Commenter 9667 noted that "Although the proposed standard may be achievable by some of the most efficient simple cycle turbines under optimum load and ISO conditions, a variety of real world operating factors make the standard unachievable." Commenter 9667 offered the following examples:
 "Simple cycle turbines critical role as peak and backup power units mean they often operate at reduced loads and are required to quickly ramp up and down production."
 "Operation at reduced loads is less efficient for any unit resulting in an increase of carbon emissions at lower load levels."
 "Similarly, load cycling to meet peak demand also can lead to inefficiencies."
 "The performance of simple cycle units is also decreased when they operate on backup fuel during times when natural gas is unavailable."
Commenters 9667 and 10950 noted that the standards "are not achievable for even the most advanced simple cycle units." Commenter 9667 and 10950 further stated "If EPA does include simple cycle units supplying one-third or more of their potential output to the grid, the proposal needs to include separate standards for simple cycle units that are reasonably achievable" and noted that the limit "would be substantially higher than the proposed standard for NGCC."
Commenter 9780 stated, "If EPA intends to subject simple-cycle CTs that fail a sales-based test to some emissions standards, EPA must take into consideration their ability to achieve those standards."
Commenter 10098 noted the following reasons that the BSER for combined cycle turbines should not apply to simple cycle turbines:
 simple cycle turbines operate at lower, less efficient loads and cannot use a heat recovery steam generator; nor are there add-on controls available to control CO2 emissions
 EPA should "perform a new BSER analysis based on actual, real-world simple cycle emissions data instead of a summary of average emissions (which cannot be found) for unidentified 'advanced' units."
 EPA did not identify a single peaking plant that uses combined cycle technology; therefore peaking plants that employ simple cycle turbines should be regulated separately
 "EPA relies on data showing that 0.2% of simple cycle turbines sold more than one-third of their potential electric output to the grid over a three-year averaging period."  However, commenter 10098 noted that "simple cycle turbines may operate more frequently as renewable power generation increases amid base load plant retirements" and EPA should regulate them in a way that allows the greatest flexibility.
 "EPA's only consideration of BSER for simple cycle turbines was 'high efficiency' or 'advanced' simple cycle turbines. These units are never described or defined."
Commenter 10390 noted that the performance standards "could even consider that aeroderivative SCTs are more efficient at low loads."
Commenter 10660 stated that "EPA's proposed rule is factually unsupported and not grounded in the statute...because it cannot propose to apply the standard to simple cycle turbines without first showing that the standards reflect a reasoned BSER determination."
Commenter 10950 noted that "EPA could exempt simple cycle units operating at or below a capacity factor of 50 percent."
Multiple commenters (8952, 9661, 9730, and 10394) recommended a separate limit for simple cycle turbines, rather than an exemption:
 Commenter 10394 recommended 1,300.
 Commenter 8952 recommended "significantly above 1,100 lb/MWh."
 Commenter 9730 "supports a separate emission limit, rather than an exemption, for simple cycle turbines that provide grid stability, (a.k.a., peaking units)."
 Commenter 9730 recommended working "with California air districts...to develop simple cycle turbine limits based on currently permitted operations."
 Commenter 9661 asked to exempt simple cycle units that supply "less than a certain portion of its potential electric output to the grid on a 3-year rolling average."
 The commenters are mistaken that the EPA proposed that simple cycle turbines must meet an emission standard based on the performance of NGCC units. The EPA is finding that NGCC technology is the BSER for base load natural gas-fired combustion turbine applications. The implication of this is that an owner or operator of a new unit that intends to sell electricity in excess of the percentage electric sales threshold, which divides the base load and non-base load subcategories, will need to meet an emission standard based on NGCC technology. In other words, new simple cycle turbines will be limited to selling a percentage of their potential electric output equal to or less than their design efficiencies so that they can comply with the non-base load standard.
As stated in the preamble, we would ideally establish an output-based (i.e., lb CO2/MWh) standard for non-base load units. However, we do not have sufficient information at this time to set a meaningful output-based standard that could be achieved by the universe of simple cycle turbines operating as peaking and cycling units. Therefore, the final standard is on an input basis (i.e., lb CO2/MMBtu) and based on the use of clean fuels.

