National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters: Reconsideration of Emissions Averaging Provision and Technical Corrections, 70651-70665 [E6-20637]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November
21, 2006.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, ATO
Central Service Area.
[FR Doc. 06–9531 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am]
40 CFR Part 63
(NESHAP) for Industrial, Commercial,
and Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters. After promulgation of this final
rule, the Administrator received
petitions for reconsideration of certain
provisions in the final rule.
Subsequently, EPA published a notice
of the reconsideration and requested
public comment on proposed
amendments to the NESHAP. After
evaluating public comments, we are
adopting each of the amendments that
we proposed.
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0058; FRL–8252–2]
DATES:
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
RIN 2060–AN32
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers
and Process Heaters: Reconsideration
of Emissions Averaging Provision and
Technical Corrections
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; notice of final action
on reconsideration.
AGENCY:
EPA is promulgating
amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
SUMMARY:
This final rule is effective on
February 5, 2007. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed
in this final rule is approved by the
Director of the Office of Federal
Register as of February 5, 2007.
EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0058. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
ADDRESSES:
321
322
325
324
316, 326, 339
331
332
336
221
622
611
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this final rule. To
determine whether your facility would
be regulated by this final rule, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.7485
of this final rule. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this final rule to a particular entity,
contact the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
WorldWide Web (WWW). In addition
to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of this final rule will be
available on the WWW through the
Technology Transfer Network Web site
(TTN). EPA has posted a copy of the
final rule on the TTN’s policy and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by the
final rule:
Manufacturers of lumber and wood products.
Pulp and paper mills.
Chemical manufacturers.
Petroleum refiners and manufacturers of coal products.
Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic products.
Steel works.
Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring.
Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories.
Electric, gas, and sanitary services.
Health services.
Educational Services.
guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
Judicial Review. Under section
307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
judicial review of the final rule is
available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit by
February 5, 2007. Under CAA section
307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to the
final rule that was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period
for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under CAA
section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by today’s final action may
not be challenged separately in any civil
PO 00000
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA
West Building, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
James Eddinger, Energy Strategies
Group, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D243–01), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541–5426, fax number:
(919) 541–5450, e-mail address:
eddinger.jim@epamail.epa.gov.
Examples of potentially regulated
entities
NAICS code
Any industry using a boiler or process heater in the final rule ...
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Category
70651
or criminal proceedings brought by EPA
to enforce these requirements.
Background Information Document.
EPA proposed and provided notice of
the reconsideration of the NESHAP for
industrial, commercial, and institutional
boilers and process heaters on October
31, 2005 (70 FR 62264) and received 17
comment letters on the proposal. A
memorandum ‘‘National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters, Summary of Public Comments
and Responses to GE Petition and
Reconsideration of the Final Rule,’’
containing EPA’s responses to each
public comment is available in Docket
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0058.
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
70652
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Organization of this document: The
information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Statutory Authority for the Final Rule
II. Background
III. What changes are included in this final
rule?
A. American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Test Methods
B. Utility Steam Generating Units
C. Fuel Analysis Requirement
D. Consolidated Testing
1. Compliance With Consolidated Testing
2. Monitoring of Common Stack
3. Emissions Averaging when Units in
Different Subcategories are Ducted to
Common Stack
4. Continuous Compliance With the
Emissions Averaging Provision
5. Monthly Compliance Demonstrations
and Calculations
E. Definitions
IV. Responses to Significant Comments
A. Scope of Emissions Averaging Provision
B. Compliance Testing and Monitoring
C. Definitions
D. Testing Methods
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
I. Statutory Authority for the Final Rule
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area
sources of hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) and to establish NESHAP for the
listed source categories and
subcategories. Industrial boilers,
commercial and institutional boilers,
and process heaters were listed on July
16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources
of HAP are those that have the potential
to emit greater than 10 tons per year
(tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any
combination of HAP.
II. Background
On September 13, 2004 (69 FR 55218),
we promulgated the NESHAP for
industrial, commercial, and institutional
(ICI) boilers and process heaters (Boilers
NESHAP) as subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR
part 63 under section 112(d) of the CAA.
The NESHAP contain technology-based
emissions standards reflecting the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
maximum achievable control
technology and a health-based
compliance alternative for certain
threshold pollutants. We proposed these
standards for ICI boilers and process
heaters on January 13, 2003 (68 FR
1660).
In the preamble for the January 2003
proposed rule, we discussed our
consideration of a bubbling compliance
alternative and requested comment on
incorporating a bubbling compliance
alternative (i.e., emission averaging) into
this final rule as part of EPA’s general
policy of encouraging the use of flexible
compliance approaches where they can
be properly monitored and enforced.
(See 68 FR 1686.) Industry trade
associations, owners/operators of boilers
and process heaters, State regulatory
agencies, local government agencies,
and environmental groups submitted
comments on the emissions averaging
approach. We received a total of 40
public comment letters regarding the
emissions averaging approach in the
proposed rule during the comment
period. We summarized major public
comments on the proposed emissions
averaging approach, along with our
responses to those comments, in the
preamble to the final rule (69 FR 55238)
and in the memorandum ‘‘Response to
Public Comments on Proposed
Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters
NESHAP (Revised)’’ (RTC
Memorandum) which was placed in the
docket for the final rule.
In the September 2004 final rule, we
adopted an emissions averaging
provision for existing large solid fuel
boilers. The procedures that affected
sources must use to demonstrate
compliance through emissions
averaging were promulgated at 40 CFR
63.7522. (See 69 FR 55257.) For each
existing large solid fuel boiler in the
averaging group, the emissions are
capped at the emission level being
achieved on the effective date of the
final rule (November 12, 2004). Under
emissions averaging provision in the
2004 final rule, compliance must be
demonstrated on a 12-month rolling
average basis, determined at the end of
every calendar month. If a facility uses
this option, it must also develop and
submit an implementation plan to the
applicable regulatory authority for
review and approval no later than 180
days before the date that the facility
intends to demonstrate compliance.
Following promulgation of the
emissions averaging provision in the
final rule, the Administrator received a
petition for reconsideration pursuant to
section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA from
General Electric (GE). Under this
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
section, the Administrator is to initiate
reconsideration proceedings if the
petitioner can show that it was
impracticable to raise an objection to a
rule within the public comment period
or that the grounds for the objection
arose after the public comment period.
GE requested that EPA reconsider
portions of the emissions averaging
provision that it believes could not have
been practicably addressed during the
public comment period. In the
alternative, GE requested clarification
that the final rule already allows for
consolidated testing of commonly
vented boilers. By a letter dated April
27, 2005, we informed GE that we
intended to grant their petition for
reconsideration. On October 31, 2005,
we published a notice of
reconsideration and proposed
amendments to the final rule (70 FR
62264).
In the notice of reconsideration of the
emissions averaging provision, we
proposed amendments to 40 CFR
63.7522 and solicited comment in the
following areas: (1) Allowing testing of
a common stack in situations where
each of the units vented to the common
stack are in the existing solid fuel
subcategory; (2) treating a group of
boilers that vent through a common
emissions control system to a common
stack as a single existing solid fuel
boiler for the purpose of subpart
DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63; (3) treating
a group of boilers that vent through
more than one common emissions
control system as distinct units and
requiring individual compliance testing
according to the methods specified in
Table 8 to subpart DDDDD; (4)
demonstrating compliance with opacity
limits using a single continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) located in
the common stack if each of the boilers
venting to the common stack has an
applicable opacity limit; (5) treating
certain common stack situations as a
single emission point for purposes of
averaging emissions with other existing
large solid fuel boilers located at the
facility.
In addition, our October 31, 2005
notice of proposed rulemaking included
several corrections to subpart DDDDD of
40 CFR part 63 that were not related to
emissions averaging. Several clarifying
amendments addressed: (1) The
applicability of firetube boilers in the
small unit subcategories and limited use
subcategories; (2) the definitions of
firetube and watertube boilers with
respect to ‘‘hybrid boilers’’; and (3) the
equivalent methods allowed in Table 6
to subpart DDDDD. The proposed
corrections include language that: (1)
Excludes electric utility steam
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
generating units that are covered by 40
CFR part 60, subpart Da or 40 CFR part
60, subpart HHHH; (2) adds Equation
4A to subpart DDDDD for calculating a
12-month rolling average emission rate
when using the emissions averaging
option; (3) requires an oxygen monitor
to be installed when a carbon monoxide
monitor is required by the rule; and (4)
updates American Society of Testing
and Materials (ASTM) test methods in
Table 6 to subpart DDDDD.
A comprehensive response to public
comments is available in a document
entitled ‘‘National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters, Summary of Public Comments
and Responses to GE Petition and
Reconsideration of the Final Rule,’’
which can be found in the docket
(Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–
0058).
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
III. What Changes Are Included in This
Final Rule?
In this final action, we are making a
limited number of corrections and
amendments to 40 CFR 63.14 and
sections 63.7491, 63.7510, 63.7522,
63.7525, 63.7540, 63.7541, 63.7575, and
Table 6 of subpart DDDDD consistent
with our October 2005 proposal. These
changes improve and clarify the
procedures for implementing the
emissions averaging provision and for
conducting compliance testing when
boilers are vented to a common stack.
Among other technical corrections, we
also are clarifying several definitions to
help affected sources classify ‘‘limited
use’’ and ‘‘hybrid’’ boilers. We have
modified some of regulatory language
that we proposed based on public
comments, but overall, we are adopting
amendments to the emission averaging
provision and other provision in subpart
DDDDD that are in substantially the
same form as what we proposed in
October 2005.
A. American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Test Methods
We are adopting the proposed
revisions relating to ASTM test methods
without change. As suggested by the
ASTM, we are amending Table 6 to
subpart DDDDD to reflect updated
ASTM test methods. Similar changes are
also being made to 40 CFR 60.14
(Incorporation by Reference) of the
General Provisions. Additionally, we are
publishing in Table 1 of this preamble
a list of testing methods that EPA
previously reviewed and approved for
use as ‘‘alternative’’ methods that are
considered ‘‘equivalent’’ for the purpose
of Table 6 to subpart DDDDD.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
70653
TABLE 1.—LIST OF EQUIVALENT METH- intention was to exempt from subpart
ODS APPROVED AS OF FEBRUARY DDDDD any units that are already or
will be subject to regulation for HAP
15, 2005
Pollutant or Analyte
EPA-approved
equivalent method
Arsenic ......................
SW–846–7060.a
SW–846–7060A.
ASTM D2361.
SW–846–5050.
SW–846–9056.
SW–846–9076.
SW–846–9250.
ASTM E776–87.
EPA Method 1631E.
SW–846–1631.
ASTM D6722–01.
EPA 821–R–01–013.
ASTM E711–87
(1996).
ASTM D240.
ASTM D2691–95.
Chlorine .....................
Hydrogen Chloride ....
Mercury .....................
Higher Heating Value
Moisture content of
Coal Fuel.
Moisture Analysis ......
Digestion Procedure
Sample Preparation
for TSM.
Sample Preparation
and Digestion for
TSM.
Sample Preparation
and Grinding.
Selenium ...................
Total Selected Metals
EPA 160.3 Mod.
EPA–821–R–01–03.
ASTM D586 (Dry Ash
method).
SW–846–3050B.
SW–846–3050.
TAPPI T266.
ASTM E829–94.
SW–846–7740.
EPA 200.8.
ASTM D6357–04.
ASTM D4606–03.
EPA 7060A.
SW–846–6020A.
SW–846–6020.
a https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/
test/sw846.htm.
This table is not meant to be
exhaustive, because the list of
equivalent methods is dynamic. This
table is meant to serve as guidance for
the methods that have been approved to
date. We emphasize that equivalent
methods may be used in lieu of the
prescribed methods in Table 6 to
subpart DDDDD at the discretion of the
source owner or operator. Therefore,
maintaining a list of ‘‘approved
methods’’ in the final rule is not
necessary. Similarly, approval of
equivalent methods by EPA or the
delegated implementation authority is
not necessary.
B. Utility Steam Generating Units
We are adopting the regulatory
language that we proposed to avoid
overlapping coverage between subpart
DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 and other
rules that apply to certain types of
electric utility steam generating units.
The types of boilers and process heaters
that are not subject to subpart DDDDD
are listed in 40 CFR 63.7491. Our
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
under another standard. (See 69 FR
1663.) Because regulations relating to
electric utility steam generating units
were under development at the time of
promulgation of subpart DDDDD, we
were unable to reference a specific rule
citation that applied to electric utility
steam generating units. Instead, subpart
DDDDD excluded electric utility steam
generating units by using only the
definition of electric utility steam
generating units contained in section
112(a)(8) of the CAA.
On May 18, 2005, EPA promulgated
the Clean Air Mercury Rule (70 FR
28606). In that rule, EPA established
standards of performance for mercury
(40 CFR part 60, subpart Da) from new
electric utility steam generating units, as
well as mercury emission guidelines for
existing electric utility steam generating
units (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH).
After that rule was promulgated, it was
brought to our attention that the scope
of the exclusion in subpart DDDDD of
40 CFR part 63 for electric utility steam
generating units was unclear. Confusion
resulted because 40 CFR part 60,
subparts Da and HHHH, employ
different definitions to determine
applicability. (See 70 FR at 28609.)
Thus, to clarify applicability of subpart
DDDDD, we are amending 40 CFR
63.7491(c) to exclude ‘‘an electric utility
steam generating unit (including a unit
covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da)
or a Mercury Budget unit covered by 40
CFR part 60, subpart HHHH.’’
