[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36473-36476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17330]
[[Page 36473]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-7010-3]
RIN A2060-AJ51
Standards of Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors for
Which Construction is Commenced After September 20, 1994 or for Which
Modification or Reconstruction is Commenced After June 19, 1996 and
Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste
Combustors That are Constructed On or Before September 20, 1994
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule; amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the standards of performance for large
municipal waste combustors by expanding the definition of mass burn
rotary waterwall municipal waste combustors (MWC) to include mass burn
tumbling-tile grate waterwall municipal waste combustors. This change
ensures that the same emission limit is established for both types of
MWC designs since they exhibit similar combustion characteristics.
Since the emissions guidelines for large municipal waste combustors
reference the definitions included in the standards of performance,
this amendment to the standards has the effect of amending both the
standards and the guidelines.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on September 10, 2001,
without further notice, unless significant adverse comments are
received by August 13, 2001.
If significant material adverse comments are received by August 13,
2001, this direct final rule will be withdrawn and the comments
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposal. If no
significant material adverse comments are received, no further action
will be taken on the proposal and this direct final rule will become
effective on September 10, 2001.
ADDRESSES: By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in duplicate if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
Attention Docket Number A-90-45, Subcategory IX-D, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.
In person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible)
to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention
Docket Number A-90-45, Subcategory IX-D, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a
separate copy of each public comment be sent to the contact person
listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Fred Porter, Combustion Group,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5251, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. We are publishing this direct
final rule without prior proposal because we view this as a
noncontroversial amendment and do not anticipate adverse comments.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal in the
event that adverse comments are filed.
If we receive any significant adverse comments, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will
not institute a second comment period on this direct final rule. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of information
compiled by EPA in development of this direct final rule. The docket is
a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking
process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,
the docket contains the record in the case of judicial review. The
docket number for this rulemaking is A-90-45, Subcategory IX-D.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
electronic copies of this action will be posted on the Technology
Transfer Network's (TTN) policy and guidance information page http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities that
potentially will be affected by this amendment include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS SIC
Category Codes Codes Regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry, Federal government, 562213 4953 Solid waste combustors
and State/local/tribal 92411 9511 or incinerators at
governments. waste-to-energy
facilities that
generate electricity
or steam from the
combustion of garbage
(typically municipal
waste); and solid
waste combustors or
incinerators at
facilities that
combust garbage
(typically municipal
waste) and do not
recover energy from
the waste.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that we are now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
Secs. 60.50b and 60.32b of the rules. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), judicial review of the action taken by this direct final rule is
available only on the filing of a petition for review in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 10, 2001.
Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are subject
to today's action may not be challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Under section 307(d)(7) of the CAA, only an objection to a rule or
procedure raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment or
[[Page 36474]]
public hearing may be raised during judicial review.
I. Background
On December 19, 1995, we promulgated standards of performance (60
FR 65382) and emissions guidelines (60 FR 65387) for large municipal
waste combustors. These standards and guidelines establish maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) emission limits for nine
pollutants for all design types of municipal waste combustors. The
emission control technology upon which these MACT emission limits are
based varies somewhat, depending on the specific emission limit. For
carbon monoxide (CO), the emission control technology upon which the
MACT emission limits are based is good combustion. As outlined in the
proposed and final standards and guidelines, good combustion consists
of several elements: trained operators, waste feed control, combustion
air control, combustion air preheat, and the use of auxiliary fuel
burners.
The magnitude of CO emissions from a combustor are determined
primarily by the combustion conditions which exist within the
combustor. While good combustion minimizes CO emissions, it cannot
achieve the same level of emission reductions for each type of
combustor design since combustion conditions inherently vary from one
type of combustor design to another. As a result, the MACT CO emission
limits in the standards and guidelines vary by type of combustor
design.
The MACT CO emission limits for mass burn rotary waterwall
combustors, for example, are different (i.e., less stringent) than
those for mass burn waterwall combustors. A mass burn rotary waterwall
combustor is essentially an inclined rotating waterwall cylinder. Waste
enters at the elevated end of the cylinder, ignites, and then slowly
moves down the cylinder as it rotates. As the municipal waste burns,
the rotation of the cylinder tends to carry the waste partially up the
wall in the direction of rotation, until it tumbles and falls over on
itself. When this happens, a large amount of fresh, unburned surface
area is suddenly exposed to combustion, and this leads to substantial
fluctuations in CO emission levels.