The commenter is also mistaken that NGCC units require more water than simple cycle units. NGCC units using dry cooling towers do not require any more water than a comparable simple cycle combustion turbine.
Commenter 8952 noted that a gas turbine is not the only power conversion system available, and the rule may be a "disincentive for end-users to select the cleanest and most efficient technology (the gas turbine) in many applications."
The final percentage electric sales threshold is sufficiently flexible to avoid creating a regulatory disincentive to use stationary combustion turbines in lieu of other technologies (e.g., reciprocating engines). Further, even though competing technologies are not subject to the requirements of this final rule, they would likely have to get a PSD GHG permit. During the review process, the permitting authority has the ability to compare the GHG mission rates of competing technologies that could serve the same role.
Multiple commenters (2984, 9499, 9734, 9779, 9780, 10083, and 10098) noted that the future will show increased demand for simple cycle turbines due to the increased use of renewables.
The EPA did an extensive evaluation of the impact of additional generation from intermittent renewable sources on the operation of simple cycle combustion turbines. Based in part on this analysis, the final rule incorporates additional flexibilities for simple cycle units to increase generation beyond historical baselines. See Section IX.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional details.
Multiple commenters (9471, 9591, 9665, 10098, 10239, and 10952) noted that there are differences between the roles of simple cycle and the roles of combined cycle units in the electricity market.
Commenter 9665 stated, "simple cycle units will fulfill an important role that cannot be cost-effectively met with NGCC."
Commenter 10098 stated that combined cycle turbines are very efficient, have high utilization rates, and are designed for base load power. Commenter 10098 noted that simple cycle turbines have unpredictable hours of operation, rarely operate at full load, and only provide peaking power. Commenter 10098 noted that the "decision to regulate them together [is] arbitrary and capricious."
Commenter 10098 stated "Relying solely on EIA's Advanced Energy Outlook 2013 report, EPA found that 'advanced simple cycle combustion turbines have a base load rating CO2 emission rate of 1,150 lb CO2/MWh...' 79 Fed. Reg. at 1485. The commenter noted that simple cycle turbines are not used for base load generation, providing further evidence that the EPA fails to understand the difference between the two types of turbines and their respective uses in the power system. If the figure the EPA relied upon reports average CO2 emissions from simple cycle turbines at full load, then it should clarify this statement as well as provide an explanation of why it would rely on that figure given that simple cycle turbines generally run at lower loads."
The EPA recognizes that, in general, simple cycle combustion turbines serve a different role than NGCC units. The subcategorization approach in this final rule recognizes that difference. The non-base load subcategory provides adequate flexibility for owners and operators of new simple cycle combustion turbines to operate them to fulfill the same role simple cycle turbines have historically filled, while providing room for growth to back up intermittent renewables.
Three commenters (9780, 10098, and 10950) noted consequences of including simple cycle turbines in the NSPS.
Commenter 9780 noted negative impacts to the stability and reliability of the electrical grid.
Commenter 10098 noted increased costs, increased risk of electricity disruption, and significant uncertainty related to grid reliability.
Commenter 10950 noted that including simple cycle turbines in the rule "could actually increase overall CO2 emissions by incentivizing the purchase of smaller, lower-efficiency turbines and reciprocating engines that EPA would not regulate in this rule."
 See Section IX.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for a discussion of why the EPA is subcategorizing combustion turbines based on their electric sales using the sliding scale, which will alleviate the concerns noted by these commenters.
Multiple commenters (7976, 8911, 9514, and 10693) asked that EPA not exempt simple cycle turbines from the standards.
Commenter 8911 noted that dealing with grid emergencies is not a sufficient reason to exempt simple cycle turbines from the standard. Commenter 8911 stated, "if a dire grid emergency requires rapid new capacity additions, the solution is to temporarily waive the NSPS to permit the simple cycle phase for a higher than usual capacity factor until the balance of the combined cycle plant can be commissioned, typically 6 to 18 months later."
Commenter 9514 noted that simple cycle turbines operating over a 1,200 hour threshold (the commenter asked that EPA "define peaking units as units that operate fewer than 1,200 hours per year") should meet the NGCC BSER.