C. Fuel Analysis Requirement
We received a comment raising the
question of whether we intended for
units which combust only a single fuel
type to be required to conduct fuel
analysis when demonstrating
compliance through performance (stack)
testing, as required by 40 CFR
63.7510(a). Our intent, as stated in the
September 2004 preamble to the final
rule (69 FR 55225), was that ‘‘Units
burning only a single fuel type (not
including startup fuels) do not need to
determine, by fuel analysis, the fuel
inlet operating limit when conducting
performance tests.’’ In this final action,
we are adding similar language to 40
CFR 63.7510(a) to make this
understanding explicit in the text of our
regulations. This change was not
included among the corrections we
proposed in October 2005. However,
since this revision is based on language
in the September 2004 preamble that
has not given rise to any objection, we
are adopting this correction as part of
this final rule.
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
70654
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
D. Consolidated Testing and Emissions
Averaging
The current language for the
emissions averaging option in 40 CFR
63.7522 requires testing of each
individual boiler in the averaging group.
Our intent with regard to the emissions
averaging option in the final rule was to
provide an equivalent, more flexible,
and less costly compliance alternative.
Since testing emissions from a common
stack for a group of boilers would be
equivalent to the average emissions
calculated from emissions tests on each
individual boiler, we are amending
subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 to
allow testing of emissions at the
common stack under specified
situations described below.
Consolidated testing of the common
stack must be conducted when each
boiler is operated under representative
testing conditions as specified in the
National Stack Testing Guidance issued
by EPA on September 30, 2005.
The amendments to 40 CFR 63.7522
adopted in this action are substantially
the same as what we proposed in
October 2005. However, based on public
comments, we have modified some of
the proposed language and added some
conforming amendments to other
provisions of subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR
part 63 that relate to emissions
averaging.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
1. Compliance With Consolidating
Testing
GE sought clarification on the
consolidated testing procedures
necessary to demonstrate compliance in
two different common stack situations.
In one situation, the exhaust from three
existing large solid fuel boilers are
combined and vented through a
common emissions control system to a
common stack. In the other situation,
the exhaust from two existing large solid
fuel boilers are each individually
controlled prior to being vented to a
common stack. In the revised regulatory
provisions set forth below, we are
amending this final rule to clarify how
to demonstrate compliance under these
two circumstances. The final
amendments address these two
circumstances in the same way that we
proposed in October 2005.
In the first situation, a group of units
that share a common control device
before venting to a common stack is
treated as a single source. In such
situations, an operator can demonstrate
compliance by testing at the common
stack without using the emissions
averaging equations in 40 CFR 63.7522
for each unit or submitting an
implementation plan. We are also
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
adding language in section 63.7522(k) of
subpart DDDDD to clarify that the
common stack situations described
above may be treated as a separate
single emission point for purpose of
including these units in an emissions
averaging group with other existing
large solid fuel boilers located at the
facility.
We are adopting a slightly different
approach for averaging emissions from
groups of affected units that vent to a
common stack through more than one
emissions control system. These distinct
approaches are necessary to ensure that
a source with more than one emissions
control system demonstrates continuous
compliance at each emissions control
system. Where a group of boilers vents
to a common stack through more than
one emission control system,
continuous compliance will be
demonstrated according to the methods
specified in Table 8 to subpart DDDDD.
2. Monitoring of Common Stack
In this final action, we are adding an
amendment to section 63.7541 of
subpart DDDDD to address the COMS
requirements for facilities participating
in the emissions averaging option. If
each of the boilers venting to a common
stack has an applicable opacity
operating limit, a dry control system,
and no units from other subcategories or
nonaffected units vent to the common
stack, then a single COMS may be
located in the common stack instead of
each duct to the common stack.
Alternately, if any of the boilers venting
to the common stack does not have an
applicable opacity operating limit, but
each of the existing solid fuel units is
equipped with a dry control system and
no nonaffected units vent to the
common stack, a COMS monitor may be
located at the common stack instead of
each duct to the common stack. We
amended 40 CFR 63.7541 to allow for a
COMS monitor at the common stack in
this situation.
We discussed this approach in the
October 2005 proposal (70 FR at 62268),
but did not include any regulatory
language in that action. Commenters
requested that we make explicit in our
regulations that this practice is
permissible when sources elect to
demonstrate compliance using
emissions averaging.
3. Emissions Averaging When Units in
Different Subcategories Are Ducted to
Common Stack
In response to the GE petition for
reconsideration, we proposed
amendments that would limit the
emissions averaging provision to
common stack scenarios that contained
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
solely units in the existing large solid
fuel subcategory. In this final action, we
have decided to expand the emissions
averaging provision to allow units in the
existing large solid fuel subcategory to
conduct performance tests at the end of
a common stack configuration with
affected units from other subcategories
and nonaffected units under specific
circumstances.
As a result of public comments
submitted, we now recognize that
affected units from several subcategories
(e.g., both gas and solid fuel fired units)
and nonaffected units are sometimes
ducted to a common stack. To address
these situations, we are adopting a
revised amendment to the emissions
averaging provision in 40 CFR 63.7522
that allows consolidated testing of units
in the existing large solid fuel
subcategory as long as the commonly
vented units from other subcategories
and nonaffected units follow specific
procedures during the consolidated
compliance test.
The emissions averaging provision is
only applicable to units in the existing
large solid fuel subcategory. EPA did
not find cause to promulgate emissions
limitations for many of the
subcategories of existing units.
However, new units are subject to
different emissions limitations than
existing units. These differing emissions
limitations make it difficult to allow
consolidated testing of emissions from
sources in different subcategories under
an emissions averaging approach.
However, to eliminate this obstacle to
consolidated testing when existing large
solid fuel units may share a duct or
stack with units in other subcategories
or nonaffected units covered by another
NESHAP category, we are requiring
facilities to shut down, or vent to a
different stack, affected boilers or
process heaters in other subcategories or
nonaffected units in other categories
prior to performing a consolidated
compliance test for the units in the large
solid fuel subcategory. Testing of a
common stack in these situations will
measure the average emissions from the
averaging group of existing large solid
fuel units, just as if each boiler in the
large solid fuel subcategory was tested
individually and their emissions
averaged. By requiring the affected units
from other subcategories or nonaffected
units to be shut off, or vented to a
different stack, during testing, the
consolidated testing for certain stack
configurations allows the group of
existing large solid fuel boilers to
demonstrate initial compliance at a
lower cost.
Allowing the testing of a common
stack under these conditions also
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
satisfies the criteria discussed in the
September 2004 preamble to the final
rule (69 FR 55239) that EPA has
generally imposed on the scope and
nature of emissions averaging programs.
These criteria include: (1) No averaging
between different types of pollutants, (2)
no averaging between sources that are
not part of the same major source, (3) no
averaging between sources within the
same major source that are not subject
to the same NESHAP, and (4) no
averaging between existing sources and
new sources. This final rule fully
satisfies each of these criteria.
The provision promulgated in this
action only allows averaging of
emissions from existing units in the
large solid fuel subcategory. Emissions
from units that are shut down or vented
elsewhere during compliance testing are
not included in the average or comingled with the emissions that are the
focus of the test.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
4. Continuous Compliance With the
Emissions Averaging Provision
As a result of this expansion to the
emissions averaging provision, we had
to establish continuous compliance
procedures with this provision to
address common stack scenarios with
units from multiple subcategories or
nonaffected units. In this final rule, we
are also amending 40 CFR 63.7541 to
establish continuous compliance
procedures under the emissions
averaging provision for common stack
configurations with different
subcategories or nonaffected units.
These amendments require affected
units to maintain 3-hour average
parametric limits on all the control
devices for existing large solid fuel
boilers venting to a common stack. The
parametric limits will ensure that the
control devices continue to operate
under the conditions established during
the initial compliance test. These
amendments establish continuous
compliance requirements for common
stack configurations that were not
previously eligible to comply with the
emissions averaging provision.
5. Monthly Compliance Demonstrations
and Calculations
This final rule includes several
additional amendments to subsections
(d), (e), and (f) of section 63.7522 that
were recommended in public
comments. These amendments clarify
that, under the emissions averaging
provision, continuous compliance must
be demonstrated at the end of every
month (12 times per year). In addition,
we have made several corrections to the
formulas used in emissions averaging
calculations. Additional details on these
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
amendments are reflected in the
Response-to-Comments document that
is available in Docket No. EPA-HQOAR–2002–0058.
E. Definitions
In the October 2005 notice, we
proposed to add or amend several
definitions in subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR
part 63 to clarify our intent and correct
inadvertent omissions. In this final
action, we are adopting modified
versions of several definitions based on
public comments. In addition, we are
promulgating three additional
definitions to provide additional clarity
requested by commenters.
We have added a definition for
‘‘common stack’’ similar to the
definition provided in 40 CFR part 72 at
the request of some of the commenters.
We have also added a definition for
‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ since
this term is used to define ‘‘equivalent’’
as this term is used in Table 6 of subpart
DDDDD. We are adopting the same
definition of ‘‘equivalent’’ that we
proposed, but we have added language
to Table 6 of subpart DDDDD to clarify
that equivalent methods may be used in
lieu of the prescribed methods in Table
6 at the discretion of the source owner
or operator.
The definitions for both ‘‘firetube
boiler’’ and ‘‘watertube boiler’’ are
amended to include criteria for
classifying boilers designed with both
firetubes and watertubes, commonly
referred to as ‘‘hybrid boilers.’’ Based on
comments, we are adopting a modified
definition of firetube boiler to include
boilers that utilize a containment shell
that encloses firetubes and allows the
water to vaporize and steam to separate.
We have also modified the definition of
watertube boilers that we proposed to
include boilers that incorporate a steam
drum with tubes connected to the drum
to separate steam from water.
We have amended the proposed
definitions for both small gaseous and
small liquid fuel subcategories to clarify
that these subcategories include all
firetube boilers, regardless of size, as
well as other types of boilers with a
rated capacity of 10 million MMBtu per
hour heat input or less. We have
amended the definitions to clarify our
intent that firetube boilers greater than
10 MMBtu per hour heat input are still
part of the small subcategory.
We have also added an amendment to
the definitions for both the small and
large gaseous fuel subcategories to allow
for units in these two categories to
periodically test using liquid fuel as
long as the tests do not exceed a
combined total of 48 hours during any
calendar year. This allowance was
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70655
adopted because of the need to test an
emergency fuel in order to ensure that
the unit could effectively operate using
the emergency fuel during a period of
gas curtailment. California regulations
stipulate a 48-hour limit on this
periodic testing on emergency fuels, and
we have adopted their precedent.
We are also amending the definition
of ‘‘fuel type’’ in response to a comment
we received. Questions have been raised
on whether we intended for units that
may burn evidence seized in drug raids
as a public service for a variety of
enforcement agencies to test these
materials as part of the compliance
testing requirements. It is reportedly
exceedingly difficult to arrange for a test
of these materials given the security that
surrounds them. Also, facilities have
been approached about burning retired
U.S. flags. Burning is the preferred
mode of disposal of retired U.S. flags.
Since we did not intend to include
contraband materials, or U.S. flags, as a
fuel when a facility is conducting
performance tests or fuel analyses to
demonstrate compliance, we are
amending the definition of ‘‘fuel type’’
to include the statement ‘‘Contraband,
prohibited goods, or retired U.S. flags,
burned at the request of a government
agency, are not considered a fuel type
for the purpose of this subpart.’’ We do
not classify facilities designed and
operated for energy recovery as
commercial and industrial solid waste
incinerators if they combust small
amounts of others materials. (See 70 FR
55568, 55575; September 22, 2005.)
A revision to the definition of ‘‘fuel
type’’ was not included among the
corrections that we proposed. However,
since this amendment addresses a de
minimis situation that supports law
enforcement efforts and respect for a
national symbol, we are adopting this
correction in this final action.
IV. Responses to Significant Comments
We received 17 public comment
letters on the proposed rule and notice
of reconsideration. Complete summaries
of all the comments and EPA responses
are found in the Response-to-Comments
document (see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section). The most
significant comments are summarized
below.
A. Scope of Emissions Averaging
Provision
Comment: Several commenters
requested that EPA expand the common
stack testing option to include common
stack configurations with groups of
boilers from different subcategories or
units not subject to the boiler NESHAP.
Two of these commenters added that in
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
70656
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
many situations the layout of boilers
and ductwork to common stacks make
it impractical to perform emissions
testing on each individual boiler venting
to the common stack due to a lack of
appropriate sampling location and duct
configurations. One commenter (OAR–
2002–0058–0722) added that in order to
test each individual unit a source would
have to build a temporary testing system
of stacks and ductwork to demonstrate
initial compliance, and this temporary
system would still not be suitable for
demonstrating continuous compliance.
The commenter contended that without
expanding the testing to groups of
boilers from different source categories
venting to a common stack, the
NESHAP would require a source to
reconfigure its ductwork and build new
stacks.
One commenter approved of EPA’s
amendments to allow common stack
performance testing under the
circumstances provided in the proposed
amendments.
Response: We agree in part with the
commenters’ recommendation and have
modified the rule to allow performance
testing to be conducted at the end of
stacks that receive emissions from
boilers from different subcategories and
nonaffected units in other NESHAP
categories, as long as the emissions from
these other units are stopped or
redirected as described further below.
