issue-1995-12-19•Federal Register final rules — 1995-12-19
Federal Register final rules — 1995-12-19
issue-1995-12-19Federal Register final rules — 1995-12-19Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 95-30797 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Best Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial Products (Including Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65240-65243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30797]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MA44-1-7167a; A-1-FRL-5314-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Best Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial
Products (Including Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision
establishes and requires VOC emission standards for architectural and
industrial maintenance coatings and 10 categories of consumer products.
The intended effect of this action is to approve a revision to
Massachusetts SIP which reduces VOC emissions from architectural and
industrial maintenance coatings and 10 categories of consumer products.
This action is being taken in accordance with Section 183(e) of the
Clean Air Act.
DATES: This action is effective February 20, 1996, unless notice is
received by January 18, 1996, that adverse or critical comments will be
submitted. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be
published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Acting Director,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 10th floor, Boston,
MA; Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., (LE-131), Washington, D.C.
20460; and the Division of Air Quality Control, Department of
Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
02108.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Cosgrove, (617) 565-3246.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to
(1) study emissions of VOCs from consumer and commercial products; (2)
list those categories of products that account for at least 80 percent
of the total VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products in
areas of the country that fail to meet the national air quality
standards set for ground-level ozone; and (3) divide the list into four
groups, and regulate one group every two years using best available
controls, as defined by the Clean Air Act.
In March 1995, EPA issued a report to Congress, Study of Volatile
Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer and Commercial Products, which
evaluated the contribution of VOC emissions from consumer and
commercial products on ground-level ozone levels, and established
criteria and a schedule for regulating these products under the Clean
Air Act. Architectural coatings and consumer and commercial products
(24 categories of household products) are in the first
[[Page 65241]]
group of products to be regulated by EPA no later than March 1997.
Massachusetts decided to adopt rules for consumer and commercial
products in advance of a federal rule, to get credit for reductions
from this category in its 15% plan.
Massachusetts was required to submit, by November 15, 1993, a SIP
revision for Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) for 15% reduction of
VOCs as necessary for moderate areas and above. The entire state of
Massachusetts is classified as serious nonattainment area, therefore
the 15% plan must cover the entire state.
On May 6, 1994, the Massachusetts DEP submitted to EPA for comment,
proposed amendments to the SIP to address the RFP requirements
including new air pollution control regulations entitled ``Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer and Commercial Products'' and
``Control of VOCs from Architectural and Industrial Maintenance
Coating.'' Massachusetts held a public hearings on May 6, 10, 11, and
13, 1994 throughout the State for its proposed architectural and
industrial maintenance coatings rule. Public hearings were held June 22
and 24 for Massachusetts' proposed consumer and commercial products
rule. EPA submitted written comments regarding the proposed regulations
on May 19, 1994 and June 22, 1994. Subsequent to the public hearings,
Massachusetts decided to consolidate the architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings rule and the consumer and commercial products rule
into a single rule. The consolidated rule was effective on November 18,
1994, upon publication in the Massachusetts Register.
On January 9, 1995, the Commonwealth Massachusetts submitted a
formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP
revision amends 310 CMR 7.00 by adding Section 310 CMR 7.25, Best
Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial Products .
The adopted regulation 310 CMR 7.25, ``Best Available Controls for
Consumer and Commercial Products,'' regulates the VOC content of
consumer and commercial products. The regulation applies to any person
who sells, offers for sale, or manufactures for sale within
Massachusetts consumer and commercial products and architectural or
industrial maintenance coatings specified in 310 CMR 7.25.
Summary of SIP Revision
``Consumer product'' is defined by Massachusetts as: ``A chemically
formulated product used by household, commercial, and institutional
consumers including, but not limited to, detergents; cleaning
compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products;
home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; and
automotive specialty products. This definition of ``consumer product''
excludes architectural coatings.''
``Architectural Coating'' is defined as: ``Any coating which is
applied to stationary structures or their appurtenances, mobile homes,
pavements, or curbs.''
The consumer products portion of the rule, section 7.25(12),
contains limits that specify the maximum allowed VOC content (%VOC by
weight) for the following categories of commercial and consumer
products: air fresheners, cleaners, engine degreasers, floor polishes/
waxes, furniture maintenance products, general purpose cleaners, glass
cleaners, hair spray, insecticides, laundry prewash, antiperspirants
and deodorants. Manufacturers must comply with these limits by October
1, 1995.
The Architectural and Industrial Maintenance portion of the rule,
section 7.25(11), requires manufacturers to comply with VOC limits
(grams VOC/liter or lbs VOC/gal) by October 1, 1995, for the following
categories of Architectural coatings: flat coatings, non-flat coatings,
anti-graffiti coating, bituminous pavement sealer, bond breakers,
calcimine recoating product, concrete curing compound, concrete/masonry
conditioner, dry fog coating, fire retardant coating, form release
compound, graphic arts coating (sign paint), high temperature
industrial maintenance coating, industrial maintenance coating,
lacquer, magnesite cement coating, mastic texture coating, metallic
pigmented coating, multicolor coating, pretreatment wash primer,
primer/sealer/undercoat, quick dry primer/sealer/undercoat, roof
coating, sanding sealer, shellac, stains, opaque, swimming pool
coating, tile-like glaze, traffic coating, varnish, waterproofing
sealer, wood preservative, and any other architectural coating not
otherwise specified.
EPA's evaluation is detailed in a memorandum, entitled ``Technical
Support Document for Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulation ,
310 CMR 7.25, Best Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial
Products (including Architectural and Industrial Maintenance
Coatings).''
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective February 20, 1996 unless adverse or critical comments are
received by January 18, 1996.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by simultaneously publishing a subsequent
notice that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this action serving as a proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be
effective on February 20, 1996.
Final Action
EPA is approving Section 310 CMR 7.25, Best Available Controls for
Consumer and Commercial Products.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Madates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under Section 183(e) of the
Clean Air Act. These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments
to perform certain actions and also require the private sector to
perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules being approved by
this action will impose no new requirements; such sources are already
subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action. EPA has also determined that
[[Page 65242]]
this final action does not include a mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993,
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. A future notice will inform the general public of
these tables.
The OMB has exempted this action from review under Executive Order
12866.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2).
On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
waived Table 2 and Table 3 revisions (54 FR 2222) from the requirements
of Section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period of two years. EPA
has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and Table 3
SIP revisions. OMB has agreed to continue the temporary waiver until
such time as it rules on EPA's request.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 20, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusett was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: September 21, 1995.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart W--Massachusetts
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(108) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(108) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on January 9,
1995.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection dated January 9, 1995 submitting a revision to the
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
(B) The following portions of the Rules Governing the Control of
Air Pollution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts effective on
November 18, 1994: 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations Section 7.25 U
Best Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial Products.
3. In Sec. 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by adding a new entry
for 310 CMR 7.25 in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachussetts State regulations.
* * * * *
Table 52.1167.--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
[See Notes at end of table]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Comments/
State citation Title/subject submitted Date approved by EPA Federal Register citation 52.1120(c) unapproved
by State sections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.25........... Best available 11/18/94 December 19, 1995........... 60 FR 65242..................... 108 Includes
controls for architectural &
consumer and industrial
commercial maintenance
products. coatings.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65243]]
[FR Doc. 95-30797 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30790 Asbestos NESHAP Clarification Regarding Analysis of Multi-Layered Systems
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65243-65244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30790]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
[FRL-5399-3]
Asbestos NESHAP Clarification Regarding Analysis of Multi-Layered
Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of clarification to the final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides clarification regarding the
requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for asbestos. It is intended to address common
questions regarding situations where one or more layers which may
contain asbestos are present, and supplement the January 5, 1994
Federal Register clarification (59 FR 542).
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For copies, contact Mr. Larry Tessier
at 1-800-368-5888 or at (703) 305-5938. For questions about the
clarification, please contact Mr. Tom Ripp at (202) 564-7003.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 20, 1990, the Federal Register
published the Environmental Protection Agency's (the Agency's) revision
of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Asbestos (asbestos NESHAP), 40 CFR part 61, subpart M, 55 FR 48406. The
asbestos NESHAP applies to any facility as defined in 40 CFR 61.141.
The Agency has learned that some of the regulated community have
further questions concerning the analysis of samples which may contain
multiple layers, any or all of which may be asbestos containing
materials (ACM) under the asbestos NESHAP. Because these questions are
frequently asked, EPA is making this clarification.
I. Clarification of Multi-Layered ACM System
At the time the original asbestos NESHAP was promulgated (April 6,
1973), a standardized reference method had not been developed to
determine quantitatively the content of asbestos in a material. The
definition for ``friable asbestos material'' was added in the October
14, 1975 asbestos NESHAP, but still did not specify an analytical
method. EPA's unwritten policy based on the definition of ``friable
asbestos material'' was that each layer in a multi-layered system was
to be analyzed as a separate material (no averaging or dilution by
combining layers of asbestos-containing material with nonasbestos-
containing material was allowed). The November 20, 1990 revision of the
asbestos NESHAP finally specified that Appendix A, Subpart F, 40 CFR
Part 763, Section 1, Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM method) be used to
determine whether or not a material contains greater that one percent
asbestos. Section 1.7.2.1 of the PLM method states that ``* * * When
discrete strata are identified, each is treated as a separate material
so that fibers are first quantified in that layer only, and then the
results for each layer are combined to yield an estimate of asbestos
content for the whole sample.'' This language has led to considerable
confusion as to how to analyze multi-layered samples for NESHAP
purposes. EPA published a clarification regarding the analysis of
multi-layered systems in the January 5, 1994 Federal Register. This
clarification basically stated that all multi-layered systems except
for wall systems where joint compound was used only at the joints and
nail holes must be analyzed as separate materials, and results were not
allowed to be combined to determine average asbestos content
(continuing the policy that dilution of an asbestos-containing material
is not allowed).
The Environmental Protection Agency has received many questions
about analyzing multi-layered systems for asbestos content to determine
the applicability of the asbestos NESHAP since its January 5, 1994
clarification (59 FR 542). This clarification reiterates EPA's position
for analysis of multi-layered samples for applicability of the asbestos
NESHAP.
This clarification applies to all multi-layered systems (other than
wallboard systems where asbestos-containing joint compound is used only
at the joints and nail holes) under both the NESHAP and the Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) (40 CFR Part 763) programs.
Any source sending multi-layered bulk samples to a lab may request
that certain sample(s) or portions of sample(s) be composited for
analysis first (to potentially reduce time and cost of sampling).
(Note: A composite sample does not mean that multiple samples
may be composited into one sample. It means that multiple layers of
one core sample may be composited for analysis.)
If this alternative method is chosen, then the following
requirements must be followed. To analyze the composite sample, the
procedures in EPA/600-93/116 ``Method for the Determination of Asbestos
in Bulk Building Materials'' (``the Method''), specifically Section 2.3
``Gravimetry,'' must be used. Additionally, for the composite sample,
the recommendations in Appendix D of the method must be followed. This
procedure is consistent with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR Part
763, Appendix E to Subpart E (formerly Appendix A to Subpart F), which
is referenced in the asbestos NESHAP (40 CFR 61.141 and 61.146), but
the procedures in the new method are more clear. EPA finds that this
method is an acceptable alternative method of compliance under section
61.13(h)(1)(ii). EPA intends to amend the asbestos NESHAP in the near
future to refer specifically to these procedures. When using the
gravimetric procedures, the result may be recorded as percent asbestos
by weight.
If the result of the composite analysis shows that the average
content for the multi-layered system (across the layers) is greater
than one percent, then the multi-layered system must be treated as
asbestos-containing and analysis by layers is not necessary. If the
result of the composite sample analysis indicates that the multi-
layered system as a whole contains asbestos in the amount of one
percent or less, but greater than none detected, then analysis by
layers is required to ensure that no layer in the system contains
greater than one percent asbestos. If any layer contains greater than
one percent asbestos, that layer must be treated as asbestos-
containing. This will have the effect of requiring all layers in a
multi-layered system to be treated as asbestos-containing if the layers
can not be separated without disturbing the asbestos-containing layer.
Once any one layer is shown to have greater than one percent asbestos,
further analysis of the other layers is not necessary if all the layers
will be treated as asbestos-containing. If several of the layers will
be removed without removing the entire system, then all layers that
will be disturbed must be analyzed. This includes the material being
removed; however, the material being removed may be analyzed using the
composite analysis procedures. Please note that the same requirements
to perform point counting as stated in our May 8, 1991 clarification
(see enclosed memorandum) still apply for any layers being analyzed
individually.
[[Page 65244]]
Dated: September 28, 1995.
Richard Biondi,
Acting Director, Manufacturing, Energy, and Transportation Division,
Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 95-30790 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30757 Radio Broadcasting Services; Wickenburg and Lake Havasu City, AZ
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30757]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 90-468; RM-7380]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Wickenburg and Lake Havasu City, AZ
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This documents grants a Petition for Reconsideration filed by
Interstate Broadcasting System of Arizona, Inc., licensee of Station
KRDS-FM, Channel 287C2, Wickenburg, Arizona, directed to the Report and
Order in this proceeding which had upgraded the Station KRDS-FM license
to specify operation on Channel 287C1. See 56 FR 43884, September 5,
1991. With this action, the proceeding is terminated.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
776-1654.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 90- 468, adopted December
6, 1995, and released December 12, 1995. The full text of this decision
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 246, or 2100 M Street,
NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154,
as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arizona, is
amended by removing Channel 287C1 and adding Channel 287C2 at
Wickenburg.
Federal Communications Commission.
Douglas W. Webbink,
Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-30757 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30683 Withholding on Distributions of Indian Gaming Profits to Tribal Members
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65237-65238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30683]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 31
[TD 8634]
RIN 1545-AT12
Withholding on Distributions of Indian Gaming Profits to Tribal
Members
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations relating to the
income tax withholding requirement on distributions of profits from
certain gaming activities made to members of Indian tribes under
section 3402(r) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Those affected by
the regulations are persons, including Indian tribes, making payments
to members of Indian tribes from net revenues of certain gaming
activities conducted or licensed by the tribes. Also affected are
members of Indian tribes who receive the payments.
DATES: These regulations are effective December 19, 1995.
For date of applicability, see Sec. 31.3402(r)-1(b).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Wilson (202) 622-6040 (not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document contains amendments to the Employment Tax Regulations
(26 CFR part 31) under section 3402(r). Section 3402(r) was added by
section 701 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which approved the
trade agreements resulting from the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade
negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) and the Statement of Administrative Action to implement
the Agreements.
On December 22, 1994, temporary regulations (TD 8574) relating to
withholding on distributions of Indian gaming profits to tribal members
under section 3402(r) were published in the Federal Register (59 FR
65939). A notice of proposed rulemaking (EE-60-94) cross-referencing
the temporary regulations was published in the Federal Register for the
same day (59 FR 65982). No public hearing was requested or held.
Also on December 22, 1994, the IRS mailed a copy of Notice 1026,
providing withholding tables for use in 1995, to Indian tribes and
gaming establishments listed with the National Indian Gaming
Commission. For 1996 and subsequent years, tables will be printed in a
supplement to Circular E.
The IRS received written comments responding to the notice of
proposed rulemaking. After consideration of the comments, the
regulations proposed by EE-60-94 are adopted as revised by this
Treasury decision, and the corresponding temporary regulations are
withdrawn. The regulations contain no substantive changes.
