Summary
of
Comments
Received
on
the
Proposal
to
Stay
the
Effectiveness
of
Combustion
Turbines
NESHAP
for
Subcategories
Proposed
to
be
Delisted
1.0
Overview
We,
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
also
referred
to
as
"
EPA"
and
"
the
Agency")
are
proposing
to
stay
the
effectiveness
of
the
combustion
turbines
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
new
sources
in
the
lean
premix
gas­
fired
turbines
and
diffusion
flame
gas­
fired
turbines
subcategories
(
Part
63,
subpart
YYYY).
We
are
taking
this
action
because
we
have
also
proposed
to
delist
these
type
of
turbines
and
two
others
from
the
source
category
list
required
by
section
112(
c)(
1)
of
the
CAA.
With
this
pending
delisting
it
is
necessary
to
stay
the
effectiveness
of
the
NESHAP
for
these
turbines
to
avoid
wasteful
and
unwarranted
expenditures
on
installation
of
emission
controls
which
will
not
be
required
if
the
subcategories
are
delisted.

Our
proposal
to
stay
the
effectiveness
of
the
combustion
turbines
NESHAP
for
new
sources
in
the
lean
premix
gas­
fired
turbines
and
diffusion
flame
gas­
fired
turbines
subcategories
during
the
pendency
of
the
rulemaking
for
delisting
these
sources
appeared
in
the
Federal
Register
on
April
7,
2004
(
69
FR
18338).
The
notice
referred
to
the
our
companion
proposal
to
delist
these
and
two
other
subcategories
from
the
source
category
list
(
69FR18327).
We
also
provided
a
detailed
rationale
for
staying
the
effectiveness
of
the
combustion
turbines
NESHAP
for
these
sources.

The
proposal
notice
invited
comment
from
interested
parties
on
the
proposal
to
stay
the
effectiveness
of
the
combustion
turbines
NESHAP
for
new
sources
for
these
two
subcategories.
We
received
comments
from
industry
only.
These
comments
are
summarized
below
in
Section
2.0.
Section
3.0
presents
a
table
identifying
the
commenters.

2.0
Comments
Six
industry
commenters
(
3,
4,
5,
6,
8,
and
9)
support
the
proposal
to
stay
the
effectiveness
of
the
combustion
turbines
NESHAP
as
specified
in
section
112(
c)
of
the
Act.
These
commenters
generally
believe
that
the
proposed
stay
is
supported
by
adequate
data.
Two
of
the
six
comments
(
4
and
6)
noted
that
EPA
recognizes
that
had
the
Agency
proposed
the
delisting
rulemaking
earlier,
the
delisting
would
likely
have
been
completed
before
the
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
(
MACT)
Standards
(
i.
e.,
the
NESHAP)
were
issued
and
the
units
would
never
had
been
subject
to
the
MACT
requirements.

All
six
of
the
commenters
support
the
stay
of
effectiveness
proposal
because
it
avoids
the
unnecessary
and
unwarranted
expenditure
of
resources
on
facilities
that
pose
risks
below
the
2
statutory
threshold
for
delisting.
They
further
note
that
the
expenditures
are
wasteful
since
EPA
is
highly
likely
to
ultimately
delist
the
subcategories
to
which
the
stay
applies
(
3,
4,
and
6);
and
place
a
greater
burden
on
facilities
built
during
the
interim
period
than
on
identical
sources
built
at
a
later
date
(
5)
while
also
placing
unnecessary
burdens
on
States
and
locals
that
had
to
process
notifications
and
oversee
and
review
the
tests.

One
of
the
commenters
(
6)
questioned
the
timing
of
application
of
the
final
standards
once
the
stay
is
lifted
if
the
subcategories
are
not
ultimately
delisted.
They
quote
EPA
in
the
proposal
stating
that
"
The
sources
will
then
be
given
the
same
time
to
make
the
requisite
demonstration
of
compliance
they
would
have
had
if
there
had
been
no
stay,"
and
state
that
the
language
is
unclear
and
may
create
a
significant
problem.
They
give
an
example
of
a
new
turbine
starting
up
in
January
2005
with
the
stay
being
lifted
in
February
2005
and
question
whether
the
turbine
would
be
in
immediate
non­
compliance.
They
recommend
that,
at
a
minimum,
EPA
should
extend
the
compliance
date
beyond
the
start­
up
date
by
the
same
number
of
days
that
the
stay
was
in
effect.

Three
commenters
(
3,
4,
and
6)
referred
to
EPA's
citing
of
the
precedent
of
staying
the
effectiveness
of
the
NESHAP
for
radionuclide
emissions
from
certain
federal
facilities
in
1991
and
the
suspension
of
the
listing
of
caprolactam
pending
the
rulemaking
to
delist
in
1995.
The
commenters
agreed
with
EPA's
reliance
on
these
unchallenged
actions
as
supporting
the
Agency's
authority
to
proceed
this
way.
A
commenter
(
3)
also
noted
that
EPA
took
a
similar
action
in
a
virtually
identical
situation
in
the
context
of
the
Secondary
Aluminum
MACT
standard.
While
EPA
proposed
changing
the
definition
of
a
secondary
aluminum
production
unit,
they
also
proposed
to
defer
the
compliance
date
for
new
units
until
the
compliance
date
for
existing
sources.

Two
commenters
(
3
and
4)
noted
that
the
proposed
stay
would
remove
the
potential
for
confusion
with
EPA's
historic
"
once
in,
always
in"
policy.
The
commenters
believe
that
a
stay
would
avoid
any
confusion
as
to
the
applicability
of
the
units
since
they
would
never
had
been
required
to
comply
with
the
MACT
rules.

Finally,
all
commenters
urged
EPA
to
proceed
quickly
with
the
stay
proposal
since
affected
units
are
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
by
September
1,
2004.
To
meet
this
deadline
preparations
and
expenditures
for
tests
would
have
to
begin
well
before
the
September
1.
A
commenter
(
6)
recommended
the
stay
be
finalized
30
days
after
the
end
of
the
comment
period
(
by
June
23,
2004)
to
avoid
the
testing
preparations
and
expenses.
3
3.0
Commenters
The
commenters
on
the
proposal
to
stay
the
effectiveness
of
the
combustion
NESHAP
for
certain
subcategories
of
sources
are
listed
below
in
Table
1.
The
table
provides
the
document
number
from
the
rulemaking
docket
(
OAR­
2003­
0196),
the
author,
the
author's
company
or
affiliation.
In
this
case
the
commenters
all
support
the
stay
and
all
represent
industry.

Table.
1.
Commenters
on
the
Stay
of
Effectiveness
Proposal
Document
Numbera
Author
Company/
Affiliation
3
unspecified
Gas
Turbine
Association
4
Craig
S.
Harrison
Hutton
and
Williams,
Counsel
to
the
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
5
Lisa
Beal
Interstate
Natural
Gas
Association
of
America
6
T.
Ted
Cromwell
and
Richard
Karp
The
American
Chemistry
Council
and
The
American
Petroleum
Institute,
respectively
8b
Robin
G.
Bennett
The
Boeing
Company
9
Norbert
Dee
National
Petrochemical
and
refiners
Association
a
Document
number
in
rulemaking
docket
OAR­
2003­
0196
b
Document
7
was
erroneously
sent
to
this
docket.
The
comment
was
meant
for
the
docket
for
the
delisting
OAR­
2003­
0189.
The
commenter
has
since
submitted
the
comment
to
the
correct
docket.