However, we do not consider it
appropriate to allow averaging of
emissions from units in other
subcategories or nonaffected units or
consolidated testing of co-mingled
emissions from units in other
subcategories or nonaffected units. EPA
has generally imposed limits on
emissions averaging programs, which
includes no averaging between emission
units that are not part of the same
source category. Since these units are
generally subject to different emissions
limitations, averaging or co-mingling of
emissions would not provide a reliable
demonstration of compliance with the
applicable emissions limitation for
those sources in a particular category or
subcategory.
Nevertheless, we do consider it
appropriate under specified conditions
described further below to allow testing
at the end of the common stack for
existing large solid fuel units at facilities
with stack configurations that contain
units from other subcategories (e.g., gasfired units) and nonaffected units. EPA
has established a clear and enforceable
method for demonstrating initial,
annual, and continuous compliance
when units of different subcategories
and nonaffected units vent to a common
stack. Further, extending the common
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
stack testing option to these stack
configurations will not cause adverse
effects to human health or the
environment. The total emissions out of
the stack will not increase as a result of
this extension and compliance with the
emission limits of each unit feeding the
common stack will be determined by
parametric limits on the control device
through which the units vent to the
common stack.
Facilities that have common stack
configurations consisting of units
subject to the boiler NESHAP and units
from other source categories also have
the prerogative to petition for alternate
testing and compliance plans on a sitespecific basis.
B. Compliance Testing and Monitoring
Comment: Several commenters
suggested an alternative methodology to
meet the requirements of initial and
annual compliance tests for units opting
to use the emissions averaging
provision. These commenters suggested
that during the initial and subsequent
annual compliance tests, all boilers
venting to the common stack that are
not subject to emission limits be turned
off (i.e. gas-fired units or nonaffected
units). These commenters suggested that
shutting down units of different
subcategories or nonaffected units
would satisfy the requirements of the
boiler NESHAP. One commenter added
that these methods will still provide
reliable test data to the regulatory
authorities to demonstrate compliance.
One commenter added that since many
large solid fuel units share a stack with
gas-fired units, the NESHAP, as
proposed in the notice of
reconsideration, would require
individual performance testing on each
large solid fuel boiler, which would
greatly increase the costs of testing
compliance and increase system
downtime.
Response: We agree that turning off
units from other subcategories (e.g., gasfired units) and nonaffected units
during the testing period, satisfies the
requirements of the boiler NESHAP
emissions averaging provision.
Allowing the testing of a common stack,
when units from other subcategories
and nonaffected units are turned off
satisfies the criteria that EPA has
generally imposed on the scope and
nature of emissions averaging programs.
These criteria include: (1) No averaging
between different types of pollutants, (2)
no averaging between sources that are
not part of the same major source, (3) no
averaging between sources within the
same major source that are not subject
to the same NESHAP, and (4) no
averaging between existing sources and
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
new sources. The provision
promulgated in this action only allows
averaging of emissions from existing
units in the large solid fuel subcategory.
Emissions from units that are shut down
or vented elsewhere during compliance
testing are not included in the average
or co-mingled with the emissions that
are the focus of the test.
Facilities that have common stack
configurations, with units subject to the
boiler NESHAP and nonaffected units,
have the prerogative to petition for
alternate testing and compliance plans
on a site-specific basis. The type of
testing discussed here is one example of
an alternate testing and compliance plan
that a facility would petition for on a
site-specific basis. We have adjusted the
rule language in 40 CFR 63.7522(h) to
allow for shutting down units from
other subcategories and nonaffected
units to demonstrate compliance with
the emissions averaging provision when
units belonging to different
subcategories of the boiler NESHAP and
nonaffected units vent to the same stack
as large solid fuel boilers.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
that parametric limits be set on all
control devices used on solid fuel fired
units and that these parametric limits be
used to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emissions
averaging provision of the boiler
NESHAP. These commenters added that
parametric limits on the control devices
for existing large solid-fuel boilers
would ensure that these control devices
operated under the conditions
established during the initial
compliance test and provide a
defensible way to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the
emissions averaging provision of the
boiler NESHAP. One commenter
suggested that parametric compliance
limits be set on any control device in
the group of units sharing a common
stack, regardless of whether the
conditions are wet or dry in the stack.
Response: We agree that setting
parametric limits on all control devices
for existing large solid-fuel boilers
venting to a common stack is an
acceptable method for demonstrating
continuous compliance with the
emissions averaging provision of the
boiler NESHAP. These parametric limits
are a clear and enforceable method of
demonstrating compliance. We have
adjusted the rule language in 40 CFR
63.7541 to allow for a facility to
demonstrate continuous compliance
under the emissions averaging provision
by using parametric limits on the
control devices of existing large solid
fuel units venting to a common stack.
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
Comment: One commenter requested
that EPA allow for a COMS at a common
stack even when a source does not make
use of the emissions averaging provision
and opts to do performance testing on
individual boilers. The commenter
added that this regulatory flexibility
will reduce compliance costs and
maintain adequate levels of emissions
monitoring.
Two commenters requested that EPA
clarify 40 CFR 63.7525(b) to allow a
COMS to be located at the common
stack, regardless of whether the group of
boilers sharing a common stack consists
of boilers of different subcategories. One
commenter suggested that it did not
believe EPA intended to require a
COMS on individual units sharing a
common stack. The commenter added
that it is impractical, due to a lack of
space or adequate location, to install
individual COMS monitors in the duct
work for groups of boilers that share a
common stack. The commenter cites 40
CFR part 60, appendix B, Performance
Specification (PS)–1, to reference that in
many cases this requirement has been
satisfied by placing a COMS on the
common stack.
One commenter suggested that
language be added to 40 CFR
63.7522(j)(3) to indicate that a COMS
monitor is required at a common stack,
even when each individual boiler unit
has a separate opacity operating limit.
The commenter is concerned that
without additional language, 40 CFR
63.7522(j)(3) could be misinterpreted to
require a COMS in each duct leading to
the common stack. The commenter
noted that although there is discussion
of this intent in the preamble (70 FR
62268), the commenter suggested that
there be language added to this effect in
the actual rule text. The commenter also
suggested that language be added to 40
CFR 63.7541(a)(2) to clarify that a single
COMS monitor for a group of units that
each vents through a unique control
system and then to a common stack. The
commenter suggested this language is
necessary so that this group of units is
treated similarly to a group of units
venting through a common control
device to a common stack with respect
to the requirements of a COMS.
Response: We agree with these
suggestions as long as all units feeding
the common stack are in the existing
large solid fuel subcategory. The
emissions averaging provision was
intended to be an option for affected
facilities to allow for increased
regulatory flexibility. We reiterate here
that if a source chooses to do
performance testing for HAP emissions
at each individual unit, the source is
still eligible to locate a COMS monitor
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
on the common stack as long as all the
units feeding the common stack are in
the existing large solid fuel subcategory.
We disagree with the commenter’s
suggestion to allow for a COMS monitor
to be located at the common stack when
groups of boilers from different affected
subcategories or nonaffected units are
feeding the stack. We also disagree with
allowing a single COMS unit to be
placed on the common stack if the units
feeding the common stack belong to
other source categories.
C. Definitions
Comment: Several commenters
requested that EPA modify the
definitions of firetube and watertube
boilers to account for hybrid boilers.
The commenters suggested that EPA
make the distinction between the two
units based on the location of the
containment or steam separation system
in the unit in order to clarify the basic
difference between fire tube and water
tube units. Three commenters added
that water tube units incorporate a
steam drum, which provides for steam
separation from water, whereas a fire
tube unit uses a containment shell,
inside which the water vaporizes and
steam separates. One commenter
suggested that a water tube boiler be
defined as a boiler that has a water tube
type of steam drum, with no additional
heat exchange surface in the form of fire
tubes running through the drum. The
commenter suggested that a fire tube
boiler be defined as any hybrid type of
boiler where steam separation takes
place in a vessel that also contains fire
tubes that provide the major heat input
to the water. The commenter added that
this approach will simplify
interpretation of this definition. Two
commenters requested that EPA adopt
the following addition to the definition
of firetube boiler to account for hybrid
boilers: ‘‘All owners or operators of
hybrid boilers that have been registered/
certified by the National Board of Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Inspectors and/or
the State as firetube boilers as indicated
by ‘‘Form P–2’’ (Manufacturers Data
Report For All Types of Boilers Except
Watertube and Electric As Required by
the Provisions of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code
Rules, Section I) shall be considered
small units for the purpose of this
subpart.’’
Response: We agree with the
distinction between a firetube and
watertube boiler using the criteria of
whether a unit has a containment shell
or a steam drum. We consider the ASME
Code Rules and Forms to be an
acceptable and established method for
classifying vessel types. We have
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70657
modified the proposed definitions of
watertube and firetube boilers to allow
a facility to classify its hybrid vessel by
one of two methods: (1) Determining
whether or not the unit has a steam
drum or containment system, or (2) the
indication of firetube boiler on the
ASME P–2 form.
Comment: Two commenters requested
that the definition for large gaseous fuel
units be changed to allow for units to
combust oil during periods of natural
gas supply emergencies or natural gas
curtailment. The commenters added
that if the unit combusts oil for periodic
testing under these circumstances, this
unit should not be automatically
categorized in the large oil fuel
subcategory.
Response: We agree that it is
necessary for gas-fired units that are
designed for combusting oil during
periods of natural gas curtailment to
periodically tune the unit for proper oil
firing and combustion to be prepared for
such periods. Based on review of
current regulations in California
regarding equipment testing of nongaseous fuel, periodic testing of oil is
allowed for a combined total of 48 hours
during any calendar year. This periodic
testing for up to 48 hours, which is in
addition to periods of combusting oil
during natural gas curtailment, will not
cause a boiler to be categorized in the
oil fuel subcategories. We have
amended the definitions to clarify that
gas boilers that fire liquid fuel for the
purposes of periodic testing are not
included in the liquid fuel
subcategories.
D. Testing Methods
Comment: Several commenters
requested that EPA list some specific
examples of equivalent methods in
Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. The
commenters specifically added that
since the promulgation of the NESHAP,
EPA has received and approved many
site-specific requests for the use
‘‘equivalent’’ methods. The commenters
requested that any approved methods be
added to Table 6.
Another commenter disagreed with
deleting test method ASTM D3684–01
from Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. The
commenter added that this test method
should be retained in Table 6, and the
final revised table should indicate that
this test method is applicable for
determining both arsenic and selenium.
Two commenters requested that the
latest revisions of following test
methods be listed in Table 6 to subpart
DDDDD: ASTM D3684 for coal mercury
analysis, ASTM D3683 for coal total
selected metals, and ASTM D4208 for
coal chlorine content. These
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
70658
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
commenters added that these methods
have a long history as established
standard methods. By adding these
methods to Table 6, sources or testing
companies would not have to petition
for approval of these established
methods. These commenters also added
that many coal chlorine levels exceed
the upper bound (1136 parts per
million) on the concentration range for
repeatability and reproducibility on
ASTM D6721, and that ASTM D4208 is
a more appropriate testing method on
coals with high chlorine concentrations.
Two commenters recommended that
EPA provide authority to the States for
approving equivalent testing methods
that have already been accepted by EPA
on multiple similar site-specific
requests. The commenters added that
providing authority to the States is an
efficient way to determine approved
equivalent testing methods.
Response: With this action, we have
clarified the definition of equivalent
method. Equivalent methods are
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) or
EPA methods which are applicable to
the fuel type or target analyte being
measured. Although we disagree with
adding a complete list of equivalent
methods already approved to the final
rule itself, we have provided a list of
these previously approved methods in
the preamble to the final rule. We have
also added a definition of VCS to the
final rule to help clarify what equivalent
methods are. Equivalent methods may
be used in lieu of the prescribed
methods in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD
at the discretion of the source owner or
operator. Therefore, publishing a list of
or adding to the list of approved
methods is not necessary. Similarly,
State or EPA approval of equivalent
methods is not necessary.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because
it is likely to raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Executive
Order 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action.
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
This final action imposes no new
information collection requirements on
the industry. Because there is no
additional burden on the industry as a
result of the final rule amendments, the
information collection request has not
been revised. OMB has previously
approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing
regulations under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB
control number 2060–0551 (EPA No.
2028.02). A copy of the OMB approved
Information Collection Request (ICR)
may be obtained from Susan Auby,
Collection Strategies Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202) 566–1672.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
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.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
VerDate Aug<31>2005
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure 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 impact
of this final rule on small entities, a
small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Business Administration’s regulations at
13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, country, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and that is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this final rule on small
entities, we certify that this action will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. EPA has determined that none
of the small entities will experience a
significant impact because the final rule
imposes no additional regulatory
requirements on owners or operators of
affected sources.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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 by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private section, 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, for least-burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
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’s regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this 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.
Although the original NESHAP had
annualized costs estimated to range
from $690 to $860 million (depending
on the number of facilities eventually
demonstrating eligibility for the healthbased compliance alternatives), this
final rule does not add new
requirements that would increase this
cost. Thus, this final rule is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has
determined that this final rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it contains no
requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations
upon them. Therefore, this final rule is
not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Executive Order 13132 (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’’ are
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.’’
This 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. The
requirements discussed in this action
will not supersede State regulations that
are more stringent. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this final
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 (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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’
This 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 the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. No
affected facilities are owned or operated
by Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (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,
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.