Commenter 9514 noted, "the feasibility of fast-start and quick-ramping combined-cycle turbines has advanced substantially. It is factually inaccurate to claim that combined-cycle units are incapable of meeting the technical function of a load-following unit. Advances in HRSG technology have allowed for faster response times with reduced or even eliminated thermal penalties. In short, CTs are unnecessary-and unnecessarily dirty-options for intermediate and load-following services, and EPA should not dilute the performance standard for gas plants in order to accommodate those less efficient technologies."
The EPA did not exempt simple cycle turbines in the final rule. All combustion turbines that meet the general applicability criteria are subject to an emission standard.
Commenters discussed the risk of facilities using simple cycle turbines instead of combined cycle turbines if simple cycle turbines were exempted from the rule.
Commenter 10693 noted that the exemption of simple cycle turbines from the standard could lead to plants using simple cycle turbines instead of combined cycle turbines, leading to increased emissions.
Commenters 9591 and 9780 countered that argument.
Commenter 9780 noted that it is not economically sound to use simple cycle turbines instead of combined cycle turbines.
Commenter 9591 stated that excluding simple cycle turbines from the standard would not provide an incentive to build less efficient simple cycle turbines because combined cycle and simple cycle units are not interchangeable within the electricity market.
 The final rule includes all stationary combustion turbines (both simple and combined cycle turbines) that meet the general applicability criteria. We have concluded that our approach does not provide a regulatory advantage for either technology. See Section IX.A of the preamble to the final rule for a discussion of why the EPA chose to adopt the broad applicability approach.
7.4.3 Other Fuels
Multiple commenters (8974, 9426, 9665, 9666, and 10043) commented on oil-fired combustion turbines.
Multiple commenters (8974, 9426, and 10043) asked that oil-fired units be exempt from the rule.
Commenter 9665 stated, "EPA should clarify that the exclusion of stationary combustion turbines that operate on non-natural gas fuel applies to all periods of non-natural gas operation."
Commenter 9666 asked EPA to "analyze CO2 emissions during oil-fired operations, propose an NSPS for such a period of operation, and allow [commenters] to comment on whether such NSPS are achievable."
  As discussed in Section IX.B.3 in the preamble to the final rule, we are finalizing a separate fuel-based subcategory for multi-fuel-fired combustion turbines. Combustion turbines that burn 90 percent or less natural gas on a 12-operating-month rolling average basis will be included in the multi-fuel-fired subcategory and be subject to a separate emission standard. That emission standard is based on the use of clean fuels.
Two commenters (7977 and 9654) commented on using other liquid fuels in combustion turbines.
Commenter 7977 noted, "EPA has not adequately documented why the proposed rule is applicable to liquid fuel when combusted in steam generating units or IGCC units, but not when combusted in combustion turbines. The fact that liquid fossil fuels are rarely used in combustion turbines currently is not determinative of future use. Liquid fuels usage is based on economics rather than technical limitations, which will necessarily change if the proposed regulation goes into effect as written."
Commenter 9654 asked that EPA "Exempt operation with alternative fuels such as No. 2 distillate fuel (and its analogs-kerosene, kero-jet, Jet-A, Naphtha, etc.)."
As discussed in Section IX.B.3 in the preamble to the final rule, we are finalizing a separate subcategory for combustion turbines that burn 90 percent or less natural gas on a 12-operating-month rolling average basis will be included in the multi-fuel-fired subcategory and be subject to a separate emission standard.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38761]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15689]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-1050; FRL-9690-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Volatile Organic Compounds; Consumer Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this action we are proposing to approve into the Indiana
State Implementation Plan (SIP) the addition of a new rule that sets
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions limits and other restrictions
on consumer products that are sold, supplied, manufactured, or offered
for sale in the State.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-1050, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section
of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 11, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-15689 Filed 6-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53893]
[DOCID:fr17se08-116]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1787-DR]

New Hampshire; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-1787-DR), dated September
5, 2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 5, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 5, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Hampshire resulting from severe storms and flooding during
the period of July 24 to August 14, 2008, is of sufficient severity
and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of New Hampshire.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible
for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public
Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If
Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is
later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program
also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Philip E. Parr, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New Hampshire have been
designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Belknap, Coos, and Grafton Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of New Hampshire are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21647 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P