Government Actually Listens

[Timber Loftis]

I'm not saying they are efficient, nor right, nor good, just that sometimes an agency actually happens to listen. Imagine that.

I like the quote that the 1979 rule is an "abyss" that "cannot be understood by any assembly of lawyers, electrical engineers, and thermodynamic physicists."
__________________________________________________ __________

Air Pollution
Amendments on Gas Turbines Withdrawn;
EPA Asks for Additional Public Comment

The Environmental Protection Agency is withdrawing a direct final rule to amend new source performance standards for stationary gas turbines to codify modern emissions testing and monitoring procedures and harmonize the standards with continuous emissions monitoring provisions in the Acid Rain Program.
Along with the withdrawal, set for publication May 28, the agency proposed extending the public comment period on the rule until June 13.

EPA published the direct final rule April 14. Since then, it has received adverse public comment on the amendments, so it is withdrawing the rule and continuing proceedings on the amendments under a parallel proposed rule it also published April 14 (68 Fed. Reg. 17,989, 18,002).

Stationary gas turbines use natural gas to generate electricity or to power industrial machinery. The agency originally issued new source performance standards (NSPS) for stationary gas turbines in 1979.

According to the agency, the amendments are necessary because technological advances have led to improvements in nitrogen oxides emissions controls, emissions monitoring devices, emissions test methods, and the composition of fuels used for gas turbines.

These improvements have led to a large number of requests from turbine operators for case-by-case approvals of alternative testing and monitoring procedures. The NSPS amendments were intended to codify these alternatives, according to the agency.

Many facilities now use continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) to measure emissions. The 1979 rule did not address CEMS. The amendments included provisions codifying how CEMS should be applied.

The agency received an adverse comment from Stephen A. Loeschner of Fort Wayne, Ind., who said the emissions ceilings in the stationary gas turbine NSPS "are archaic and not environmentally protective." Loeschner said they should be lowered.

In addition, the 1979 rule is an "abyss" that "cannot be understood by any assembly of lawyers, electrical engineers, and thermodynamic physicists," and should be completely rewritten, Loeschner said.

Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. of Springfield, Mo., submitted comments supporting EPA's effort to update the NSPS for stationary gas turbines. However, Associated made several suggestions for improving the amendments.

Daniel S. Hedrick, environmental specialist for Associated, told BNA the technology currently in use in gas turbines requires that the NSPS rules be rewritten. In some cases, he said, the amendments go too far in imposing new requirements, and in other cases the amendments do not change the rules enough.

EPA's changes should not be imposed in a direct final rule because they need to be discussed, Hedrick said. "EPA is heading in the right direction, but they need more public comment," Hedrick said.

Comments on the NSPS amendments should be sent to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket No. OAR-2002-0053, EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

For more information, contact Jaime Pagan of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards at (919) 541-5450, or pagan.jaime@epa.gov by e-mail.

By Steve Cook

Copyright © 2003 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington D.C.

All well and good that they are listening to what people are saying.....

But (you knew it was coming) it appears to me, that this is yet ANOTHER case where the eco-warriors get what they wanted then later say, it isn't enough and should be tightened up....can't get what you want all at once? do it incrementally and hope no one notices......

Not saying that Turbine Emmissions should not be stricter, just that it appears that it may be another case of never ebing able to please some people.

[ 05-28-2003, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[ElricMorlockin]

I cant agree more Magik, and that is precisely their game plan. Two truths exist in the politics of lobbying.

1.) The squeeky wheel gets the grease. If you can portray your casue as the underdog, the downtrodden and oppressed, you can write your own ticket with our media on how much coverage/face time you get for fricking free!!
2.) Never admit any victory to your agenda. If you do then you run the dire risk of losing option one above. [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Read the article, guys. This is all about the new "individual review" trend of Clean Air Act NSPS review. It is about LESSENING standards, not tightening them. The "squeeky wheels" here, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. among them, don't sound like eco-nuts to me. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The agency received an adverse comment from Stephen A. Loeschner of Fort Wayne, Ind., who said the emissions ceilings in the stationary gas turbine NSPS "are archaic and not environmentally protective." Loeschner said they should be lowered.

This is the bit I was reading and commenting about TL [img]smile.gif[/img]
The guy isn't satisfied with the current regs, and wants even stricter regs...if he had his way, Gas turbines would be done away with altogether..as would all fossil fuel based technology.....ok maybe he isn't that extreme..but how can you tell?

As for the "Acid Rain" thing..again another ghost from the 70's. If it was the problem that was touted we would have all been disolved abotu a decade ago.

But perhpas the "sky is falling" crowd serves a purpose to not let us ignoe things entirely....

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: As for the "Acid Rain" thing..again another ghost from the 70's. If it was the problem that was touted we would have all been disolved abotu a decade ago.

SO2 and NOx emission limitations have done nothing to help this, I guess.

Remember the expensive Statue of Liberty restoration? That was precipitated by acid rain.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Remember the expensive Statue of Liberty restoration? That was precipitated by acid rain. [/QB]

[img]graemlins/troutslap.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: SO2 and NOx emission limitations have done nothing to help this, I guess. Remember the expensive Statue of Liberty restoration? That was precipitated by acid rain.

I don't suppose you have seen what happens to copper when exposed to just regualr atmospheric gasses then....it corrodes [img]smile.gif[/img] Copper...not the best of building materials nor the most durable. But Im not saying it isn't an issue...just not the bogey man we were led to believe..just as we still have rain forests and florida is still not submerged and I can't buy soylent green anywhere...and I have looked!

Edit: and a big [img]graemlins/troutslap.gif[/img] back at all the greenies

[ 05-28-2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Davros]

We are awaiting final approval from the IPP board, but expect to be putting in a GT at the plant that I work at next year - or more correctly, an independant power producer will install one. We sell them the land within the plant boundaries, supply a gas offtake and condensate - they supply us back steam (thus avoiding the need for an additional boiler upgrade) and there is bound to be some form of electrical contract (because we will at the start we will be lowering steam generation on existing capacity and dropping the power generation through our existing TA's).

One of the stumbling blocks till now have been the emissions levels - particularly of NOx and SO2, and the article makes a perfectly valid point that emissions control has advanced considerably - particularly in the last 10 years. We would not be able to go down this path without strict emissions controls, and the retrofitting of existing GT's with say a CTO to meet tighter environmental guidelines has been shown to not be prohibitively expensive to business (we went through that "pain" at our sister refinery 50 km down the road last year).

It is an age old problem with the EPA - things that were licensed and permitted 30 years ago would not get a license or be permitted today. Does that make the old operators at fault because the new regulations could potentially put them out of business - should retrofitting be mandatory? Does it make the regulators at fault because there is new scientific data (I can see my good friend MagiK jumping up and down at the start of this statement, but not all of the stuff that is thrown up by the enviro scientists can be dismissed with a wave of the hand Ray) and community pressure to tighten emissions limits.

Inevitably it falls to a case by case basis TL because existing operators (at least in my country) have licenses with the EPA regarding acceptable limits for acceptable years of operation. In some cases the nasties are straightforward enough to make blanket rules covering all existing operators and it is a matter of conform or go out of business. In many cases it cannot be expressed that simply, and existing businsses will operate on a case by case basis with negotiation with the EPA.