This final rule is not subject to the
Executive Order because EPA does not
have reason to feel that the
environmental health or safety risks
associated with the emissions addressed
by this action presents a
disproportionate risk to children. This
demonstration is based on the fact that
this action does not affect the emissions
limits contained in this final rule.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This final rule is not a ‘‘significant
energy actions’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001) because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that this action is
not likely to have any adverse energy
effect.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
As noted in the final rule, section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113; 15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory and procurement activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70659
with applicable law or otherwise
impracticable. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
material specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business
practices) developed or adopted by one
or more voluntary consensus bodies.
The NTTAA requires EPA to provide
Congress, through the OMB, with
explanations when EPA decides not to
use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This action involves technical
standards. During the development of
this final rule, EPA searched for
voluntary consensus standards that
might be applicable. EPA adopted the
following standards in this final rule: (1)
ASTM D2013–04, ‘‘Standard Practice for
Preparing Coal Samples for Analysis,’’
(2) ASTM D2234–D2234M–03E01,
‘‘Standard Practice for Collection of a
Gross Sample of Coal,’’ (3) ASTM
D6721–01, ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Determination of Chlorine in Coal by
Oxidative Hydroylsis
Microcoulometry,’’ (4) ASTM D3173–
03, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Moisture
in the Analysis Sample of Coal and
Coke,’’ (5) ASTM D4606–03, ‘‘Standard
Test Method for Determination of
Arsenic and Selenium in Coal by the
Hydride Generation/Atomic Absorption
Method,’’ (6) ASTM D6357–04,
‘‘Standard Test Methods for
Determination of Trace Elements in
Coal, Coke, and Combustion Residues
from Coal Utilization Processes by
Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic
Emission Spectrometry, Inductively
Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry,
and Graphite Furnace Atomic
Absorption Spectrometry,’’ (7) ASTM
D6722–01, ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Total Mercury in Coal and Coal
Combustion Residues by the Direct
Combustion Analysis,’’ and (8) ASTM
D5865–04, ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke.’’
Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR
part 63 lists the fuel analysis methods
included in this final rule. Under 40
CFR 63.7(f) in subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA
for permission to use alternative test
methods or alternative monitoring
requirements in place of any required
testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures.
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
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
70660
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 30, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
title 40, chapter 1 of the code of Federal
Regulations is amended to read as
follows:
I
PART 63—[AMENDED]
3. Section 63.7491 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 63.7491 Are any boilers or process
heaters not subject to this subpart?
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
*
Subpart A—[Amended]
2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding
paragraphs (b)(55) through (62) to read
as follows:
I
Incorporation by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(55) ASTM D2013–04, Standard
Practice for Preparing Coal Samples for
Analysis, IBR approved for Table 6 to
subpart DDDDD of this part.
(56) ASTM D2234–D2234M–03÷1,
Standard Practice for Collection of a
Gross Sample of Coal, IBR approved for
Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part.
(57) ASTM D6721–01, Standard Test
Method for Determination of Chlorine in
Coal by Oxidative Hydrolysis
Microcoulometry, IBR approved for
Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part.
(58) ASTM D3173–03, Standard Test
Method for Moisture in the Analysis
Sample of Coal and Coke, IBR approved
for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this
part.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Subpart DDDDD—[Amended]
I
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
I
§ 63.14
(59) ASTM D4606–03, Standard Test
Method for Determination of Arsenic
and Selenium in Coal by the Hydride
Generation/Atomic Absorption Method,
IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart
DDDDD of this part.
(60) ASTM D6357–04, Standard Test
Methods for Determination of Trace
Elements in Coal, Coke, and
Combustion Residues from Coal
Utilization Processes by Inductively
Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission
Spectrometry, Inductively Coupled
Plasma Mass Spectrometry, and
Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption
Spectrometry, IBR approved for Table 6
to subpart DDDDD of this part.
(61) ASTM D6722–01, Standard Test
Method for Total Mercury in Coal and
Coal Combustion Residues by the Direct
Combustion Analysis, IBR approved for
Table 6 to subpart DDDDD of this part.
(62) ASTM D5865–04, Standard Test
Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal
and Coke, IBR approved for Table 6 to
subpart DDDDD of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(c) An electric utility steam generating
unit (including a unit covered by 40
CFR part 60, subpart Da) or a Mercury
(Hg) Budget unit covered by 40 CFR part
60, subpart HHHH.
*
*
*
*
*
I 4. Section 63.7510 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 63.7510 What are my initial compliance
requirements and by what date must I
conduct them?
(a) For affected sources that elect to
demonstrate compliance with any of the
emission limits of this subpart through
performance testing, your initial
compliance requirements include
conducting performance tests according
to § 63.7520 and Table 5 to this subpart,
conducting a fuel analysis for each type
of fuel burned in your boiler or process
heater according to § 63.7521 and Table
6 to this subpart, establishing operating
limits according to § 63.7530 and Table
7 to this subpart, and conducting CMS
performance evaluations according to
n
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Separate stack requirements. For a
group of two or more existing large solid
fuel boilers that each vent to a separate
stack, you may average particulate
matter or TSM, HCl and mercury
emissions to demonstrate compliance
with the limits in Table 1 to this subpart
if you satisfy the requirements in
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this
section.
(c) For each existing large solid fuel
boiler in the averaging group, the
emission rate achieved during the initial
compliance test for the HAP being
averaged must not exceed the emission
level that was being achieved on
November 12, 2004 or the control
technology employed during the initial
compliance test must not be less
effective for the HAP being averaged
than the control technology employed
on November 12, 2004.
(d) The emissions rate from the
existing large solid fuel boilers
participating in the emissions averaging
option must be in compliance with the
limits in Table 1 to this subpart at all
times following the compliance date
specified in § 63.7495.
(e) You must demonstrate initial
compliance according to paragraph
(e)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) You must use Equation 1 of this
section to demonstrate that the
particulate matter or TSM, HCl, and
mercury emissions from all existing
large solid fuel boilers participating in
the emissions averaging option do not
exceed the emission limits in Table 1 to
this subpart.
i =1
Ave Weighted Emissions = ∑ (Er × Hm ) ÷ ∑ Hm
VerDate Aug<31>2005
§ 63.7522 Can I use emission averaging to
comply with this subpart?
n
i =1
§ 63.7525. For affected sources that burn
a single type of fuel, you are exempted
from the initial compliance
requirements of conducting a fuel
analysis for each type of fuel burned in
your boiler or process heater according
to § 63.7521 and Table 6 to this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
I 5. Section 63.7522 is amended as
follows:
I a. By revising paragraph (b),
I b. By revising paragraph (c),
I c. By revising paragraph (d),
I d. By revising paragraph (e),
I e. By revising paragraph (f), and
I f. By adding paragraphs (h) through
(k).
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
(Eq. 1)
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
ER06DE06.001</MATH>
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action 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 the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final
rule will be effective February 5, 2007.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
mercury, in units of pounds per million
Btu of heat input.
Hm = Maximum rated heat input capacity of
boiler, i, in units of million Btu per hour.
n = Number of large solid fuel boilers
participating in the emissions averaging
option.
(2) If you are not capable of
monitoring heat input, you may use
n
n
i =1
Equation 2 of this section as an
alternative to using Equation 1 of this
section to demonstrate that the
particulate matter or TSM, HCl, and
mercury emissions from all existing
large solid fuel boilers participating in
the emissions averaging option do not
exceed the emission limits in Table 1 to
this subpart.
i =1
Ave Weighted Emissions = ∑ (Er × Sm × Cf ) ÷ ∑ Sm × Cf
Sm = Maximum steam generation by boiler,
i, in units of pounds.
Cf = Conversion factor, calculated from the
most recent compliance test, in units of
million Btu of heat input per pounds of
steam generated.
(f) You must demonstrate continuous
compliance on a monthly basis
determined at the end of every month
(12 times per year) according to
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this
n
n
i =1
i =1
Ave Weighted Emissions = ∑ (Er × Hb) ÷ ∑ Hb
for boiler, i, for particulate matter or
TSM, HCl, or mercury, in units of
pounds per million Btu of heat input.
Hb = The average heat input for each
calendar month of boiler, i, in units of
million Btu.
n = Number of large solid fuel boilers
participating in the emissions averaging
option.
n
i =1
(2) If you are not capable of
monitoring heat input, you may use
Equation 4 of this section as an
alternative to using Equation 3 of this
section to calculate the monthly
weighted emission rate using the actual
steam generation from the large solid
fuel boilers participating in the
emissions averaging option.
i =1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Ave Weighted Emissions = ∑ (Er × Sa × Cf ) ÷ ∑ Sa × Cf
Where:
Ave Weighted Emissions = monthly average
weighted emission level for PM or TSM,
HCl, or mercury, in units of pounds per
million Btu of heat input.
Er = Emission rate, (as calculated during the
most recent compliance test (as
calculated according to Table 5 to this
subpart) or by fuel analysis (as calculated
by the applicable equation in
§ 63.7530(d))) for boiler, i, for particulate
matter or TSM, HCl, or mercury, in units
of pounds per million Btu of heat input.
Sa = Actual steam generation for each
calendar month by boiler, i, in units of
pounds.
Cf = Conversion factor, as calculated during
the most recent compliance test, in units
of million Btu of heat input per pounds
of steam generated.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
(3) Until 12 monthly weighted average
emission rates have been accumulated,
calculate and report only the monthly
average weighted emission rate
determined under paragraph (f)(1) or (2)
of this section. After 12 monthly
weighted average emission rates have
been accumulated, for each subsequent
calendar month, use Equation 4A of this
section to calculate the 12-month rolling
average of the monthly weighted
average emission rates for the current
month and the previous 11 months.
n
E avg =
∑ ER
i
i =1
12
(Eq. 4A)
Where:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(Eq. 4)
Eavg = 12-month rolling average emission
rate, (pounds per million Btu heat input)
ERi = Monthly weighted average, for month
‘‘i’’, (pounds per million Btu heat
input)(as calculated by (f)(1) or (2))
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Common stack requirements. For a
group of two or more existing large solid
fuel boilers, each of which vents
through a single common stack, you
may average particulate matter or TSM,
HCl and mercury to demonstrate
compliance with the limits in Table 1 to
this subpart if you satisfy the
requirements in paragraph (i) or (j) of
this section.
(i) For a group of two or more existing
large solid fuel boilers, each of which
vents through a common emissions
control system to a common stack, that
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
ER06DE06.005</MATH>
n
(Eq. 3)
ER06DE06.004</MATH>
Where:
Ave Weighted Emissions = monthly average
weighted emission level for particulate
matter or TSM, HCl, or mercury, in units
of pounds per million Btu of heat input.
Er = Emission rate, (as calculated during the
most recent compliance test, (as
calculated according to Table 5 to this
subpart) or fuel analysis (as calculated by
the applicable equation in § 63.7530(d))
section. The first monthly period begins
on the compliance date specified in
§ 63.7495.
(1) For each calendar month, you
must use Equation 3 of this section to
calculate the monthly average weighted
emission rate using the actual heat
capacity for each existing large solid
fuel boiler participating in the emissions
averaging option.
ER06DE06.003</MATH>
Where:
Ave Weighted Emissions = Average weighted
emission level for PM or TSM, HCl, or
mercury, in units of pounds per million
Btu of heat input.
Er = Emission rate (as calculated according
to Table 5 to this subpart or by fuel
analysis (as calculated by the applicable
equation in § 63.7530(d))) for boiler, i, for
particulate matter or TSM, HCl, or
mercury, in units of pounds per million
Btu of heat input.
(Eq. 2)
ER06DE06.002</MATH>
Where:
Ave Weighted Emissions = Average weighted
emissions for particulate matter or TSM,
HCl, or mercury, in units of pounds per
million Btu of heat input.
Er = Emission rate (as calculated according
to Table 5 to this subpart or by fuel
analysis (as calculated by the applicable
equation in § 63.7530(d))) for boiler, i, for
particulate matter or TSM, HCl, or
70661
70662
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
does not receive emissions from units in
other subcategories or categories, you
may treat such averaging group as a
single existing solid fuel boiler for
purposes of this subpart and comply
with the requirements of this subpart as
if the group were a single boiler.
(j) For all other groups of boilers
subject to paragraph (h) of this section,
the owner or operator may elect to:
(1) Conduct performance tests
according to procedures specified in
§ 63.7520 in the common stack (if
affected units from other subcategories
(e.g., gas-fired units) or nonaffected
units vent to the common stack, the
units from other subcategories and
nonaffected units must be shut down or
vented to a different stack during the
performance test); and
(2) Meet the applicable operating limit
specified in § 63.7540 and Table 8 to
this subpart for each emissions control
system (except that, if each boiler
venting to the common stack has an
applicable opacity operating limit, then
a single continuous opacity monitoring
system may be located in the common
stack instead of in each duct to the
common stack).
(k) Combination requirements. The
common stack of a group of two or more
boilers subject to paragraph (h) of this
section may be treated as a separate
stack for purposes of paragraph (b) of
this section and included in an
emissions averaging group subject to
paragraph (b) of this section.
I 6. Section 63.7525 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (a)(1) to read as follows:
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
§ 63.7525 What are my monitoring,
installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements?
(a) If you have an applicable work
practice standard for carbon monoxide,
and your boiler or process heater is in
any of the large subcategories and has a
heat input capacity of 100 MMBtu per
hour or greater, you must install,
operate, and maintain a continuous
emission monitoring system (CEMS) for
carbon monoxide and oxygen according
to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (6) of this section by the
compliance date specified in § 63.7495.
The carbon monoxide and oxygen shall
be monitored at the same location at the
outlet of the boiler or process heater.
(1) Each CEMS must be installed,
operated, and maintained according to
the applicable procedures under
Performance Specification (PS) 3 or 4A
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and
according to the site-specific monitoring
plan developed according to
§ 63.7505(d).
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
7. Section 63.7540 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
I
§ 63.7540 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emission
limits and work practice standards?
(a) * * *
(4) If you demonstrate compliance
with an applicable HCl emission limit
through performance testing and you
plan to burn a new type of fuel or a new
mixture of fuels, you must recalculate
the maximum chlorine input using
Equation 5 of § 63.7530. If the results of
recalculating the maximum chlorine
input using Equation 5 of § 63.7530 are
higher than the maximum chlorine
input level established during the
previous performance test, then you
must conduct a new performance test
within 60 days of burning the new fuel
type or fuel mixture according to the
procedures in § 63.7520 to demonstrate
that the HCl emissions do not exceed
the emission limit. You must also
establish new operating limits based on
this performance test according to the
procedures in § 63.7530(c).
*
*
*
*
*
I 8. Section 63.7541 is amended as
follows:
I a. By revising paragraph (a)
introductory text,
I b. By revising paragraph (a)(2),
I c. By adding paragraph (a)(5), and
I d. By revising paragraph (b).
§ 63.7541 How do I demonstrate
continuous compliance under the emission
averaging provision?
(a) Following the compliance date, the
owner or operator must demonstrate
compliance with this subpart on a
continuous basis by meeting the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)
through (5) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) You must maintain the applicable
opacity limit according to paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (ii) of this section.
(i) For each existing solid fuel boiler
participating in the emissions averaging
option that is equipped with a dry
control system and not vented to a
common stack, maintain opacity at or
below the applicable limit.
(ii) For each group of boilers
participating in the emissions averaging
option where each boiler in the group is
an existing solid fuel boiler equipped
with a dry control system and vented to
a common stack that does not receive
emissions from affected units from other
subcategories or nonaffected units,
maintain opacity at or below the
applicable limit at the common stack;
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(5) For each existing large solid fuel
boiler participating in the emissions
averaging option venting to a common
stack configuration containing affected
units from other subcategories and/or
nonaffected units, maintain the
appropriate operating limit for each unit
as specified in Tables 2 through 4 to this
subpart that applies.
(b) Any instance where the owner or
operator fails to comply with the
continuous monitoring requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
section, except during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, is
a deviation.
I 9. Section 63.7575 is amended as
follows:
I a. By revising the definitions for
‘‘Firetube boiler,’’ ‘‘Fuel type,’’ ‘‘Large
gaseous fuel subcategory,’’ ‘‘Large liquid
fuel subcategory,’’ ‘‘Large solid fuel
subcategory,’’ ‘‘Small gaseous fuel
subcategory,’’ ‘‘Small liquid fuel
subcategory,’’ ‘‘Watertube boiler,’’ and
I b. By adding definitions for ‘‘Common
Stack,’’ ‘‘Equivalent,’’ and ‘‘Voluntary
Consensus Standard’’ in alphabetical
order.
§ 63.7575
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
*
*
*
*
*
Common Stack means the exhaust of
emissions from two or more affected
units through a single flue.
*
*
*
*
*
Equivalent means the following only
as this term is used in Table 6 to subpart
DDDDD:
(1) An equivalent sample collection
procedure means a published voluntary
consensus standard or practice (VCS) or
EPA method that includes collection of
a minimum of three composite fuel
samples, with each composite
consisting of a minimum of three
increments collected at approximately
equal intervals over the test period.
(2) An equivalent sample compositing
procedure means a published VCS or
EPA method to systematically mix and
obtain a representative subsample (part)
of the composite sample.
(3) An equivalent sample preparation
procedure means a published VCS or
EPA method that: Clearly states that the
standard, practice or method is
appropriate for the pollutant and the
fuel matrix; or is cited as an appropriate
sample preparation standard, practice or
method for the pollutant in the chosen
VCS or EPA determinative or analytical
method.
(4) An equivalent procedure for
determining heat content means a
published VCS or EPA method to obtain
gross calorific (or higher heating) value.
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
(5) An equivalent procedure for
determining fuel moisture content
means a published VCS or EPA method
to obtain moisture content. If the sample
analysis plan calls for determining
metals (especially the mercury,
selenium, or arsenic) using an aliquot of
the dried sample, then the drying
temperature must be modified to
prevent vaporizing these metals. On the
other hand, if metals analysis is done on
an ‘‘as received’’ basis, a separate
aliquot can be dried to determine
moisture content and the metals
concentration mathematically adjusted
to a dry basis.
(6) An equivalent pollutant (mercury,
TSM, or total chlorine) determinative or
analytical procedure means a published
VCS or EPA method that clearly states
that the standard, practice, or method is
appropriate for the pollutant and the
fuel matrix and has a published
detection limit equal or lower than the
methods listed in Table 6 to subpart
DDDDD for the same purpose.
*
*
*
*
*
Firetube boiler means a boiler that
utilizes a containment shell that
encloses firetubes (tubes in a boiler
having water on the outside and
carrying the hot gases of combustion
inside), and allows the water to vaporize
and steam to separate. Hybrid boilers
that have been registered/certified by
the National Board of Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Inspectors and/or the
State as firetube boilers as indicated by
‘‘Form P–2’’ (Manufacturers’ Data
Report for All Types of Boilers Except
Watertube and Electric, As Required by
the Provisions of the ASME Code Rules,
Section I), are considered to be firetube
boilers for the purpose of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
Fuel type means each category of fuels
that share a common name or
classification. Examples include, but are
not limited to, bituminous coal,
subbituminous coal, lignite, anthracite,
biomass, construction/demolition
material, salt water laden wood,
creosote treated wood, tires, residual oil.
Individual fuel types received from
different suppliers are not considered
new fuel types except for construction/
demolition material. Contraband,
prohibited goods, or retired U.S. flags,
burned at the request of a government
agency, are not considered a fuel type
for the purpose of this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
Large gaseous fuel subcategory
includes any watertube boiler or process
heater that burns gaseous fuels not
combined with any solid fuels, burns
liquid fuel only during periods of gas
curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or
for periodic testing of liquid fuel, has a
rated capacity of greater than 10 MMBtu
per hour heat input, and does not have
a federally enforceable annual average
capacity factor of equal to or less than
10 percent. Periodic testing of liquid
fuel is not to exceed a combined total
of 48 hours during any calendar year.
Large liquid fuel subcategory includes
any watertube boiler or process heater
that does not burn any solid fuel and
burns any liquid fuel either alone or in
combination with gaseous fuels, has a
rated capacity of greater than 10 MMBtu
per hour heat input, and does not have
a federally enforceable annual average
capacity factor of equal to or less than
10 percent. Large gaseous fuel boilers
and process heaters that burn liquid fuel
during periods of gas curtailment, gas
supply emergencies or for periodic
testing of liquid fuel not to exceed a
combined total of 48 hours during any
calendar year are not included in this
definition.
Large solid fuel subcategory includes
any watertube boiler or process heater
that burns any amount of solid fuel
either alone or in combination with
liquid or gaseous fuels, has a rated
capacity of greater than 10 MMBtu per
hour heat input, and does not have a
federally enforceable annual average
capacity factor of equal to or less than
10 percent.
*
*
*
*
*
Small gaseous fuel subcategory
includes any size of firetube boiler and
any other boiler or process heater with
a rated capacity of less than or equal to
10 MMBtu per hour heat input that burn
gaseous fuels not combined with any
solid fuels and burns liquid fuel only
during periods of gas curtailment, gas
supply emergencies, or for periodic
testing of liquid fuel. Periodic testing is
not to exceed a combined total of 48
hours during any calendar year.
Small liquid fuel subcategory includes
any size of firetube boiler and any other
boiler or process with a rated capacity
of less than or equal to 10 MMBtu per
hour heat input that do not burn any
solid fuel and burn any liquid fuel
either alone or in combination with
gaseous fuels. Small gaseous fuel boilers
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70663
and process heaters that burn liquid fuel
during periods of gas curtailment, gas
supply emergencies or for periodic
testing of liquid fuel not to exceed a
combined total of 48 hours during any
calendar year are not included in this
definition.
*
*
*
*
*
Watertube boiler means a boiler that
incorporates a steam drum with tubes
connected to the drum to separate steam
from water.
*
*
*
*
*
Voluntary Consensus Standards or
VCS mean technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business
practices) developed or adopted by one
or more voluntary consensus bodies.
EPA/OAQPS has by precedent only
used VCS that are written in English.
Examples of VCS bodies are: American
Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM), American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME),
International Standards Organization
(ISO), Standards Australia (AS), British
Standards (BS), Canadian Standards
(CSA), European Standard (EN or CEN)
and German Engineering Standards
(VDI). The types of standards that are
not considered VCS are standards
developed by: the U.S. states, e.g.,
California (CARB) and Texas (TCEQ);
industry groups, such as American
Petroleum Institute (API), Gas
Processors Association (GPA), and Gas
Research Institute (GRI); and other
branches of the U.S. government, e.g.
Department of Defense (DOD) and
Department of Transportation (DOT).
This does not preclude EPA from using
standards developed by groups that are
not VCS bodies within their rule. When
this occurs, EPA has done searches and
reviews for VCS equivalent to these
non-EPA methods.
*
*
*
*
*
10. Table 6 and text before table to
subpart DDDDD are revised to read as
follows:
As stated in § 63.7521, you must
comply with the following requirements
for fuel analysis testing for existing, new
or reconstructed affected sources.
However, equivalent methods may be
used in lieu of the prescribed methods
at the discretion of the source owner or
operator:
I
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
70664
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6.—TO SUBPART DDDDD OF PART 63—FUEL ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
To conduct a fuel
analysis for the following
pollutant * * *
You must * * *
Using * * *
1. Mercury * * * ..............................
a. Collect fuel samples * * * .........
Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D2234–D2234M–03÷1 (for coal)
(IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM D6323–98 (2003) (for biomass)
(IBR, See § 63.14(b)) or equivalent.
Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent.
SW–846–3050B (for solid samples) or SW–846–3020A (for liquid
samples) or ASTM D2013–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or
ASTM D5198–92 (2003) (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or
equivalent.
ASTM D5865–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.24(b)) or ASTM E711–87
(for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent.
ASTM D3173–03 (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM E871–82 (1998)
(IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent.
ASTM D6722–01 (for coal) (IBR, see § 6314(b)) or SW–846–7471A
(for solid samples) or SW–846–7470A (for liquid samples or equivalent.
b. Composite fuel samples * * * ..
c. Prepare composited fuel samples * * *.
d. Determine heat content of the
fuel type * * *.
e. Determine moisture content of
the fuel type * * *.
f. Measure mercury concentration
in fuel sample * * *.
2. Total Selected metals * * * ........
g. Convert concentration into units
of pounds of pollutant per
MMBtu of heat content.
a. Collect fuel samples * * * .........
b. Composite fuel samples * * * ..
c. Prepare composited fuel samples * * *.
d. Determine heat content of the
fuel type * * *.
e. Determine moisture content of
the fuel type * * *.
f. Measure total selected metals
concentration in fuel sample
* * *.
g.
3. Hydrogen Chloride * * * .............
Convert concentrations into
units of pounds of pollutant per
MMBtu of heat content.
a. Collect fuel samples * * * .........
Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D2234–D2234M–03÷1 (for coal)
(IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM D6323–98 (2003) (for biomass)
(IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent.
Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent.
SW–846–3050B (for solid samples) or SW–846–3020A (for liquid
samples) or ASTM D2013–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or
ASTM D5198–92 (2003) (for biomass (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or
equivalent.
ASTM D5865–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM E711–87
(for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent.
ASTM D3173–03 (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM E871–82 (IBR, see
§ 63.14(b)) or equivalent.
SW–846–6010B or ASTM D6357–04 (for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel for all solid fuels)
and ASTM D4606–03 (for selenium in coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b))
or ASTM E885–88 (1996) for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or
equivalent.
b. Composite fuel samples * * * ..
c. Prepare composited fuel samples * * *.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
d. Determine heat content of the
fuel type * * *.
e. Determine moisture content of
the fuel type * * *.
f. Measure chlorine concentration
in fuel sample * * *.
g. Convert concentrations into
units of pounds of pollutant per
MMBtu of heat content..
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Procedure in § 63.7521(c) or ASTM D2234–D2234M–03÷1 (for coal)
(IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM D6323–98 (2003) (for biomass)
(IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent.
Procedure in § 63.7521(d) or equivalent.
SW–846–3050B (for solid samples) or SW–846–3020A (for liquid
samples) or ASTM D2013–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or
ASTM D5198–92 (2003) (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or
equivalent.
ASTM D5865–04 (for coal) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM E711–87
(1996) (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent.
ASTM D3173–03 (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or ASTM E871–82 (1998) or
equivalent.
SW–846–9250 or ASTM D6721–01 (for coal) or ASTM E776–87
(1996) (for biomass) (IBR, see § 63.14(b)) or equivalent.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. E6–20637 Filed 12–5–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[FDMS Docket No. EPA–R03–OAR–2006–
0933; FRL–8252–3]
State Operating Permit Programs;
Delaware; Amendments to the
Definition of a ‘‘Major Source’’
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action to amend the State of Delaware’s
operating permit program to correct the
definition of ‘‘major source.’’ Delaware’s
revision was submitted in response to
the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments
of 1990 that required States to submit to
EPA program revisions in accordance
with the Federal Title V regulations.