Most mass burn waterwall municipal waste combustors do not use an
inclined rotating cylinder, but use an inclined reciprocating grate to
burn the municipal waste. Viewed from the side, this inclined grate
looks like a long set of stair steps. In most cases, every other grate
step can move back and forth or reciprocate. The waste enters on the
top step, ignites, and then is slowly pushed down the grate, from one
step to another, by the reciprocating steps. While the action of moving
from step to step serves to expose some fresh, unburned surface area to
combustion, the transition is smoother and less abrupt than that in a
rotary combustor. As a result, the fluctuations in CO emission levels
are less extreme and, as mentioned above, the MACT emission limits in
the standards and guidelines for CO are more stringent for mass burn
waterwall combustors than for mass burn rotary waterwall combustors.
Recently, we have learned that there is one other type of mass burn
waterwall municipal waste combustor design, which is referred to as a
tumbling-tile grate combustor. Only one large municipal waste combustor
of this type of design exists in the United States (i.e., Savannah
Energy Systems located in Savannah, Georgia) and, until the owner/
operator of this combustor brought this to our attention, we were not
aware of it. This type of combustor design uses a grate to burn
municipal waste but, because of the unique design of the grate, the
combustion conditions within the combustor are similar to those within
a mass burn rotary waterwall combustor.
When viewed from the side, the grate within this combustor looks
like a long set of stair steps. However, every third step, which is
referred to as a ``tumbling-tile,'' is hinged at one end with the other
end attached to a vertical ram beneath the step. As waste moves down
the grate, the ram rises, rotating the step around the hinged end. This
action causes the waste to tumble and fall over on itself exposing a
large amount of fresh, unburned surface area to combustion.
The overall effect creates combustion conditions similar to those
which exist within a rotating combustor. As the waste burns,
periodically a large amount of fresh, unburned surface area is suddenly
and abruptly exposed to combustion, and this leads to substantial
fluctuations in CO emission levels. Good combustion reduces CO emission
levels from a tumbling-tile grate waterwall combustor to the level
achieved at rotary waterwall combustors, but cannot reduce CO emissions
to the level achieved at mass burn waterwall combustors. Thus, the MACT
emission limits for CO for mass burn tumbling-tile grate waterwall
combustors and mass burn rotary waterwall combustors should be the
same.
This direct final rule amendment, therefore, expands the definition
of mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor to include mass
burn tumbling-tile grate waterwall municipal waste combustor. This
action ensures that the same MACT CO emission limit is established for
both types of municipal waste combustor designs since they exhibit
similar combustion conditions.
All terms used but not defined in the guidelines (Subpart Cb--
Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large Municipal Waste
Combustors That are Constructed on or Before September 20, 1994) have
the meaning given them in the standards (Subpart Eb--Standards of
Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors for Which Construction
is Commenced After September 20, 1994 or for Which Modification or
Reconstruction is Commenced After June 19, 1996). As a result, this
action has the effect of amending both the standards and the guidelines
by amending the definition of mass burn rotary waterwall municipal
waste combustor in the standards.
II. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this direct final rule does not qualify
as a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, is not subject to review by OMB.
[[Page 36475]]
B. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State
law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
direct final rule.
C. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This direct final rule does not have tribal implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this direct final rule.
D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This direct final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks. Also, this direct final
rule is not ``economically significant.''
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that this direct final rule does not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
The EPA has determined that this direct final rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's direct final rule
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business in
the regulated industry that has a gross annual revenue less than $6
million; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
[[Page 36476]]
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule
on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This direct final rule will not impose any requirements on small
entities because it does not impose any additional regulatory
requirements.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget had previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the standards and
guidelines for large municipal waste combustors under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., at the time the
rules were promulgated on December 19, 1995.
The amendment contained in this direct final rule results in no
changes to the information collection requirements of the standards or
guidelines and will have no impact on the information collection
estimate of project cost and hour burden made and approved by OMB
during the development of the standards and guidelines. Therefore, the
information collection requests have not been revised.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 40 CFR chapter 15.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This direct final rule amendment does not involve technical
standards. The EPA's compliance with the NTTAA has been addressed in
the preamble of the standards of performance (60 FR 65382) and
emissions guidelines (60 FR 65387) promulgated on December 19, 1995.
I. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this direct final rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of this direct final rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days
after it is published in the Federal Register. This direct final rule
is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 3, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
60 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Eb--[Amended]
2. Section 60.51b is amended by revising the definition of Mass
burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor and adding the
definition of Tumbling-tile as follows:
Sec. 60.51b Definitions.
* * * * *
Mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor means a field-
erected combustor that combusts municipal solid waste in a cylindrical
rotary waterwall furnace or on a tumbling-tile grate.
* * * * *
Tumbling-tile means a grate tile hinged at one end and attached to
a ram at the other end. When the ram extends, the grate tile rotates
around the hinged end.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-17330 Filed 7-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U