[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57824-57828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28084]
[[Page 57823]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for Large Municipal Waste Combustors; Final
Rule and Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66 , No. 222 / Friday, November 16, 2001 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 57824]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-7100-8]
RIN 2060-AJ52
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 (MWC) by extending the time during which
such units will be excused from compliance with the emission limits for
carbon monoxide due to certain types of malfunctions. Since the
compliance and performance testing provisions in the emissions
guidelines for large MWC reference the compliance and performance
testing provisions 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 January 15, 2002
without further notice, unless significant adverse comments are
received by December 17, 2001.
If significant material adverse comments are received by December
17, 2001, this direct final rule will be withdrawn and the comments
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. 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 January 15, 2002.
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, U.S. EPA, 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, U.S. EPA, 40l 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 developing 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.
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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS codes SIC codes Regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry, Federal government, and State/ 562213 4953 Solid waste combustors or incinerators at
local/tribal governments. 92411 9511 waste-to-energy facilities that generate
electricity or steam from the combusion 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 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb and Eb. 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 January 15, 2002.
Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are subject
to this 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 public hearing may be raised during judicial review.
I. Background
On December 19, 1995, we promulgated final new source performance
standards (60 FR 65382)
[[Page 57825]]
and emission guidelines (60 FR 65387) for large MWC. The standards and
guidelines contain a provision requiring large MWC to comply with the
emission limits in the standards at all times, except during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction are limited to 3 hours per occurrence. If it takes longer
than 3 hours for startup or shutdown, or if a malfunction continues for
longer than 3 hours, a large MWC is required to comply with the
emission limits in the standards during those periods of time which
exceed 3 hours.
It often takes longer than 3 hours for a large MWC to shutdown.
Frequently, it can require 4 to 8 hours and, if complications arise, it
can take as long as 10 to 15 hours. Except as noted below, that does
not present a problem with respect to compliance with the emission
limits since continued operation of the emission control systems
permits the MWC to maintain compliance.
Recently, it has been brought to our attention that there are two
general types of malfunctions which may occur, during which it is not
possible to comply with the emission limit for carbon monoxide (CO).
The first is loss of boiler water level control, and the second is loss
of combustion air control.
Loss of Boiler Water Level Control
Large MWC boiler tube metal temperatures must be kept below
800 deg. F or so to prevent damage or burn-out. If water levels in the
tubes should fall, tube metal temperatures will increase well beyond
that point. Consequently, a malfunction resulting from a loss of boiler
water level control, as a result of failure of a boiler tube for
example, requires shutdown of a large MWC to avoid serious damage to
the remaining boiler tubes.
During any shutdown of a large MWC, it is difficult to maintain the
proper balance between combustion air and waste to ensure complete
combustion. As a result, CO emissions tend to increase.
Normally, the tendency for CO emissions to increase is overcome
through the use of auxiliary fuel burners. The burners ensure complete
combustion of CO to carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus, even though
the shutdown of a large MWC may take longer than 3 hours and there is a
tendency for CO emissions to increase, the use of the auxiliary fuel
burners overcomes any problem with respect to compliance with the CO
emission limits.
During a malfunction and shutdown of a large MWC resulting from a
loss of boiler water level control, however, full use of auxiliary fuel
burners is contrary to the immediate objective. The immediate objective
is to lower combustion temperatures to protect the boiler tubes from
exposure to high temperatures. In fact, the National Fire Protection
Association fire code for boilers does not allow auxiliary fuel burners
to be fired when boiler water levels drop too low for that very reason.
Although the immediate objective is to lower combustion
temperatures, combustion temperatures must be lowered in a controlled
and deliberate manner to prevent damage to the boiler from heat
stresses. Without the full use of auxiliary fuel burners, however, it
is not possible for a large MWC to comply with the CO emission limits.
Consequently, relief from the CO emission limits is appropriate during
a malfunction resulting from a loss of boiler water level control.
Loss of Combustion Air Control
As with the loss of boiler water level control, the loss of
combustion air control also necessitates shutdown of a large MWC. In
addition, as with loss of boiler water level control, this type of
malfunction also precludes full use of auxiliary fuel burners during
shutdown.
Loss of combustion air control, as a result of loss of a combustion
air fan, an induced draft fan, or failure of the grate system, can be
very serious in a large MWC. Lack of sufficient air for complete
combustion or improper distribution of combustion air (which leads to a
lack of sufficient air for combustion within an area of the MWC) can
present a significant risk of explosion. As a result, a malfunction
resulting from a loss of combustion air control necessitates shutdown
of a large MWC.
With a lack of sufficient air for complete combustion, CO emissions
increase. As indicated above, during a normal shutdown, the tendency
for CO emissions to increase can be overcome through the use of
auxiliary fuel burners. However, full use of auxiliary fuel burners can
exacerbate the fundamental problem, which is not enough air for
complete combustion. In that situation, adding additional fuel through
the use of auxiliary fuel burners can make the problem worse and
increase, not decrease, the risk of explosion.
As with loss of boiler water level control, the National Fire
Protection Association fire code does not allow use of auxiliary fuel
burners in such situations. Indeed, in light of the potential increase
in the risk of explosion, interlocks are often in place which prevent
the use of auxiliary fuel burners if control of combustion air is lost.
Without full use of auxiliary fuel burners, it is not possible to
comply with the CO emission limits as a large MWC is shutdown.
Consequently, relief from the CO emission limits is appropriate during
a malfunction resulting from a loss of combustion air control.
This amendment, therefore, extends the period of time from 3 hours
to 15 hours during which a large MWC is exempt from compliance with the
CO emission limits in the standards for the two types of malfunctions.
As with all periods of malfunction, the extension in the period of time
for the two types of malfunctions does not relieve the owner or
operator from the requirement in Sec. 60.11(d) of the General
Provisions in 40 CFR part 60 which requires:
At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, owners and operators shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, maintain and operate any affected facility including
associated air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent
with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions.
As a result, owners and operators of large MWC which may experience
the two types of malfunctions must continue to take steps during the
malfunctions to minimize emissions, consistent with the proper and safe
operation of a large MWC.
In addition, the extension in the period of time during which a
large MWC is exempt from compliance with the CO emission limits for the
two types of malfunctions does not alter the definition of a
malfunction included in Sec. 60.2 of the General Provisions in 40 CFR
part 60. A malfunction is defined as:
* * * any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable
failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are
caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not
malfunctions.
As a result, owners and operators of large MWC must continue to develop
and implement operation and maintenance programs to ensure that any
failure, such as a loss of boiler water level control or a loss of
combustion air control, which leads to emissions in excess of the
emission limits in the standards is solely the result of a sudden and
unavoidable occurrence and, thus, qualifies as a malfunction.
The compliance and performance testing provisions included in the
guidelines (Subpart Cb--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Large Municipal Waste Combustors
[[Page 57826]]
That are Constructed On or Before September 20, 1994) reference the
corresponding compliance and performance testing provisions included 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 amending the standards has the
effect of amending both the standards and the guidelines.
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.
We have 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.
B. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires us 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, we 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 we consult
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. Also, we may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless we consult
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.
D. 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 us 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.
E. 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 we have reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, we 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 we considered.
We interpret 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.''
F. 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,
generally we 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 a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires that we 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 us to adopt an alternative other
[[Page 57827]]
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 we establish
any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal governments, we must develop a
small government agency plan under section 203 of the UMRA. 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 our regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
We have 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, this direct final rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
We have also determined that this direct final rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
G. 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 this 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
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 this direct final rule on
small entities, we have 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.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget 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 our
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 40 CFR chapter 15.
I. 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 us to use voluntary consensus standards in our 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 us to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This direct final rule amendment does not involve technical
standards. Compliance with the NTTAA was addressed in the preamble of
the standards of performance (60 FR 65382) and emissions guidelines (60
FR 65387) promulgated on December 19, 1995.
J. 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. We 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: November 1, 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 60.58b is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)
introductory text and adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.58b Compliance and performance testing.
(a) * * *
(1) Except as provided by Sec. 60.56b, the standards under this
subpart apply at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction. Duration of startup, shutdown, or malfunction periods
are limited to 3 hours per occurrence, except as provided in paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(iii) For the purpose of compliance with the carbon monoxide
emission limits in Sec. 60.53b(a), if a loss of boiler water level
control (e.g., boiler waterwall tube failure) or a loss of combustion
air control (e.g., loss of combustion air fan, induced draft fan,
combustion grate bar failure) is determined to be a malfunction, the
[[Page 57828]]
duration of the malfunction period is limited to 15 hours per
occurrence.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-28084 Filed 11-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P