[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19919-19922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-10229]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[MD056-3022a; FRL-6330-7]
Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants, Maryland; Control of Emissions
From Large Municipal Waste Combustors
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the municipal waste combustor (MWC) 111(d)/
129 plan submitted by the Air and Radiation Management Administration,
Maryland Department of the Environment, on December 4, 1997, and as
amended on October 7, 1998. The plan was submitted to fulfill
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and EPA emission guidelines
(EG) applicable to existing MWC facilities with a unit combustor
capacity of more than 250 tons per day (TPD) of municipal solid waste.
An existing MWC unit is defined as one for which construction has
commenced on or before September 20, 1994.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on June 22, 1999, without
further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by May 24,
1999. If adverse comment is received, the EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Makeba A. Morris, Chief, Technical
Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP22, Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies
of the documents relevant to this action are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: Air
Protection Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Air and Radiation
Management Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment, 2500
Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James B. Topsale at (215) 814-2190, or
by e-mail at topsale.jim@epamail.gov. While information may be obtained
via e-mail, any comments must be submitted, in writing, as indicated in
the ADDRESSES section of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 111(d) of the CAA requires that ``designated'' pollutants
controlled under standards of performance for new stationary sources by
section 111(b) of the CAA must also be controlled at existing sources
in the same source category. Also, section 129 of the CAA specifically
addresses solid waste combustion. It requires EPA to establish emission
guidelines (EG) for MWC units and requires states to develop state
plans for implementing the promulgated EG. The part 60, subpart Cb, EG
for MWC units differ from other EG adopted in the past because the rule
addresses both sections 111(d) and 129 CAA requirements. Section 129
requirements override certain related aspects of section 111(d).
[[Page 19920]]
On December 19, 1995, pursuant to sections 111 and 129 of the CAA,
EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) applicable to
new MWCs (i.e., those for which construction was commenced after
September 20, 1994) and EG applicable to existing MWCs. The NSPS and EG
are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Eb and Cb, respectively. See
60 FR 65387. Subparts Cb and Eb regulate MWC emissions. Emissions from
MWCs contain organics (dioxin/furans), metals (cadmium, lead, mercury,
particulate matter, opacity), and acid gases (hydrogen chloride,
sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides).
On April 8, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated subparts Cb and Eb as they apply
to MWC units with capacity to combust less than or equal to 250 tons
per day (TPD) of municipal solid waste (MSW), consistent with their
opinion in Davis County Solid Waste Management and Recovery District v.
EPA, 101 F.3d 1395 (D.C. Cir. 1996), as amended, 108 F.3d 1454 (D.C.
Cir. 1997). As a result, subparts Cb and Eb were amended to apply only
to MWC units with the capacity to combust more than 250 TPD of MSW per
unit (i.e., large MWC units). The amended requirements of the EG and
NSPS were published in the Federal Register on August 25, 1997. See 62
FR 45119 and 45124 for the EG amendments.
Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires States to submit to EPA for
approval State plans that implement and enforce the EG. State plans
must be ``at least as protective'' as the EG, and become Federally
enforceable upon approval by EPA. The procedures for adoption and
submittal of State Plans are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. EPA
originally promulgated the subpart B provisions on November 17, 1975.
However, EPA amended subpart B on December 19, 1995, to allow the
source specific subparts (e.g., subpart Cb) developed under section 129
to include requirements that supersede the general provisions in
subpart B regarding the schedule for submittal of State plans, the
stringency of the emission limitations, and the compliance schedules.
See 60 FR 65414.
As required by section 129(b)(3) of the CAA, on November 12, 1998
EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for large MWCs for
which construction was commenced on or before September 20, 1994. The
FIP is a set of emissions limits, compliance schedules, and other
requirements that implement the MWC EG, as amended. The FIP is
applicable to those large existing MWC not specifically covered by an
approved State plan under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA. It fills
a Federal enforceability gap until State plans are approved and ensures
that the MWC units stay on track to complete pollution control
equipment retrofit schedules to meet the final statutory compliance
date of December 19, 2000. However, the FIP no longer applies once a
State plan is approved. An approved State plan is a State plan that EPA
has reviewed and approved based upon the requirements of 40 CFR part
60, subpart B to implement and enforce 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. See
63 FR 63192.
As noted above, emissions from MWCs contain organics (dioxin/
furans), metals (cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, opacity),
and acid gases (hydrogen chloride, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen
oxides). These pollutants can cause adverse effects to the public
health and the environment. Dioxin, lead and mercury can bioaccumulate
in the environment. Acid gases contribute to the acid rain that lowers
the pH of surface waters and watersheds, harms forests, and damages
buildings. In addition, nitrogen oxides emissions contribute to the
formation of ground level ozone, which is associated with a number of
adverse health and environmental effects.