The EPA granted final approval of
Delaware’s operating permit program on
November 19, 2001. Delaware amended
its operating permit program to address
the Federal EPA amendment to the
Federal Title V regulation, which went
into effect on November 27, 2001, and
this action approves this amendment.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action granting approval of
Delaware’s amendment to the Title V
operating permit program should do so
at this time.
DATES: This rule is effective on February
5, 2007 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse written comment
by January 5, 2007. If EPA receives such
comments, it 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: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2006–0933 by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail: campbell.dave@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2006–0933,
David Campbell, Chief, Permits and
Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode
3AP11, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 Dec 05, 2006
Jkt 211001
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2006–
0933. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources & Environmental
Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box
1401, Dover, Delaware 19903.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rosemarie Nino, (215) 814–3377, or by
e-mail at nino.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
18, 2004, the State of Delaware
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
70665
submitted an amendment to its State
operating permit program. This
amendment is the subject of this
document and this section provides
additional information on the
amendment by addressing the following
questions:
What Is the State Operating Permit Program?
What Are the State Operating Permit
Program Requirements?
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
What Is Not Being Addressed in This
Document?
What Changes to Delaware’s Operating
Permit Program Is EPA Approving?
What Action Is Being Taken by EPA?
What Is the State Operating Permit
Program?
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 required all States to develop
operating permit programs that meet
certain Federal criteria. When
implementing the operating permit
programs, the States require certain
sources of air pollution to obtain
permits that contain all of their
applicable requirements under the
Clean Air Act (CAA). The focus of the
operating permit program is to improve
enforcement by issuing each source a
permit that consolidates all of its
applicable CAA requirements into a
Federally-enforceable document. By
consolidating all of the applicable
requirements for a given air pollution
source into an operating permit, the
source, the public, and the State
environmental agency can more easily
understand what CAA requirements
apply and how compliance with those
requirements is determined.
Sources required to obtain an
operating permit under this program
include ‘‘major’’ sources of air pollution
and certain other sources specified in
the CAA or in EPA’s implementing
regulations. For example, all sources
regulated under the acid rain program,
regardless of size, must obtain operating
permits. Examples of ‘‘major’’ sources
include those that have the potential to
emit 100 tons per year or more of
volatile organic compounds, carbon
monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, or particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5); those that emit 10 tons per year
of any single hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) specifically listed under the
CAA; or those that emit 25 tons per year
or more of a combination of HAPs. In
areas that are not meeting the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for ozone, carbon monoxide, or
particulate matter, major sources are
defined by the gravity of the
nonattainment classification.
E:\FR\FM\06DER1.SGM
06DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70651-70665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20637]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058; FRL-8252-2]
RIN 2060-AN32
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters:
Reconsideration of Emissions Averaging Provision and Technical
Corrections
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; notice of final action on reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating amendments to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. After
promulgation of this final rule, the Administrator received petitions
for reconsideration of certain provisions in the final rule.
Subsequently, EPA published a notice of the reconsideration and
requested public comment on proposed amendments to the NESHAP. After
evaluating public comments, we are adopting each of the amendments that
we proposed.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 5, 2007. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final
rule is approved by the Director of the Office of Federal Register as
of February 5, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West
Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Eddinger, Energy Strategies
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-5426, fax number: (919) 541-5450, e-mail
address: eddinger.jim@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by the final rule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category NAICS code potentially regulated
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry using a boiler or 321 Manufacturers of
process heater in the final rule. lumber and wood
products.
322 Pulp and paper mills.
325 Chemical
manufacturers.
324 Petroleum refiners
and manufacturers of
coal products.
316, 326, 339 Manufacturers of
rubber and
miscellaneous
plastic products.
331 Steel works.
332 Electroplating,
plating, polishing,
anodizing, and
coloring.
336 Manufacturers of
motor vehicle parts
and accessories.
221 Electric, gas, and
sanitary services.
622 Health services.
611 Educational Services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
final rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by
this final rule, you should carefully examine the applicability
criteria in 40 CFR 63.7485 of this final rule. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this final rule to a
particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
WorldWide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this final rule will be available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network Web site (TTN). EPA has posted
a copy of the final rule on the TTN's policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), judicial review of the final rule is available only by filing a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by February 5, 2007. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B),
only an objection to the final rule that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by today's final action may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Background Information Document. EPA proposed and provided notice
of the reconsideration of the NESHAP for industrial, commercial, and
institutional boilers and process heaters on October 31, 2005 (70 FR
62264) and received 17 comment letters on the proposal. A memorandum
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters,
Summary of Public Comments and Responses to GE Petition and
Reconsideration of the Final Rule,'' containing EPA's responses to each
public comment is available in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058.
[[Page 70652]]
Organization of this document: The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:
I. Statutory Authority for the Final Rule
II. Background
III. What changes are included in this final rule?
A. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test
Methods
B. Utility Steam Generating Units
C. Fuel Analysis Requirement
D. Consolidated Testing
1. Compliance With Consolidated Testing
2. Monitoring of Common Stack
3. Emissions Averaging when Units in Different Subcategories are
Ducted to Common Stack
4. Continuous Compliance With the Emissions Averaging Provision
5. Monthly Compliance Demonstrations and Calculations
E. Definitions
IV. Responses to Significant Comments
A. Scope of Emissions Averaging Provision
B. Compliance Testing and Monitoring
C. Definitions
D. Testing Methods
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Statutory Authority for the Final Rule
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to list
categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and to establish NESHAP for the listed
source categories and subcategories. Industrial boilers, commercial and
institutional boilers, and process heaters were listed on July 16, 1992
(57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential
to emit greater than 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of
any combination of HAP.
II. Background
On September 13, 2004 (69 FR 55218), we promulgated the NESHAP for
industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) boilers and process
heaters (Boilers NESHAP) as subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 under
section 112(d) of the CAA. The NESHAP contain technology-based
emissions standards reflecting the maximum achievable control
technology and a health-based compliance alternative for certain
threshold pollutants. We proposed these standards for ICI boilers and
process heaters on January 13, 2003 (68 FR 1660).
In the preamble for the January 2003 proposed rule, we discussed
our consideration of a bubbling compliance alternative and requested
comment on incorporating a bubbling compliance alternative (i.e.,
emission averaging) into this final rule as part of EPA's general
policy of encouraging the use of flexible compliance approaches where
they can be properly monitored and enforced. (See 68 FR 1686.) Industry
trade associations, owners/operators of boilers and process heaters,
State regulatory agencies, local government agencies, and environmental
groups submitted comments on the emissions averaging approach. We
received a total of 40 public comment letters regarding the emissions
averaging approach in the proposed rule during the comment period. We
summarized major public comments on the proposed emissions averaging
approach, along with our responses to those comments, in the preamble
to the final rule (69 FR 55238) and in the memorandum ``Response to
Public Comments on Proposed Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional
Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP (Revised)'' (RTC Memorandum) which
was placed in the docket for the final rule.
In the September 2004 final rule, we adopted an emissions averaging
provision for existing large solid fuel boilers. The procedures that
affected sources must use to demonstrate compliance through emissions
averaging were promulgated at 40 CFR 63.7522. (See 69 FR 55257.) For
each existing large solid fuel boiler in the averaging group, the
emissions are capped at the emission level being achieved on the
effective date of the final rule (November 12, 2004). Under emissions
averaging provision in the 2004 final rule, compliance must be
demonstrated on a 12-month rolling average basis, determined at the end
of every calendar month. If a facility uses this option, it must also
develop and submit an implementation plan to the applicable regulatory
authority for review and approval no later than 180 days before the
date that the facility intends to demonstrate compliance.
Following promulgation of the emissions averaging provision in the
final rule, the Administrator received a petition for reconsideration
pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA from General Electric (GE).
Under this section, the Administrator is to initiate reconsideration
proceedings if the petitioner can show that it was impracticable to
raise an objection to a rule within the public comment period or that
the grounds for the objection arose after the public comment period.
GE requested that EPA reconsider portions of the emissions
averaging provision that it believes could not have been practicably
addressed during the public comment period. In the alternative, GE
requested clarification that the final rule already allows for
consolidated testing of commonly vented boilers. By a letter dated
April 27, 2005, we informed GE that we intended to grant their petition
for reconsideration. On October 31, 2005, we published a notice of
reconsideration and proposed amendments to the final rule (70 FR
62264).
In the notice of reconsideration of the emissions averaging
provision, we proposed amendments to 40 CFR 63.7522 and solicited
comment in the following areas: (1) Allowing testing of a common stack
in situations where each of the units vented to the common stack are in
the existing solid fuel subcategory; (2) treating a group of boilers
that vent through a common emissions control system to a common stack
as a single existing solid fuel boiler for the purpose of subpart DDDDD
of 40 CFR part 63; (3) treating a group of boilers that vent through
more than one common emissions control system as distinct units and
requiring individual compliance testing according to the methods
specified in Table 8 to subpart DDDDD; (4) demonstrating compliance
with opacity limits using a single continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS) located in the common stack if each of the boilers venting to
the common stack has an applicable opacity limit; (5) treating certain
common stack situations as a single emission point for purposes of
averaging emissions with other existing large solid fuel boilers
located at the facility.
In addition, our October 31, 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking
included several corrections to subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 that
were not related to emissions averaging. Several clarifying amendments
addressed: (1) The applicability of firetube boilers in the small unit
subcategories and limited use subcategories; (2) the definitions of
firetube and watertube boilers with respect to ``hybrid boilers''; and
(3) the equivalent methods allowed in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. The
proposed corrections include language that: (1) Excludes electric
utility steam
[[Page 70653]]
generating units that are covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da or 40
CFR part 60, subpart HHHH; (2) adds Equation 4A to subpart DDDDD for
calculating a 12-month rolling average emission rate when using the
emissions averaging option; (3) requires an oxygen monitor to be
installed when a carbon monoxide monitor is required by the rule; and
(4) updates American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test
methods in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD.
A comprehensive response to public comments is available in a
document entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and
Process Heaters, Summary of Public Comments and Responses to GE
Petition and Reconsideration of the Final Rule,'' which can be found in
the docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058).
III. What Changes Are Included in This Final Rule?
In this final action, we are making a limited number of corrections
and amendments to 40 CFR 63.14 and sections 63.7491, 63.7510, 63.7522,
63.7525, 63.7540, 63.7541, 63.7575, and Table 6 of subpart DDDDD
consistent with our October 2005 proposal. These changes improve and
clarify the procedures for implementing the emissions averaging
provision and for conducting compliance testing when boilers are vented
to a common stack. Among other technical corrections, we also are
clarifying several definitions to help affected sources classify
``limited use'' and ``hybrid'' boilers. We have modified some of
regulatory language that we proposed based on public comments, but
overall, we are adopting amendments to the emission averaging provision
and other provision in subpart DDDDD that are in substantially the same
form as what we proposed in October 2005.
A. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Methods
We are adopting the proposed revisions relating to ASTM test
methods without change. As suggested by the ASTM, we are amending Table
6 to subpart DDDDD to reflect updated ASTM test methods. Similar
changes are also being made to 40 CFR 60.14 (Incorporation by
Reference) of the General Provisions. Additionally, we are publishing
in Table 1 of this preamble a list of testing methods that EPA
previously reviewed and approved for use as ``alternative'' methods
that are considered ``equivalent'' for the purpose of Table 6 to
subpart DDDDD.
Table 1.--List of Equivalent Methods Approved as of February 15, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA-approved equivalent
Pollutant or Analyte method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic................................... SW-846-7060.\a\
SW-846-7060A.
Chlorine.................................. ASTM D2361.
Hydrogen Chloride......................... SW-846-5050.
SW-846-9056.
SW-846-9076.
SW-846-9250.
ASTM E776-87.
Mercury................................... EPA Method 1631E.
SW-846-1631.
ASTM D6722-01.
EPA 821-R-01-013.
Higher Heating Value...................... ASTM E711-87 (1996).
ASTM D240.
Moisture content of Coal Fuel............. ASTM D2691-95.
Moisture Analysis......................... EPA 160.3 Mod.
Digestion Procedure....................... EPA-821-R-01-03.
ASTM D586 (Dry Ash method).
Sample Preparation for TSM................ SW-846-3050B.
Sample Preparation and Digestion for TSM.. SW-846-3050.
TAPPI T266.
Sample Preparation and Grinding........... ASTM E829-94.
Selenium.................................. SW-846-7740.
Total Selected Metals..................... EPA 200.8.
ASTM D6357-04.
ASTM D4606-03.
EPA 7060A.
SW-846-6020A.
SW-846-6020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/sw846.htm.
This table is not meant to be exhaustive, because the list of
equivalent methods is dynamic. This table is meant to serve as guidance
for the methods that have been approved to date. We emphasize that
equivalent methods may be used in lieu of the prescribed methods in
Table 6 to subpart DDDDD at the discretion of the source owner or
operator. Therefore, maintaining a list of ``approved methods'' in the
final rule is not necessary. Similarly, approval of equivalent methods
by EPA or the delegated implementation authority is not necessary.
B. Utility Steam Generating Units
We are adopting the regulatory language that we proposed to avoid
overlapping coverage between subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 and other
rules that apply to certain types of electric utility steam generating
units. The types of boilers and process heaters that are not subject to
subpart DDDDD are listed in 40 CFR 63.7491. Our intention was to exempt
from subpart DDDDD any units that are already or will be subject to
regulation for HAP under another standard. (See 69 FR 1663.) Because
regulations relating to electric utility steam generating units were
under development at the time of promulgation of subpart DDDDD, we were
unable to reference a specific rule citation that applied to electric
utility steam generating units. Instead, subpart DDDDD excluded
electric utility steam generating units by using only the definition of
electric utility steam generating units contained in section 112(a)(8)
of the CAA.
On May 18, 2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Mercury Rule (70 FR
28606). In that rule, EPA established standards of performance for
mercury (40 CFR part 60, subpart Da) from new electric utility steam
generating units, as well as mercury emission guidelines for existing
electric utility steam generating units (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH).
After that rule was promulgated, it was brought to our attention that
the scope of the exclusion in subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 for
electric utility steam generating units was unclear. Confusion resulted
because 40 CFR part 60, subparts Da and HHHH, employ different
definitions to determine applicability. (See 70 FR at 28609.) Thus, to
clarify applicability of subpart DDDDD, we are amending 40 CFR
63.7491(c) to exclude ``an electric utility steam generating unit
(including a unit covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da) or a Mercury
Budget unit covered by 40 CFR part 60, subpart HHHH.''
C. Fuel Analysis Requirement
We received a comment raising the question of whether we intended
for units which combust only a single fuel type to be required to
conduct fuel analysis when demonstrating compliance through performance
(stack) testing, as required by 40 CFR 63.7510(a). Our intent, as
stated in the September 2004 preamble to the final rule (69 FR 55225),
was that ``Units burning only a single fuel type (not including startup
fuels) do not need to determine, by fuel analysis, the fuel inlet
operating limit when conducting performance tests.'' In this final
action, we are adding similar language to 40 CFR 63.7510(a) to make
this understanding explicit in the text of our regulations. This change
was not included among the corrections we proposed in October 2005.
However, since this revision is based on language in the September 2004
preamble that has not given rise to any objection, we are adopting this
correction as part of this final rule.
[[Page 70654]]
D. Consolidated Testing and Emissions Averaging
The current language for the emissions averaging option in 40 CFR
63.7522 requires testing of each individual boiler in the averaging
group. Our intent with regard to the emissions averaging option in the
final rule was to provide an equivalent, more flexible, and less costly
compliance alternative. Since testing emissions from a common stack for
a group of boilers would be equivalent to the average emissions
calculated from emissions tests on each individual boiler, we are
amending subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 to allow testing of emissions
at the common stack under specified situations described below.
Consolidated testing of the common stack must be conducted when
each boiler is operated under representative testing conditions as
specified in the National Stack Testing Guidance issued by EPA on
September 30, 2005.
The amendments to 40 CFR 63.7522 adopted in this action are
substantially the same as what we proposed in October 2005. However,
based on public comments, we have modified some of the proposed
language and added some conforming amendments to other provisions of
subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 that relate to emissions averaging.
1. Compliance With Consolidating Testing
GE sought clarification on the consolidated testing procedures
necessary to demonstrate compliance in two different common stack
situations. In one situation, the exhaust from three existing large
solid fuel boilers are combined and vented through a common emissions
control system to a common stack. In the other situation, the exhaust
from two existing large solid fuel boilers are each individually
controlled prior to being vented to a common stack. In the revised
regulatory provisions set forth below, we are amending this final rule
to clarify how to demonstrate compliance under these two circumstances.
The final amendments address these two circumstances in the same way
that we proposed in October 2005.
In the first situation, a group of units that share a common
control device before venting to a common stack is treated as a single
source. In such situations, an operator can demonstrate compliance by
testing at the common stack without using the emissions averaging
equations in 40 CFR 63.7522 for each unit or submitting an
implementation plan. We are also adding language in section 63.7522(k)
of subpart DDDDD to clarify that the common stack situations described
above may be treated as a separate single emission point for purpose of
including these units in an emissions averaging group with other
existing large solid fuel boilers located at the facility.
We are adopting a slightly different approach for averaging
emissions from groups of affected units that vent to a common stack
through more than one emissions control system. These distinct
approaches are necessary to ensure that a source with more than one
emissions control system demonstrates continuous compliance at each
emissions control system. Where a group of boilers vents to a common
stack through more than one emission control system, continuous
compliance will be demonstrated according to the methods specified in
Table 8 to subpart DDDDD.
2. Monitoring of Common Stack
In this final action, we are adding an amendment to section 63.7541
of subpart DDDDD to address the COMS requirements for facilities
participating in the emissions averaging option. If each of the boilers
venting to a common stack has an applicable opacity operating limit, a
dry control system, and no units from other subcategories or
nonaffected units vent to the common stack, then a single COMS may be
located in the common stack instead of each duct to the common stack.
Alternately, if any of the boilers venting to the common stack does not
have an applicable opacity operating limit, but each of the existing
solid fuel units is equipped with a dry control system and no
nonaffected units vent to the common stack, a COMS monitor may be
located at the common stack instead of each duct to the common stack.
We amended 40 CFR 63.7541 to allow for a COMS monitor at the common
stack in this situation.
We discussed this approach in the October 2005 proposal (70 FR at
62268), but did not include any regulatory language in that action.
Commenters requested that we make explicit in our regulations that this
practice is permissible when sources elect to demonstrate compliance
using emissions averaging.
3. Emissions Averaging When Units in Different Subcategories Are Ducted
to Common Stack
In response to the GE petition for reconsideration, we proposed
amendments that would limit the emissions averaging provision to common
stack scenarios that contained solely units in the existing large solid
fuel subcategory. In this final action, we have decided to expand the
emissions averaging provision to allow units in the existing large
solid fuel subcategory to conduct performance tests at the end of a
common stack configuration with affected units from other subcategories
and nonaffected units under specific circumstances.
As a result of public comments submitted, we now recognize that
affected units from several subcategories (e.g., both gas and solid
fuel fired units) and nonaffected units are sometimes ducted to a
common stack. To address these situations, we are adopting a revised
amendment to the emissions averaging provision in 40 CFR 63.7522 that
allows consolidated testing of units in the existing large solid fuel
subcategory as long as the commonly vented units from other
subcategories and nonaffected units follow specific procedures during
the consolidated compliance test.
The emissions averaging provision is only applicable to units in
the existing large solid fuel subcategory. EPA did not find cause to
promulgate emissions limitations for many of the subcategories of
existing units. However, new units are subject to different emissions
limitations than existing units. These differing emissions limitations
make it difficult to allow consolidated testing of emissions from
sources in different subcategories under an emissions averaging
approach.
However, to eliminate this obstacle to consolidated testing when
existing large solid fuel units may share a duct or stack with units in
other subcategories or nonaffected units covered by another NESHAP
category, we are requiring facilities to shut down, or vent to a
different stack, affected boilers or process heaters in other
subcategories or nonaffected units in other categories prior to
performing a consolidated compliance test for the units in the large
solid fuel subcategory. Testing of a common stack in these situations
will measure the average emissions from the averaging group of existing
large solid fuel units, just as if each boiler in the large solid fuel
subcategory was tested individually and their emissions averaged. By
requiring the affected units from other subcategories or nonaffected
units to be shut off, or vented to a different stack, during testing,
the consolidated testing for certain stack configurations allows the
group of existing large solid fuel boilers to demonstrate initial
compliance at a lower cost.
Allowing the testing of a common stack under these conditions also
[[Page 70655]]
satisfies the criteria discussed in the September 2004 preamble to the
final rule (69 FR 55239) that EPA has generally imposed on the scope
and nature of emissions averaging programs. These criteria include: (1)
No averaging between different types of pollutants, (2) no averaging
between sources that are not part of the same major source, (3) no
averaging between sources within the same major source that are not
subject to the same NESHAP, and (4) no averaging between existing
sources and new sources. This final rule fully satisfies each of these
criteria.
The provision promulgated in this action only allows averaging of
emissions from existing units in the large solid fuel subcategory.
Emissions from units that are shut down or vented elsewhere during
compliance testing are not included in the average or co-mingled with
the emissions that are the focus of the test.
4. Continuous Compliance With the Emissions Averaging Provision
As a result of this expansion to the emissions averaging provision,
we had to establish continuous compliance procedures with this
provision to address common stack scenarios with units from multiple
subcategories or nonaffected units. In this final rule, we are also
amending 40 CFR 63.7541 to establish continuous compliance procedures
under the emissions averaging provision for common stack configurations
with different subcategories or nonaffected units. These amendments
require affected units to maintain 3-hour average parametric limits on
all the control devices for existing large solid fuel boilers venting
to a common stack. The parametric limits will ensure that the control
devices continue to operate under the conditions established during the
initial compliance test. These amendments establish continuous
compliance requirements for common stack configurations that were not
previously eligible to comply with the emissions averaging provision.
5. Monthly Compliance Demonstrations and Calculations
This final rule includes several additional amendments to
subsections (d), (e), and (f) of section 63.7522 that were recommended
in public comments. These amendments clarify that, under the emissions
averaging provision, continuous compliance must be demonstrated at the
end of every month (12 times per year). In addition, we have made
several corrections to the formulas used in emissions averaging
calculations. Additional details on these amendments are reflected in
the Response-to-Comments document that is available in Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2002-0058.
E. Definitions
In the October 2005 notice, we proposed to add or amend several
definitions in subpart DDDDD of 40 CFR part 63 to clarify our intent
and correct inadvertent omissions. In this final action, we are
adopting modified versions of several definitions based on public
comments. In addition, we are promulgating three additional definitions
to provide additional clarity requested by commenters.
We have added a definition for ``common stack'' similar to the
definition provided in 40 CFR part 72 at the request of some of the
commenters.
We have also added a definition for ``voluntary consensus
standards'' since this term is used to define ``equivalent'' as this
term is used in Table 6 of subpart DDDDD. We are adopting the same
definition of ``equivalent'' that we proposed, but we have added
language to Table 6 of subpart DDDDD to clarify that equivalent methods
may be used in lieu of the prescribed methods in Table 6 at the
discretion of the source owner or operator.
The definitions for both ``firetube boiler'' and ``watertube
boiler'' are amended to include criteria for classifying boilers
designed with both firetubes and watertubes, commonly referred to as
``hybrid boilers.'' Based on comments, we are adopting a modified
definition of firetube boiler to include boilers that utilize a
containment shell that encloses firetubes and allows the water to
vaporize and steam to separate. We have also modified the definition of
watertube boilers that we proposed to include boilers that incorporate
a steam drum with tubes connected to the drum to separate steam from
water.
We have amended the proposed definitions for both small gaseous and
small liquid fuel subcategories to clarify that these subcategories
include all firetube boilers, regardless of size, as well as other
types of boilers with a rated capacity of 10 million MMBtu per hour
heat input or less. We have amended the definitions to clarify our
intent that firetube boilers greater than 10 MMBtu per hour heat input
are still part of the small subcategory.
We have also added an amendment to the definitions for both the
small and large gaseous fuel subcategories to allow for units in these
two categories to periodically test using liquid fuel as long as the
tests do not exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar
year. This allowance was adopted because of the need to test an
emergency fuel in order to ensure that the unit could effectively
operate using the emergency fuel during a period of gas curtailment.
California regulations stipulate a 48-hour limit on this periodic
testing on emergency fuels, and we have adopted their precedent.
We are also amending the definition of ``fuel type'' in response to
a comment we received. Questions have been raised on whether we
intended for units that may burn evidence seized in drug raids as a
public service for a variety of enforcement agencies to test these
materials as part of the compliance testing requirements. It is
reportedly exceedingly difficult to arrange for a test of these
materials given the security that surrounds them. Also, facilities have
been approached about burning retired U.S. flags. Burning is the
preferred mode of disposal of retired U.S. flags. Since we did not
intend to include contraband materials, or U.S. flags, as a fuel when a
facility is conducting performance tests or fuel analyses to
demonstrate compliance, we are amending the definition of ``fuel type''
to include the statement ``Contraband, prohibited goods, or retired
U.S. flags, burned at the request of a government agency, are not
considered a fuel type for the purpose of this subpart.'' We do not
classify facilities designed and operated for energy recovery as
commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators if they combust
small amounts of others materials. (See 70 FR 55568, 55575; September
22, 2005.)
A revision to the definition of ``fuel type'' was not included
among the corrections that we proposed. However, since this amendment
addresses a de minimis situation that supports law enforcement efforts
and respect for a national symbol, we are adopting this correction in
this final action.
IV. Responses to Significant Comments
We received 17 public comment letters on the proposed rule and
notice of reconsideration. Complete summaries of all the comments and
EPA responses are found in the Response-to-Comments document (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section). The most significant comments are
summarized below.
A. Scope of Emissions Averaging Provision
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA expand the common
stack testing option to include common stack configurations with groups
of boilers from different subcategories or units not subject to the
boiler NESHAP. Two of these commenters added that in
[[Page 70656]]
many situations the layout of boilers and ductwork to common stacks
make it impractical to perform emissions testing on each individual
boiler venting to the common stack due to a lack of appropriate
sampling location and duct configurations. One commenter (OAR-2002-
0058-0722) added that in order to test each individual unit a source
would have to build a temporary testing system of stacks and ductwork
to demonstrate initial compliance, and this temporary system would
still not be suitable for demonstrating continuous compliance. The
commenter contended that without expanding the testing to groups of
boilers from different source categories venting to a common stack, the
NESHAP would require a source to reconfigure its ductwork and build new
stacks.
One commenter approved of EPA's amendments to allow common stack
performance testing under the circumstances provided in the proposed
amendments.
Response: We agree in part with the commenters' recommendation and
have modified the rule to allow performance testing to be conducted at
the end of stacks that receive emissions from boilers from different
subcategories and nonaffected units in other NESHAP categories, as long
as the emissions from these other units are stopped or redirected as
described further below. However, we do not consider it appropriate to
allow averaging of emissions from units in other subcategories or
nonaffected units or consolidated testing of co-mingled emissions from
units in other subcategories or nonaffected units. EPA has generally
imposed limits on emissions averaging programs, which includes no
averaging between emission units that are not part of the same source
category. Since these units are generally subject to different
emissions limitations, averaging or co-mingling of emissions would not
provide a reliable demonstration of compliance with the applicable
emissions limitation for those sources in a particular category or
subcategory.
Nevertheless, we do consider it appropriate under specified
conditions described further below to allow testing at the end of the
common stack for existing large solid fuel units at facilities with
stack configurations that contain units from other subcategories (e.g.,
gas-fired units) and nonaffected units. EPA has established a clear and
enforceable method for demonstrating initial, annual, and continuous
compliance when units of different subcategories and nonaffected units
vent to a common stack. Further, extending the common stack testing
option to these stack configurations will not cause adverse effects to
human health or the environment. The total emissions out of the stack
will not increase as a result of this extension and compliance with the
emission limits of each unit feeding the common stack will be
determined by parametric limits on the control device through which the
units vent to the common stack.
Facilities that have common stack configurations consisting of
units subject to the boiler NESHAP and units from other source
categories also have the prerogative to petition for alternate testing
and compliance plans on a site-specific basis.
B. Compliance Testing and Monitoring
Comment: Several commenters suggested an alternative methodology to
meet the requirements of initial and annual compliance tests for units
opting to use the emissions averaging provision. These commenters
suggested that during the initial and subsequent annual compliance
tests, all boilers venting to the common stack that are not subject to
emission limits be turned off (i.e. gas-fired units or nonaffected
units). These commenters suggested that shutting down units of
different subcategories or nonaffected units would satisfy the
requirements of the boiler NESHAP. One commenter added that these
methods will still provide reliable test data to the regulatory
authorities to demonstrate compliance. One commenter added that since
many large solid fuel units share a stack with gas-fired units, the
NESHAP, as proposed in the notice of reconsideration, would require
individual performance testing on each large solid fuel boiler, which
would greatly increase the costs of testing compliance and increase
system downtime.
Response: We agree that turning off units from other subcategories
(e.g., gas-fired units) and nonaffected units during the testing
period, satisfies the requirements of the boiler NESHAP emissions
averaging provision. Allowing the testing of a common stack, when units
from other subcategories and nonaffected units are turned off satisfies
the criteria that EPA has generally imposed on the scope and nature of
emissions averaging programs. These criteria include: (1) No averaging
between different types of pollutants, (2) no averaging between sources
that are not part of the same major source, (3) no averaging between
sources within the same major source that are not subject to the same
NESHAP, and (4) no averaging between existing sources and new sources.
The provision promulgated in this action only allows averaging of
emissions from existing units in the large solid fuel subcategory.
Emissions from units that are shut down or vented elsewhere during
compliance testing are not included in the average or co-mingled with
the emissions that are the focus of the test.
Facilities that have common stack configurations, with units
subject to the boiler NESHAP and nonaffected units, have the
prerogative to petition for alternate testing and compliance plans on a
site-specific basis. The type of testing discussed here is one example
of an alternate testing and compliance plan that a facility would
petition for on a site-specific basis. We have adjusted the rule
language in 40 CFR 63.7522(h) to allow for shutting down units from
other subcategories and nonaffected units to demonstrate compliance
with the emissions averaging provision when units belonging to
different subcategories of the boiler NESHAP and nonaffected units vent
to the same stack as large solid fuel boilers.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that parametric limits be set on
all control devices used on solid fuel fired units and that these
parametric limits be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions averaging provision of the boiler NESHAP. These commenters
added that parametric limits on the control devices for existing large
solid-fuel boilers would ensure that these control devices operated
under the conditions established during the initial compliance test and
provide a defensible way to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emissions averaging provision of the boiler NESHAP. One commenter
suggested that parametric compliance limits be set on any control
device in the group of units sharing a common stack, regardless of
whether the conditions are wet or dry in the stack.
Response: We agree that setting parametric limits on all control
devices for existing large solid-fuel boilers venting to a common stack
is an acceptable method for demonstrating continuous compliance with
the emissions averaging provision of the boiler NESHAP. These
parametric limits are a clear and enforceable method of demonstrating
compliance. We have adjusted the rule language in 40 CFR 63.7541 to
allow for a facility to demonstrate continuous compliance under the
emissions averaging provision by using parametric limits on the control
devices of existing large solid fuel units venting to a common stack.
[[Page 70657]]
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA allow for a COMS at a
common stack even when a source does not make use of the emissions
averaging provision and opts to do performance testing on individual
boilers. The commenter added that this regulatory flexibility will
reduce compliance costs and maintain adequate levels of emissions
monitoring.
Two commenters requested that EPA clarify 40 CFR 63.7525(b) to
allow a COMS to be located at the common stack, regardless of whether
the group of boilers sharing a common stack consists of boilers of
different subcategories. One commenter suggested that it did not
believe EPA intended to require a COMS on individual units sharing a
common stack. The commenter added that it is impractical, due to a lack
of space or adequate location, to install individual COMS monitors in
the duct work for groups of boilers that share a common stack. The
commenter cites 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, Performance Specification
(PS)-1, to reference that in many cases this requirement has been
satisfied by placing a COMS on the common stack.
One commenter suggested that language be added to 40 CFR
63.7522(j)(3) to indicate that a COMS monitor is required at a common
stack, even when each individual boiler unit has a separate opacity
operating limit. The commenter is concerned that without additional
language, 40 CFR 63.7522(j)(3) could be misinterpreted to require a
COMS in each duct leading to the common stack. The commenter noted that
although there is discussion of this intent in the preamble (70 FR
62268), the commenter suggested that there be language added to this
effect in the actual rule text. The commenter also suggested that
language be added to 40 CFR 63.7541(a)(2) to clarify that a single COMS
monitor for a group of units that each vents through a unique control
system and then to a common stack. The commenter suggested this
language is necessary so that this group of units is treated similarly
to a group of units venting through a common control device to a common
stack with respect to the requirements of a COMS.
Response: We agree with these suggestions as long as all units
feeding the common stack are in the existing large solid fuel
subcategory. The emissions averaging provision was intended to be an
option for affected facilities to allow for increased regulatory
flexibility. We reiterate here that if a source chooses to do
performance testing for HAP emissions at each individual unit, the
source is still eligible to locate a COMS monitor on the common stack
as long as all the units feeding the common stack are in the existing
large solid fuel subcategory.
We disagree with the commenter's suggestion to allow for a COMS
monitor to be located at the common stack when groups of boilers from
different affected subcategories or nonaffected units are feeding the
stack. We also disagree with allowing a single COMS unit to be placed
on the common stack if the units feeding the common stack belong to
other source categories.
C. Definitions
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA modify the
definitions of firetube and watertube boilers to account for hybrid
boilers. The commenters suggested that EPA make the distinction between
the two units based on the location of the containment or steam
separation system in the unit in order to clarify the basic difference
between fire tube and water tube units. Three commenters added that
water tube units incorporate a steam drum, which provides for steam
separation from water, whereas a fire tube unit uses a containment
shell, inside which the water vaporizes and steam separates. One
commenter suggested that a water tube boiler be defined as a boiler
that has a water tube type of steam drum, with no additional heat
exchange surface in the form of fire tubes running through the drum.
The commenter suggested that a fire tube boiler be defined as any
hybrid type of boiler where steam separation takes place in a vessel
that also contains fire tubes that provide the major heat input to the
water. The commenter added that this approach will simplify
interpretation of this definition. Two commenters requested that EPA
adopt the following addition to the definition of firetube boiler to
account for hybrid boilers: ``All owners or operators of hybrid boilers
that have been registered/certified by the National Board of Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Inspectors and/or the State as firetube boilers as
indicated by ``Form P-2'' (Manufacturers Data Report For All Types of
Boilers Except Watertube and Electric As Required by the Provisions of
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Rules, Section
I) shall be considered small units for the purpose of this subpart.''
Response: We agree with the distinction between a firetube and
watertube boiler using the criteria of whether a unit has a containment
shell or a steam drum. We consider the ASME Code Rules and Forms to be
an acceptable and established method for classifying vessel types. We
have modified the proposed definitions of watertube and firetube
boilers to allow a facility to classify its hybrid vessel by one of two
methods: (1) Determining whether or not the unit has a steam drum or
containment system, or (2) the indication of firetube boiler on the
ASME P-2 form.
Comment: Two commenters requested that the definition for large
gaseous fuel units be changed to allow for units to combust oil during
periods of natural gas supply emergencies or natural gas curtailment.
The commenters added that if the unit combusts oil for periodic testing
under these circumstances, this unit should not be automatically
categorized in the large oil fuel subcategory.
Response: We agree that it is necessary for gas-fired units that
are designed for combusting oil during periods of natural gas
curtailment to periodically tune the unit for proper oil firing and
combustion to be prepared for such periods. Based on review of current
regulations in California regarding equipment testing of non-gaseous
fuel, periodic testing of oil is allowed for a combined total of 48
hours during any calendar year. This periodic testing for up to 48
hours, which is in addition to periods of combusting oil during natural
gas curtailment, will not cause a boiler to be categorized in the oil
fuel subcategories. We have amended the definitions to clarify that gas
boilers that fire liquid fuel for the purposes of periodic testing are
not included in the liquid fuel subcategories.
D. Testing Methods
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA list some specific
examples of equivalent methods in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. The
commenters specifically added that since the promulgation of the
NESHAP, EPA has received and approved many site-specific requests for
the use ``equivalent'' methods. The commenters requested that any
approved methods be added to Table 6.
Another commenter disagreed with deleting test method ASTM D3684-01
from Table 6 to subpart DDDDD. The commenter added that this test
method should be retained in Table 6, and the final revised table
should indicate that this test method is applicable for determining
both arsenic and selenium.
Two commenters requested that the latest revisions of following
test methods be listed in Table 6 to subpart DDDDD: ASTM D3684 for coal
mercury analysis, ASTM D3683 for coal total selected metals, and ASTM
D4208 for coal chlorine content. These
[[Page 70658]]
commenters added that these methods have a long history as established
standard methods. By adding these methods to Table 6, sources or
testing companies would not have to petition for approval of these
established methods. These commenters also added that many coal
chlorine levels exceed the upper bound (1136 parts per million) on the
concentration range for repeatability and reproducibility on ASTM
D6721, and that ASTM D4208 is a more appropriate testing method on
coals with high chlorine concentrations.
Two commenters recommended that EPA provide authority to the States
for approving equivalent testing methods that have already been
accepted by EPA on multiple similar site-specific requests. The
commenters added that providing authority to the States is an efficient
way to determine approved equivalent testing methods.
Response: With this action, we have clarified the definition of
equivalent method. Equivalent methods are voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) or EPA methods which are applicable to the fuel type or target
analyte being measured. Although we disagree with adding a complete
list of equivalent methods already approved to the final rule itself,
we have provided a list of these previously approved methods in the
preamble to the final rule. We have also added a definition of VCS to
the final rule to help clarify what equivalent methods are. Equivalent
methods may be used in lieu of the prescribed methods in Table 6 to
subpart DDDDD at the discretion of the source owner or operator.
Therefore, publishing a list of or adding to the list of approved
methods is not necessary. Similarly, State or EPA approval of
equivalent methods is not necessary.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it is likely to
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final action imposes no new information collection
requirements on the industry. Because there is no additional burden on
the industry as a result of the final rule amendments, the information
collection request has not been revised. OMB has previously approved
the information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0551 (EPA
No. 2028.02). A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request
(ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
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.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
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 impact of this final rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
country, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and that is
not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, we certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA has
determined that none of the small entities will experience a
significant impact because the final rule imposes no additional
regulatory requirements on owners or operators of affected sources.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private section, 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, for least-burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives 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's regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
[[Page 70659]]
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this 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. Although the original NESHAP had annualized costs
estimated to range from $690 to $860 million (depending on the number
of facilities eventually demonstrating eligibility for the health-based
compliance alternatives), this final rule does not add new requirements
that would increase this cost. Thus, this final rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA
has determined that this final rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply
to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, this
final rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (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'' are 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.''
This 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. The requirements discussed in
this action will not supersede State regulations that are more
stringent. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (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.''
This 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 the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No affected facilities
are owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (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, 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.
This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because EPA
does not have reason to feel that the environmental health or safety
risks associated with the emissions addressed by this action presents a
disproportionate risk to children. This demonstration is based on the
fact that this action does not affect the emissions limits contained in
this final rule.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This final rule is not a ``significant energy actions'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
action is not likely to have any adverse energy effect.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the final rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwi
