15
- 1 

## Chapter **15 General Provisions**  **Contents** 15.1 Co
- located Non
- emitting Sources
................................ ................................ ........................ 2 15.2 Codifying the Proposed Regulations
................................ ................................ ................... 2 15.3 PCP Exclusion
................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 315
- 2



### 15.1 **CO -**  **LOCATED NON -**  **EMITTING SOURCES Comment 15.1**  **- 1:**  Commenter 8952 states, the co
- located non
- emitting sources provision is highl y convoluted. Commenter 8957 states, including co
- located non
- emitting sources of electricit y in the calculation of the emission standard compliance provides an additional "efficiency " measure to allow EGUs to meet the emissions limitations by decreasing their lb/MWh CO 2 emissions by increasi ng their net output. Commenter say s, this provision will only provide marginal benefit to the affected sources. **Response 15.1 -**  **1:** Co
- located units are not included in this final rule. **Comment 15.1 -** **2:** Commenter 0784 discusses United States CO2 emissions compared to emissions from other coun tries (China specifically

). Commenter suggests that EPA, in partnership with the U.S. electric utilities and U.S. State Department, have a larger role in educating other nations on how to cost
- effectively reduce carbon emissions from coal
- burning plants. **Response 15.1 -** **2:** T

his comment is bey

ond the scope of the present rulemaking. **Comment 15.1 -** 

**3:** Commenter 8957 disagrees with exempting net sales to the grid during a declared emergency for applicability

purposes. Commenter states, this action would result in displacing well
regulated, well
- c ontrolled baseline power plants from the capacity market with uncontrolled distributed generation. Commenter says, baseline power plants that would normally be applicable under the proposed rule could evade applicability by only bidding one
-third of their capacity to the market and selling the remaining two
-thirds to the emergency demand response market. **Response 15.1 -** 

**3:** T he EPA disagrees with the commenter and is retaining the exclusion of sales for emergency which is discussed more in section I X.B.2 of the preamble 

### 15.2 **CODIFY ING THE PROPOSED REG**  **ULATIONS Comment 15.2**  **- 1:**  Commenter 8957 states, codify ing the proposed regulations in their respective subparts would make referencing the appropriate NSPS easier for state and local air pollution control agencies and the owners and operators of the affected facilities and minimize confusion. Commenter say s there would be no need to reproduce definitions that are already contained in the respective subparts and if future data supports changing an emissions limitation for one ty pe of fuel or technology

, it can be addressed without opening the entire regulation to comment. Commenter says, codify ing the proposed regulations in a new subpart would not cause undue burden to the owner/operator or the permitting agencies. **Response 15.2 -**  **1:** As explained in section III.B of the final rule preamble, the EPA is combining the steam generator and combustion turbine categories into a single category of fossil fuel
- fired electricity generating units for purposes of promulgating standards of performance for GHG emissions. The standards of performance for CO2 emissions will be codified in a new 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT. **Comment 15.2 -** **2:** Commenter 2864 states, the new rules must include flexibility for states and limitations on premature closings of EGUs. Commenter say s the rule must include recognitio n of the significant investments in renewables, demand side management and natural gas EGUs already made by utilities, more15
- 3

time for new technologies to be developed and proven cost effective, and flexibility for utilities to look at sy stem emissions versus plant by plant reductions. **Response 15.2 -** **2:** This comment is bey ond the scope of the present rulemaking. 

### 15.3 **PCP EXCLUSION Comment 15.3**  **- 1:**  Commenter 10660 states, EPA should maintain the pollution control project exclusion in its NSPS rulemaking. Commenter say s, most environmental compliance projects would fall into this categor y and be deemed pollution control projects that are excluded from NSPS for modified units, allowing them to be regulated as existing units and therefore the current rulemaking should not affect this exclusion
. **Response 15.3 -**  **1:** The EPA’s action in the final rule does not change any thing concerning what constitutes or does not constitute a modification under the CAA or the EPA’s regulations. **Comment 15.3 -** **2:** Commenter 9666 agrees with the EPA's proposal to exempt Subpart TTTT from sections 60.8 (addressing performance tests, notice of performance tests, performance test reports, and audit sample requirements), 60.11 (including compliance requirements and opacity requirements), 60.14 (addressing modification), 60.15 (addressing reconstruction), 6 0.16 (priority list), 60.18 (addressing general control device requirements), 60.5570 and Table 2. Commenter 9666 states that the EPA should include the duplicate reporting to the EPA Regional Offices and delegated states under section 60.4 on the list of general provisions that do not apply to Subpart TTTT, or to the proposed revisions to Subparts Da and KKKK. **Response 15.3 -** **2:** Section 60.5570 and Table 3 of the final rule indicate which of the General Provisions in sections 60.1 through 60.19 are applicable to EGUs affec ted under subpart TTTT. Sections 60.8, 60.11, 60.13 , 60.14, 60.15, 60.16, and 60.18 are not applicable to subpart TTTT. With regard to applicability of section 60.4 of the General Provisions, Table 3 to subpart TTTT specifies that section 60.4 does not apply to information reported electronically through ECMPS and that d uplicate submittals are not required. 

### 15.4 **REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY Comment 15.4**  **- 1:**  Commenter 10618 states this proposal will increase regulatory uncertainty

because of its novel treatment of existing modified and reconstructed sources. As an example, EPA is rely ing on its purported authority

to promulgate a "new source" standard that does not apply to "modified" units (notwithstanding the controlling definition of "new source" in Section 111(a)(2) of the CAA ) during a period when other EPA regulatory initiatives will require existing coal plants to undertake phy sical and operational changes in order to achieve reductions in criteria pollutant emissions that are known to increase the hourly rate of CO2 emissions from coal
- fired steam generators. EPA claims that such sources will be protected by

the "pollution control project" exclusion in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(5). EPA acknowledges that this exclusion (dating to 1975 in the NSPS program) is similar to a provision subsequently promulgated under the new source review regulations in Part 51, and that the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2005), invalidated that similar provision in the new source review program. The questionable continuing validity of the pollution control exclusion may well force additional coal unit15
- 4

retirements, bey

ond the 38,000 MW already announced, even though EPA has acknowledged that it has insufficient information to develop standards that could apply to existing sources. **Response 15.4 -**  **1:** EPA disagrees that this rule will increase regulatory uncertainty
. EPA disagrees with the contention that EPA does not have the authority to set different standards for newly constructed sources and for modified sources. EPA’s aut hority to issue regulations setting different standards for newly constructed sources and for modified sources comes from section 111(b)(2), which authorizes EPA to distinguish within categories of sources. With respect to the commentors reference to the definition of “new source” in section 111(a)(2) and EPA’s reading of the definition of not including all modified sources, the language of the definition in section 111(a)(2) is that “new source” only includes modified sources that modify “after the publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed regulations) prescribing a standard of performance under this section which will be applicable to such source. Finally , with respect to the portion of the comment concerning the pollution control project prov ision, EPA neither proposed nor is taking any final action with respect to that provision and therefore that portion of the comment is bey ond the scope of this rule and requires no response.16
- 1 

## Chapter **16 Rule Language**  **Contents** 16.1 General
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2 16.2 Definitions
................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 2 16.3 Language Corrections
................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1016
- 2



### 16.1 **GENERAL The**  **EPA Must Correct Discrepancies b etween Subparts Da and TTTT**  **Comment 16.1 -**  **1:** Commenter 10239 states, while the proposed alternative subpart TTTT is not intended to differ substantively from the proposed standards under Subpart Da, there are several discrepancies between th e proposals that would produce materially different regulatory obligations. The c ommenter say s, EPA appears to propose facility
- level regulation of coal
- fired EGUs under Subpart Da, but unit
- level regulation under Subpart TTTT. The c ommenter also say s, it appears that the operative language for an affirmative defense for malfunctions was onl y included in Subpart TTTT and that there were no changes in Subpart Da to incorporate the affirmative defense. The c ommenter say s, EPA must corre ct these discrepancies and provide an opportunity

for public comment on the revised provisions. **Response 16.1 -**  **1:** The EPA is finalizing provisions which only add the new subpart TTTT of part 60 in this rulemaking and so the coordination between CO 2 standards between subpar t Da and TTTT is not required. The emission standards in subpart TTTT are being finalized as unit level standards. 

### 16.2 **DEFINITIONS The Rule Should Include Additional Guidelines for Calculating the Thermal Credit**  **Comment 16.2 -**  **1:** Commenter 10682 states, while the definition of “ Useful Thermal Output ” in the proposed rule includes some additional detail that was not included in the April 2012 proposal, EPA should also provide guidelines to help facilities calculate their useful thermal output. The commenter notes that EPA has alr eady generated these materials, and should reference them in the final rule. With these additional details, EPA can assuage concerns that regulated entities may

take credit for thermal energy that is not put to good use. **Response 16.2 -**  **1:** T he EPA has added detail and clari fied in the final rule how to calculate useful thermal output by

adding an equation in section 60.5540. **EPA Should Add a Definition of Industrial Unit to the Rule Comment 16.2**  **- 2:**  Commenter 10682 not es EPA is seeking comment on whether it should exempt combustion turbines at industrial units from the emission limit under 111(b), while continuing to subject such units to other aspects of the standard of performance (i.e., monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements). The c ommenter say s that such units would apparent ly

be treated as utility

units and subject to the emissions limit whenever they meet the threshold applicability

limits (i.e., whenever the facility supplies more than one
- third of its potential electric output and more than 25 MW net electric output to th e grid per year over a three
- ye ar rolling average).16
- 3

Commenter 10682 states the language in the proposed rule is unclear because while the proposed rule distinguishes between "combustion turbine utility units" and "combustion turbine industrial units," thes e terms are not defined. The commenter recommends that EPA define these terms so that regulated entities can better understand the applicability requirements. The commenter further notes that m onitoring and record
- keeping is necessary to identify

y ears in which these units trigger the applicability requirements. **Response 16.2 -**  **2:** The EPA has added detail in the applicability sections of the rule and clarified what applicable monitoring and recordkeeping EGUs have to do depending on what standard is applicable to them. The f inal rule has an operational element for an EGU to determine what emission standard is applicable and for more discussion on this topic see section s VIII.C. and IX .A.3 of the preamble. **Clarify the definition of CHP Comment 16.2**  **- 3:**  Commenter 1586 supported the "line
- loss" credit proposed for "combined heat and power" (CHP) facilities but expressed concerns that the proposed definition may exclude facilities using hot oil heat exchangers and may also exclude "waste heat to power" (WHP) facilities; this commenter provided a draft definition for WHP facilities. Commenter 1586 also stated that most CHP projects would not be subject to the proposed standard because CHP sy stems are often owned and operated by third
- part y develop ers and not by the thermal host. T his commenter supp orted the proposed criteria that applicability is based on gross electric sales to the utility

minus purchased power of the thermal host. Commenter 10038 states EPA does not include a specific definition for CHP in the primary proposal to retain separate c ategories for steam generating units and combustion turbines, but instead relies on the current, yet inconsistent definitions of CHP in subparts Da and KKKK . The commenter recommends that EPA modify the definition of CHP in subpart KKKK regarding stationary combustion turbines to clarify that CHP includes units that produce useful thermal energy by an y m eans. Commenter 10038 states, EPA should include "bottoming
- cycle units" in the definition of CHP and include a definition of "bottoming
- cycling unit" consi stent with that adopted in the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule. **Response 16.2 -**  **3:** See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions. **Subparts KKKK and TTTT definitions Comment 16.2**  **- 4:**  Several commenters ( 9381, 9425 , 9427, 9591, 966 5 , 966 6 , and 10039 ) identified issues related to definitions in subparts KKKK and TTTT. Four c ommenter s ( 9427, 9591, 9666, and 10039) recommended that EPA maintain the existing definition of stationary combustion turbine in subpart KKKK instead of using the proposed definition
. If EPA chooses to use a ne w definition for stationary combustion turbine, c ommenters 9427 and 10039 recommend that EPA remove the steam turbine from the definition because it is not a necessary component of the combustion turbine and has no function relative to emissions. C ommenter 10039 further noted the proposed definition also includes fuel heaters, other equipment , and control16
- 4

technology , but data used to establish performance standards for combustion turbines does not include emission data from these sources. The commenter (100 39) also noted the definition of combustion turbine should not include this insignificant ancillary s ys tem where it could be interpreted that emissions from this sy stem may need to be accounted for in compliance determinations under this proposed standard or for compliance by affected units subject to Subpart KKKK prior to this change. Commenter 9591 presented conflicting definitions of stationary combustion turbines between the current 40 CFR 60.4420, the Proposed 40 CFR 60.4420 (2012 revisions), and the Proposed 40 CFR 60.4421 (2013 revisions) while commenter 9666 noted the proposed definitions in subparts KKKK and TTTT are slightl y different . Commenter 9666 stated the proposed definition in subpart TTTT appears internally inconsistent in that it include s "control s ys tems (except emissions control equipment)" but also includes "post
- combustion emission control technology ." Commenter 10039 also state d EPA has included post combustion emission control technology in the definition of stationary combustion turbine though no other emission source categories exist where EPA defines the source to include post combustion emission control devices. Commenter 94 27 stated EPA should ensure that definitions and uses of terms relating to stationary combustion turbines are clear and consistent. Specificall y, the commenter (9427) noted that clear and unambiguous terms are needed for "Potential Electric Output," "Net
E lectrical Output," "Net Electric Output," "Gross Electric Sales," "Gross Energy Output," "Utility Distribution Sy stem," "Utility Power Distribution Sy stem," "Electric Grid," and "Purchased Power”. Commenter 9427 states, similar to the "potential electric o utput" proposed definition, the "base load rating" definition should enable "at the election of the owner/operator of the facility " to use or revise the base load rating to reflect actual heat input capacity or to reflect changes in the heat input capacit y over time. Commenter say s, the use of a base load rating different than the manufacturer's design heat input capacit y could be based on methods such as a manufacturer's thermal performance test procedure or an ASME Performance Test Code (PTC), such as PTC 22 for stationary

combustion turbines, or another known industry standard, all at I SO conditions and using higher heating value of the fuel. Commenter 9666 states, in Subparts TTTT and KKKK, EPA proposes a definition for combined heat and power facilitie s that uses "3 calendar year rolling average basis" to determine applicability

but for Subpart Da, EPA does not propose any averaging period. Commenter 9425 states, in Subpart KKKK EPA proposes to limit the definition of "base load rating" to combustion turbines and clarify that the definition does not include heat input from duct burners to heat recovery steam generating s ystems (HRSG). Commenter say s, in Subpart TTTT EPA proposes to define "base load rating" for steam generating units as well as combusti on turbines. Commenter say s, if EPA intends the heat input to a steam generating unit to be included in determining "base load rating" for an y unit (including a HRSG) under Subpart TTTT, then EPA should issue a proposal that explains why EPA has proposed t o treat such units differentl y under Subparts KKKK and TTTT.16
- 5

Commenters 9425 and 9666 state, the rationale for defining "combined cycle facility " in Subpart TTTT but not in Subpart Da should be clarified. Commenter 9665 states, the current definition of IG CC in subpart TTTT does not include the "integrated equipment" addition. Commenter say s, EPA should adopt the same revised definition of IGCC facility

that it has proposed for Subpart Da. Commenter say s, EPA should clarify that the definition encompasses the HRSG and an y steam turbines used b y the IGCC unit. Commenter say s, the definition should specifically note that integrated equipment includes, but is not limited to, HRSGs. Commenter say s, EPA should clarify that the definition extends to the output both to and from the steam turbine as well as an y auxiliary equipment. Commenter says, EPA should also alter the definition to reference turbine engines in the plural. Commenter 9666 states, EPA proposes to define "IGCC facility " in Subpart Da with respect to CO 2 to include "an y integrated equipment that provides electricity or useful thermal output to either the affected facility or auxiliary equipment, "and states that it has proposed to include such equipment in the other facility definitions." Commenter says , although EPA has included it in the proposed definitions of "steam generating unit" in Subpart Da, section 60.46Da and in Subpart TTTT, and in the proposed definition of "stationary combustion turbine" in Subparts KKKK and TTTT, EPA has not proposed to include it in the definition of IGCC in Subparts KKKK and TTTT. Commenter 9665 supports EPA's proposed waiver of the 50 percent solid
- derived fuel requirement during periods of construction, startup, shutdown, and repair. Commenter say s, EPA should remov e from the IGCC definition, ""The Administrator may waive" language, and include the following declarative sentence: "The 50 percent solid
- derived fuel requirement does not apply during period of the gasification s ys tem construction, startup and commission ing, shutdown, or repair." Commenter 9381 states, EPA should consider interactions between the proposed revisions intended for the criteria pollutant provisions or Subpart KKKK and the GHG provisions proposed under Subpart KKKK to avoid conflict with the rule's intended focus on entirel y new units. Commenter 9666 states, EPA should review its proposed definitions for consistency both between the proposed subparts and in other NSPS affecting EGUs. Commenter say s, EPA proposes numerous definitions in Subp art TTTT, some of which are similar (but not identical) to definitions in the corresponding provisions in proposed revisions to Subparts Da and KKKK, and to definitions in other subparts affecting EGUs. Commenter 9666 states, EPA proposes to add a defi nition of "base load rating" to Subpart KKKK or alternativel y t o Subpart TTTT. Commenter say s, in Subpart KKKK, EPA proposes to limit the definition to combustion turbines and to make clear that the definition does not include heat input from duct burners to HRSG but in Subpart TTTT, EPA proposes to define "base load rating" for steam generating units as well as for combustion turbine. Commenter say s, EPA must clarify wh y units are treated differently between Subpart KKKK and TTTT.16
- 6

Commenter 9666 states, there is a difference in the definition of "coal" between Subpart TTTT and Subpart Da section 60.41Da. Commenter say s, EPA should clarify the purpose of the different definitions between the two subparts. Commenter 9666 states, EPA should clarify the purpose of the speciation for the "distillate oil" definition in Subpart TTTT which includes a limitation on the percent nitrogen b y weight (0.05 weight percent). Commenter 9666 states, EPA should clarify the reasoning for removing the references to SO 2 , N Ox, and sulfur in fuel from the "excess emissions" definition in Subpart KKKK. **Response 16.2 -**  **4:** See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions. **Gross Energy Output Definition Comment 16.2**  **- 5:**  Commenter 10100 states, EPA should use the definition of "gross energy output" from 40 C.F.R. Section 72.2 to be consistent with what EGUs already report to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division pursuant to the Acid Rain Program. Commenters 9425 and 9666 state, EPA proposes to define "gross energy output" differently

for different EGUs. Comme nter say s, the definitions should be consistent and EPA should remove "minus an y electricit y used to power the feedwater pumps" from the definition of "gross energy output" and equations for calculating "gross energy output". Commenters say , EPA should not incentivize how feedwater pumps are powered at an affected facility . Commenters say , EPA should change the definitions of "gross energy output" to reflect the formulas for calculating an affected facility 's gross energy output. Commenters say , the Subpart Da definition of "gross energy output" should be changed from the "electric or mechanical output" to "the electric energy output plus mechanical energy output." Commenters say , the Subpart KKKK definition of "gross energy

output" should be changed from "e lectric or direct mechanical output" to "electric energy

output plus mechanical energy output." Commenter 9666 states, EPA should define "mechanical output" or "useful thermal output" in Subparts Da and KKKK. Commenter 9425 states, EPA proposes to define "net
- electric output" in Subparts TTTT, KKKK, and for CO 2 in Subpart Da. Commenter say s, in Subparts TTTT and KKKK, EPA proposes a definition for combined heat and power facilities that uses a "3 calendar ye ar rolling average basis" to determine applicability but for Subpart Da, EPA does not propose any averagin g period. Commenter say s, the rationale for this inconsistency is not clear. Commenter 10606 states, the definition of gross energy output is unclear with regard to the precise meaning of the phrase "that is not used to generate additional electrical or me chanical output or to enhance the performance of the unit." Commenter says, the Proposed Rule is confusing because it uses several different terms i.e., "useful thermal output", "steam delivered to an industrial process for a heating application", "thermal energy made available for use", and "the energy

recovered in thermal output." Commenter say s, "EGU" should be used instead of16
- 7

"unit" in the definition and it needs to be clear that the phrase "is not used to generate additional electrical or mechanical output" applies to the EGU. Commenter 10606 states, the definition of "useful thermal output" appears to exclude electrical generation that may

be inherent to an industrial process and not sold to a utility s ys tem, however the proposed rule and NSPS only ap pl y t o EGUs. Commenter says, a definition of useful thermal output should be included in the final rule stated as: "Useful thermal output means the thermal energy made available for use in any industrial or commercial process, or used in an y heating or co oling application (i.e., total thermal energy made available for processes and applications or to enhance the performance of the stationary combustion turbine). Thermal output for this subpart means the energy in recovered thermal output measured against the energy in the thermal output at I SO conditions." Commenter 10870 states, EPA should not revise the definition of "gross energy output." Commenter say s, the definition should be the same as the current definition in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Da. Commenter say s, an y standard should be based on gross energy output, not net energy output. Commenter 10095 states, the definition should use "plus" instead of "or" in the phrase "the gross electric or mechanical output..." Commenter say s, this change will reflect the p roposal's gross energy output formulae used for compliance calculations. Commenter say s, the phras e " minus any electricity

used to power the feedwater pumps" should be removed from the gross energy output definition for steam generating units and steam gen erating unit CHP facilities. Commenter 10095 states, the formulae for calculating gross energy output contains the variable "H" defined as "enthalp y of steam at measured temperature and pressure relative to I SO conditions in Joules per kilogram (J/kg)." Co mmenter interprets this definition of "H" as enthalpy steam at measured temperature and pressure minus enthalpy of water at ISO conditions. Commenter say s, EPA needs to confirm that this interpretation is correct. Commenter 9666 supports EPA's acknowledge ment that supplying steam for amine regenerating in a CCS sy stem is categorized as "useful energy " and can be applied to the gross energy output calculation for compliance with the proposal. **Response 16.2 -**  **5:** See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions. **Annual Average Calculation Comment 16.2**  **- 6:**  Commenter 10681 states, in 60.46Da(g)(1)(ii) and (iii) and 60.4374(a)(1)(ii) and (iii), the annual average calculation presented is based on the undefined term "operating hour". Commenter say s, the procedure to convert from operating hours used to calculate the monthly update to the 12 (or 84) month rolling average emissions is not clearly stated here or in 60.46Da(c). Commenter say s, EPA should show the calculation rather than utilize a narrative description of the calculation.16
- 8

C ommenter 10681 states, EPA should amend 60.41Da to include the necessary definitions to support this subsection such as operating hour, operating month, compliance period, every thing in 60.46Da(k), etc. Commenter 10681 states, the definitions proposed for 60.Da(k) should be moved to 60.41Da with the other definitions used in the subpart. Commenter say s, the word formula given in 60.46Da(k) for "Potential electrical output" should be replaced with the actual calculation. **Response 16.2 -**  **6:** The EPA is only finalizing subpart T TTT in part 60. The EPA is finalizing only the requirement to meet emission limits on a 12
- operating month rolling average and in addition the EPA has added details in the final rule with respect to operating hours and months **Turbine Definitions Comment 16.2**  **- 7:**  Commenter 10681 states, EPA should change how it defines the difference between large, frame t yp e combustion turbines and small aeroderivative turbines. Commenter say s, EPA should utilize the definitions of combined cycle and simple cycle combustion turbines alread y included in 40 CFR 60.4420 rather than develop of new criterion. **Response 16.2 -**  **7:** See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions. **Emergency Conditions Comment 16.2**  **- 8:**  Commenter 10681 states, EPA should either explicitly define what constitutes an electrical emergency

and what has to be documented b y the RTO or ISO to allow operation in an emergency condition. Commenter 9593 states support for the definition of emergency operations as proposed in the rule and the need for this provision to be included. **Response 16.2 -**  **8:** The EPA is finalizi ng the definition of System Emergency in the final rule. **Definition of Affected Facility Comment 16.2**  **- 9:**  Commenter 10681 states, the definition of affected facility differs between 60.40Da and proposed 60.46Da(a). Commenter say s, the definition for affected facility for 6 0.46Da should be added to 60.40Da and clearl y s tate that it is for use in implementing the requirements of 60.46Da. **Response 16.2 -**  **9:** The EPA is not finalizing an y requirements in subpart Da and has defined affected EGU in the new subpart TTTT of part 60. **Definition of EG Us**  **Comment 16.2 -**  **10:** Commenter 8949 states, EPA generall y refers to EGUs as fossil fuel
- fired electric steam generating units (utility boilers and integrated gasification combined cycle units) and natural gas
- fired stationary combustion turbines, focusing on coal
- fired and natural gas
- fired16
- 9

EGUs. Commenter say s, although Subpart Da and the proposed EGU definition changes appear to apply to an y "fossil fuel," it unclear whether or not the GHG thresholds would apply to recapture and combustion of by product off gas that is captured and combusted to generate electricit y. Commenter 8949 asks, under the Proposed Rule, would only those EGUs that meet all three of the Subpart Da criteria be subject to the GHG NSPS, or would EGUs that meet an y one of the three Subpart Da criteria be subject to the GHG NSPS? For those fossil fuels that are not coal or natural gas, how will those EGUs be treated? Will EPA identify a separate threshold for other fossil fuels in the Final Rule? How is by product off gas that is indirectl y produced through fossil fuel mineral processing, captured, and reused for power generation to be considered with regard to GHG NSPS? I s this byproduct off gas to be treated the same as fossil fuels that are used solel y for base load power production (as opposed to an off g as treatment mechanism that produces power as a b yproduct)? Commenter says, EPA should clearl y define which EGUs are covered b y the GHG NSPS, particularly those for which their feedstock is neither coal nor natural gas. Commenter say s, coverage for EGUs th at are constructed specificall y for capture and processing of by product off gases, and whose purpose is not primarily for sale of electric power but rather primarily for coverage of parasitic loads with nominal excess production, be excluded from the GHG N SPS. Commenter 10554 states, the word "or" be included in the definition of EGUs so that the language would read "constructed for the purpose of supplying more than one
- third of its potential electric output capacity to the grid or the unit actually supplies more than one
- third of its potential electric output to the grid." Commenter says, this language would ensure that an y unit that is either designed to supply more than one
- third or actually sends more than one
- third potential electric output to the grid are subject to the standards
. Commenter 9775 states, EPA does not justify the definition of EGUs which is a departure from the definition of EGU in 40 CFR 60.2.3. Commenter say s, the proposed rule's EGU definition creates uncertainty

about what facilities will be covered. Commenter s ay s, it is unclear how the rule impacts other electric
- generating s ys tems. Commenter say s, EPA should clarify what qualifies a facility

to be an EGU, how fossil fuels will that are not traditional coal or natural gas power plants will be treated, and how the new rule will apply to product off

- gas and other indirect power
- production sy stems. **Response 16.2 -**  **10:** See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions. **The Florida Keys Should Be Included In the Proposed Rule's Definition of Non**   ** Continental Areas and Excluded** **From the Proposed Standard Comment 16.2**  **- 11:**  Commenter 9194 states, pipeline quality natural gas is not available in the Florida Key s and therefore should be included in the definition of non - continental areas and excluded from the proposed standard. **Response 16.2 -**  **11:** See section 60.5580 of the regulatory text for definitions.16
- 10

**2/5 (40 percent) Capacity Definition Comment 16.2**  **- 12:**  Commenter 8952 states, a full exemption of simple cycle turbines is the most defensible and best solution because it would provide grid reliability by not arbitraril y removing a s ubset of the generating capacity from availability
. **Response 16.2 -**  **12:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter and is finalizing the rule with an applicability

threshold of 25 MW with certain sales criteria thresholds. The EPA points the commenter to section IX.A.3 of the pr eamble for more detail on this topic 

### 16.3 **LANGUAGE CORRECTIONS General Language Comments**  **Comment 16.3 -**  **1:** Commenter 8955 states, that EPA should provide language in the final rule that incorporates an adaptive management approach to emerging/potentially applicable VCS technic al standards that would appear after the rule is adopted. Commenter 9597 supports EPA's restriction of the proposed standards to only the new construction of EGUs and calls attention of EEI's suggestions on language changes. Commenter 10681 states, allowances in 502(b)(d)(B) of the CAA should be utilized to the fullest in amending the fee provisions in Part 70. Commenter 9514 states, the proposed revision of Subpart Da omits reference to the source's design purpose while it is included in both Subparts KKKK and TTTT. Commenter say s, EPA should retain the "constructed for the purpose" test for applicability under Subpart Da. Commenter 7977 states, in 40 CFR 60.5509(a) the phrase "constructed for the purpose of" should be removed. Commenter 3862 states, the rule language should replace the word "violation" with "prohibition" when discussing startup and shutdown. Commenter 9514 states, EPA inadvertentl y omitted a third provision relating to the use of fuel consumption to estimate emissions. Commenter say s, p roposed 40 C.F.R. section 60.5535(c) refers to section 60.5525(c)(2) but the proposal does not contain a section 60.5525(c)(2). **Response 16.3 -**  **1:** This comment has been responded to elsewhere in this final rule
. **Monitoring and Compliance Language Comment 16.3**  **- 2:**  Commenter 10681 states, in 60.46Da(I)(2) the concept of an operating month is raised, but is not related to operating hour or boiler operating day . Commenter say s, the rule text say s different things on what is being averaged to demonstrate compliance with the emission standard betw een paragraphs.16
- 11

Commenter 10681 states, the proposed language in Part 60, Subpart KKKK should be revised to better coordinate with the existing monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping requirements and the treatment of cogeneration in the existing rule langua ge. Commenter say s, much of the compliance and calculation methodology for gross electrical output in Subpart KKKK could be eliminated by

using existing requirements supporting the NOx limitation. Commenter 10681 states, there are specific elements in both Subpart KKKK and 60.46Da that could be revised and clarifications made to the Subpart KKKK language. Commenter say s, the Subpart KKKK is still unclear on the status of simple cycle combustion turbines and suggests that the final language be explicit on th e treatment of simple cycle units used for other than peaking capacit y. Commenter says, the simple cycle combustion turbine in 60.4420 could be amended to include a maximum hours per year or capacity factor to limit when a simple cycle turbine might be req

uired to comply

with the CO 2 limitation. Commenter 10681 states, it is unclear whether the 60.46Da(c) emission limits are based on a 12 operating month, 12 calendar month, or 365 day rolling average. Commenter say s, there is a missing connection in the lan guage between the collection and calculation of hourly data in 60.46Da(f) and (g) to the monthly determination of compliance under 60.46Da(c). **Response 16.3 -**  **2:** The EPA is not finalizing changes to subpart Da and KKKK and the EPA has added information in the new subpart TTTT that addresses the commenters concerns. **Turbine Language Comment 16.3**  **- 3:**  Commenter 9427 states, proposed rule section 60.4373(e) discusses apportioning gross load from a "common electric generator" and would require apportionment by "using a plan approved by the Admi nistrator." Commenter say s, EPA should revise the wording to read "serve a common electric generator or a common steam turbine with an electric generator." Commenter 9427 states, regardless of whether there is a common steam turbine and steam turbine electric generator, EPA should revise the end of the first sentence in section 60.4373(d) by adding the words "and any associated steam turbine generator." Commenter 10681 states, EPA should clarify the applicability

status for combustion turbines that fire re finery

gas, natural gas or a mixture of refinery and natural gas, recognizing that refinery gas and natural gas are both fossil fuels. **Response 16.3 -**  **3:** The EPA is not finalizing any changes to subpart KKKK of part 60 and is only including the addition of the new subpart TTTT of part 60. Additionally , EGUs the EPA has finalized the definition of natural gas to include refinery gas thus EGUs that fire refinery gas are subject to the same applicability
. **Carbon Utilization Language Comment 16.3**  **- 4:**  Commenter 2741 states, EPA should include l anguage that recognizes the viability and benefits of carbon utilization. Commenter suggests the following additions in16
- 12

Section 60.46Da: (h)(6) If your affected unit uses methods of carbon capture that convert carbon dioxide to other chemical forms to meet the applicable emission limit, you must demonstrate either one of the following fates of the carbon dioxide:(i) the carbon dioxide is permanentl y converted to other chemical forms and will not revert back to carbon dioxide under natural or ty pical conditi ons, or (ii) the carbon dioxide is converted to a carbon
- sequestering product that will emit carbon dioxide only if used to supplant another product, such as a fossil fuel, the use of which would emit as much or more carbon dioxide as the carbon
- sequesteri ng product. Commenter 2741 suggests the following additions to Section 60.46Da: (7) If your affected unit converts carbon dioxide emissions into other chemical forms and produces materials that supplant other commonly purchased products with a significant carbon footprint, you may calculate your carbon dioxide emissions for purposes of achieving the GHG emission standard by subtracting supplanted emissions from your actual emissions only if yo u demonstrate: (i) your carbon
- sequestering product replaces a pr oduct the manufacture or processing of which emits carbon dioxide, such as cement manufacturing or petroleum refining, (ii) your carbon
sequestering product is introduced into commerce and thus actuall y supplants the purchase of a high
- carbon product, (iii ) the supplanted emission deduction from your actual emissions is calculated b y multiplying the volume of carbon
- sequestering product that you introduce into commerce b y an accepted carbon dioxide emission factor for the manufacturing or processing of the supplanted product, and (iv) if the use or combustion of your carbon
- sequestering product emits carbon dioxide at levels comparable to the emissions from the use or combustion of the supplanted product, the supplanted emission deduction for those products only includes emissions for the manufacture or processes of the supplanted product and not for the use or combustion of the supplanted product. Commenter 2741 suggests the addition of the following language in Section 60.5555: (e) If your affected unit use s methods of carbon capture that convert carbon dioxide to other chemical forms in a way that are permanent under natural or t ypical conditions to meet the applicable emission limit, then you must report the volume of emissions that are permanentl y convert ed. (f) If your affected unit uses methods of carbon capture in which the carbon dioxide is converted to a carbon
- sequestering products that will emit carbon dioxide only if used to supplant another product to meet the applicable emission limit, then you must report: (g) If your affected unit uses a deduction for supplanting the manufacture or processes of other products with your carbon sequestering products to meet the applicable emission limit, then you must report: (1) the carbon dioxide emission factor for the manufacture or processing of the supplanted product, and (2) the volume of carbon sequestering products that is introduced into commerce. Commenter 2741 states, the purpose of the above language is enable an electricity generating facility to comp ly

with the rule by

calculating their actual emission reduction due to onsite capture. **Response 16.3 -**  **4:** This comment has been responded to elsewhere in this final rule. **PSD Permitting Language Comment 16.3**  **- 5:**  Commenter 9504 states, EPA's proposal on page 1488 of the Notice to continue to interpret 51.166(b)(49) as if the definition of a "regulated air pollutant" does not16
- 13

affect the Tailoring Rule major source definitions is inadequate. Commenter say s, the language of the regulation causes the definition of "major source" to revert to 100 and 250 tons when GHG's are regulated under an NSPS. Commenter say s that EPA must amend the terms "NSR Regulated Air Pollutant" to avoid triggering PSD for an y increase in GHGs at an y typ e of source before EPA finalizes a New Source Performance Standard. C ommenter say s, Section 52.21(b)(50) should add the phrase "other than GHG" to subparagraph (ii). Commenter 9504 states, EPA should revise the regulation to prevent an y future "misinterpretation" of the PSD regulation. Commenter say s, currentl y is it unclear whether sources of GHGs that emit less than the 100,000 and 75,000 ton thresholds are adequatel y shielded from third part y attacks or objections if the PSD regulations are not revised. Commenter 9504 states, amending the PSD regulation by deleting the re ference to "NSPS" in the PSD definition of "regulated air pollutant" would necessitate another round of SIP revisions. Commenter suggests as an alternative that EPA codify in the final EGU NSPS that the NSPS does not alter the definition of "major source" of GHGs in the GHG Tailoring Rule. Commenter say s, EPA could also require each state to confirm that the NSPS for GHGs from EGUs does not affect the Tailoring Rule definition of "major source" for purposes of administering each State's Title V fees and bud gets. Commenter say s, EPA could require the EPA interpretation to be included in the source permit's Statement of Basis on issuance (for new major sources) and at the time of Title V permit renewal. Commenter say s, each state and its EPA region could also enter into a Memorandum of Understanding on this issue either during review of permit fee program revisions or separatel y. **Response 16.3 -**  **5:** See preamble section XII.B. **Useful Thermal Output Languag e**  **Comment 16.3 -**  **6:** Commenter 10606 states, EPA should allow the useful thermal output to inc lude 100 percent of the electrical energy generated, and 75 percent of the thermal energy made available for use, in any industrial or commercial process. Commenter presents text additions as follows: (i) Except as provided under paragraph (ii) of this de finition, for electric utility steam generating units, the gross electric or mechanical output from the affected facility (including, but not limited to, output from steam turbine(s), combustion turbine(s), and gas expanders) minus any electricit y used to power the feedwater pumps, plus 100 percent of an y electrical energy generated outside the EGU b y steam generated from the EGU , plus 75 percent of the useful thermal output measured relative to ISO conditions that is not used to generate additional electri c or mechanical output of the EGU , or to enhance the performance of the unit EGU (e.g., steam delivered to an industrial process for a heating application); (ii) For electric utility

steam generating unit combined heat and power facilities where at least 20.0 percent of the total gross energy output consists of electric or direct mechanical output and at least 20.0 percent of the total gross energy output consists of thermal output on a rolling 3 y ear basis, the gross electric or mechanical output from the affected facility (including, but not limited to, output from steam turbine(s), combustion turbine(s), and gas expanders) minus any electricit y16
- 14

used to power the feedwater pumps, that difference divided by 0.95, plus 100 percent of any electrical energy

g enerated outside the EGU b y steam generated from the EGU , plus 75 percent of the useful thermal output measured relative to ISO conditions that is not used to generate additional electric or mechanical output or to enhance the performance of the unit EGU (e .g., steam delivered to an industrial process for a heating application an y purpose) Commenter 7990 states, the term "useful thermal output" (UTO) can be misinterpreted to allow all waste heat output to be reported as potentiall y useful. Commenter say s, EPA should update the definition of UTO similar to the FERC definition to include the concept of productive and beneficial use for new C HP facilities. Commenter say s, a wording change from "useful" to "used" could help clarify

this issue. Commenter say s, e ven if "useful" is retained, the definition of thermal output that is eligible for crediting toward the performance standard should include the requirement that the thermal energy output of a cogeneration facility is used in a productive and beneficial manner. **Response 16.3 -**  **6:** This comment has been responded to elsewhere in this final rule. **Emergency Exclusion Language Comment 16.3**  **- 7:**  Commenter 9779 states, the proposed rule should be modified to broaden the grid emergency

exclusion to include other extreme market conditions or reliability responses. Commenter suggests the following language additions to the rule: Emergency Conditions include: 1. Any

emergency

declared by

the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), Independent S ys tem Operators (ISO), control area Administrator, or state or local officials; 2. Periods during which the regional transmission authority or equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator has declared an Energy Emergency

Alert Level 2; 3. Significant capacit y and energy

drops from unexpected transmissio n constraints or losses, plant trips or forced outages, Northwest Power Pool emergency reserve commitments, or unexpected gas reserve and storage constraints; 4. Periods where there is a deviation of voltage or frequency of 5 percent or more below standard voltage or frequency
. **Response 16.3 -**  **7:** This comment has been responded to elsewhere in this final rule. **CHP Language Comment 16.3**  **- 8:**  Commenter 9666 states, the proposed language for Subpart Da incorrectl y refers to a "combined heat and power unit as defined in section 60.42Da." Comment er says, the definitions in Subpart Da are in section 60.41Da. Commenter 10554 states, EPA should remove the following language "of the thermal host facility or facilities" from the definition of net
- electric output for qualifying CHP facilities. Commente r say s, the definition should be revised to "the gross electric sales to the utility power distributions sy stem minus purchased power of facilities on a calendar year basis." **Response 16.3 -**  **8:** The EPA is not finalizing an y changes to subpart Da of this final rulemaking. Additionally

the EPA is not including the language the commenter asks to be removed in the16
- 15

definition of net
- electric output in subpart TTTT of part 60 and believes the addition is not necessary in the definition that is finalized. **CO 2**  **Provision Language Comment 16.3**  **- 9:**  Commenter 10681 states, in 60.46DA(f)(iii) and 60.4373(b)(4), EPA is proposing to deviate from the procedures utilized in Part 75 to determine gas flow rate. Commenter say s, EPA must acknowledge that this deviation and other proposed deviations from the Part 75 procedures will result in two different CO 2 mass emission rates being reported for a source regulated under both Part 60 and Part 75. Commenter say s, for consistency EPA sh ould utilize the Part 75 flow measurement in their entirety
. Commenter 10681 states, in 60.46Da(g)(1)(i) and 60.4374(a)(1) EPA proposes to ignore significant number of hours of data every quarter, because the underl yi ng hourly data do not meet the data co mpleteness requirements of the CO 2 provision, but do meet the criteria elsewhere in Part 60. Commenter say s, EPA needs to better support its rationale for ignoring these emissions when the proposed, strict required data recovery requirements have not been met. Commenter say s, if EPA chooses to not utilize the Part 75 missing data procedures EPA should utilize the data recovery requirements in 60.13 instead of inventing new criteria for this rule proposal. **Response 16.3 -**  **9:** The EPA is finalizing require ments for monitoring and reporting that are consistent with part 75 where appropriate and is utilizing the part 75 flow measurements as appropriate to the part 60 program. The EPA does not believe it is appropriate to include data substitution in the compliance calculations and is finalizing this view. The EPA believes the long averaging periods will reflect the sources average normal operation with respect to CO 2 emissions and thus it is appropriate to use.17
- 1 

## Chapter **17 Incorporation by Refer** **ence 17.1**  **INCORPORATION BY REF ERENCE**  **Comment 17.1 -**  **1:** Several commenters incorporated by reference the ir own comments on the April 13, 2012 proposal (77 FR 22392) , and several commenters supported the comments submitted by

others on the January

8, 2014 proposal (79 FR 1352) . The supporting commenters are identified here.

 Commenters 8947 and 9675 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10029 (Sapphire Energy , Inc.).
 Commenters 942 5 , 9777, 10039, 10791 supported the comments subm itted by Commenter 9780 ( Edison Electric Institute).
 Commenters 9777, 10552, 10607, 10880 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 9201, 9319 (National Mining Association ).
 Commenter 10552 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 2981, 10036 (Coa l Utilization Research Council).
 Commenter 10552 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 9472 ( American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity).
 Commenters 10552 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 9196 ( Electric Reliability

Coordinating Council ).
 Commenters 9382, 9734, 10395, 10962 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 1959, 10952 (National Rural Electric Cooperative Association).
 Commenters 8964, 8973, 8995, 10876 supported the comments submitted by Commenter (American Municipal Power Inc.).
 Commenters 8964, 8973, 8995, 10876 supported the comments submitted by Commenter (Ohio Municipal Electric Association).
 Commenters 8964, 8973, 8995, 10876 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 1902 ( American Public Power Association ).
 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter (EarthJustice).
 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 9681, 10108 ( Environmental Defense Fund).
 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter (Environmental Law and Policy

Center).
 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10108 (Natural Resources Defense Council ).17
- 2

 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 2228, 9513, 9514 ( Sierra Club ).
 Commenter 9664 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10953 ( Southern Environmental Law Center).
 Commenters 9425, 9777, 10242 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 8022, 9666 ( Utility

Air Regulatory

Group ).
 Commenter 9734 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 7977 ( Ke ntucky Energy and Environment Cabinet).
 Commenter 9382 , 10242 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 8925 ( Electric Power Research Institute ).
 Commenter 9777 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10556, 10615 ( Gulf Coast L ignite Coalition ).
 Commenter 9777 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10239, 10503 (National Association of Manufacturers ).
 Commenter 3179 supported the comments submitted by Commenter (Associate d Governments of Northwest Colorado).
 Commenters 3862 supported the co mments submitted by Commenter 9423 ( Texas Commission on Environmental Quality).
 Commenter 10791 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 2470 ( Florida Public Service Commission ).
 Commenter 10791 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 8958 ( Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group Environmental Committee ).
 Commenter 10791 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 10100 ( Class of ’85 Regulatory

Response Group ).
 Commenter 10607 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 5156, 9505 ( Office o f Attorney

General, State of West Virginia , et.al. ).
 Commenter 10607 supported the comments submitted by Commenter 6948 ( West Virginia Chamber of Commerce ).
 Commenter 10555 incorporates b y reference their comments submitted on June 25, 2012 on EPA’s April 13, 2012 proposal.
 Commenter 10618 incorporates b y reference their comments submitted on August 8, 2012 on the EPA’s April 13, 2012 proposal. **Response 17.1 -**  **1:** The EPA acknowledges the commenters' incorporation of comments by other parties and incorporating by reference of their own previous comments
.