II. Review of Maryland's MWC Plan
EPA has reviewed the Maryland 111(d)/129 plan for existing large
MWC units in the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, and
subparts B and Cb, as amended. A summary of that review is provided
below.
A. Identification of Enforceable State Mechanism for Implementing the
EG
The regulation at 40 CFR 60.24(a) requires that the section 111(d)
plan include emissions standards, defined in 40 CFR 60.21(f) as `` a
legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of
emissions into the atmosphere, or prescribing equipment specifications
for control of air pollution emissions.'' The State of Maryland through
the MDE, has adopted State regulations to control MWC emissions. The
applicable Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) for large MWC is found
at COMAR 26.11.08, Control of Incinerators. The applicable portion of
the regulation relating to large MWC was adopted on October 24, 1997,
and became effective on November 17, 1997. COMAR 26.11.08 amendments
were adopted on August 18, 1998 and became effective on September 7,
1998. The MDE has met the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(a) to have a
legally enforceable emission standard.
B. Demonstration of Legal Authority
Title 40 CFR 60.26 requires the 111(d) plan to demonstrate that the
State has legal authority to adopt and implement the emission standards
and compliance schedules. The MDE has demonstrated that it has the
legal authority to adopt and implement the emission standards governing
MWC emissions. MDE's legal authority is derived from Title 2 of the
Environment Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, sections 2-103(b) and
2-301. Furthermore, Maryland has submitted and EPA has approved
previous Maryland 111(d) plans for other designated facilities that
demonstrate the required legal authority. This meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 60.26.
C. Inventory of MWCs in Maryland Affected by the EG
Title 40 CFR 60.25(a) requires the 111(d) plan to include a
complete source inventory of all existing large MWCs (i.e., unit
capacity greater than 250 TPD). The MDE has identified three (3)
facilities with individual MWC units having combustion capacities
greater than 250 TPD. The first facility, the Baltimore Resco plant has
a total capacity of 2,250 TPD, consisting of three 750 TPD units each
with emissions controlled by an electrostatic precipitator. The second
facility, the Ogden Martin Systems of Montgomery County plant, has a
total capacity of 1,800 TPD, consisting of three 600 TPD units each
with emissions controlled by dry lime furnace injection and post
combustion scrubbers for acid gases; ammonia injection for nitrogen
oxides; carbon injection for mercury and dioxins; and baghouses for
particulate matter and metals. The third facility, the Pulaski Highway
MWC plant, has a total capacity of 1,500 TPD; however, this plant was
shut down on September 15, 1995.
D. Inventory of Emissions From MWC in Maryland
Title 40 CFR 60.25(a) requires that the plan include an emissions
inventory that estimates emissions of the pollutant regulated by the
EG. Emissions from MWCs contain organics (dioxin/furans), metals
(cadmium, lead, mercury, particulate matter, opacity), and acid gases
(hydrogen chloride, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides). For each MWC
plant, the MDE plan contains information on estimated MWC emission
rates in pounds per hour and tons per year based on stack test data and
continuous emission monitoring data. This meets the emission inventory
requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(a).
[[Page 19921]]
E. Emission Limitations for MWCs
Title 40 CFR 60.24(c) specifies that the State plan must include
emission standards that are no less stringent than the EG, except as
specified in 40 CFR 60.24(f) which allows for less stringent emission
limitations on a case-by-case basis if certain conditions are met.
However, this exception clause is superseded by section 129(b)(2) of
the CAA which requires that state plans be ``at least as protective''
as the EG. Title 40 CFR 60.33b of the EG contains the emissions
limitations applicable to existing large MWCs. The MDE MWC regulation
meets the emission limitation requirements by specifying emission
limitations that are consistent and ``at least as protective'' as those
in the EG, as amended.
F. Compliance Schedules
A state section 111(d) plan must include a compliance schedule that
owners and operators of affected MWCs must meet in complying with the
requirements of the plan. Any proposed revision to a compliance
schedule is subject to the requirements of subpart B 60.28, Plan
revisions by the State. Title 40 CFR 60.39b of the EG provides that
planning, awarding of contracts, and installation of air emission
collection and control equipment capable of meeting the EG requirements
must be accomplished within 3 years of EPA plan approval, but in no
case later than December 19, 2000. As a result of the Davis County
litigation, noted above, compliance with supplemental EG emissions
limits for lead, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, and nitrogen oxides
could extend until August 26, 2002, or 3 years after EPA approval of
the 111(d)/129 plan, whichever is earlier. However, section 129(f)(2)
of the CAA states that requirements promulgated pursuant to sections
111 and 129 must be effective ``as expeditiously as practicable after
approval of a State plan.'' Title 40 CFR 60.39b(c)(1) provides that any
compliance schedule, extending more than 1 year beyond the date of EPA
plan approval, must include measurable and enforceable increments of
progress. The minimum increments of progress are specified in 40 CFR
60.21(h); they include deadlines for submitting a final control plan,
awarding of contracts for emission control systems, initiating of on-
site construction or installation of emission control equipment,
completing of on-site construction/installation of emission control
equipment, and final compliance. In addition, 60.39b(c)(5) requires
that all large MWCs for which construction was commenced after June 26,
1987 must meet the mercury and dioxins/furans emissions limitations
within one year following issuance of a revised construction or
operating permit, if a permit modification is required, or within one
year following EPA approval of the State plan, whichever is later.
The MDE has determined that source compliance with the EG emissions
limits, including the supplemental limits, requires compliance no later
than December 19, 2000. For any large MWC for which construction
commenced after June 26, 1987, the MDE regulation requires compliance
with all applicable emission standards and requirements on or before
January 1, 1999. The MDE MWC regulation establishes interim and final
compliance dates, as required by subpart B 60.21(h)(1), and subpart Cb
60.39b.
H. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
The EG at 40 CFR 60.38b and 60.39b cross reference applicable MWC
NSPS (subpart Eb) requirements relating to performance testing,
monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that State plans
must include. The MDE regulation meets the requirements of 40 CFR
60.38b and 60.39b.
I. A Record of Public Hearing on the State Plan
The public hearings on the applicable portions of the MDE MWC
regulation, COMAR 26.11.08, were held September 17, 1997 and July 22,
1998. The applicable portions of the regulation became effective
November 17, 1997. The subsequent regulation amendments for large MWCs
became effective on September 7, 1998. The State provided evidence of
complying with public notice and other hearing requirements, including
a record of public comments received. The 40 CFR 60.23 requirement for
a public hearing on the 111(d)/129 plan has been met by the MDE.
J. Provision for Annual State Progress Reports to EPA
The MDE will submit to EPA on an annual basis a report which
details the progress in the enforcement of the MWC 111(d)/129 plan in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.25. The first progress report will be
submitted to EPA one year after approval of Maryland's MWC 111(d)/129
plan.
III. Final Action
Based upon the rationale discussed above and in further detail in
the technical support document (TSD) associated with this action, EPA
is approving the Maryland MWC 111(d)/129 plan for the control of MWC
emissions from affected facilities. A copy of the TSD is available,
upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document. Providing the Pulaski MWC facility remains
closed, it is not subject to the COMAR 26.11.08 emission limitations,
operator training, and compliance schedule requirements under the
111(d)/129 plan. As provided by 40 CFR 60.28(c), any revisions to
Maryland's MWC 111(d)/129 plan or associated regulations will not be
considered part of the applicable plan until submitted by the State of
Maryland in accordance with 40 CFR 60.28(a) or (b), as applicable, and
until approved by EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart B,
requirements.
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules Section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the 111(d)/129 plan should
relevant adverse or critical comments be filed. This rule will be
effective June 22, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency
receives relevant adverse comments by May 24, 1999. If EPA receives
such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final
rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All
public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second
comment period on the proposed rule. Only parties interested in
commenting on this section should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be
effective on June 22, 1999 and no further action will be taken on the
proposed rule.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from review under E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.'' Because today's rule does not create a mandate
on state, local or tribal governments, it does not impose any
enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule. This final rule
is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866, and it does not
address an environmental
[[Page 19922]]
health or safety risk that would have a disproportionate effect on
children. Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), because the Federal 111(d)
approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), EPA has determined that
the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that
may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector.
B. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
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. EPA will submit a report containing this 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 rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 22, 1999. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule pertaining to
the State of Maryland MWC 111(d)/129 plan does not affect the finality
of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend
the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Municipal waste
combustors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 15, 1999.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR Part 62, Subpart V, is amended as follows:
PART 62--[AMENDED]
Subpart V--Maryland
1. The authority citation for Part 62 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
2. A new center heading, and Secs. 62.5110, 62.5111, and 62.5112
are added to read as follows:
Metals, Acid Gases, Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With a Unit Capacity
Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day
Sec. 62.5110 Identification of plan.
111(d)/129 plan for municipal waste combustors (MWCs) with a unit
capacity greater than 250 tons per day (TPD) and the associated Code of
Maryland Regulation (COMAR 26.11.08), as submitted by the Air and
Radiation Management Administration, Maryland Department of the
Environment, on December 4, 1997, and as amended on October 7, 1998.
Sec. 62.5111 Identification of sources.
The plan applies to all existing MWC facilities with a MWC unit
capacity greater than 250 TPD of municipal solid waste.
Sec. 62.5112 Effective date.
The effective date of the 111(d)/129 plan is June 22, 1999.
[FR Doc. 99-10229 Filed 4-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
