 

from a number of reasons, among which 

is the fact that some igniters offer only 

a low heating value and, thus, cannot 

serve a heating function well over long 

periods of time.7 As noted above, the 

commenters asserted that some igniters 

may not have sufficient capacity (i.e., 

size) and were generally not designed to 

preheat the APCD without the co-firing 

of the primary fuel and, for this reason, 

the commenters maintained that some 

igniters may not be able to generate 

adequate heat to preheat the APCD even 

if they were operated for an ‘‘extended 

period of time.’’ 8 Commenters also 

stated that certain EGU facilities do not 

have sufficient natural gas capacity to 

bring their EGUs up to the temperatures 

necessary to engage certain APCDs (e.g., 

because the natural gas burners or 

pipeline are currently too small).9 The 

commenters maintained that, generally, 

the igniters (and warm-up guns in some 

cases) are used to begin to raise boiler 

pressure, supply steam to heat plant 

equipment (e.g., piping, steam turbine, 

pulverizers) and raise the furnace 

temperature to a point where the 

primary fuel can be burned. Therefore, 

the commenters asserted that the startup 

period involves (and in some cases must 

involve) co-firing of startup and primary 

fuels.10

The commenters also stated that, in 

its proposal, the EPA did not adequately 

account for the operational differences 

among different types of EGUs. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38004 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

11See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20270, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20277, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20281, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20282. 

12See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20281, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20282. 

13See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20262, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20281, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20282. 

14See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20282. 

15See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20271, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20272, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20276, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20279, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20282, EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20295, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20304, EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0044– 

5803. 

16See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20243, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20245, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20281, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20282, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20299. 

17See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20282. 

18See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20282, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20306. 

19See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20308. 

commenters stated, for example, that the 

startup process for supercritical 

pulverized coal (PC) EGUs is different 

from that for subcritical EGUs.11 The 

commenters stated that supercritical 

EGUs are designed to commence startup 

producing subcritical steam to the steam 

turbine, and then transition to 

supercritical operation at a certain point 

as steam production and electricity 

generation are increased. The 

commenters asserted that a supercritical 

EGU does not complete its startup until 

its transition from subcritical to 

supercritical operation is complete. The 

commenters recommended that the end 

of startup for supercritical EGUs should 

correspond with the point in time 

corresponding to 6 hours past the time 

when the EGU achieves supercritical 

mode of operation.12

For subcritical EGUs, the commenters 

provided information reflecting the 

sequence of events during startup for 

two subcritical EGUs, stating that the 

baghouse, the activated carbon injection 

(ACI) and the SCR are not operational 

when the EGU goes online (i.e., 

connected to the grid). However, the 

comments indicate that the baghouse 

and the ACI controls are operational 

approximately 4 hours after the EGU 

reaches the 25-percent load point. The 

commenters stated that the SCR system 

is operational about 12 hours after the 

EGU goes online. The commenters 

requested that the end of startup be 

changed to be 4 hours after 25-percent 

load is first reached or 12 hours after 

first electricity generation, whichever 

occurs first.13 The commenters 

explained that the 4-hour timeframe 

would provide for a transition period 

during which a facility phases out the 

supplemental fuel, shuts down a 

dedicated startup system (like a startup 

boiler feed pump, if applicable) and 

transitions to bring emission controls 

online safely and within the 

manufacturer’s intended design 

capabilities. The commenters 

maintained that the 12-hour alternative 

definition would allow for situations 

where the startup sequence is delayed 

for unexpected reasons, but provided 

assurance that an EGU will not idle at 

low load. 

Relative to FBC EGUs, the 

commenters stated that if limestone is 

added too early in the startup sequence, 

the flame could be extinguished. 

According to the commenters, FBC 

EGUs that inject limestone must reach a 

minimum bed temperature of 

approximately 1,500°F for the limestone 

to calcine, and, thus, become effective at 

reducing acid gases. The commenters 

stated that these EGUs often burn coal 

for about 45 minutes before limestone is 

added, and additional time is then 

required for the bed chemistry to 

stabilize. They stated that normally the 

bed is stable and up to temperature 

when approximately 40-percent load is 

reached. The commenters requested that 

the EPA apply the same definition of 

‘‘startup’’ to FBC EGUs as was suggested 

for the other types of EGUs (i.e., 4 hours 

after 25-percent load is first achieved, or 

12 hours after first electricity 

generation, whichever occurs first).14

The commenters also provided input 

on the types of fuels considered 

‘‘clean,’’ the specifics of startup as 

related to IGCC EGUs, the use of diluent 

caps and sorbent trap monitoring during 

startup and the application of the work 

practice standards to EGUs with a 

common stack. The commenters 

suggested that the EPA should expand 

the proposed list of ‘‘clean fuels’’ to 

include biodiesel and other renewable 

fuels that meet the 40 CFR Part 80, 

subpart M, requirements and that 

biodiesel and other biofuels be among 

the clean fuels allowed.15 The 

commenters stated that it is important 

that either flaring syngas or routing it to 

duct burners remain as options for IGCC 

EGUs and indicated that flaring should 

remain an option for routine startups 

and shutdowns of IGCC EGUs and as a 

viable option for non-routine events 

such as unit ‘‘trips’’ when the 

combustion turbine cannot combust 

syngas.16

The commenters suggested that the 

EPA should reinstate the use of the 

diluent cap and/or provide for a diluent 

cap for non-mercury pollutants, as is 

allowed for Hg in Appendix A of 

subpart UUUUU. 77 FR 9606. 

Commenters believed the use of a 

diluent cap is appropriate when 

complying with a heat input-based 

emission standard because emissions 

must be reported during periods of 

startup and shutdown, and using the 

actual carbon dioxide or oxygen 

concentrations in the stack during 

startup and shutdown will, according to 

the commenters, grossly overstate 

emissions, as the initial (or final) 

concentrations during those periods are 

close to ambient levels.17 Moreover, 

because EGU owners or operators who 

use CEMS, continuous parameter 

monitoring systems (CPMS) or sorbent 

traps will be required to report emission 

rates during periods of startup and 

shutdown, some commenters 

recommended that a default electrical 

output rate (in terms of megawatt-hours 

(MWh) or gigawatt-hours (GWh)) be 

established for use during startup and 

shutdown periods.18 According to the 

commenters, use of such a default 

electrical output rate would prevent 

EGU owners or operators from reporting 

infinite emissions, which is what the 

commenters state would occur when no 

(or zero) electrical output for these 

periods was placed in the denominator 

when performing these calculations. 

One commenter recommended that an 

EGU should not have to sample for Hg 

with sorbent traps until startup has 

ended because, unlike a CEMS, a 

sorbent trap system collects an 

integrated sample over an extended time 

period and does not provide real-time 

data.19 Therefore, according to the 

commenter, it is not possible to separate 

the Hg compliance data from data 

collected during startup and shutdown 

periods. The commenter noted that 

although startup and shutdown events 

are generally short, if startup and 

shutdown emissions are included in the 

compliance calculations, this could 

potentially skew the results. 

The final rule contains specific 

requirements for EGUs that use a 

common stack (see § 63.10010(a)(2) and 

(3)). Even with these requirements, 

some commenters asserted that the rule 

does not adequately account for startup 

and shutdown periods for individual 

EGUs. Some commenters stated that the 

proposed rule does not resolve how the 

startup and shutdown definitions and 

work practice provisions apply to EGUs 

that share a common stack. Several 

commenters acknowledged that the 

work practice standards would be 

applied separately on each EGU that 

shares a common stack, but they argued 

that the rule should provide that the 

numerical emission limits do not apply 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 25, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38005 

20See, e.g., EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20256, 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20277, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234–20281, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234– 

20282, EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20294. 

if even one EGU sharing the common 

stack is starting up or shutting down.20

The EPA requests comment on the 

information and data provided in the 

public comments regarding the startup 

and shutdown provisions and, in 

particular, the commenters’ 

recommendations concerning the 

definition of ‘‘startup.’’ The EPA 

requests additional input on the 

following startup/shutdown-related 

issues that were raised by commenters 

on the proposed rule: 

• The use of default diluent gas cap 

values during periods of startup and 

shutdown; 

• How to calculate startup/shutdown 

emissions when multiple affected EGUs 

share a common stack; and 

• The use of a default electrical 

production rate value to calculate 

output-based emission limits during 

startup and shutdown hours where the 

electrical load is zero. 

In addition, the EPA requests 

comment on the additional technical 

analyses it conducted in response to the 

above comments concerning the end of 

startup. See ‘‘Assessment of startup 

period at coal-fired electric generating 

units’’ in Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0234. In this analysis of EGUs, the 

EPA examined several indicators that 

can aid in assessing the time required to 

achieve operating benchmarks. 

Using these indicators, we found no 

significant difference in performance 

related to startup between the different 

groups assessed in this analysis. We 

believe these results could support 

defining the end of startup at coal-fired 

EGUs as occurring at 25 percent of 

nameplate capacity plus 3 hours or the 

start of electricity generation plus 6 

hours, whichever comes first, and we 

are soliciting comment on the analysis. 

We are only reopening for comment 

the startup and shutdown issues 

described above. We are not seeking 

comment on any other issues and will 

not respond to comments submitted that 

are outside the scope of this notice. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 

63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: June 18, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15146 Filed 6–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS