Source: http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2004-03-05-04-4530
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 13:01:03
Document Index: 134600586

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 60', 'art 60', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63']

DOCID: FR Doc 04-4530
RIN ID: RIN 2060-AG-67
OAR ID: [OAR-2002-0060; FRL-7554-2]
SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Combustion Turbines EFFECTIVE DATES: March 5, 2004.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary combustion turbines. We have identified stationary combustion turbines as major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions such as formaldehyde, toluene, benzene, and acetaldehyde. The NESHAP will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for combustion turbines. In the final NESHAP, we have divided the stationary combustion turbine category into eight subcategories, including lean premix gasfired turbines, lean premix oilfired turbines, diffusion flame gasfired turbines, diffusion flame oilfired turbines, emergency turbines, turbines with a rated peak power output of less than 1.0 megawatt (MW), turbines burning landfill or digester gas, and turbines located on the North Slope of Alaska. We have also adopted a final emission standard requiring control of formaldehyde emissions for all new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbines in the four lean premix and diffusion flame subcategories. We estimate that 20 percent of the stationary combustion turbines affected by the final rule will be located at major sources. As a result, the environmental, energy, and economic impacts presented in this preamble reflect these estimates. The final rule will protect public health by reducing exposure to air pollution, by reducing total national HAP emissions by an estimated 98 tons per year (tpy) in the 5th year after the rule is promulgated.
Category SIC NAICS regulated entities
Any industry using a stationary 4911 2211 Electric power
combustion turbine as defined in generation,
the regulation. transmission, or
4922 486210 Natural gas
1311 211111 Crude petroleum and
1321 211112 Natural gas liquids
4931 221 Electric and other
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.6085 of the final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR20020060 (A9551). The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is (202) 5661744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566
1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 4, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceeding brought to enforce these requirements.
Background Information Document. The EPA proposed the NESHAP for stationary combustion turbines on January 14, 2003 (68 FR 1888), and [[Page 10513]]
received 75 comment letters on the proposal. A background information document (BID) (``National Emission Standards for Stationary Combustion Turbines, Summary of Public Comments and Responses,'') containing EPA's responses to each public comment is available in Docket ID No. OAR 20020060 (A9551). Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
C. What are the Health Effects Associated with HAP from Stationary Combustion Turbines? D. What is the Regulatory Development Background of the Source Category? II. Summary of the Final Rule A. What Sources are Subject to the Final Rule? B. What Source Categories and Subcategories are Affected by the Final Rule? C. What are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What are the Emissions? D. What are the Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations?
G. What are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements? III. Summary of Responses to Major Comments A. Applicability B. Definitions C. Dates D. MACT E. Emission Limitations F. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting G. Test Methods H. RiskBased Approaches I. Other
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Final Standards
A. How did we Select the Source Category and any Subcategories?
B. What are the Requirements for Stationary Combustion Turbines Located at Area Sources? C. What is the Affected Source? D. How did we Determine the Basis and Level of the Emission Limitations for Existing Sources? E. How did we Determine the Basis and Level of the Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations for New Sources? F. How did we Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?
G. How did we Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
H. How did we Select the Testing Methods to Measure these Low Concentrations of Formaldehyde? I. How did we Select the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements? V. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. What are the Air Quality Impacts? B. What are the Cost Impacts? C. What are the Economic Impacts? D. What are the Nonair Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Congressional Review Act I. Background
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The stationary turbine source category was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. B. What Criteria are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT. The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the better controlled and lower emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What are the Health Effects Associated with HAP from Stationary Combustion Turbines? Emission data collected during development of the NESHAP show that several HAP are emitted from stationary combustion turbines. These HAP emissions are formed during combustion or result from HAP compounds contained in the fuel burned. Among the HAP which have been measured in emission tests that were conducted at natural gas fired and distillate oil fired combustion turbines are: 1,3 butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) propylene oxide, toluene, and xylenes. Metallic HAP from distillate oil fired stationary combustion turbines that have been measured are: arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. Natural gas fired stationary combustion turbines do not emit metallic HAP. Although numerous HAP may be emitted from combustion turbines, only a few account for essentially all the mass of HAP emissions from stationary combustion turbines. These HAP are: formaldehyde, toluene, benzene, and acetaldehyde. The HAP emitted in the largest quantity is formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen and can cause irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract, coughing, dry throat, tightening of the chest, headache, and heart palpitations. Acute inhalation has caused bronchitis, pulmonary edema, pneumonitis, pneumonia, and death due to respiratory failure. Longterm exposure can cause dermatitis and sensitization of the skin and respiratory tract. Other HAP emitted in significant quantities from stationary combustion turbines include toluene, benzene, and acetaldehyde. The health effect of primary concern for toluene is dysfunction of the central nervous system (CNS). Toluene vapor also [[Page 10514]]
causes narcosis. Controlled exposure of human subjects produced mild fatigue, weakness, confusion, lacrimation, and paresthesia; at higher exposure levels there were also euphoria, headache, dizziness, dilated pupils, and nausea. Aftereffects included nervousness, muscular fatigue, and insomnia persisting for several days. Acute exposure may cause irritation of the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin. It may also cause fatigue, weakness, confusion, headache, and drowsiness. Very high concentrations may cause unconsciousness and death. Benzene is a known human carcinogen. The health effects of benzene include nerve inflammation, CNS depression, and cardiac sensitization. Chronic exposure to benzene can cause fatigue, nervousness, irritability, blurred vision, and labored breathing and has produced anorexia and irreversible injury to the bloodforming organs; effects include aplastic anemia and leukemia. Acute exposure can cause dizziness, euphoria, giddiness, headache, nausea, staggering gait, weakness, drowsiness, respiratory irritation, pulmonary edema, pneumonia, gastrointestinal irritation, convulsions, and paralysis. Benzene can also cause irritation to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen. The health effects for acetaldehyde are irritation of the eyes, mucous membranes, skin, and upper respiratory tract, and it is a CNS depressant in humans. Chronic exposure can cause conjunctivitis, coughing, difficult breathing, and dermatitis. Chronic exposure may cause heart and kidney damage, embryotoxicity, and teratogenic effects. We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities covered by the final rule and the people living around the facilities that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the final rule will reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.
D. What is the Regulatory Development Background of the Source Category? In September 1996, we chartered the Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR) advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The committee's objective was to develop recommendations for regulations for several combustion source categories under sections 112 and 129 of the CAA. The ICCR advisory committee, also known as the Coordinating Committee, formed Source Work Groups for the various combustor types covered under the ICCR. One work group, the Combustion Turbine Work Group, was formed to research issues related to stationary combustion turbines. The Combustion Turbine Work Group submitted recommendations, information, and data analyses to the Coordinating Committee, which in turn considered them and submitted recommendations and information to us. The Committee's 2year charter expired in September 1998. We considered the Committee's recommendations in developing the final rule for stationary combustion turbines. We have received a petition from the Gas Turbine Association (GTA) requesting that we delist certain subcategories of combustion turbines. We have been working with GTA to improve and supplement the data supporting this petition. Once a final determination has been made concerning the delisting petition, we will promptly make any conforming amendments to the Stationary Combustion Turbine NESHAP which are warranted. II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Sources are Subject to the Final Rule?
The final rule applies to you if you own or operate a stationary combustion turbine which is located at a major source of HAP emissions. A major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tpy (9.07 megagrams per year (Mg/yr)) or more or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tpy (22.68 Mg/yr) or more. Section 112(n)(4) of the CAA requires that the aggregation of HAP for purposes of determining whether an oil and gas production facility is major or nonmajor be done only with respect to particular sites within the source and not on a total aggregated site basis. We referenced the requirements of section 112(n)(4) of the CAA in our NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities in subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63. As in subpart HH, we plan to aggregate HAP emissions for the purposes of determining a major HAP source for turbines only with respect to particular sites within an oil and gas production facility. The sites are called surface sites and may include a combination of any of the following equipment: glycol dehydrators, tanks which have potential for flash emissions, reciprocating internal combustion engines, and combustion turbines. The EPA acknowledges that the definition of major source in the final rule may be different from those found in other rules, however, this does not alter the definition of major source in other rules and, therefore, does not affect the Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities NESHAP (subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63) or any other rule applicability. Eight subcategories have been defined within the stationary combustion turbine source category. While all stationary combustion turbines are subject to the final rule, each subcategory has distinct requirements. For example, existing combustion turbines and stationary combustion turbines with a rated peak power output of less than 1.0 MW (at International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard day conditions) are not required to comply with emission limitations, recordkeeping or reporting requirements in the final rule. New or reconstructed combustion turbines must comply with emission limitations, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the final rule. You must determine your source's subcategory to determine which requirements apply to your source. The final rule does not apply to stationary combustion turbines located at an area source of HAP emissions. An area source of HAP emissions is a contiguous site under common control that is not a major source. Stationary combustion turbines located at research or laboratory facilities are not subject to the final rule if research is conducted on the turbine itself and the turbine is not being used to power other applications at the research or laboratory facility. The final rule does not cover duct burners. They are part of the waste heat recovery unit in a combined cycle system. Waste heat recovery units, whether part of a cogeneration system or a combined cycle system, are steam generating units and are not covered by the final rule. Finally, the final rule does not apply to stationary combustion engine test cells/stands since these facilities are already covered by another NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP. [[Page 10515]]
B. What Source Categories and Subcategories are Affected by the Final Rule? The final rule covers stationary combustion turbines. A stationary combustion turbine includes all equipment including, but not limited to, the turbine, the fuel, air, lubrication and exhaust gas systems, control systems (except emissions control equipment), and any ancillary components and subcomponents comprising any simple cycle stationary combustion turbine, any regenerative/recuperative cycle stationary combustion turbine, or the combustion turbine portion of any stationary combined cycle steam/electric generating system. Stationary means that the combustion turbine is not selfpropelled or intended to be propelled while performing its function. A stationary combustion turbine may, however, be mounted on a vehicle for portability or transportability. Stationary combustion turbines have been divided into the following eight subcategories: (1) Emergency stationary combustion turbines, (2) stationary combustion turbines which burn landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis or where gasified MSW is used to generate 10 percent or more of the gross heat input to the stationary combustion turbine on an annual basis, (3) stationary combustion turbines of less than 1 MW rated peak power output, (4) stationary lean premix combustion turbines when firing gas and when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil no more than 1000 hours annually (also referred to herein as ``lean premix gasfired turbines''), (5) stationary lean premix combustion turbines when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil more than 1000 hours annually (also referred to herein as ``lean premix oilfired turbines''), (6) stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines when firing gas and when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil no more than 1000 hours annually (also referred to herein as ``diffusion flame gasfired turbines''), (7) stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil more than 1000 hours annually (also referred to herein as ``diffusion flame oil
fired turbines''), and (8) stationary combustion turbines operated on the North Slope of Alaska (defined as the area north of the Arctic Circle (latitude 66.5 North)). Emergency stationary combustion turbine means any stationary combustion turbine that operates in an emergency situation. Examples include stationary combustion turbines used to produce power for critical networks or equipment (including power supplied to portions of a facility) when electric power from the local utility is interrupted, or stationary combustion turbines used to pump water in the case of fire or flood, etc. Emergency stationary combustion turbines do not include stationary combustion turbines used as peaking units at electric utilities or stationary combustion turbines at industrial facilities that typically operate at low capacity factors. Emergency stationary combustion turbines may be operated for the purpose of maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the tests are required by the manufacturer, the vendor, or the insurance company associated with the turbine. Required testing of such units should be minimized, but there is no time limit on the use of emergency stationary sources. Stationary combustion turbines which burn landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis or stationary combustion turbines where gasified MSW is used to generate 10 percent or more of the gross heat input to the stationary combustion turbine on an annual basis qualify as a separate subcategory because the types of control available for these turbines are limited.
Stationary combustion turbines of less than 1 MW rated peak power output were also identified as a subcategory. These small stationary combustion turbines are few in number and, to our knowledge, none use emission control technology to reduce HAP. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to require HAP emission controls to be applied to them without further information on control technology performance.
Two subcategories of stationary lean premix combustion turbines were established: stationary lean premix combustion turbines when firing gas and when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil no more than 1000 hours annually (also referred to as ``lean premix gas
fired turbines''), and stationary lean premix combustion turbines when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil more than 1000 hours annually (also referred to as ``lean premix oilfired turbines''). Lean premix technology, introduced in the 1990's, was developed to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions without the use of addon controls. In a lean premix combustor, the air and fuel are thoroughly mixed to form a lean mixture for combustion. Mixing may occur before or in the combustion chamber. Lean premix combustors emit lower levels of NOX, carbon monoxide (CO), formaldehyde and other HAP than diffusion flame combustion turbines. Two subcategories of stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines were established: stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines when firing gas and when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil no more than 1000 hours annually (also referred to as ``diffusion flame gasfired turbines''), and stationary diffusion flame combustion turbines when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil more than 1000 hours annually (also referred to as ``diffusion flame oilfired turbines''). In a diffusion flame combustor, the fuel and air are injected at the combustor and are mixed only by diffusion prior to ignition. Hazardous air pollutant emissions from these turbines can be significantly decreased with the addition of air pollution control equipment. Stationary combustion turbines located on the North Slope of Alaska have been identified as a subcategory due to operating limitations and uncertainties regarding the application of controls to these units. There are very few of these units, and none have installed emission controls for the reduction of HAP.
C. What are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What are the Emissions? Combustion turbines are acknowledged as the cleanest and most efficient method of producing electrical power. The sources of emissions are the exhaust gases from combustion of gaseous and liquid fuels in a stationary combustion turbine. Hazardous air pollutants that are present in the exhaust gases from stationary combustion turbines include formaldehyde, toluene, benzene, and acetaldehyde.
D. What are the Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations?
As the owner or operator of a new or reconstructed lean premix gas
fired turbine, a new or reconstructed lean premix oilfired turbine, a new or reconstructed diffusion flame gasfired turbine, or a new or reconstructed diffusion flame oilfired turbine, you must comply with the emission limitation to reduce the concentration of formaldehyde in the exhaust from the new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine to 91 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) or less, dry basis (ppbvd), at 15 percent oxygen by the effective date of the standards (or upon startup if you start up your stationary combustion turbine after the effective date of the standards).
If you comply with the emission limitation for formaldehyde emissions and you use an oxidation catalyst emission control device, you must continuously monitor the oxidation catalyst inlet temperature and maintain the inlet temperature to the oxidation catalyst within the range recommended by the catalyst manufacturer. If you comply with the emission limitation for formaldehyde emissions and you do not use an oxidation catalyst emission control device, you must petition the Administrator for approval of operating limitations or approval of no operating limitations.
If you operate a new or reconstructed lean premix gasfired turbine, a new or reconstructed lean premix oilfired turbine, a new or reconstructed diffusion flame gasfired turbine, or a new or reconstructed diffusion flame oilfired turbine, you must conduct an initial performance test using Test Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D634803 to demonstrate that the outlet concentration of formaldehyde is 91 ppbvd or less (corrected to 15 percent oxygen). To correct to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis, you must measure oxygen using Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and moisture using either Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Test Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D634803. The initial performance test must be conducted at high load conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent. If you operate a new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine in one of the subcategories required to comply with an emission limitation and use an oxidation catalyst emission control device, you must also install a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to continuously monitor the oxidation catalyst inlet temperature.
If you operate a new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine in one of the subcategories required to comply with an emission limitation and you do not use an oxidation catalyst emission control device, you must petition the Administrator for approval of operating limitations or approval of no operating limitations. If you petition the Administrator for approval of operating limitations, your petition must include the following: (1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as operating limitations; (2) a discussion of the relationship between these parameters and HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions change with changes in these parameters, and how limitations on these parameters will serve to limit HAP emissions; (3) a discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower values for these parameters which will establish the limits on these parameters in the operating limitations; (4) a discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and instruments; and (5) a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these parameters. If you petition the Administrator for approval of no operating limitations, your petition must include the following: (1) Identification of the parameters associated with operation of the stationary combustion turbine and any emission control device which could change intentionally (e.g., operator adjustment, automatic controller adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally (e.g., wear and tear, error, etc.) on a routine basis or over time; (2) a discussion of the relationship, if any, between changes in these parameters and changes in HAP emissions; (3) for those parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion of whether establishing limitations on these parameters would serve to limit HAP emissions; (4) for those parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could establish upper and/or lower values for these parameters which would establish limits on these parameters in operating limitations; (5) for those parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion identifying the methods you could use to measure these parameters and the instruments you could use to monitor them, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and instruments; (6) for these parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor them; and, (7) a discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible, unreasonable, or unnecessary to adopt these parameters as operating limitations.
Several general continuous compliance requirements apply to stationary combustion turbines required to comply with the emission limitations. You are required to comply with the emission limitations and the operating limitations (if applicable) at all times, except during startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary combustion turbine. You must also operate and maintain your stationary combustion turbine, air pollution control equipment, and monitoring equipment according to good air pollution control practices at all times, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must conduct monitoring at all times that the stationary combustion turbine is operating, except during periods of malfunction of the monitoring equipment or necessary repairs and quality assurance or control activities, such as calibration checks. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations, you must conduct annual performance tests for formaldehyde. You must conduct the annual performance tests using Test Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D634803 to demonstrate that the outlet concentration of formaldehyde is at or below 91 ppbvd of formaldehyde (correct to 15 percent oxygen). The annual performance test must be conducted at high load conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent. If you operate a new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine in one of the subcategories required to comply with an emission limitation and you use an oxidation catalyst emission control device, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limitations by continuously monitoring the oxidation catalyst inlet temperature. The 4hour rolling average of the valid data must be within the range recommended by the catalyst manufacturer. If you operate a new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbine in one of the subcategories required to comply with an emission limitation and you do not use an oxidation catalyst emission control device, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limitations by continuously monitoring parameters which have been approved by the Administrator (if any).
You must submit all of the applicable notifications as listed in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including an initial notification, notification of performance test or evaluation, and a notification of compliance, for each stationary combustion turbine which must comply with the emission limitations. If your new or reconstructed stationary [[Page 10517]]
combustion turbine is located at a major source, has greater than 1 MW rated peak power output, and is an emergency stationary combustion turbine, a combustion turbine which burns landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis or where gasified MSW is used to generate 10 percent or more of the gross heat input to the stationary combustion turbine on an annual basis, or a stationary combustion turbine located on the North Slope of Alaska, you must submit only an initial notification. For each combustion turbine in one of the subcategories which is subject to an emission limitation, you must record all of the data necessary to determine if you are in compliance with the emission limitation. Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for review. You must also keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, report, or record. Records must remain on site for at least 2 years and then can be maintained off site for the remaining 3 years.
A more detailed summary of comments and our responses can be found in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses document, which is available from several sources (see Addresses section).
Comment: Several commenters said that the definition of affected source should be modified to be consistent with the definition found in Sec. 63.2 of the General Provisions. Response: Although 40 CFR 63.2 of the General Provisions provides that we will generally adopt a broad definition of affected source, which includes all emission units within each subcategory which are located within the same contiguous area, this section also provides that we may adopt a narrower definition of affected source in instances where we determine that the broader definition would ``create significant administrative, practical, or implementation problems'' and ``the different definition would resolve those problems.'' This is such an instance. Because of the way that the subcategories of combustion turbines are defined, individual turbines can switch between subcategories based on the fuel they are burning. We have taken some steps in the definition of subcategories to limit the frequency of such switching between subcategories, because we believe it could create confusion and complicate compliance determinations. However, fuel specific subcategories are necessary to derive a MACT floor which appropriately considers the difference in the composition of the HAP emitted based on the fuel used. Thus, we cannot eliminate the possibility that individual turbines will switch subcategories. Use of the broader definition of affected source specified by the General Provisions would require very complex aggregate compliance determinations, because an individual turbine could be part of one affected source at one time and part of a different affected source at another time. This would require that the contribution of each turbine to total emissions for all emission units within each subcategory be adjusted to reflect the proportionate time the unit was operating within that subcategory. We believe such complicated compliance determinations to be impractical and, therefore, have decided to adopt a definition which establishes each individual combustion turbine as the affected source. Comment: One commenter said that the final rule should be explicit as to whether the 1 MW capacity level for inclusion in the less than 1 MW rated peak power subcategory applies to an individual combustion turbine or applies to the aggregate capacity of a group of combustion turbines. Response: We intended for the 1 MW capacity level to apply to an individual combustion turbine, not the aggregate capacity of a group of combustion turbines. This clarification has been made in the final rule. Comment: Several commenters stated that EPA should increase the 1 MW capacity threshold. Comments received included suggestions to exclude from the rule turbines rated less than 10 MW and recommendations to create a subcategory for units with a capacity of 25 MW or less. Some commenters said that the size applicability criteria should be adjusted to be consistent with the MACT floor. Response: Although 3 MW is the smallest size unit that is known to have addon HAP control, we feel it is appropriate to set the cutoff for inclusion in the less than 1 MW rated peak power subcategory at 1 MW because the control technology used for 3 MW units can be transferred to units as small as 1 MW. Comment: Many commenters recommended that EPA provide an emission threshold as an alternative applicability cutoff. Eight commenters recommended that the emission threshold should be set at less than 1 tpy of formaldehyde emissions. One commenter suggested that EPA should include a greater than 2 tpy formaldehyde applicability requirement.
Response: The basis for this comment is the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Storage NESHAP (promulgated on June 17, 1999). In that rule, HAP emissions from process vents at glycol dehydration units that are located at major HAP sources and from process vents at certain area source glycol dehydration units are required to be controlled unless the actual flowrate of natural gas in the unit is less than 85,000 cubic meters per day (3.0 million standard cubic feet per day), on an annual average basis, or the benzene emissions from the unit are less than 0.9 Mg/yr (1 tpy). The 1 tpy emission threshold in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Storage MACT is equivalent to the smallest size glycol dehydration unit with control of HAP emissions and is, therefore, based on equivalence, not risk. Comment: Multiple commenters expressed that the emission factors presented in Table 1 of the preamble should be removed, or wording should be added to acknowledge the use of factors from other sources. Three commenters said that EPA should not dictate emission factors for major source determination; owners and operators should be allowed to determine appropriate emission factors for their facility. Response: We agree with the commenter and have not included Table 1 from the proposal preamble in the final rule. Table 1 was intended to simplify major source determination, e.g., facilities would not have to develop their own emission factors. We agree that all turbines may not fit the emissions mold as projected in Table 1. The use of the emission factors in Table 1 was intended to be optional; we were not dictating the use of these emission factors. The emission factors in Table 1 of the preamble to the proposed rule were based on emissions data from test reports that were reviewed and accepted by EPA according to a common set of acceptance criteria. However, we received several comments regarding the quality of the emissions data we used and as a result, performed an extensive review of tests used at proposal and new tests received during the comment period. As a result of that review, revised emission factors for stationary combustion turbines were calculated and are presented in a memorandum included in the rule docket (OAR20020060, A9551). That memorandum has emission factors [[Page 10518]]
for both high load and all load conditions. The emission standards in the final rule are based on data for high loads. We believe that the emission factors presented in the memorandum provide the most accurate information on stationary combustion turbine emission factors. However, caution should be used when using data collected using California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 430 or EPA Method 0011 in determining applicability. We have used CARB 430 and EPA Method 0011 in developing emission factors but applied a bias factor to the data to make the emissions data comparable with emissions data measured by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR). Comment: Multiple commenters supported the creation of a subcategory for limited use combustion turbines with a capacity utilization of 10 percent or less. One commenter expressed the view that the limited use subcategory should apply to all limited use combustion turbines, not just electric power peak shaving units.
Three commenters supported the exemption for limited use units and EPA's finding that no emission reduction should be required for these units. Several commenters requested that EPA increase the allowable operating time for limited use turbines. One commenter recommended that the 50hour allowance for limited use be increased to 200 hours to allow for maintenance checks. Two commenters stated that a more appropriate cutoff is 500 hours per year, which one commenter said is consistent with EPA policy for designating emergency engines for title V permits and is also appropriate because yeartoyear variability in the utilization does not result in routine changes in a unit's status. A commenter also suggested that EPA could develop a more refined approach; for example, the cutoff for turbines greater than 10 MW could be 200 hours per year. One commenter said that if a 10 percent utilization is not implemented, the testing of combustion turbines to assure the unit will be operational when needed should be excluded from the operating limit, because these testing operations can range from weekly testing for more than 1 hour to several times each month. Two commenters contended that the subcategorization of limited use combustion turbines without controls is not protective of public health, because these combustion turbines operate mostly in the summer months when the public is more likely to be exposed to the emissions.
Two commenters remarked that any subcategorization of limited use combustion turbines should include a permit requirement that these units operate less than 876 hours per year. To lower costs for these units, less onerous monitoring requirements such as periodic stack tests with a temperature sensor on the catalyst could be required.
One commenter expressed the view that existing limited use combustion turbines might be exempted from the MACT emission limits, but new limited use combustion turbines should not be exempted. The commenter observed that in New Jersey, limited use units generally operate for less than 250 hours per year. Response: The preamble for the proposed rule included a subcategory for limited use stationary combustion turbines and defined them as operating 50 hours or less per calendar year. We solicited comments on creating a subcategory of limited use stationary combustion turbines with capacity utilization of 10 percent or less and used for electric power peak shaving. After considering all of the comments, we decided not to include a subcategory for limited use stationary combustion turbines in the final rule. A subcategory of limited use stationary combustion turbines with capacity utilization of 10 percent or less and used for electric power peak shaving was not created because these sources are similar sources to units equipped with addon oxidation catalyst control, and their operation only during peak periods does not preclude them from being equipped with addon oxidation catalyst control. In response to the comment regarding subcategorization of limited use combustion turbines not being protective of public health, our objective in subcategorizing is not to protect public health, but to establish groups of sources which share common characteristics that are related to the availability of potential emission control strategies. In any case, we have not adopted a limited use subcategory, because we determined that creation of such subcategory would not change the nature of the required controls. Comment: Two commenters recommended that to be consistent with most other NESHAP, EPA should add an exemption for research and development to the final rule. Response: We agree that stationary combustion turbines located at a research or laboratory facility should not be subject to the NESHAP if research is conducted on the turbine itself and the turbine is not being used to power other applications at the research or laboratory facility. A definition of research or laboratory facility is included in the final rule. Comment: One commenter remarked that primary fuel is not defined in the rule. The commenter noted that applying the exemption only to turbines using landfill or digester gas as primary fuel is overly restrictive. The commenter suggested that the exemption should be for turbines with annual landfill and digester gas consumption of 10 percent or more of the total fuel consumption on an annual basis based on gross heat input. Other commenters requested that the exemption for firing landfill or digester gas be expanded to include combustion turbines used at gasification plants. Response: We agree that it is appropriate to provide guidelines for the usage of landfill and digester gas. We have written the final rule to define turbines in the landfill and digester gas subcategory as those which burn landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis. In the final rule, the subcategory for combustion turbines firing landfill or digester gas has been expanded to include units where gasified MSW is used to generate 10 percent or more of the gross heat input to the turbine on an annual basis. We have specified in the final rule that new turbines in this subcategory must daily monitor their fuel usage with a separate fuel meter to measure the volume flow rate of each fuel. Finally, the final rule requires new combustion turbines in this subcategory to submit annual reports documenting the fuel flow rate of each fuel and the heating values used to calculate and demonstrate that the percentage of heat input provided by landfill, digester gas, or gasified MSW is equivalent to 10 percent or more of the total fuel consumption on an annual basis based on gross heat input. Comment: Several commenters urged EPA to add a subcategory to cover turbines installed north of the Arctic Circle (North Slope) and to specify no additional control requirements for the subcategory. The commenters stated that technologies identified for controlling HAP emissions from stationary combustion turbines are unproven or have met with limited success in northern Alaska above the Arctic Circle. Lean premix combustion turbines have met with limited success on the Alaska's North Slope. The annual average temperature above the Arctic Circle is approximately 10F, with winter temperatures that can drop below 50F. Turbine manufacturers have been required to ``detune'' the [[Page 10519]]
lean premix turbines to ensure the integrity of the equipment at these cold ambient temperatures. One of the technical issues with lean premix operation at the North Slope is the very wide range of ambient temperatures over which the turbine must operate. A range of 50F to 80F (130F range) is a very challenging requirement for turbine manufacturers. They have to employ various air bleed, inlet guide vane control, or fuel staging to allow them to operate at the cold extremes. Sites in Canada have reported having to tune their lean premix engines differently for the summer and winter months. Even when temperatures drop to extremely low levels in the lower 48 states, the duration of those low temperatures is normally measured in hours; on the North Slope it is not uncommon for equipment to have to endure months of severe cold. In addition to this large range, at the colder end of the range the airflow on some turbine models can be 40 percent higher than at the standard ISO design conditions of 60F, creating an especially acute problem in lean premix units. Turbine manufacturers with experience in the Arctic do not guarantee NOX and CO levels at cold ambient temperatures (below 0F). Therefore, lean premix turbines that can achieve low NOX emissions typical of the lower 48 states' applications have not been demonstrated to be achievable north of the Arctic Circle. On the North Slope, less than 0F represents about onehalf of the year. According to the commenters, vendors of CO oxidation catalysts have indicated that their products will perform adequately on the North Slope, but the technology has never been tried. To date, no CO oxidation catalyst has ever been installed on a turbine on the North Slope. It is unknown what impacts the extreme thermal conditions of North Slope operation will have on CO oxidation catalysts. Response: We agree with the commenters that a subcategory should be created for turbines installed north of the Arctic Circle to recognize their distinct differences. There is a substantial difference in temperature between the North Slope of Alaska and even the coldest areas in the lower 48 states. As noted by the commenters, turbine operators on the North Slope of Alaska have experienced problems with operation of the turbines in lean premix mode, and turbine manufacturers do not guarantee the performance of their turbines at the ambient temperatures typically found north of the Arctic Circle. In addition, no turbines on the North Slope of Alaska are equipped with oxidation catalyst control. Therefore, a subcategory for turbines north of the Arctic Circle has been established. The North Slope of Alaska is defined as above the Arctic Circle (latitude 66.5 North). Stationary combustion turbines operated on the North Slope of Alaska are not required to meet the emission limitations. However, new or reconstructed stationary combustion turbines operated on the North Slope of Alaska must submit an initial notification. Comment: Two commenters expressed the view that the routine exchange of aeroderivative turbines for routine overhaul should not result in a facility becoming a new source. One commenter stated that EPA should provide an exemption for temporary replacement engines during routine rebuilds, and a mechanism to reduce the likelihood a source would suddenly trigger new source preconstruction review/
approval and MACT requirements arising from an unexpected repair or replacement of a stationary combustion turbine. Response: The definition of reconstructed turbine in the proposed rule is consistent with the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. If an existing combustion turbine is refurbished to the extent that it meets the definition of reconstruction, then it should be considered a reconstructed source. We are not aware of any routine refurbishment for which the fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable new source.
Comment: One commenter requested that the definition of lean premix stationary combustion turbine be modified to recognize that fuel and air mixing may be occurring in the combustor of some lean premix combustion turbines. The definition should be modified to include these types of stationary combustion turbines that burn a lean mixture and thoroughly mix their fuel prior to combustion in the combustor.
Response: We have written the definition of lean premix in the final rule to recognize that fuel and air mixing may be occurring in the combustor of some lean premix combustion turbines. Comment: Several commenters said that the definition of emergency stationary combustion turbine should include operational allowances for the periodic operation/testing to verify operational readiness. One commenter requested that the definition be clarified, or extended to allow for operations in anticipation of an emergency situation. Four commenters asked for clarification as to whether loss of power that constitutes an emergency is limited to power supplied to the facility as a whole or includes power supplied to portions of a facility.
Response: We agree with the commenters who stated that readiness testing should be included in the definition of emergency operation. Accordingly, we have written the definition of emergency stationary combustion turbine to include allowances for readiness testing in the final rule. The routine testing and maintenance must be within limits recommended by the turbine manufacturer or other entity such as an insurance company. However, we disagree with the commenter who requested the definition to include operations in anticipation of an emergency situation. Exempt operations will be limited to emergency situations only. We agree that loss of power can include power supplied to portions of a facility, and we have, therefore, written the definition of stationary emergency combustion turbine in the final rule to make this clear. Comment: Several commenters recommended that the definition of ``stationary combustion turbine'' include all appropriate associated equipment. Response: We agree with the commenters' suggestions and have written the definition of stationary combustion turbines in the final rule to reflect appropriate comments. The definition of a stationary combustion turbine does not include emissions control equipment.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the definition of major source except that the phrase ``except when they are on the same surface site'' should be removed from the combustion turbine major source definition. This phrase is not present in the 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH, major source definition that is the template for the combustion turbine MACT major source definition. Section 112(n)(4) of the CAA requires that wells and associated equipment not be aggregated even within the same surface site except as provided in the combustion turbine MACT major source definition. In the combustion turbine MACT major source definition, the phrase ``storage vessel with flash emissions potential'' should be changed to ``storage vessel with the potential for flash emissions'' to conform to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH, definition. The commenter also stated that the General Provision major source [[Page 10520]]
definition presented in the combustion turbine MACT is different from those found in the definition of major source in the NESHAP from Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities (40 CFR 63.761). The significance of this difference is that sources that are area sources under subpart HH could possibly be rendered ``major sources'' under the combustion turbine MACT. The EPA should acknowledge this possibility in the preamble to the final rule and clearly state that this does not change the source's status under subpart HH or any other MACT. Another commenter recommended that the preamble clarify that the definition of major source in the combustion turbine MACT does not alter the definition of major source in subpart HH, and, therefore, does not affect subpart HH applicability. Response: We agree with the commenters and have written the major source definition in the final rule to reflect appropriate comment. We have acknowledged in the preamble to the final rule that the definition of major source in the final rule may be different from those found in other rules. However, this does not alter the definition of major source in other rules, and, therefore, does not affect the Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities NESHAP (subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63) or any other rule applicability. Comment: One commenter observed that landfill and digester gas are defined in the proposed rule as being formed through anaerobic decomposition, which is usually but not always the case. Response: We agree with the commenter that landfill and digester gas are not always formed only through anaerobic decomposition. As a result, we have written the definition of landfill and digester gas in the final rule acknowledging that these gases are usually formed through anaerobic decomposition, but not always by inserting the word ``typically'' in front of ``formed'' in both definitions.
Comment: Two commenters stated that immediate compliance is unrealistic for new and reconstructed turbines and recommended a 1year compliance timeframe. Other commenters recommended that the final rule allow 1 year to conduct the initial performance test, rather than the 180 days provided by the 40 CFR part 63, General Provisions.
Response: Immediate compliance is appropriate for new or reconstructed turbines and is consistent with the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. Sources are required to install the proper equipment and meet the applicable emission limitations on startup. However, we allow sources 180 days to demonstrate compliance. We feel that 180 days is sufficient time to conduct the initial performance test, consistent with the General Provisions. Sources have the option to petition for additional time if necessary. Comment: One commenter requested that EPA allow a facility with identical combustion turbines to conduct performance tests on only one of the units to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for all of the identical units. Response: We are not allowing facilities with identical combustion turbines to conduct performance tests on only one of the units to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for all of the identical units because not all apparently identical facilities produce the same emissions. We have turned down many similar requests and have asked owners and operators to run stack tests on all individual units.
Comment: Two commenters requested that the rule provide 1 year for initial notification of MACT applicability, as in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage MACT, instead of 120 days. Response: We do not agree that 1 year is necessary for initial notification of MACT applicability. An initial notification is not a time consuming activity.
Comment: Three commenters took issue with the MACT floor for new diffusion flame stationary combustion turbines. The commenters stated that no formaldehyde emissions data or oxidation catalyst control efficiency data were available to EPA to support setting the MACT floor for new diffusion flame stationary combustion turbines; newer models of turbines in the diffusion flame category should be evaluated to identify the bestperforming unit. Response: At proposal, we had limited emissions data for stationary combustion turbines, including one test for a diffusion flame turbine with addon HAP emission control, and we requested HAP emissions test data from stationary combustion turbines. We received new emissions data for diffusion flame turbines during the comment period, including an additional formaldehyde test on a diffusion flame unit equipped with addon HAP emissions control. The new data also include several tests conducted using FTIR, which is regarded as the most accurate measurement method for formaldehyde for stationary combustion turbines. Thus, the data set has been significantly improved, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and we feel that the data set is sufficient to identify the bestperforming unit. Based on comments and information received during the public comment period, the diffusion flame subcategory was divided further into subcategories for diffusion flame combustion turbines when firing gas and when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil for no more than 1000 hours annually (``diffusion flame gasfired turbines'') and for diffusion flame combustion turbines when firing oil at sites where all turbines fire oil more than 1000 hours annually (``diffusion flame oilfired turbines''). In addition, based on information received during the public comment period indicating that oxidation catalysts are in use on some existing diffusion flame combustion turbines, we reevaluated the MACT floor for new turbines in each of the diffusion flame subcategories.
Comment: One commenter contended that the MACT floor for existing diffusion flame is unlawful because EPA did not identify the best performing sources or determine the emission levels they are achieving; EPA merely considered whether or not they are equipped with a catalyst. The commenter stated that whether or not the relevant best sources are equipped with control equipment, they are achieving some emission level, and EPA must determine the average emission level they are achieving and set floors at that level. Response: We agree with the commenter that all factors which might control HAP emissions must be considered in making a floor determination for each subcategory, and that this analysis cannot be properly limited to addon controls. However, we disagree that it must express the floor as a quantitative emission level in those instances where the source on which the floor determination is based has not adopted or implemented any measure that would reduce emissions. In this instance, we decided to subcategorize within diffusion flame combustion turbines based on the fuel which is used, because the composition of HAP emissions differs materially based on whether gas or oil is used. We then determined for each subcategory of diffusion flame combustion turbines that emissions of each HAP are relatively homogenous across that subcategory, and that there are not any [[Page 10521]]
adjustments of the turbines or other operational modifications except for the use of addon controls which would be effective in reducing HAP emissions. Since the source on which the floor for existing sources in each subcategory of diffusion flame turbines is based has not installed such addon controls, we determined that the MACT floor for each such subcategory requires no emission reductions. We have also established fuelbased subcategories within lean premix combustion turbines, and have made a comparable determination that the MACT floor for existing sources within each of these subcategories requires no emission reductions. Comment: One commenter said that the MACT floor for new diffusion flame units is unlawful because EPA did not identify the best
performing diffusion flame combustion turbine and the floor does not reflect what that source achieved in practice. According to the commenter, EPA ignored other factors that affect a source's performance (fuel, design, age, maintenance, operator training, skill and care, differences in effectiveness of catalysts). The performance of all sources using an oxidation catalyst is not the same and cannot possibly reflect the performance of the single best source. Response: We agree with the commenter that the standard for new sources within each subcategory must be based on the emission levels achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. However, we think that the performance in reducing emissions by the best controlled source will not be uniform, and that it would be inappropriate to establish a standard which could not be consistently met even by the source upon which the standard is based. We, therefore, believe that there must be some allowance made for the intrinsic variability in the effectiveness of controls in the standard we es
For further information concerning applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or local agency representative. For information concerning the analyses performed in developing the NESHAP, contact Mr. Sims Roy, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division (MDC43901), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 5415263; facsimile number (919) 5415450; electronic mail address ``roy.sims@epa.gov.''