Explanation of Provisions
1. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Net revenue from certain gaming
activities conducted or licensed by an Indian tribe may be used to make
taxable distributions to members of the Indian tribe. The tribe must
notify its members of the tax liability at the time the payments are
made. 25 U.S.C. 2710 (b)(3) and (d)(1).
2. Prior law. Prior to the addition of section 3402(r) in 1994, a
tribe was not required to withhold on these distributions to tribal
members except to the extent backup withholding rules applied under
section 3406.
3. Code section 3402(r). Section 3402(r) generally requires that,
for payments made after December 31, 1994, persons, including Indian
tribes, making payments to members of Indian tribes from the net
revenues of certain gaming activities conducted or licensed by the
tribes deduct and withhold income taxes from those payments. Section
3402(r) provides that the withholding amount be calculated assuming
that the taxpayer is single and has one exemption.
4. Legislative history. The legislative history of section 3402(r)
indicates that the goal of the new withholding requirement was to make
it easier for tribal members who receive gaming distributions to meet
their tax responsibilities:
Distributions of net revenues from gaming activity by an Indian
tribe may result in significant tax liability to the tribe's
members. Establishing withholding on such payments will more closely
match estimated tax payments to ultimate tax liability. For some
tribal members, this change may eliminate the need to make quarterly
[[Page 65238]]
estimated tax payments. For others, it will reduce the likelihood that
they will face penalties for underpayment of tax at the time of tax
filing.
H.R. Rep. No. 826, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., pt.1, at 170-171 (1994).
5. Proposed regulations. The proposed regulations implement the
withholding method prescribed by section 3402(r). They also permit
additional withholding by agreement between the tribal member and the
tribe.
6. Comments and final regulations. The IRS received only two
written comments on the proposed regulations. After consideration of
both comments, the proposed regulations are adopted with no substantive
changes.
No comments were received from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that
section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5)
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to
these regulations, and, therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code,
the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was
submitted to the Small Business Administration for comment on its
impact on small business.
Drafting Information. The principal author of the regulations is
Rebecca Wilson, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Employee
Benefits and Exempt Organizations), IRS. However, other personnel
from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their
development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 31
Employment taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Railroad
retirement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security,
Unemployment compensation.
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 31 is amended as follows:
PART 31--EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 31 is amended by
removing the entry for section 31.3402(r)-1T and adding an entry in
numerical order to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 31.3402(r)-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 3402(p) and
(r), * * *
Par. 2. Section 31.3402(r)-1 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 31.3402(r)-1 Withholding on distributions of Indian gaming
profits to tribal members.
(a) (1) General rule. Section 3402(r)(1) requires every person,
including an Indian tribe, making a payment to a member of an Indian
tribe from the net revenues of any class II or class III gaming
activity, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 2703, conducted or licensed by such
tribe to deduct and withhold from such payment a tax in an amount equal
to such payment's proportionate share of the annualized tax, as that
term is defined in section 3402(r)(3).
(2) Withholding tables. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of
this section, the amount of a payment's proportionate share of the
annualized tax shall be determined under the applicable table provided
by the Commissioner.
(3) Annualized amount of payment. Section 3402(r)(5) provides that
payments shall be placed on an annualized basis under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary. A payment may be placed on an annualized
basis by multiplying the amount of the payment by the total number of
payments to be made in a calendar year. For example, a monthly payment
may be annualized by multiplying the amount of the payment by 12.
Similarly, a quarterly payment may be annualized by multiplying the
amount of the payment by 4.
(4) Alternate withholding procedures--(i) In general. Any procedure
for determining the amount to be deducted and withheld under section
3402(r) may be used, provided that the amount of tax deducted and
withheld is substantially the same as it would be using the tables
provided by the Commissioner under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. At
the election of an Indian tribe, the amount to be deducted and withheld
under section 3402(r) shall be determined in accordance with this
alternate procedure.
(ii) Method of election. It is sufficient for purposes of making an
election under this paragraph (a)(4) that an Indian tribe evidence the
election in any reasonable way, including use of a particular method.
Thus, no written election is required.
(5) Additional withholding permitted. Consistent with the
provisions of section 3402(p), a tribal member and a tribe may enter
into an agreement to provide for the deduction and withholding of
additional amounts from payments in order to satisfy the anticipated
tax liability of the tribal member. The agreement may be made in a
manner similar to that described in Sec. 31.3402(p)-1 (with respect to
voluntary withholding agreements between employees and employers).
(b) Effective date. This section applies to payments made after
December 31, 1994.
Sec. 31.3402(r)-1T [Removed]
Par. 3. Section 31.3402(r)-1T is removed.
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Approved: November 28, 1995.
Leslie Samuels,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 95-30683 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30677 National Driver Register and Criminal Record Review in Issuing Licenses, Certificates of Registry, or Merchant Mariner's Documents
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65478-65490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30677]
[[Page 65477]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
46 CFR Parts 10 and 12
National Driver Registration and Criminal Record Review in Issuing
Licenses, Certificates of Registry, or Merchant Mariner's Documents;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 65478]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 10 and 12
[CGD 91-212]
RIN 2115-AD93
National Driver Register and Criminal Record Review in Issuing
Licenses, Certificates of Registry, or Merchant Mariner's Documents
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In furtherance of the President's Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative, this rulemaking establishes Coast Guard regulations which
implement the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) that
permit the Coast Guard to review information from the National Driver
Register on an applicant prior to issuing or renewing a license,
certificate of registry (COR), or merchant mariner's document (MMD).
This rulemaking also addresses OPA 90 provisions that permit the Coast
Guard to review the criminal records of applicants prior to issuing a
license, COR or MMD. In addition, it establishes regulations that
permit criminal record checks of any individual applying for a raise in
grade of a license or COR; a renewal of a license, COR, or MMD; or an
endorsement of an MMD with a new expiration date. This rulemaking
provides the Coast Guard an opportunity to identify an applicant who
has been convicted of certain motor vehicle offenses or convicted of
certain serious crimes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this
preamble are available for inspection or copying at the office of the
Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 91-212),
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., room 3406,
Washington, DC 20593-0001 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-
1477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Stewart Walker, Marine Personnel Qualifications (G-MCO-1), (202)
267-0475. This telephone records messages on a 24-hour basis.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Drafting Information. The principal persons involved in drafting
this document are Mr. James W. Cratty, Project Manager, Project
Development Branch (G-MES-2) and Ms. Jacqueline Sullivan, Project
Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel (G-LRA).
Regulatory History
On March 13, 1995, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``National Driver Register and Criminal
Record Review in Issuing Licenses, Certificates of Registry, or
Merchant Mariner's Documents'' in the Federal Register (60 FR 13570).
The Coast Guard received 29 letters commenting on the proposal. Several
comments requested a public hearing. The Coast Guard determined that a
public hearing is unnecessary and that all of the issues contained in
the comments are addressed in this rulemaking.
Background and Purpose
1. General
Under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 7101, the Coast Guard issues
licenses to qualified officers such as masters, mates, pilots,
engineers, operators, and radio officers. It also issues certificates
of registry (CORs) to qualified staff officers such as pursers, medical
doctors, and professional nurses.
The Coast Guard issues merchant mariner's documents (MMDs), with
certain exceptions described in 46 U.S.C. 8701, to vessel personnel for
service aboard U.S. flag merchant vessels of more than 100 gross tons
which operate on waters other than rivers and lakes. The MMD serves as
a certificate of identification and qualification, authorizing work in
different capacities on deck and in the engine and steward's
departments. The MMD, with an appropriate endorsement, is also the
credential issued to qualified tankermen. Many merchant mariners who
hold licenses and CORs also hold MMDs.
All licensing and documentation transactions are processed at Coast
Guard Regional Examination Centers (RECs) exercising the authority of
the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMIs).
Sections 4101(a) and (b) and section 4102(e) of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 101-380) amend 46 U.S.C. 7101, 7302, and
7109, respectively, to authorize the Coast Guard to conduct criminal
record checks of any individual applying for a license, COR, or MMD;
for a raise in grade of a license or COR; for a renewal of a license,
COR, or MMD; or for an endorsement of an MMD with a new expiration
date. Some individuals with criminal records may be unsuitable
candidates for a license, COR, or MMD because they present a risk to
passengers, fellow crew members, or the safe operation of a vessel.
As amended, 46 U.S.C. 7101 and 7302 prohibit the Coast Guard from
issuing a license, COR, or MMD to an applicant unless the applicant
makes available to the Coast Guard any information contained in the
National Driver Register (NDR) related to an offense committed by the
applicant that is described in sections 205(a)(3)(A) or (B) of the
National Driver Register Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. Chapter 303). These
offenses are: operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of, or
while impaired by, alcohol or a controlled substance; and any traffic
violation(s) arising in connection with a fatal traffic accident,
reckless driving, or racing on the highways.
Although an individual's motor vehicle record may not be directly
related to his or her maritime career, a record of alcohol or drug-
related motor vehicle offenses, or other motor vehicle offenses as
specified in sections 205(a)(3)(A) and (B) of the NDR Act of 1982,
indicates that the individual may have a disregard for his or her own
safety or the safety of others and therefore may not be suitable for
maritime employment.
Section 4105(b) of OPA 90 amended 46 U.S.C. Chapter 75, to require
the Coast Guard to make the information received from the NDR available
to the applicant for review and written comment before the Coast Guard
uses this information as a basis for denying, suspending, revoking, or
taking other action on that individual's license, COR, or MMD.
Before Congress enacted OPA 90, an individual who applied for a
license, COR, or MMD was not required to provide the Coast Guard with
NDR information. However, an applicant for a license or COR was asked
on the application form if he or she had been convicted of any
offense(s) other than minor traffic violation(s). Information provided
by the applicant regarding conviction(s) for other than minor traffic
violation(s), including Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Driving
While Intoxicated (DWI), was used to evaluate the applicant's
qualifications to hold a license or COR.
2. Criminal Record Review Under Current Regulations
a. Licenses and CORs. The current regulations at 46 CFR 10.205,
``Requirements for original licenses and certificates of registry,''
require the applicant to have his or her fingerprints taken during the
application process. The Coast Guard uses the fingerprints to determine
if a criminal record exists for
[[Page 65479]]
the individual. Section 10.205(f)(2) authorizes the OCMI to reject an
application if the criminal record check, or other information,
indicates that an applicant's habits of life and character are such
that the applicant cannot be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities associated with a license or COR. The OCMI notifes the
applicant of the reason(s) for disapproval.
Section 10.205(f)(4) indicates that, in the event a license or COR
has been issued before adverse information on the applicant's character
or habits of life, or information indicating that the application is
false or incomplete, is obtained the OCMI may notify the individual
that the license or COR is null and void and direct the holder to
return the license or certificate to the OCMI.
Under 46 CFR 10.209, ``Requirements for renewal of a license,''
each renewal applicant must use a standard form furnished by the Coast
Guard. The form asks the applicant to identify any criminal convictions
or history of drug use. Under Sec. 10.209(b), an applicant may not have
his or her license renewed if facts which would render a renewal
improper have come to the Coast Guard's attention.
The Coast Guard currently performs a license renewal criminal
record check when an individual has identified a conviction or drug use
on the application. In addition, the Coast Guard performs a criminal
record check on applicants for renewal whom it suspects have criminal
records or a history of drug use. The Conference Report on OPA 90 (H.R.
Conf. Rep. No. 101-653) recognizes these existing Coast Guard
procedures.
Related regulations in 46 CFR part 10, ``Requirements for raise of
grade of a license'' (Sec. 10.207) and ``Issuance of duplicate of
license or certificate of registry'' (Sec. 10.219), currently do not
address criminal record checks.
b. Merchant Mariner's Documents. The regulations contained at 46
CFR part 12, ``Certification of Seamen,'' do not address fingerprinting
an applicant for an MMD specifically for a criminal record check;
however, under existing practice, the Coast Guard fingerprints an
individual applying for his or her original MMD and performs a criminal
record check on the applicant. The Coast Guard does not fingerprint and
check the criminal record of a person obtaining a duplicate MMD or an
additional MMD endorsement.
Under law existing prior to OPA 90, the Coast Guard was not
required to consider the character and habits of life of an applicant
for an MMD as it was for licenses and CORs. The only specific statutory
provision concerning dangerous drug use or criminal convictions
authorized the Coast Guard to deny an MMD to an applicant convicted for
a dangerous drug offense within 10 years prior to the date of
application (46 U.S.C. 7503). The Coast Guard has also been authorized
to deny an MMD to a person who has ever used or has ever been addicted
to a dangerous drug unless the applicant provides satisfactory proof
that he or she is suitable for employment in the merchant marine.
3. National Driver Register Access
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the
Department of Transportation (DOT) maintains the NDR, which is a
nationwide repository of information on drivers. The NDR is part of a
voluntary cooperative program that assists State motor vehicle driver
licensing agencies and certain Federal agencies in gaining access to
data on an individual's motor vehicle driving record. The NDR Act of
1982 prohibits the use of information in the NDR that is more than 3
years old, unless that information relates to a current suspension or
revocation of the individual's license to operate a motor vehicle.
At present, access to the NDR must be made through participating
States. DOT has proposed legislation to amend section 307 of the NDR
Act of 1982 to allow direct NDR access by Federal agencies. If the
proposed legislation is enacted, the Coast Guard intends to adopt the
direct access methodology.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
Twenty-nine letters were received in response to the NPRM. The
Coast Guard has considered all of the comments and, in some instances,
revised the proposed regulations as appropriate. The comments have been
grouped by issue and are discussed as follows.
1. Coast Guard Authority
Seven comments suggested the regulations are intrusive into the
lives of mariners and questioned the Coast Guard's authority to review
information from the National Driver Register and review criminal
record information in issuing licenses, CORs, or MMDs. OPA 90
authorized the Coast Guard to conduct criminal record checks and review
information from the National Driver Register on any individual
applying for a license, COR, or MMD; for a renewal of a license, COR,
or MMD; or for an endorsement of an MMD with a new expiration date. The
Coast Guard is implementing these provisions to exclude from holding
merchant mariner credentials those individuals whose history indicates
a lack of concern regarding the safety of themselves, others, the
marine environment, and the safe operation of a vessel.
Two comments suggested that since the term ``renewal'' is not
mentioned in 46 U.S.C. 7302(c) and (d), the review of criminal records
and the National Driver Register only applies to original document
applications. The Coast Guard disagrees. The review of criminal records
and the NDR is relevant to all documents applied for under 46 U.S.C.
7302, including renewal of MMDs or endorsement of MMDs with a new
expiration date. Similarly, in 46 U.S.C. 7101(h), individuals applying
for a license or COR include all individuals applying for a raise in
grade or renewal.
One comment stated that the Coast Guard, rather than the employer,
is in the best position to monitor and provide assurance of
rehabilitation for individuals with an alcohol or drug problem. The
Coast Guard lacks the legal authority and resources to continuously
monitor individuals with drug or alcohol problems. Checks can be made
at a point convenient to the mariner and the Coast Guard, for example,
renewal or raise in grade. Monitoring individuals is within the scope
of employer responsibilities because the employer is more likely to
evaluate an employee's work and conduct on a regular basis.
Two comments stated that the regulations are unnecessary because
the merchant marine is self-regulating. The comments submitted that
mariners who pose a threat to the safe operation of a ship, personnel,
or passengers will be excluded by other mariners or employers. The
Coast Guard determined that the mariners' or employer's ability to
self-regulate cannot attain the scope of the Coast Guard's ability to
regulate merchant marine personnel. Also, the Coast Guard has been
delegated the authority of general superintendence over the merchant
marine and merchant marine personnel in the interest of marine safety
and seamen's welfare. The Coast Guard, as the agency authorized to
issue merchant mariner's credentials, must ensure, to the best of its
ability, that individuals who receive these credentials do not present
a possible threat to personnel, passengers, or the safe operation of a
vessel.
2. Relationship Between Convictions and Job Performance
Eight comments suggested that there is little or no relationship
between a person's criminal or driving offenses on
[[Page 65480]]
land and their maritime related job performance. The Coast Guard
disagrees. An individual's record of alcohol or drug-related, or other
motor vehicle offenses as specified in sections 205(a)(3) (A) and (B)
of the NDR Act of 1982, indicates that the individual may have a
disregard for his or her own safety or the safety of others and
therefore may not be suitable for maritime employment. The Conference
Report on OPA 90 (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-653) explains that alcohol
impairment may have played a role in the Exxon Valdez incident. Motor
vehicle offenses involving the abuse of alcohol and drugs may evince
possible unsafe vessel operations. Congressional intent, as presented
in the Conference Report on OPA 90, was to provide an additional tool
in an effort to promote a drug- and alcohol-free workplace in maritime
industry. Also, the Coast Guard concluded that applicants who have been
convicted of violent criminal offenses or serious property offenses may
pose a threat to ship personnel, passengers, the marine environment,
and the safe operation of the ship. The Coast Guard may increase ship
safety by denying seafarer's documents to individuals who demonstrate a
lack of concern for safety through a record of criminal or motor
vehicle offenses.
3. The National Driver Register
Two comments indicated that the Coast Guard is only able to review
information from the National Driver Register three years prior to the
check. The comments noted that the information from an NDR file check
would not cover the full 5 years between document renewal. The NDR Act
prohibits the Coast Guard from gaining access to information more than
three years old, unless the information is about a revocation or
suspension of driving privileges still in effect (49 U.S.C.
30305(b)(5)).
One comment suggested that NDR checks may be a federalism issue,
since most driving offenses are state offenses. The Coast Guard is
among the authorized agencies granted access to the NDR. The NDR Act
establishes guidelines for obtaining information from the NDR for the
purposes of evaluating individuals who hold, or are applying for a
license or certificate of registry under 46 U.S.C. 7101, or a merchant
mariner's document under 46 U.S.C. 7302 (49 U.S.C. 30305(b)(5)).
One comment requested clarification of ``racing on the highways.''
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, racing
on the highways means formal or informal contest racing on a public
highway.
Another comment stated that if the NDR is a voluntary system, the
Coast Guard may not be able to check information from non-participating
states. Since all of the states and the District of Columbia are
participants in the NDR program, the Coast Guard can conduct checks on
any individual in the United States with motor vehicle driving record
information.
One comment noted a decision rendered on April 5, 1995, by the
United States Circuit Court for the Fourth Circuit in a case entitled,
American Trucking Associations Inc. v. Federal Highway Administration.
In that case, the court's decision was based on the fact that off-duty
alcohol use is generally not relevant criteria in determining
eligibility for employment. In its decision, the court was interpreting
the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-
143), which applied to the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, and the
Federal Transit Administration, but not to the Coast Guard. This case
involved preemployment testing requirements for alcohol use. This final
rule is under separate authority and does not involve the preemployment
testing of individuals for alcohol.
The Coast Guard is providing information to applicants who wish to
conduct an NDR file check for their personal use. The NDR allows
individuals to request a file check in accordance with the Federal
Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579). New sections 10.201(i)(4) and
12.02-4(d)(4) describe the procedures to follow to receive the results
of a NDR file check. The information in a personal NDR file check is
intended for use by the applicant only, and may not be used in the
licensing and certification process.
The Coast Guard concluded the term ``NDR listed convictions''
needed further clarification. The final rule adds a definition for
``NDR listed convictions'' to its list of definitions in Sec. 10.103
and Sec. 12.01-6. The new definition will reflect the convictions in 49
U.S.C. 30304(a)(3)(A) and (B) which are authorized by the National
Highway Safety Transportation Administration to be used by the Coast
Guard to evaluate applicants for merchant mariner's documents.
In the NPRM, Sec. 10.201(b) and Sec. 12.02-4(a) did not discuss
individuals with NDR convictions due to the addiction or abuse of
alcohol. The Coast Guard added a statement to Sec. 10.201(b) and
Sec. 12.02-4(a) to ensure individuals with such NDR convictions furnish
satisfactory evidence of suitability for service in the merchant
mariner to be eligible for a license, COR, or a merchant mariner's
document.
4. Past Offenses
Several comments recommended implementing these regulations in a
prospective manner, where the Coast Guard would only consider offenses
occurring after the effective date of the regulations. These comments
stated that, in the past, many mariners have not challenged false
charges due to their work schedule and the threat of loss of
employment. The regulations allow mariners ample opportunity to provide
the OCMI with evidence of suitability for service in the merchant
marine, and to explain the circumstances of an offense. If the
application is denied, an appeal process and reconsideration are
available.
A few comments suggested that mariners would have altered their
behavior if they had prior knowledge of the effect of off-duty conduct
on employment. In the past, the Coast Guard has been conducting
criminal record review for original applications for licenses and CORs,
and under existing practice conducts a criminal record review of
original applicants for MMDs. Applicants are already accountable for
past behavior when they apply for their original documents. The Coast
Guard is expanding its requirements to include spot-checks of
individuals applying for a raise in grade of a license, COR, or MMD; an
endorsement on a MMD with a new expiration date; and a renewal of a
license, COR, or MMD. The NDR checks were created to identify vessel
personnel with motor vehicle offenses related to the use of alcohol and
drugs or the unsafe operation of a motor vehicle. The Coast Guard
determined that the certification and licensing of persons involved
with the abuse of these substances or the unsafe operation of a motor
vehicle may lead to unsafe vessel operations.
Some comments discussed the Coast Guard's consideration of charges
against mariners that have been stricken from the record through
remediation or compensation and how this defeats public policy and
discourages individuals from participating in remediation or
compensation. As stated in the definition of ``conviction'' provided in
this final rule, a later expungement of the conviction will not negate
a conviction unless it is proved to the OCMI that the expungement is
based upon a showing that the court's earlier conviction was in error.
The Coast Guard concluded that consideration of all convictions is
[[Page 65481]]
important to determining the character and habits of life of applicants
for merchant mariner's credentials.
Four comments stated that denial of credentials on the grounds of a
past offense is punishing an individual twice for the same offense, and
for this reason the final rule is unconstitutional. The Coast Guard
disagrees. Merchant mariner's credentials are certificates of
qualification that authorize individuals to perform certain duties on a
vessel. In the interest of marine safety, the Coast Guard examines
applicants to determine their suitability to hold merchant marine
credentials. Past offenses are a good indicator of whether a person is
a possible threat to the safety of ship operation, personnel, the
marine environment, or passengers. Basing the decision of whether to
grant a merchant mariner's credentials on the factors articulated in
this rule is not punishment of those whose applications are denied. It
is instead a reasonable way to protect life and property at sea.
The Coast Guard added the statement, ``Applicants must provide
written disclosure for all prior convictions at the time of
application,'' to Sec. 10.201(h) and Sec. 12.02-4(c). The sentence will
provide consistency between this final rule and the current application
procedures.
5. Assessment Periods
Five comments addressed the minimum and maximum assessment periods
for which the OCMI will consider a conviction in the evaluation of an
applicant for merchant mariner's credentials.
One comment expressed that the assessment periods appeared to be
arbitrary. The Coast Guard has reviewed three reports from the U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). These
reports are entitled, ``Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983'',
Recidivism of Felons on Probation, 1988-1989,'' and ``Recidivism of
Young Parolees''. The reports revealed high rates of rearrest for
released prisoners, felons on probation, and young parolees. Based on a
sample of State prisoners released in 1983, 62.5 percent were
rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years. Using a
sample of felons sentenced to probation in 1986, a report found that 62
percent of the probationers either had a disciplinary hearing for
violating a condition of their probation or were arrested for another
felony within three years. Another BJS study, based on a sample of
young parolees between the ages of 17 and 22, found that 69 percent of
young parolees were rearrested for a serious crime within 6 years of
their release from prison. One of the reports found that of the
prisoners in the study, those with a prior arrest for a violent offense
had a greater likelihood of rearrest than other released prisoners.
Therefore, the categories of violent crimes in Tables 10.201(h) and
12.02-4(c) have longer assessment periods. The Coast Guard determined
that the assessment periods, as published in the NPRM, are a sufficient
guideline for the OCMI to consider the convictions of applicants. The
assessment periods take into account both recidivism of the categories
of crimes and the consequences of their occurrence.
Several comments suggested reducing the length of the assessment
periods and including supervised parole or probation as part of the
assessment periods. The Coast Guard established the assessment periods
as guidelines for the OCMI when evaluating an applicant with criminal
convictions. The assessment periods do not prevent an individual from
applying before the minimum assessment period has elapsed or between
minimum and maximum assessment periods.
A person who applies before the minimum time period has elapsed
must provide the OCMI with evidence of suitability for maritime
employment. This final rule provides a list of factors in
Sec. 10.201(j) and Sec. 12.02-4(e) for the OCMI to use as a guide in
considering an applicant before the minimum assessment period has
elapsed.
The applicant may also apply for merchant mariner's credentials
between the minimum and maximum assessment periods. During this period,
the Coast Guard will issue a license, COR, or MMD to the applicant
unless there are offsetting factors. Type of offsetting factors are
listed in Sec. 10.201(h)(5) and Sec. 12.02-4(c)(5).
After further review, the Coast Guard determined that the OCMI
would benefit from examining periods of supervised probation and parole
as part of the assessment periods. Periods of supervised probation and
parole, like periods of unsupervised probation and parole, allow
individuals to adjust to civilian life. Therefore, the OCMI may include
periods of probation and parole in the assessment periods with a letter
of recommendation from a parole or probation officer. The Coast Guard
also revised Sec. 10.201(h)(2) and Sec. 12.02-4(c)(2) to clarify when
the assessment period commences.
One comment objected to the evaluating factor in Secs. 10.201(j)
and 12.02-4(e) concerning membership in a rehabilitation group. The
comment noted that many of these groups are anonymous and information
on membership and attendance is usually confidential or nonexistent.
The Coast Guard will accept as proof of active membership a broad range
of items, such as a letter from a counselor, or the signature or stamp
of a secretary from the group an individual is attending.
6. Direct and Indirect Benefits
Three comments recommended supporting the benefit analysis in the
NPRM with statistical data. The Coast Guard stated in the NPRM that the
direct and societal benefits from this final rule are not quantifiable.
Historical data are insufficient to perform an analysis of benefits.
The Coast Guard concluded that even if maritime accidents are reduced
by a small percentage, savings will accrue to the maritime industry
through lower repair and medical costs and to the public through
environmental protection.
7. Additional Comments and Changes
Another comment suggested that the OCMI consider dangerous drug
offenses more than ten years prior to the application for a license,
COR, or MMD if there are subsequent dangerous drug offenses. The Coast
Guard determined that consideration of dangerous drug convictions
occurring ten years before application combined with subsequent
violations are helpful in establishing a behavior pattern. The Coast
Guard is amending Sec. 10.201(h)(2) and Sec. 12.02-4(c)(2) to include
dangerous drug convictions occurring more than 10 years prior to the
date of application if an individual has subsequent violations. Tables
10.201(h) and 12.02-4(c) were also amended to reflect the consideration
of dangerous drug offenses more than 10 years old if there are
subsequent dangerous drug offenses.
The Coast Guard determined that some NDR convictions could also be
criminal convictions. When deciding on an appropriate assessment
period, the OCMI should be able to use the guidelines found in the
criminal conviction table and the NDR conviction table. Therefore,
Sec. 10.201(h)(3) and Sec. 12.02-4(c)(3) were revised to add Table
10.201(i) and Table 12.02-4(d), respectively. Also, Sec. 10.201(i) and
Sec. 12.02-4(d) were revised to allow the OCMI to use criminal
conviction assessment period guidelines where appropriate.
The Coast Guard revised Tables 10.201(i) and 12.02-4(d) to clarify
the assessment period for 2 or more motor vehicle convictions. The
phrase ``which ever is longer'' was deleted from the assessment period
of applicants for merchant mariner's documents, licenses, and
certificates of registry with
[[Page 65482]]
2 or more motor vehicle convictions involving dangerous drugs or
alcohol.
The Coast Guard revised Sec. 10.201(j) and Sec. 12.02-4(e) to
include applicants who are users of, or addicted to dangerous drugs.
This revision was made to ensure consistency with Sec. 10.201(b) and
Sec. 12.02-4(e).
The other comments received were general in nature and supported
this Coast Guard rulemaking.
Regulatory Evaluation
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44
FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
A final Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory
policies and procedures of DOT has been prepared and is available in
the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
The Evaluation is summarized as follows.
1. Criminal Record Review
Coast Guard costs attributable to implementing the provisions
authorizing the criminal record review of applicants for licenses,
CORs, and MMDs in sections 4101(a) and 4102(e) of OPA 90 will be
incurred by the RECs and Coast Guard Headquarters. These costs are
associated with reviewing and processing the criminal record review
data through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The REC will
assume the primary responsibility for the final review of the criminal
record report received from the FBI.
Because current Coast Guard regulations and practices require all
applicants for the original issuance of licenses, CORs, or MMDs to
submit to criminal record reviews by the taking of fingerprints, these
costs are not newly incurred as a result of this rulemaking, and
therefore, are not included in this regulatory assessment. The costs
associated with the requirements for criminal record reviews apply only
to a raise in grade of a license or COR; an endorsement on an MMD with
a new expiration date; or renewal of a license, COR, or MMD. The Coast
Guard plans to spot-check the criminal records of individuals applying
for these merchant mariner credentials. For the purpose of estimating
costs, the Coast Guard has assumed that 1 of every 30 of these
applicants will be spot-checked.
Approximately 10,881 licenses are expected to be renewed each year.
An estimated 363 (10,881/30) spot criminal record checks will be
performed on these applicants.
Approximately 18,000 MMDs are expected to be renewed each year. An
estimated 600 (18,000/30) spot criminal record checks will be done on
these applicants.
Approximately 300 CORs are expected to be renewed each year. An
estimated 10 (300/30) spot criminal record checks will be performed on
these applicants.
Approximately 3,740 raises of grade for license and COR
endorsements are expected to be issued each year. An estimated 125
(3,740/30) spot criminal record checks will be performed on these
applicants.
Approximatley 4,025 supplemental MMD endorsements are issued each
year. An estimated 134 (4,025/30) spot criminal record checks will be
done on these applicants.
The total number of spot criminal record checks will amount to
approximately 1,232 (See Table I.).
Table I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of action No. applicants No. checked
------------------------------------------------------------------------
License Renewal................... 10,881 363
MMD Renewals...................... 18,000 600
COR Renewals...................... 300 10
Raise of grade (licenses) and
higher grade of COR.............. 3,740 125
Supplemental endorsements (MMDs).. 4,025 134
------------------
Total Number of Spot Criminal
Record Checks................ ................. 1,232
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It will cost the Coast Guard approximately $17 per criminal record
check to process the fingerprints through the FBI for an estimated
annual cost of $20,944.
Based on a sample survey of the REC's experience with criminal
records conducted by the Coast Guard in 1992, 8 percent of the
applicants are estimated to have records with the FBI. Of those with
records, it is estimated that 9 percent have records significant to the
application evaluation. Thus, only 0.72 percent of the applicants had
actionable convictions on their records. Therefore, of the reissue and
renewal applicants sampled, it is estimated that 99 will have records
with the FBI, and a total of 9 of the 1,232 applicants will have
records significant to the license evaluation. The Coast Guard
estimates that the costs for the 99 applicants with convictions to
furnish the necessary documents to exonerate themselves will be
minimal. Costs are expected to total approximately $19 per court record
for aggregate annual applicant costs of approximately $1,900.
The Coast Guard estimates that 75 percent, or 924, of the spot-
checked applicants for a raise in grade of a license or COR, a renewal
of a license or COR, or any MMD with a new expiration date will apply
by mail. For those 924 applicants, the estimated costs include the time
for the applicant to go to his or her local police department, submit
to fingerprinting, and return to his or her residence. The Coast Guard
estimates that this would take approximately 1.5 hrs. of the
applicant's time. Total respondent costs are estimated to be $22,700.
Twenty-five percent, or 308, of the spot-checked applicants are
expected to choose to go to an REC to conduct their renewal
transactions. For those 308 applicants, additional costs attributed to
the criminal record check will be insignificant.
2. National Driver Register Access
The Coast Guard estimates that it will conduct 57,435 NDR checks
annually for all individuals applying for the original issuance,
renewal, or endorsement with a new expiration date of merchant
mariner's credentials. The Coast Guard's costs for NDR checks involve
providing an interface with the NDR computer and clerical resources to
process record checks and notifications to applicants with NDR records.
These costs are estimated to be $120,000 annually, with the potential
for substantial reduction in cost if direct
[[Page 65483]]
access to the NDR data by the RECs is authorized. The RECs will write
letters to those applicants who have a probable identification (hit),
and review any associated court records as forwarded by applicants.
The Coast Guard estimates that initial computer hardware and
software and necessary connection to the NDR will be under $20,000. The
Coast Guard estimates the annual cost of a dedicated telephone line
from Coast Guard Headquarters to the Commonwealth of Virginia will be
$12,000 ($6/hr. x 8 hrs./day x 250 days/yr.). The initial annual Coast
Guard REC costs are estimated to be $58,354 (57,435 checks x 0.05 hr./
check x /$20/hr. for a clerical employee, plus $0.32/stamp x 2,872
hits). Initially, the Coast Guard will dedicate one full-time clerical
employee at Coast Guard Headquarters to forward data to the
Commonwealth of Virginia for processing. This cost is estimated to be
$40,000 ($20/hr. for a clerical employee x 8 hrs./day x 250 days).
Therefore, the initial annual Coast Guard cost associated with the
National Driver Register portion of the rule is estimated to total
approximately $111,400.
Annual respondent costs associated with NDR checks include the time
to fill out the NDR consent form which is considered to be
insignificant. In 50 percent of the 2,872 hits, or 1,436 cases,
applicants will have clean driving records and the OCMI will issue
their merchant mariner's credentials without further expense. For the
other 50 percent of applicants, or 1,436, costs are expected to be less
than $20.00 per court record submitted to the Coast Guard for estimated
annual respondent costs of $26,700.
The dollar value of direct and societal benefits flowing from spot-
checking applicants' criminal records and from reviewing applicants'
NDR records are not quantifiable but may be substantial.
The Coast Guard anticipates that, as a result of this rule, a
number of applicants will be identified, based upon their criminal
record or adverse driving record, whose conduct indicates that they
should not be trusted to safely perform shipboard duties. Those
applicants will not be granted merchant mariner credentials.
Direct benefits would include the potential for--
Fewer margin groundings and other accidents;
Reduced property loss;
Fewer releases of oil and hazardous materials into the
marine environment; and
Fewer injuries and reduced loss of life among merchant
mariners and other seagoing personnel.
The Coast Guard also anticipates several indirect benefits. Within
the community of applicants for merchant mariner's credentials,
knowledge of the Coast Guard's enhanced periodic record-checking
program may dissuade recidivism among merchant mariners with past
criminal, or serious traffic records. The program may also discourage
some convicted criminals, users of dangerous drugs, and serious traffic
offenders from seeking new credentials or renewals, and may also
encourage some applicants who are convicted criminals or users of
dangerous drugs to truthfully complete questions that address these
issues on the applications forms. Users of dangerous drugs in the U.S.
merchant marine may be encouraged to seek counseling and treatment
before incurring a criminal record or dangerous drug history with the
FBI. In addition, merchant mariners and prospective merchant mariners
may be encouraged to maintain a satisfactory standard of personal
conduct.
Historical data are insufficient to quantify benefits; however,
should this program manage to save even one line per year at $2.7
million per statistical life saved (which reflects a reasonable
estimate of people's presumed willingness-to-pay for safety), its
benefits would exceed its costs. If maritime accidents were reduced
even by a small percentage, savings would accrue to the maritime
industry through lower repair and medical costs and to the public
through environmental protection.
Small Entities
The costs to small entities will not be significant because the
costs of spot-checking applicants' criminal records and reviewing NDR
records will be borne by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard expects the
impact of this regulation on small entities to be minimal. Therefore,
the Coast Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This rule contains collection-of-information requirements. The
Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to the office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and OMB has approved them. The
section numbers are Secs. 10.201, 10.205, 10.207, 10.209, 10.805,
12.02-4, and 12.02-9. The corresponding OMB number is OMB Control
Number 2115-0514.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed these regulations under the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2 of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B, the regulations are categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. Paragraph 2.B.2 of that instruction
excludes administrative actions and procedural regulations and policies
which clearly do not have any environmental impact. A ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
46 CFR Part 10
Fees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen.
46 CFR Part 12
Fees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46
CFR parts 10 and 12 as follows:
PART 10--LICENSING OF MARITIME PERSONNEL
1. The authority citation for part 10 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110, 7101,
7106, 7107, 7109, 7302, 7505, 7701; 49 CFR 1.46. Section 10.107 also
issued under 44 U.S.C. 3507.
2. In Sec. 10.103, the definitions of ``conviction,'' ``National
Driver Register,'' and ``NDR listed convictions'' are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 10.103 Definitions of terms used in this part.
* * * * *
Conviction means the applicant for a license or certificate of
registry has been found guilty by judgment or plea by a court of record
of the United States, the District of Columbia or any State or
territory of the United States of a criminal felony or misdemeanor or
of an offense described in section 205 of the National Driver Register
Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 30304). Conviction of more than
[[Page 65484]]
one offense at a single trial will be considered to be multiple
convictions. If an applicant pleads guilty or no contest, is granted
deferred adjudication, or is required by the court to attend classes,
make contributions of time or money, receive treatment, submit to any
manner of probation or supervision, or forego appeal of a trial court's
conviction, then the applicant will be considered to have received a
conviction. A later expungement of the conviction will not negate a
conviction unless it is proved to the OCMI that the expungement is
based upon a showing that the court's earlier conviction was in error.
* * * * *
National Driver Register (NDR) means the nationwide repository of
information on drivers maintained by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration as provided under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 303.
NDR listed convictions means a conviction of any of the following
motor vehicle-related offenses or comparable offenses:
(a) Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of, or
impaired by, alcohol or a controlled substance; or
(b) A traffic violation arising in connection with a fatal traffic
accident, reckless driving, or racing on the highways.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 10.201, paragraph (b) is revised and paragraphs (h),
(i), and (j) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 10.201 Eligibility for licenses and certificates of registry,
general.
* * * * *
(b) No person who has been convicted by a court of record of a
violation of the dangerous drug laws of the United States, the District
of Columbia, or any State or territory of the United States is eligible
for a license or certificate of registry, except as provided by the
provisions of paragraph (h) of this section. No person who has ever
been the user of, or addicted to the use of, a dangerous drug, or has
ever been convicted of an offense described in section 205 of the
National Driver Register Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 30304) due to the
addiction or abuse of alcohol is eligible for a license or certificate
of registry unless he or she furnishes satisfactory evidence of
suitability for service in the merchant marine as provided in paragraph
(j) of this section.
* * * * *
(h) Criminal Record Review. The OCMI may review the criminal record
of an applicant for the issuance of a license or certificate of
registry issued as an original or reissued with a new expiration date.
An applicant conducting simultaneous merchant mariner's credential
transactions shall undergo only one criminal record check. Applicants
must provide written disclosure of all prior convictions at the time of
application.
(1) If the applicant is advised that a criminal record check is
required by the OCMI, applicants shall provide their fingerprints at
the time of application. The fingerprints will be used to determine
whether the applicant has a record of a criminal conviction. An
application may be disapproved if a criminal record review leads the
OCMI to determine that the applicant's habits of life and character are
such that the applicant cannot be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities of the license or certificate of registry for which
application is made. If an application is disapproved, the OCMI will
notify the applicant in writing of the reason(s) for disapproval and
advise the applicant that the reconsideration and appeal procedures in
Sec. 1.03 of this chapter apply. No examination will be given pending
decision on appeal.
(2) The OCMI may use Table 10.201(h) to evaluate applicants for
licenses and certificates of registry who have criminal convictions.
The table lists major categories of criminal activity and is not to be
construed as an all-inclusive list. If an applicant is convicted of an
offense that does not appear on the list, the OCMI will establish an
appropriate assessment period using the list as a guide. The assessment
period commences when an applicant is no longer incarcerated. The
applicant must establish proof of the time incarcerated and periods of
probation and parole to the satisfaction of the OCMI. The assessment
period may include supervised or unsupervised probation or parole. A
conviction for a drug offense more than 10 years prior to the date of
application will not alone be grounds for denial.
(3) When an applicant has convictions for more than one offense,
the minimum assessment period will be the longest minimum in Table
10.201(h) and Table 10.201(i) based upon the applicant's convictions;
the maximum assessment period will be the longest shown in Table
10.201(h) and Table 10.201(i) based upon the applicant's convictions.
(4) If a person with a criminal conviction applies for a license or
certificate of registry before the minimum assessment period shown in
Table 10.201(h), or established by the OCMI under paragraph (h)(2) of
this section has elapsed, then the applicant must provide evidence of
suitability for service in the merchant marine. Factors which are
evidence of suitability for service in the merchant marine are listed
in paragraph (j) of this section. The OCMI will consider the
applicant's evidence and may issue the license or certificate of
registry in less than the listed minimum assessment period if the OCMI
is satisfied that the applicant is suitable to hold the license or
certificate of registry for which he or she has applied. If an
applicant does not provide evidence of suitability for service in the
merchant marine, then the application will be considered incomplete and
will not be processed by the OCMI.
(5) If a person with a criminal conviction applies for a license or
certificate of registry during the time between the minimum and maximum
assessment periods shown in Table 10.201(h) or established by the OCMI
under paragraph (h)(2) of this section, the OCMI will consider the
conviction and, unless there are offsetting factors, may grant the
applicant the license or certificate of registry for which he or she
has applied. Offsetting factors include multiple convictions, failure
to comply with court orders (e.g., child support orders), previous
failures at rehabilitation or reform, inability to maintain steady
employment, or any connection between the crime and the safe operation
of a vessel. If the OCMI considers the applicant unsuitable for service
in the merchant marine at the time of application, the OCMI will
disapprove the application.
(6) If a person with a criminal conviction applies for a license or
certificate of registry after the maximum assessment period shown in
Table 10.201(h) or established by the OCMI under paragraph (h)(2) of
this section has elapsed, then the OCMI will grant the applicant the
license or certificate of registry for which he or she has applied
unless the OCMI has reason to believe the applicant is still unsuitable
for service in the merchant marine. If the OCMI disapproves an
application based upon a conviction older than the maximum assessment
period, the OCMI will notify the applicant in writing of the reason(s)
for the disapproval. The OCMI will also inform the applicant, in
writing, that the reconsideration and appeal procedures contained in
Sec. 1.03 of this chapter apply.
[[Page 65485]]
Table 10.201(h).--Guidelines for Evaluating Applicants for Licenses and Certificates of Registry Who Have
Criminal Convictions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment periods
Crime\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crimes Against Persons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homicide (intentional)..................... 7 years.......................... 20 years.
Homicide (unintentional)................... 5 years.......................... 10 years.
Assault (aggravated)....................... 5 years.......................... 10 years.
Assault (simple)........................... 1 year........................... 5 years.
Sexual Assault (rape, child molestation)... 5 years.......................... 10 years.
Robbery.................................... 5 years.......................... 10 years.
Other crimes against persons \2\...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crimes Against Property
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burglary................................... 3 years.......................... 10 years.
Larceny (embezzlement)..................... 3 years.......................... 5 years.
Other crimes against property \2\..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicular Crimes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conviction involving fatality.............. 1 year........................... 5 years.
Reckless Driving........................... 1 year........................... 2 years.
Racing on the Highways..................... 1 year........................... 2 years.
Other vehicular crimes \2\.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crimes Against Public Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Destruction of Property.................... 5 years.......................... 10 years.
Other crimes against public safety \2\.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crimes Involving National Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorism, Acts of Sabotage, Espionage and 7 years.......................... 20 years.
related offenses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal Violations of Environmental Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal violations of environmental laws 1 year........................... 10 years.
involving improper handling of pollutants
or hazardous materials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dangerous Drug Offenses 3, 4, 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trafficking (sale, distribution, transfer). 5 years.......................... 10 years.
Dangerous drugs (Use or possession)........ 1 year........................... 10 years.
Other dangerous drug convictions \6\.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Conviction of attempt, solicitation, aiding and abetting, accessory after the fact, and conspiracy to commit
the criminal conduct listed in this table carry the same minimum and maximum assessment periods provided in
the table.
\2\ Other crimes are to be reviewed by the OCMI to determine the minimum and maximum assessment periods
depending on the nature of the crime.
\3\ Applicable only to original applications for licenses or CORs. Any applicant who has ever been the user of,
or addicted to the use of, a dangerous drug shall meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
Note: Applicants for reissue of a license or COR with a new expiration date including a renewal or a raise of
grade, who have been convicted of a dangerous drug offense while holding a license or COR, may have their
applications withheld until appropriate action has been completed by the OCMI under the regulations which
appear in 46 CFR part 5 governing administrative actions against merchant mariner credentials.
\4\ The OCMI may consider dangerous drug convictions more than 10 years old only if there has been a dangerous
drug conviction within the past 10 years.
\5\ Applicants must demonstrate rehabilitation under paragraph (j) of this section, including applicants with
dangerous drug use convictions more than ten years old.
\6\ Other dangerous drug convictions are to be reviewed by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection on a case by
case basis to determine the appropriate assessment periods depending on the nature of the offense.
(i) National Driver Register. A license or certificate of registry
will not be issued as an original or reissued with a new expiration
date unless the applicant consents to a check of the NDR for offenses
described in section 205(a)(3) (A) or (B) of the NDR Act (i.e.,
operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of, or impaired
by, alcohol or a controlled substance; and any traffic violations
arising in connection with a fatal traffic accident, reckless driving,
or racing on the highways). The OCMI will not consider NDR listed civil
convictions that are more than 3 years old from the date of request
unless that information relates to the current suspension or revocation
of the applicant's license to operate a motor vehicle. The OCMI may
determine minimum and maximum
[[Page 65486]]
assessment periods for NDR listed criminal convictions using Table
10.201(h). An applicant conducting simultaneous merchant mariner's
credential transactions is subject to only one NDR check.
(1) Any application may be disapproved if information from the NDR
check leads the OCMI to determine that the applicant cannot be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of the license or
certificate of registry for which the application is made. If an
application is disapproved, the OCMI will notify the applicant in
writing of the reason(s) for disapproval and advise the application
that the appeal procedures in Sec. 1.03 of this chapter apply. No
examination will be given pending decision on appeal.
(2) Prior to disapproving an application because of information
received from the NDR, the OCMI will make the information available to
the applicant for review and written comment. The applicant may submit
records from the applicable State concerning driving record and
convictions to the Coast Guard Regional Examination Center (REC)
processing the application. The REC will hold an application with NDR
listed convictions pending the completion of the evaluation and
delivery by the individual of the underlying State records.
(3) The guidelines in Table 10.201(i) will be used by the OCMI in
evaluating applicants for licenses and certificates of registry who
have drug or alcohol related NDR listed convictions. Non-drug or
alcohol related NDR listed convictions will be evaluated by the OCMI
under Table 10.201(h) as applicable.
(4) An applicant may request an NDR file check for personal use in
accordance with the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579) by
contacting the NDR at the following address: National Driver Register,
Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
(i) Applicants should request Form NDR-PRV or provide the following
information on a notarized letter:
(A) Full legal name;
(B) Other names used;
(C) Complete mailing address;
(D) Driver license number;
(E) Eye color;
(F) Social security number;
(G) Height;
(H) Weight; and
(I) Sex.
(ii) The NDR will respond to every valid inquiry including requests
which produce no record(s) on the NDR file. Records can be made
available, within a reasonable amount of time after the request, for
personal inspection and copying during regular working hours at 7:45
a.m. to 4:15 p.m., each day except Federal holidays.
Table 10.201(i).--Guidelines for Evaluating Applicants for Licenses and Certificates of Registry Who Have NDR
Motor Vehicle Convictions Involving Dangerous Drugs or Alcohol \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of convictions Date of conviction Assessment period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ Less than 1 year........................... 1 year from date of conviction.
1................................ More than 1, less than 3 years............. Application will be processed,
unless suspension or revocation
\2\ is still in effect.
Applicant will be advised that
additional conviction(s) may
jeopardize merchant mariner
credentials.
1................................ More than 3 years old...................... Not necessary unless suspension
or revocation is still in
effect.
2 or more........................ Any less than 3 years old.................. 1 year since last conviction and
at least 3 years from 2nd most
recent conviction, unless
suspension or revocation is
still in effect.
2 or more........................ All more than 3 years old.................. Application will be processed
unless suspension or revocation
is still in effect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Any applicant who has ever been the user of, or addicted to the use of, a dangerous drug shall meet the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
\2\ Suspension or revocation, when referred to in Table 10.201(i), means a State suspension or revocation of a
motor vehicle operator's license.
(j) If an applicant has one or more alcohol or dangerous drug
related criminal or NDR listed convictions; if the applicant has ever
been the user of, or addicted to the use of, a dangerous drug; or if
the applicant applies before the minimum assessment period for his or
her conviction has elapsed; the OCMI may consider the following
factors, as applicable, in assessing the applicant's suitability to
hold a license or certificate of registry. This list is intended as a
guide for the OCMI. The OCMI may consider other factors which he or she
judges appropriate to a particular applicant, such as:
(1) Proof of completion of an accredited alcohol- or drug-abuse
rehabilitation program.
(2) Active membership in a rehabilitation or counseling group, such
as Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous.
(3) Character references from persons who can attest to the
applicant's sobriety, reliability, and suitability for employment in
the merchant marine including parole or probation officers.
(4) Steady employment.
(5) Successful completion of all conditions of parole or probation.
4. In Sec. 10.205, paragraph (f)(2) is revised and paragraph (k) is
added to read as follows:
Sec. 10.205 Requriements for original licensees and certificates of
registry.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) The OCMI may review the criminal record check of each applicant
for an original license or certificate of registry according to the
procedures set forth in Sec. 10.201(h).
* * * * *
(k) National Driver Register. Each applicant for an original
license or certificate of registry shall consent to an NDR check under
Sec. 10.201(i).
5. In Sec. 10.207, paragraphs (h) and (i) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 10.207 Requirements for raise in grade of license.
* * * * *
(h) Criminal Record Review. Each applicant for a raise of grade may
be required to submit to a criminal record check under Sec. 10.201(h).
(i) National Driver Register. Each applicant for a raise of grade
of a license shall consent to an NDR check under Sec. 10.201(i) if the
license is reissued with a new expiration date.
6. In Sec. 10.209, paragraphs (i) and (j) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 10.209 Requirements for the renewal of licenses or certificates
of registry.
* * * * *
(i) Each applicant for a renewal may be required to consent to a
criminal record check under Sec. 10.201(h).
(j) Each applicant for renewal of a license or certificate of
registry shall
[[Page 65487]]
consent to an NDR check under Sec. 10.201(i).
PART 12--CERTIFICATION OF SEAMEN
7. The authority citation for part 12 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103, 2110, 7301,
7302, 7503, 7505, 7701; 49 CFR 1.46.
8. In Sec. 12.01-6, the definitions of ``conviction,'' ``National
Driver Register,'' and ``NDR listed convictions'' are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 12.01-6 Definitions of terms used in this part.
* * * * *
Conviction means the applicant for a merchant mariner's document
has been found guilty by judgment or plea by a court of record of the
Untied States, the District of Columbia or any State or territory of
the United States of a criminal felony or misdemeanor or of an offense
described in section 205 of the National Driver Register Act of 1982
(49 U.S.C. 30304). If an applicant pleads guilty or no contest, is
granted deferred adjudication, or is required by the court to attend
classes, make contributions of time or money, receive treatment, submit
to any manner of probation or supervision, or forego appeal of a trial
court's conviction, then the applicant will be considered to have
received a conviction. A later expungement of the conviction will not
negate a conviction unless it is proved to the OCMI that the
expungement is based upon a showing that the court's earlier conviction
was in error.
* * * * *
National Driver Register (NDR) means the nationwide repository of
information on drivers maintained by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration as provided under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 303.
NDR listed convictions means a conviction of any of the following
motor vehicle-related offenses or comparable offenses:
(a) Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of, or
impaired by, alcohol or a controlled substance; or
(b) A traffic violation arising in connection with a fatal traffic
accident, reckless driving, or racing on the highways.
9. In Sec. 12.02-4, paragraph (a) is revised, paragraph (b) is
removed, existing paragraph (c) is redesignated as paragraph (b), and
new paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 12.02-4 Basis for denial of documents.
(a) No person who has been convicted by a court of record of a
violation of the dangerous drug laws of the United States, the District
of Columbia, or any State or territory of the United States is eligible
for an original merchant mariner's document, except as provided by the
provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. No person who has ever
been the user of, or addicted to the use of, a dangerous drug, or has
ever been convicted of an offense described in section 205 of the
National Driver Register Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 30304) due to the
addiction or abuse of alcohol is eligible for a merchant mariner's
document unless he or she furnishes satisfactory evidence of
suitability for service in the merchant marine as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) Criminal Record Review. The Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection, may require a criminal record check of an applicant for a
merchant mariner's document issued as an original or reissued with a
new expiration date. An applicant conducting simultaneous merchant
mariner's credential transactions shall undergo only one criminal
record check. Applicants must provide written disclosure of all prior
convictions at the time of application.
(1) If a criminal record check is required by the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection, applicants shall provide fingerprints at the
time of application. The fingerprints will be used to determine whether
the applicant has a record of a criminal conviction. An application may
be disapproved if the individual's criminal record leads the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection to determine that the applicant cannot be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of the merchant
mariner's document for which application is made. If an application is
disapproved, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection will notify the
applicant in writing of the reason(s) for disapproval and advise the
applicant that the appeal procedures in Sec. 1.03 of this chapter
apply. No examination will be given pending decision on appeal.
(2) The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection will use Table 12.02-
4(c) to evaluate applicants for merchant mariner's documents who have
criminal convictions. The table lists major categories of criminal
activity and is not to be construed as an all-inclusive list. If an
applicant is convicted of an offense that does not appear on the list,
the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection will establish an appropriate
assessment period using the list as a guide. The assessment period
commences when an applicant is no longer
FR Doc. 95-30677 National Driver Register and Criminal Record Review in Issuing Licenses, Certificates of Registry, or Merchant Mariner's Documents
incarcerated. The applicant
must establish proof of the time incarcerated and periods of probation
and parole to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection. The assessment period may include supervised or
unsupervised probation or parole. A conviction for a drug offense more
than 10 years prior to the date of application will not alone be
grounds for denial.
(3) When an applicant has convictions for more than one offense,
the minimum assessment period will be the longest minimum in Table
12.02-4(c) and Table 12.02-4(d) based upon the applicant's convictions;
the maximum assessment period will be the longest shown in Table 12.02-
4(c) and Table 12.02-4(d) based upon the applicant's convictions.
(4) If a person with a criminal conviction applies for a merchant
mariner's document before the minimum assessment period shown in Table
12.02-4(c), or established by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
under paragraph (c)(2) of this section has elapsed, then the applicant
must provide, as part of the application package, evidence of
suitability for service in the merchant marine. Factors which are
evidence of suitability for service in the merchant marine are listed
in paragraph (e) of this section. The Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection will consider the applicant's evidence submitted with the
application and may issue the merchant mariner's document in less than
the listed minimum assessment period if the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection is satisfied that the applicant is suitable to hold the
merchant mariner's document for which he or she has applied. If an
application filed before the minimum assessment period has elapsed does
not include evidence of suitability for service in the merchant marine,
then the application will be considered incomplete and will not be
processed by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection until the
applicant provides the necessary evidence as set forth in paragraph (e)
of this section.
(5) If a person with a criminal conviction applies for a merchant
mariner's document during the time between the minimum and maximum
assessment periods shown in Table 12.02-4(c) or established by the
Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection under paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, then the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection shall consider
the conviction and, unless there are offsetting factors, shall grant
the applicant the merchant mariner's document for which he or she
[[Page 65488]]
has applied. Offsetting factors include such factors as multiple
convictions, failure to comply with court orders (e.g., child support
orders), previous failures at rehabilitation or reform, inability to
maintain steady employment, or any connection between the crime and the
safe operation of a vessel. If the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
considers the applicant unsuitable for service in the merchant marine
at the time of application, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
may disapprove the application.
(6) If a person with a criminal conviction applies for a merchant
mariner's document after the maximum assessment period shown in Table
12.02-4(c) or established by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection
under paragraph (c)(2) of this section has elapsed, then the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection will grant the applicant the merchant
mariner's document for which he or she has applied unless the Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection considers the applicant still unsuitable
for service in the merchant marine. If the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection disapproves an applicant with a conviction older than the
maximum assessment period listed in Table 12.02-4(c), the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection will notify the applicant in writing of the
reason(s) for the disapproval including the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection's reason(s) for considering a conviction older than the
maximum assessment period listed in Table 12.02-4(c). The Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection will also inform the applicant, in writing,
that the reconsideration and appeal procedures contained in Sec. 1.03
of this chapter apply.
Table 12.02-4(c).--Guidelines for Evaluating Applicants for Merchant Mariner's Documents Who Have Criminal
Convictions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment periods
Crime \1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crimes Against Persons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homicide (intentional)..................... 7 years.......................... 20 years.
Homicide (unintentional)................... 5 years.......................... 10 years.
Assault (aggravated)....................... 5 years.......................... 10 years.
Assault (simple)........................... 1 year........................... 5 years.
Sexual Assault (rape, child molestation)... 5 years.......................... 10 years.
Other crimes against persons \2\...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicular Crimes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conviction involving fatality.............. 1 year........................... 5 years.
Reckless Driving........................... 1 year........................... 2 years.
Racing on the Highway...................... 1 year........................... 2 years.
Other vehicular crimes \2\.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crimes Against Public Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Destruction of Property.................... 5 years.......................... 10 years.
Other crimes against public safety \2\.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crimes Involving National Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorism, Acts of Sabotage, Espionage and 7 years.......................... 20 years.
related offenses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dangerous Drug Offenses 3,4,5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trafficking (sale, distribution, transfer). 5 years.......................... 10 years.
Dangerous drugs (Use or possession)........ 1 year........................... 10 years.
Other dangerous drug convictions \6\.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Conviction of attempts, solicitations, aiding and abetting, accessory after the fact, and conspiracies to
commit the criminal conduct listed in this table carry the same minimum and maximum assessment periods
provided in the table.
\2\ Other crimes are to be reviewed by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection to determine the minimum and
maximum assessment periods depending on the nature of the crime.
\3\ Applicable to original applications only. Any applicant who has ever been the user of, or addicted to the
use of, a dangerous drug shall meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. Note: Applicants for
reissue of a merchant mariner's document with a new expiration date including a renewal or additional
endorsement(s), who have been convicted of a dangerous drug offense while holding a merchant mariner's
document, may have their application withheld until appropriate action has been completed by the Officer in
Charge, Marine Inspection under the regulations which appear in 46 CFR part 5 governing the administrative
actions against merchant mariner credentials.
\4\ The OCMI may consider dangerous drug convictions more than 10 years old only if there has been a dangerous
drug conviction within the past 10 years.
\5\ Applicants must demonstrate rehabilitation under paragraph (e) of this section, including applicants with
dangerous drug use convictions more than ten years old.
\6\ Other dangerous drug convictions are to be reviewed by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection on a case by
case basis to determine the appropriate assessment period depending on the nature of the offense.
[[Page 65489]]
(d) National Driver Register. A merchant mariner's document will
not be issued or reissued with a new expiration date unless the
applicant consents to a check of the NDR for offenses described in
section 205(a)(3)(A) or (B) of the NDR Act (i.e., operation of a motor
vehicle while under the influence of, or impaired by, alcohol or a
controlled substance; and any traffic violations arising in connection
with a fatal traffic accident, reckless driving, or racing on the
highways). The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection will not consider
NDR listed civil convictions that are more than 3 years old from the
date of request unless that information relates to the current
suspension or revocation of the applicant's license to operate a motor
vehicle. The Officer in Charge Marine Inspection may determine minimum
and maximum assessment periods for NDR listed criminal convictions
using Table 12.02-4(c). An applicant conducting simultaneous merchant
mariner's credential transactions is subject to only one NDR check.
(1) Any application may be disapproved if information from the NDR
check leads the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection to determine that
the applicant cannot be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
of the merchant mariner's document for which the application is made.
If an application is disapproved, the Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection will notify the applicant in writing of the reason(s) for
disapproval and advise the applicant that the appeal procedures in
Sec. 1.03 of this chapter apply. No examination will be given or
merchant mariner's document issued pending decision on appeal.
(2) Prior to disapproving an application because of information
received from the NDR, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection will
make the information available to the applicant for review and written
comment. The applicant may submit reports from the applicable State
concerning driving record and convictions to the Coast Guard Regional
Examination Center (REC) processing the application. The REC will hold
an application with NDR listed convictions pending the completion of
the evaluation and delivery by the individual of the underlying State
records.
(3) The guidelines in Table 12.02-4(d) will be used by the Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection when evaluating applicants for merchant
mariner's documents who have drug or alcohol related NDR listed
convictions. Non-drug or alcohol related NDR listed convictions will be
evaluated by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection under Table
12.02-4(c) as applicable.
(4) An applicant may request an NDR file check for personal use in
accordance with the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579) by
contacting the NDR at the following address: National Driver Register,
Nassif Building, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
(i) Applicants should request Form NDR-PRV or provide the following
information on a notarized letter:
(A) Full legal name;
(B) Other names used;
(C) Complete mailing address;
(D) Driver license number;
(E) Eye color;
(F) Social security number;
(G) Height;
(H) Weight; and
(I) Sex.
(ii) The NDR will respond to every valid inquiry including requests
which produce no record(s) on the NDR file. Records can be made
available, within a reasonable amount of time after the request, for
personal inspection and copying during regular working hours at 7:45
a.m. to 4:15 p.m., each day except Federal holidays.
Table 12.02-4(d).--Guidelines for Evaluating Applicants for Merchant Mariner's Documents Who Have NDR Motor
Vehicle Convictions Involving Dangerous Drugs or Alcohol \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of convictions Date of conviction Assessment period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ Less than 1 year........................... 1 year from date of conviction.
1................................ More than 1, less than 3 years............. Application will be processed,
unless suspension, or
revocation \2\ is still in
effect. Applicant will be
advised that additional
conviction(s) may jeopardize
merchant mariner credentials.
1................................ More than 3 years old...................... Not necessary unless suspension
or revocation is still in
effect.
2 or more........................ Any less than 3 years old.................. 1 year since last conviction and
at least 3 years from 2nd most
recent conviction, unless
suspension or revocation is
still in effect.
2 or more........................ All more than 3 years old.................. Application will be processed
unless suspension or revocation
is still in effect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Any applicant who has ever been the user of, or addicted to the use of, a dangerous drug shall meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
\2\ Suspension or revocation, when referred to in Table 12.02-4(d), means a State suspension or revocation of a
motor vehicle operator's license.
(e) If an applicant for an original merchant mariner's document has
one or more alcohol or dangerous drug related criminal or NDR listed
convictions; if the applicant has ever been the user of, or addicted to
the use of, a dangerous drug; or if the applicant applies before the
minimum assessment period for his or her conviction has elapsed; the
Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection may consider the following
factors, as applicable, in assessing the applicant's suitability to
hold a merchant mariner's document. This list is intended as a
guideline. The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection may consider other
factors which he or she judges appropriate, such as:
(1) Proof of completion of an accredited alcohol- or drug-abuse
rehabilitation program.
(2) Active membership in a rehabilitation or counseling group, such
as Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous.
(3) Character references from persons who can attest to the
applicant's sobriety, reliability, and suitability for employment in
the merchant marine including parole or probation officers.
(4) Steady employment.
(5) Successful completion of all conditions of parole or probation.
10. In Sec. 12.02-9, paragraphs (g) and (h) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 12.02-9 Application for documents.
* * * * *
(g) Each applicant for an original merchant mariner's document may
be required to submit to a criminal record check as required by
Sec. 12.02-4(c).
(h) Each applicant for an original merchant mariner's document or a
merchant mariner's document reissued with a new expiration date shall
comply
[[Page 65490]]
with the NDR requirements in Sec. 12.02-4(d).
Dated: December 12, 1995.
G.N. Naccara,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 95-30677 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30668 Interim Rule Amending International Mail Manual Subchapter 790, Items Mailed Abroad by or on Behalf of Senders in the U.S. and Certain Other Countries
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65238-65240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30668]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 20
Interim Rule Amending International Mail Manual Subchapter 790,
Items Mailed Abroad by or on Behalf of Senders in the U.S. and Certain
Other Countries
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 10, 1994, the Postal Service published in the Federal
Register (59 FR 11188-11193) amendments to certain rules in
International Mail Manual (IMM) subchapter 790 to clarify when a
mailing in a foreign country is by or on behalf of a resident of the
United States for the purposes of collecting U.S. domestic postage; and
to authorize the collection of U.S. domestic postage on certain mail
posted in a foreign country by or on behalf of a person who is not a
resident of that foreign country. This document amends IMM subchapter
790 to remove the threshold of 1,000 pieces mailed abroad in a 30-day
period by a U.S. resident and to remove the standards relative to the
collection of U.S. domestic postage on ``A-B-C remail''.The basis for
the amended rules is contained in article 25, Posting Abroad of Letter-
Post Items, of the Universal Postal Convention (Washington, 1989).
DATES: The interim rule is effective January 1, 1996. Comments must be
received on or before January 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or delivered to the
Manager,
[[Page 65239]]
International Pricing, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW RM
4400-EB, Washington, DC 20260-6500. Copies of all written comments will
be available at the above address for public inspection and
photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John F. Alepa, (202) 268-4071.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1994, the Universal Postal Union (UPU)
met in Congress in Seoul, Korea, to amend and adopt the Acts of the
Universal Postal Union. The Acts come into force on January 1, 1996.
The United States is a member of the UPU. By virtue of that membership,
the U.S. Postal Service must adhere to the Agreements of the UPU to
which it is a signatory.
The UPU adopted revisions to the Acts of the Universal Postal
Union, including article 25 of the Universal Postal Convention. Article
25 no longer contains a provision permitting the Postal Service to
collect U.S. domestic postage from a resident of the United States when
mailings made abroad for that resident exceed 1,000 pieces in a 30-day
period without regard to whether the postage paid in the foreign
country is less than the applicable U.S. domestic postage. In addition,
article 25 no longer grants authority to the Postal Service to collect
U.S. domestic postage for items for delivery in the United States from
a mailer who posts, or causes to be posted, such items in a country
other than the country of that mailer's residence. Rather, any charge
will be due from the dispatching postal administration.
As a result of the revisions to article 25, the Postal Service is
amending IMM subchapter 790 to remove the threshold of 1,000 pieces
mailed abroad in a 30-day period by a U.S. resident and to remove the
standards relative to the collection of U.S. domestic postage on ``A-B-
C remail'' (that is, a method of mailing in which a person or firm
mails from a country other than the one of which it is a resident to a
third country in order to benefit from lower international postage
rates in the country of mailing).
Specifically, the 1994 Congress amended article 25, Posting Abroad
of Letter-Post Items, which contains four paragraphs. Paragraphs 1
through 3 relate to items mailed from abroad back into the country of
residence of the sender. Paragraph 4 relates to items mailed by
residents of one country from a second country for delivery in a third
country. This method of mailing (as discussed above) is commonly
referred to as ``A-B-C remail.''
Paragraph 1 was amended to remove the provision that permitted
postal administrations to invoke action against a person or firm
mailing to that person's or firm's country of residence from another
country solely on the basis of the number of items mailed. Article 25,
paragraph 1, requires that the mailing be made ``with the object of
profiting by more favorable rate conditions there.'' To comply with
this revision, the Postal Service is removing from IMM subchapter 790
the provision that provides that applicable U.S. domestic postage is
due when ``1,000 or more such items are mailed in a 30-day period
regardless of whether the foreign postage is lower than the comparable
U.S. postage.''
Paragraph 4 regulates ``A-B-C remail.'' This method of mailing
occurs when a resident of country A mails from country B mail
destinating in country C. This method is generally economically
feasible because of differences in the terminal dues system provided by
the Universal Postal Convention. Most developing countries (which
generally originate small volumes of outgoing international mail) are
assigned a lower terminal dues rate than developed countries (which
generally originate large volumes of outgoing international mail).
Under the current terminal dues system, for example, two countries
each annually exchanging more than 150 tons of mail would pay terminal
dues equivalent to 25 cents for a \1/2\-ounce item. By contrast, two
countries each annually exchanging 150 tons or less of mail would pay
terminal dues equivalent to only 6 cents for the same \1/2\-ounce item.
When ``A-B-C remail'' is used, that mailing method harms both
country A (because it loses revenue and mail volume) and country C
(because it receives less in terminal dues from country B than it would
receive from country A). This lower rate of terminal dues generally
does not compensate the delivering country for the actual cost of
handling such mail.
To correct this situation, the 1994 Universal Postal Congress
adopted a new terminal dues system and introduced a separate rate for
``bulk mail,'' regardless of where that mail originates. The delivering
country will be able to collect the same rate in terminal dues without
regard to the country originating the mail. This revised system should
reduce considerably the volume of mail migrating from developed
countries to developing countries solely to take advantage of lower
international rates made possible from different terminal dues rates.
In some cases, the 1994 Congress recognized that even this ``bulk
mail'' rate of terminal dues would not provide full compensation to the
delivering postal administration and that migration of mail might
continue. Accordingly, article 25, paragraph 4, allows the delivering
postal administration to collect the equivalent of ``bulk mail''
terminal dues from the dispatching postal administration if the
delivering administration is not receiving appropriate remuneration.
However, the delivering administration will no longer be able to
collect extra compensation from the sender of the items. Remuneration
is strictly between the dispatching and delivering postal
administrations. Therefore, the Postal Service is eliminating its rules
in IMM subchapter 790 concerning the collection of U.S. domestic
postage from the sender of so-called ``A-B-C remail.''
Although 39 U.S.C. 407 does not require advance notice and
opportunity for submission of comments, and the Postal Service is
exempted by 39 U.S.C. 410(a) from the advance notice requirements of
the Administrative Procedure Act regarding rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553),
the Postal Service invites public comment.
The Postal Service adopts on an interim basis, pending receipt and
consideration of public comment, the following amendments to subchapter
790 of the International Mail Manual, which is incorporated by
reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 20.1.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 20
Foreign relations, Incorporation by reference, International postal
services.
PART 20--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 20 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 401, 404, 407, 408.
2. The International Mail Manual is amended by revising subchapter
790, Items Mailed Abroad by or on Behalf of Senders in the U.S. and
Certain Other Countries, to read as follows:
790 Items Mailed Abroad by or on Behalf of Senders in the United
States
791 Postage Payment Required
Payment of U.S. postage is required to secure delivery of mail when
the mailing is by or on behalf of a person or firm that is a resident
of the United States and the foreign postage rate applied to such items
is lower than the comparable U.S. domestic postage rate.
[[Page 65240]]
792 Definition of Terms
792.1 Resident
A resident of the United States includes any firm that has a place
of business in the United States or is incorporated or otherwise
organized in the United States, its territories, or its possessions.
792.2 By or on Behalf
A mailing is made by or on behalf of a person or firm that is a
resident of the United States if such a resident seeks or expects to
derive economic benefit or advantage from that mailing.
792.3 Place of Business
A place of business in the United States is any location in the
United States, its territories, or its possessions where a firm's
employees or agents regularly have personal contact with other
individuals for conducting the firm's business. For the purposes of
this section, a firm whose employees or agents have personal contact
with others for conducting the firm's business in different places in
the United States for short periods (for example, at hotels in
different cities for 1 or 2 days at a time) is considered to have a
place of business in the United States if the aggregate amount of time
spent in the United States is 180 days or more within 12 consecutive
months.
792.4 Agent
The use of a nonexclusive agent in the United States for the sole
purpose of accepting orders and remissions for transmission to a firm
in another country or for the sole purpose of distributing merchandise
manufactured in another country and shipped to the United States in
bulk does not by itself establish a place of business in the United
States.
793 Advance Payment Required
793.1 Sample Mailpiece
A sender affected by the provisions in 791 must submit a sample
mailpiece (envelope and contents) from the proposed mailing; a
statement about the number of items to be mailed, the date of mailing,
and the place of mailing; and a check, made payable to the U.S. Postal
Service, to cover the amount of the applicable U.S. postage. The sample
mailpiece, statement, and check must be sent to: Manager, International
Pricing, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plz. SW., Washington, DC
20260-6500.
793.2 Headquarters Notification
Headquarters provides notification of postage acceptance and
approval of the mailing to the sender and to the receiving U.S.
exchange office. This notification permits the items in the mailing to
go forward to the addressees without delay when the items reach the
United States.
794 Advance Payment Not Made
794.1 Return or Disposal of Items
Items may be returned to origin or disposed of in accordance with
postal regulations if U.S. postage is not paid.
794.2 Mailings Without Advance Payment
A mailing subject to the provisions in 791 received without advance
payment of U.S. domestic postage is held at the receiving U.S. exchange
office. The exchange office reports the mailing to the manager of
International Pricing, USPS Headquarters. (The exchange office is
advised to release the mail when the applicable postage is paid.) The
report must contain the following information:
a. Title and/or nature of the items.
b. Identity of the sender.
c. Number of items detained.
d. Weight of a single item.
e. Foreign postage paid per item.
f. Country of mailing.
795 Report of Mailings
The receiving U.S. exchange office must report any mail appearing
to be subject to the provisions of this subchapter to the manager of
International Pricing, USPS Headquarters.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 95-30668 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30665 Fracture Toughness Requirements for Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessels
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65456-65476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30665]
[[Page 65455]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
10 CFR Part 50
Fracture Toughness Requirements for Light Water Reactor Pressure
Vessels; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65456]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
RIN 3150-AD57
Fracture Toughness Requirements for Light Water Reactor Pressure
Vessels
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations for light-water-cooled nuclear power plants to clarify
several items related to the fracture toughness requirements for
reactor pressure vessels (RPV). The amendments will clarify the
pressurized thermal shock (PTS) requirements, make changes to the
Fracture Toughness Requirements and the Reactor Vessel Material
Surveillance Program Requirements, and provide new requirements for
thermal annealing of a reactor pressure vessel.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alfred Taboada, Division of
Engineering Technology, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-00001, telephone:
(301) 415-6014.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50513), the NRC
published in the Federal Register a proposed amendment to clarify
several items related to fracture toughness requirements for reactor
pressure vessels (RPV) and to add a new section on thermal annealing of
a reactor vessel to 10 CFR Part 50.
Background
Maintaining the structural integrity of the reactor pressure vessel
of light-water-cooled reactors is a critical concern related to the
safe operation of nuclear power plants. To assure the structural
integrity of RPVs, NRC regulations and regulatory guides have been
developed to provide analysis and measurements methods and procedures
to establish that each RPV has adequate safety margin for continued
operation. Structural integrity of a RPV is generally assured through a
fracture mechanics evaluation, including measurement or estimation of
the fracture toughness of the materials which compose the RPV. However,
the fracture toughness of the RPV materials varies with time. As the
plant operates, neutrons escaping from the reactor core impact the
vessel beltline materials (e.g. the materials that surround the reactor
core), causing embrittlement of those materials. The NRC's regulations
and regulatory guides related to RPV integrity provide the criteria and
methods needed to estimate the extent of the embrittlement, to evaluate
the consequences of the embrittlement in terms of the structural
integrity of the RPV, and to provide methods to mitigate the
deleterious effects of the embrittlement.
The NRC has several regulations and regulatory guides that
establish criteria and procedures for assuring the structural integrity
of RPVs. With the addition of the thermal annealing requirements in
this rule and several regulatory guides, the regulatory documents
contribute to a comprehensive set of regulations and regulatory
guidance pertaining to RPV integrity.
This final rule adds requirements for thermal annealing of the RPV
as a method for mitigating the effects of neutron irradiation (10 CFR
50.66) and amends the following:
1. The Pressurized Thermal Shock (PTS) rule (10 CFR 50.61).
2. Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50, ``Fracture Toughness
Requirements.''
3. Appendix H of 10 CFR Part 50, ``Reactor Vessel Material
Surveillance Program Requirements.''
Overview of the Final Rule
PTS Rule (10 CFR 50.61)
This amendment to the PTS rule makes three changes:
1. The rule incorporates in total, and therefore makes binding by
rule, the method for determining the reference temperature, RTNDT,
including treatment of the unirradiated RTNDT value, the margin
term, and the explicit definition of ``credible'' surveillance data,
which is currently described in Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2.
2. The section is restructured to improve clarity, with the
requirements section giving only the requirements for the value for the
reference temperature for end of life fluence, RTPTS. The method
for calculating RTPTS is moved to a new paragraph of the rule.
3. Thermal annealing is identified as a method for mitigating the
effects of neutron irradiation, thereby reducing RTPTS.
Thermal Annealing Rule (10 CFR 50.66)
The thermal annealing rule, 10 CFR 50.66, provides a consistent set
of requirements for the use of thermal annealing to mitigate the
effects of neutron irradiation and replaces the requirements for
annealing in the current Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50. The final rule
requires, prior to initiation of thermal annealing, submittal of a
Thermal Annealing Report containing: (1) A Thermal Annealing Operating
Plan, (2) a Requalification Inspection and Test Program, (3) a Fracture
Toughness Recovery and Reembrittlement Trend Assurance Program, and (4)
Identification of Unreviewed Safety Questions and Technical
Specifications Changes. The report must be submitted at least 3 years
before the date at which the limiting fracture toughness criteria in
50.61 and Appendix G to Part 50 would be exceeded. This 3-year period
is specified to provide the NRC staff with sufficient time to review
the thermal annealing program. Under Sec. 50.66(a), the NRC will,
within three years of submission of a licensee's Thermal Annealing
Report, document its views on the plan, including whether thermal
annealing constitutes an unreviewed safety question.
In order to provide for public participation in the regulatory
process, Section 50.66(f)(1) requires that the NRC hold a public
meeting a minimum of 30 days before the licensee starts to thermal
anneal the reactor vessel. The Commission will notify and solicit
comments from cognizant local and state governments, and will publish a
notice in the Federal Register and in a forum, such as local
newspapers, which is readily accessible to individuals in the vicinity
of the site, in order to solicit comments from the public.
The thermal annealing operating plan must include an evaluation of
the effects of temperature, and of mechanical and thermal stresses on
the reactor and associated equipment such as containment, the
biological shield, and attached piping, to demonstrate that the
operability of the reactor will not be detrimentally affected. The
bounding conditions of the temperatures and times used in this analysis
define the proposed annealing conditions. If these conditions are
exceeded during the vessel annealing, then the evaluation would no
longer be valid, and the acceptability of the actual vessel annealing
would have to be demonstrated as discussed below in the next paragraph.
Upon completion of the thermal annealing, the licensee must confirm
in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),
that the thermal annealing was performed in accordance with the Thermal
Annealing Operating Plan and the Requalification Inspection and Test
Program. Within 15 days of the licensee's written confirmation that the
thermal annealing was completed in accordance with the
[[Page 65457]]
Thermal Annealing Plan, and prior to restart, the NRC shall: (1)
Briefly document whether the thermal annealing was performed in
compliance with the licensee's Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and the
Requalification Inspection and Test Program, with the documentation to
be placed in the NRC public document room, and (2) hold a public
meeting to: (1) permit the licensee to explain the results of the
reactor vessel annealing to the NRC and the public, (2) allow the NRC
to discuss its inspection of the reactor vessel annealing, and (3)
provide an opportunity for the public to comment to the NRC on the
thermal annealing. The licensee may restart its reactor after the
meeting has been completed, unless the NRC orders otherwise. Within 45
days of the licensee's written confirmation that the thermal annealing
was completed in accordance with the Thermal Annealing Operating plan
and the Requalification Inspection and Test Program, the NRC staff
shall complete full documentation of the NRC's inspection of the
licensee's annealing process and place the documentation in the Public
Document Room.
If the thermal annealing was completed but not performed in
accordance with the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and the
Requalification Inspection and Test Program, including the bounding
conditions of the temperature and times as discussed above, the
licensee must submit a summary of lack of compliance and a
justification for subsequent operations. The licensee must also
identify any changes to the facility which are attributable to the
noncompliances which constitute unreviewed safety questions and any
changes to the technical specifications which are required for
operation as a result of the noncompliances. This identification does
not relieve the licensee from complying with applicable requirements of
the Commission regulations and the operating license, and if, as a
result of the annealing operation, these requirements cannot be met,
the licensee must obtain the appropriate exemption per 10 CFR 50.12. If
unreviewed safety questions or changes to technical specifications are
not identified as necessary for resumed operation, the licensee may
restart after the NRC staff places a summary of its inspection of the
thermal annealing in the Public Document Room, and the NRC holds a
public meeting on the thermal annealing. On the other hand, if
unreviewed safety questions or changes to technical specifications are
identified as necessary for resumed operation, the licensee may restart
only after the Director of NRR authorizes restart, the summary of the
NRC staff inspection is placed in the public document room, and a
public meeting on the thermal annealing is held.
The final Thermal Annealing Rule also sets forth the requirements
that a licensee must follow if the thermal annealing was terminated
prior to completion. In general, the process and requirements for
partial annealing are analogous to the situations where the thermal
annealing was completed; viz., where the partial annealing was
otherwise performed in compliance with the Thermal Annealing Operating
Plan and relevant portions of the Requalification Inspection and Test
Program, the licensee submits written confirmation of such compliance
and may restart following, inter alia, holding of a public meeting on
the annealing. By contrast, where the partial annealing was not
performed in accordance with the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and
relevant portions of the Requalification Inspection and Test Program,
the licensee is required to submit a summary of lack of compliance and
a justification for subsequent operations, and identify any changes to
the facility which are attributable to the noncompliances which
constitute unreviewed safety questions and changes to the technical
specifications which are required for operation as a result of the
noncompliances with the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and relevant
portions of the Requalification Inspection and Test Program. If
Unreviewed Safety Questions and/or changes to technical specifications
are identified as necessary for resumed operation, the licensee may
restart only after the Director of NRR authorizes restart and the
public meeting on the thermal annealing is held.
Every licensee that either completes a thermal annealing or
terminates an annealing but elects to take full or partial credit for
the annealing shall provide a Thermal Annealing Results Report
detailing: (1) The time and temperature profile of the actual thermal
anneal, (2) the post-anneal RTNDT and Charpy upper shelf energy
values of the reactor material to be used in subsequent operations, (3)
the projected post-anneal reembrittlement trends for both RTNDT
and Charpy upper-shelf energy, and (4) the projected values of
RTPTS and Charpy upper-shelf energy at the end of the proposed
period of operation addressed in the application. The report must be
submitted within three months of completing the thermal anneal, unless
an extension is authorized by the Director, NRR.
Two items of particular importance to the overall annealing are the
recovery of fracture toughness and the degree of reembrittlement of the
RPV beltline materials. This final rule provides alternative methods
for determining these values, ranging from assessments using plant-
specific materials to an assessment using a generic computation.
Two methods provided for evaluating annealing recovery are
experimental methods to determine plant-specific annealing recovery,
and a third method is a generic computational method. Experimental
methods and the computational method are also provided for estimating
recovery of RTNDT and Charpy upper-shelf energy of the beltline
materials. The experimental methods for estimating recovery of
RTNDT and the Charpy upper-shelf energy utilize either
surveillance program specimens or material removed from the vessel
beltline. The experimental methods provide a plant-specific estimate of
recovery, rather than the generic value evaluated from the
computational method. This final rule requires that surveillance
specimens from ``credible'' surveillance programs must be used to
develop plant-specific recovery data, if such specimens are available.
This final rule does not require the removal of material from the RPV
beltline to permit plant-specific evaluation of recovery.
As described previously, the computational method requires
appropriate justification.
Post anneal reembrittlement trends of both the RTNDT and the
Charpy upper shelf energy must be estimated and monitored using a
surveillance program described in the Thermal Annealing Report.
The reactor pressure vessel is perhaps the most important single
component in the reactor coolant system. As such, ensuring its
integrity is a fundamental element of plant safety. Thermal annealing
is a positive action that could be taken to reduce the level of
embrittlement in the pressure vessel beltline and, thereby, improve the
ability of a pressure vessel to withstand accident loadings. While
thermal annealing is a positive action, there are numerous complex
technical questions regarding its application in the U.S. that are
unanswered.
Thermal annealing of a commercial reactor pressure vessel has never
been accomplished in the United States. Thermal annealing has been
successfully employed in Eastern Europe and Russia on Russian-designed
pressure vessels. However, there are significant differences between
the U.S. and Russian designs in terms of the
[[Page 65458]]
geometry of the pressure vessels, the attached piping, and the
surrounding structures. The staff has observed one of these annealing
operations. While informative, the East European and Russian experience
does not provide answers to all of the potential questions related to
annealing of U.S. designed pressure vessels.
Research analyses performed previously indicated the potential for
plastic deformation of the main coolant piping for a typical U.S. plant
design and anticipated annealing conditions. There are also questions
regarding how thermal growth of the pressure vessel is treated, and the
adequacy of the thermal and stress analyses used to predict response of
the overall system under thermal annealing conditions. Additionally,
there may be questions in other areas such as temperature limits for
the concrete structures, and potential radiological hazards associated
with removing and storing the reactor internals during the annealing
process, and fire hazards associated with heating the vessel.
Recognition of the numerous complex technical questions related to
thermal annealing, and of the potential benefits for operating nuclear
power plants, has resulted in a cooperative effort, funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy and the industry, to perform Annealing
Demonstration Projects. Projects are planned to demonstrate two
different annealing processes, evaluating heater designs and vessel
designs. It is anticipated that the annealing demonstration projects
will answer many of the generic questions regarding thermal annealing
of U.S. pressure vessel and piping designs.
The thermal annealing report, required by the thermal annealing
rule, is designed to facilitate a detailed review by the licensee of
plant-specific questions and considerations in performing a thermal
annealing. The proposed rule specifically discusses the potential for
unreviewed safety questions and technical specification changes that
may result from or be related to thermal annealing of the reactor
pressure vessel. With completion of the demonstration projects and as
the staff and industry gain experience with thermal annealing, many of
the issues related to annealing will be better understood and related
questions will be answered. However, until this experience is realized,
the staff will critically review licensee determinations regarding
unreviewed safety questions and the need for technical specification
changes associated with each proposed thermal annealing.
The thermal annealing rule has been structured to provide time for
the staff to thoroughly review the licensee's annealing plan and
determination regarding unreviewed safety questions and the need for
technical specification changes. If the staff identifies an unreviewed
safety question or the need for a technical specification change, the
licensee would be so notified and the existing NRC regulatory practices
would be invoked to address the issues.
Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50
Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50 specifies fracture toughness
requirements for ferritic materials of pressure-retaining components of
the reactor coolant pressure boundary of light-water-cooled nuclear
power reactors. These requirements provide adequate margins of safety
during any condition of normal operation, including anticipated
operational occurrences and system hydrostatic tests. The amendments to
Appendix G are principally of a clarifying or a restructuring nature.
Requirements for ``volumetric inspection'' and ``additional evidence of
fracture toughness'' have been removed because they were unnecessary,
given the inspection and performance demonstration programs currently
required under 10 CFR 50.55a. The ``additional evidence of fracture
toughness'' requirement in Section V.C.2 is incorporated in the
``equivalent margins'' analysis in Section IV.A.1 as a provisional
method for developing fracture toughness data needed for that analysis.
The pressure-temperature and minimum permissible temperature
requirements in Section IV have been restructured. The principal
feature is the addition of a table which summarizes the pressure-
temperature limit requirements and minimum temperature requirements as
a function of the plant operating condition, the vessel pressure,
whether fuel is in the vessel, and whether the core is critical. In
addition, Section IV has been reworded to clarify the minimum
permissible temperature requirement by indicating the criteria for use
in determining the location in the component or material which must
satisfy the minimum temperature requirement. This minimum temperature
is defined in Section IV as the metal temperature of the controlling
material in the region which has the least favorable combination of
stress and temperature for the appropriate plant condition. An explicit
statement has been added to require that pressure and leak tests of the
reactor pressure vessel required by Section XI of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers Boiler & Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code (ASME
Code) must be completed before the core is critical.
The requirement that all pressure and leak tests of the RPV
required by Section XI of the ASME Code must be completed before the
core is critical is intended to prohibit the use of nuclear heat, i.e.,
core criticality, in the conduct of ASME, Section XI pressure and leak
tests. The use of nuclear heat before the completion of such tests is
not consistent with basic defense-in-depth nuclear safety principle for
several reasons, including the hindrance of finding leaks with the
vessel at such a high temperature and the potential for exacerbating
the consequences of a vessel rupture (in the extremely unlikely event
that it should occur) by having the core critical. The explicit
prohibition of nuclear heat in these cases was discussed in a letter to
Messrs. Reynolds and Stenger of the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and
Reform Group from James M. Taylor, Executive Director of Operations,
dated February 2, 1990.
The current requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, Section V.
D. with respect to reactor vessel thermal annealing are being replaced
by a sentence which references the new Thermal Annealing rule, 10 CFR
50.66.
Appendix H of 10 CFR Part 50
Appendix H of 10 CFR Part 50, ``Reactor Vessel Material
Surveillance Program Requirements'' provides the rules for monitoring
the changes in the fracture toughness properties of the RPV beltline
materials due to irradiation embrittlement using a surveillance
program. Appendix H references American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) standard E 185 (``Standard Practice for Conducting
Surveillance Tests for Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor
Vessels'') for many of the detailed requirements of surveillance
programs, and permits the use of integrated surveillance programs,
wherein surveillance program capsules for one reactor are irradiated in
another reactor.
Integrated surveillance programs are permitted under Section II.C
of Appendix H of 10 CFR Part 50. One provision of this section is that
``the amount of testing may be reduced if the initial results agree
with predictions.'' This provision was deleted, although previous
authorizations granted by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, continue in effect.
A second change to Appendix H restructures Section II.C to clarify
the
[[Page 65459]]
requirements for integrated surveillance programs.
The other principal change to Appendix H clarifies the version of
ASTM Standard E 185 that applies to the various portions of the
surveillance programs. Appendix H recognizes the need to separate
surveillance programs into two essential parts, specifically the design
of the program and the subsequent testing and reporting of results from
the surveillance capsules. Because the design of the surveillance
program cannot be changed once the program is in place, the
requirements for design of the surveillance program are static for each
plant. However, the testing and reporting requirements are updated
along with technical improvements made to ASTM standard E 185.
Request for Public Comments
At the request of the Commission, the proposed rule contained a
request for public comments on the following specific issues related to
the proposed regulation on thermal annealing:
1. The technical adequacy of the staff's guidance;
2. The sufficiency of the guidance and criteria to support a
certification that if satisfied, a plant with an annealed vessel can
safely resume operation;
3. Whether health and safety concerns are best served by approval
of the thermal annealing plan or of readiness for restart;
4. The preferred regulatory process (including opportunities for
public participation) and the commenter's basis for recommending a
particular process; and
5. Whether there are health and safety issues concerning thermal
annealing that cannot be addressed generically and would warrant plant-
specific consideration.
The supplementary information section of the proposed rule also
discussed the issue of opportunity for public participation in
regulating thermal annealing of pressure vessels.
The response to the request for public comments on these issues,
along with other items, are summarized below.
Summary of Comments
The following includes a summary of the comments received on the
proposed rule, on the five issues identified by the Commission, and on
the options for public participation in thermal annealing.
Comments were received from nine separate sources. These sources
consist of five utilities, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the
Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG) represented by
the firm Winston & Strawn, one public citizens group (Ohio Citizens for
Responsible Energy (OCRE)), and one nuclear steam system supplier
(NSSS).
NEI provided detailed comments on 10 CFR 50.61, 10 CFR 50.66,
Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50, and Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50,
responded to the request for comments on the five issues related to
thermal annealing and included detailed comments on the opportunities
for public participation. The five utilities and the NSSS endorsed the
NEI comments. Three of the five utilities provided additional comments
on 10 CFR 50.61; one of the five utilities provided additional comments
on 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G; two of the utilities provided additional
comments on 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H; and one of the five utilities
disagreed with the NEI position on the opportunity for public
participation and submitted a separate comment. OCRE provided comments
on the opportunity for public participation. NUBARG provided comments
on the backfitting aspects of the proposed rule and the staff's backfit
justification.
NEI and one of the utilities included comments on the Draft
Regulatory Guide DG-1027, ``Format and Content of Application for
Approval for Thermal Annealing of Reactor Pressure Vessels,'' that was
discussed in the proposed rule. These comments on Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-1027 are being reviewed by the NRC staff and will be addressed
separately in the resolution of comments on the regulatory guide.
The NRC reviewed the comments received on the proposed rule, the
comments on the five questions related to thermal annealing and the
issue of opportunities for public participation. The resolution of
these comments is presented below.
PTS Rule (10 CFR 50.61)
Sixteen specific comments in the submittals from NEI and three
utilities addressed 10 CFR 50.61. A general comment argued that both
the existing 10 CFR 50.61 and the proposed modifications contained an
excessive amount of prescriptive technical detail that limits licensee
compliance flexibility. The commenters proposed that these prescriptive
technical details be removed from the rule and placed in a regulatory
guide. These commenters suggested that the rule not be issued until it
has been written to contain only those requirements essential to
regulate reactor pressure vessel embrittlement. A number of comments
suggested changes that were clarifications to the proposed rule,
including proposals to clarify the procedure for calculating the
reference temperatures in the preservice condition, RTNDT, and, at
end of reactor life, RTPTS. One comment noted that the proposed
rule omitted part of the procedure in Regulatory Guide 1.99, presently
being applied by the NRC, that permits adjustments for differences in
chemistry between surveillance material and the vessel material when
using credible surveillance data to calculate a best fit chemistry
factor for transition temperature shifts due to irradiation. Several
comments proposed changes in the criteria for establishing whether
surveillance material data is credible that would result in a less
restrictive basis for using surveillance data in determining the
transition temperature shift. The comments argued that the proposed
rule is ambiguous with respect to the use of information from other
sources that contain limiting material for a specific plant and that
the NRC must have the flexibility to approve use of such information on
a case-by-case basis. Several comments proposed limiting the basis for
making changes of RTPTS subject to the approval of the Director,
NRR.
The NRC recognizes that 10 CFR 50.61 contains an unusual amount of
prescriptive material and that the comments proposing simplification
have merit. Some changes to the rule have been made to provide
flexibility, where appropriate. The NRC staff is evaluating subsequent
changes that would be more performance based. However, the NRC staff
believes that this rule, as written, is needed to ensure that plants
apply the appropriate method for determining RTPTS and that the
appropriate reference to the thermal annealing rule be applied for the
pressurized thermal shock situation.
A number of clarifications were made to the rule. The paragraphs
dealing with the determination of RTPTS were modified to make
clear that RTPTS is a unique, end of life, case of RTNDT and
to clarify the procedure for determining these values. As suggested,
the adjustment procedure was added to the rule to permit accounting for
differences in chemistry between surveillance materials and reactor
vessel materials when calculating chemistry factors. With respect to
the plant specific material surveillance data that is permitted to be
used in a surveillance program, the rule was modified to make clear
that such data includes results from other plant's surveillance
programs and test reactors. Several clarifications were made to the
criteria for determining credible material. The NRC determined that the
requirements for approval by the Director, NRR, for
[[Page 65460]]
changes in RTPTS are appropriate and should not be modified.
Thermal Annealing Rule (10 CFR 50.66)
Twelve individual comments were received on the proposed Thermal
Annealing Rule, 10 CFR 50.66. These comments included a number of
suggestions for clarification of details of the proposed rule. Three of
the comments addressed the requirements that, after the annealing
operation, the reembrittlement rate of the reactor vessel due to
neutron irradiation must be estimated and must be monitored using a
surveillance program which conforms to Appendix H of 10 CFR 50,
``Reactor Vessel Materials Surveillance Program.'' The comments are
summarized as follows:
(1) The supplementary information section for the proposed rule is
silent on what is acceptable if limiting material is not available. The
rule should provide appropriate requirements on the method for
monitoring reembrittlement after annealing for those plants that do not
have limiting material for their surveillance program and the
monitoring plans should be consistent with the preannealing
surveillance program approved by the NRC staff;
(2) Appendix H does not define an acceptable post-anneal
surveillance program, the reference to Appendix H should be deleted,
and the post-anneal surveillance program should be defined in the
annealing plan that is approved by the staff; and
(3) The term reembrittlement rate is unclear as to the period of
time to be used for its determination, and a wording change is proposed
for the requirement that would relate change in toughness to fluence
accumulated after the anneal.
Three of the comments addressed the requirements in the proposed
rule that the Thermal Annealing Operation Plan include time-temperature
profiles which represent the annealing conditions that may not be
exceeded during the annealing operation and are to be used for
determining the amount of recovery of the fracture toughness of the
material due to annealing. The comments suggested that, instead of a
single time-temperature profile, bounding time and temperature
conditions be established for the maximum values that would be used for
thermal and stress analysis and to verify the re-qualification
inspection and test program, and the minimum values that would be used
to establish the amount of recovery of fracture toughness and for
reembrittlement rate estimates. The bounding values would be based upon
the estimated uncertainties in the times and temperatures and the
actual annealing conditions should fall within these bounds.
Two comments addressed the section on Certification of Annealing
Effectiveness. One comment suggested deleting the requirement in the
proposed rule for certification of the annealing effectiveness and
instead adding a provision in the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan that
approval prior to subsequent power operation be required only if the
anneal was not performed in accordance with the approved plan. The
comment also suggested that, if the licensee terminates the annealing
before achieving the specified time but otherwise maintains the
annealing envelop such that no concern exists for stress or thermal
damage, no additional constraints be imposed on subsequent operations
and no credit be given for annealing. The second comment suggested that
(1) the staff's review of the annealing report (certification report)
need not be completed prior to reinitiating power operation if the
anneal was performed in accordance with the approved Thermal Annealing
Operating Plan, (2) reporting and quantification of the actual recovery
results need not be reported unless the vessel was at or above the PTS
screening criteria when annealing was started, and (3) the Thermal
Annealing Operating Plan should specify the minimum content and a
schedule for reporting the annealing results. The commenter provided a
proposed list of criteria, content, and schedule for reporting the
annealing results.
One comment stated that no guidance was provided in the proposed
rule on what constitutes components ``affected'' by the annealing
operation that are required to be reported in the Thermal Annealing
Operating Plan. The comment suggested alternative wording that
components to be reported should be structures and components that are
expected to experience significant temperature gradient or stress
variations during the thermal annealing operation. One comment
suggested qualifying the provision in the proposed rule that the
effects of localized high temperatures must be evaluated for changes in
thermal and mechanical properties of the reactor vessel insulation for
those cases where such changes may be negligible at annealing
conditions. One comment suggested that the use of applicable material
data, such as data from integrated surveillance programs, be an
optional part of the computational methods for determining fracture
toughness recovery.
The NRC reviewed the comments received on the proposed rule in
detail. After consideration, the NRC reached the conclusion that most
of the comments are not inconsistent with the intent of the proposed
rule and in some cases reflect a need for clarification of the rule. In
these cases, alternative wording that clarified the intent of the rule
was substituted in the text. With respect to the comments on the
requirement that reembrittlement rate after annealing must be monitored
using a surveillance program, the NRC is aware that some plants do not
have limiting materials for their existing preannealing surveillance
programs. For these situations the staff has approved alternative
surveillance plans on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, these plants will
not have limiting material for surveillance programs for use in
determining reembrittlement rates after annealing.
The NRC recognizes that Appendix H of 10 CFR Part 50, which is
referenced in this rule, does not specifically address the surveillance
of an annealed reactor vessel. However, the requirements of Appendix H
to 10 CFR Part 50 apply to all reactors including the specific case of
an annealed reactor vessel. To clarify the surveillance requirements of
an annealed plant, the final rule has been modified to include, as
suggested, that the post-anneal reembrittlement is to be monitored
using a surveillance program defined in the Thermal Annealing Report
and that the surveillance program must conform to the intent of
Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50.
The term reembrittlement ``rate'' in the proposed rule was intended
to mean the projected amount of reembrittlement over a specific fluence
period. It is recognized that reembrittlement is not a straight line
function of fluence. Determination of reembrittlement rate is discussed
in more detail in Draft Regulatory Guide 1.162, ``Format and Content of
Report for Thermal Annealing of Reactor Pressure Vessels.'' In
Regulatory Guide 1.162, the approved method for estimating the
reembrittlement rate, the lateral shift method, results in the same
embrittlement trend as that used for the pre-anneal operating period.
To avoid confusion the term ``rate'' has been changed to ``trend'' in
the final rule and the regulatory guide.
The NRC agrees with the comments that the time and temperature
profile required in the annealing operating plan should be bounding
values. In this regard, Regulatory Guide DG-1027 calls for the thermal
annealing operating plan to include identification of the
[[Page 65461]]
limitations and permitted variations in temperature, time, heatup and
cooldown rate. For clarification, the final rule has been modified to
use the terms ``bounding conditions for times and temperatures and
heatup and cooldown schedules'' to describe conditions that may not be
exceeded during the annealing operation, and the lower limit time and
temperature of the actual anneal is used for determining the projected
recovery of fracture toughness by annealing.
The NRC considers that the intent of paragraphs (c), Completion or
Termination of Thermal Annealing, and (d), Thermal Annealing Results
Report, of the final rule to be consistent with the two comments on
that subject. The final rule does not require that the NRC approve
restart following the annealing operation if the Thermal Annealing
Operating Plan and the Requalification Inspection and Test Program was
complied with. The NRC accepts the suggestion that the rule should be
more specific on the items the licensee should include in the report
and has included the list in the final rule.
Finally, the NRC agrees with the suggestion to make clear that a
report is not required if:
(1) The licensee terminates the anneal prior to completion;
(2) The partial anneal was otherwise in accordance with the Thermal
Annealing Plan;
(3) The licensee does not elect to take credit for any recovery. A
statement was added to the Final Rule to cover the early termination
situation.
The NRC has accepted the suggested clarifications of what
constitutes an ``affected'' component and the qualification on the
requirement to evaluate changes in properties on reactor vessel
insulation if these are negligible. The NRC considers it unnecessary to
include a reference in the rule to data from integrated surveillance
programs as an optional part of the computational methods to determine
fracture toughness recovery. Generic computational methods for this
purpose are provided in the Regulatory Guide 1.162. However, the final
rule does not prohibit use of alternative methods if adequate
justification is provided.
Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50
Two comments were received on the Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 of
the proposed rule. The NEI comment, which was endorsed by five
utilities and one NSSS organization, included a table with six items on
Appendix G. The other comment on Appendix G was received from one of
the five utilities. Two of the comments identified typographical errors
and suggested a change in organization to improve clarity. One of the
comments suggested revising the rule to change the definition of
reference temperature, RTNDT, for cases where plants do not have
data to comply with code procedures for determining RTNDT. One
comment suggested a change in the title of Table 1, ``Pressure and
Temperature Requirements,'' by adding to the title ``For the Reactor
Pressure Vessel'' to make clear that this table does not apply to other
components in the reactor coolant pressure system and proposed adding a
footnote to the table for the same purpose. One comment identified an
error in the minimum temperature requirements for the hydrostatic and
leak testing of the pressure vessel without fuel when the vessel
pressure is equal or below 20 percent of the vessel design pressure.
One of the comments suggested that two of the entries in the table were
new requirements when the table was intended to provide clarification.
The utility's comment disagreed with the proposed rule change to
prohibit the use of nuclear heat for the performance of vessel leak and
hydrostatic testing. The utility contended that using nuclear heat, by
providing a significant temperature margin above the pressure and
temperature limit curves, greatly reduces the probability of brittle
fracture and should be allowed.
The NRC corrected the typographical errors and corrected the
minimum temperature requirement for the hydrostatic and leak testing of
the pressure vessel at low vessel pressures and without fuel. The title
to Table 1 was changed, as suggested, for clarification.
The NRC does not agree with the proposal to change the definition
of RTNDT. The situation described in the comment, when data is not
available to comply with code procedures, is presently handled on a
case-by-case basis in accordance with MEB Branch position, MEB 5-2. The
NRC staff does not agree with the comment that the two requirements
cited are new requirements. Item 2.2.c. and Item 2.2.d of Table 1 are
in the existing ASME code requirement and in Paragraph IV.A.3. in the
rule. The NRC also does not agree with the utility's comment that using
nuclear heat greatly reduces the probability of brittle fracture. The
reasons for this are set forth in the February 2, 1990, letter to
Messrs. Reynolds and Stenger of NUBARG from James M. Taylor, Executive
Director for Operations.
Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50
Three comments were received on Appendix H to 10 CFR 50. The
comment from NEI was endorsed by the five utilities and the NSSS. Two
of the five utilities submitted additional comments. NEI and one
utility commented that the proposed change to Paragraph III.B.1, which
establishes the applicable edition of ASTM standard E 185 for a reactor
surveillance program, constituted a backfit that would require a
substantial design change in the surveillance program for those plants
fabricated to a code edition prior to 1973. The other two commenters
suggested new changes to Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50. One of the
commenters noted that an existing provision in Appendix H to 10 CFR
Part 50, not part of the proposed rule change, dealing with
requirements for attaching capsule holders to the vessel wall is a
reiteration of a requirement in the ASME Code and should be removed.
The other commenter suggested a new change to Appendix H to 10 CFR Part
50 to add a statement to the criteria for approval of an integrated
surveillance program that would permit the use of surveillance
specimens for extension of license purposes. The commenter also
suggested that there is an apparent conflict between Paragraph III.C.2.
and Paragraph III.C.3. that address requirements for an integrated
surveillance.
The provision in the proposed rule was changed and reference to
ASTM E 185 73 was deleted to make clear that the surveillance programs
must be designed to the edition of ASTM 185 that is current on the
issue date of the ASME Code to which the reactor vessel was purchased
or to a later edition through 1982. The Commission agrees with the
industry comments that imposing the ASTM E 185 1973 edition is
impractical because vessels purchased prior to 1973 could not
necessarily comply with all of the surveillance requirements in the
1973 edition of the ASTM standard. The NRC staff believes that the
provision in the present rule on requirements for attaching capsule
holders to the reactor vessel wall is required for clarity and should
not be deleted. The comments related to the requirements for an
integrated surveillance program were not persuasive to the NRC staff.
The existing provisions of the rule do not preclude the application of
the integrated surveillance program for extension of license purposes.
The two paragraphs purported to be in conflict address separate items;
one addresses the number of materials to be irradiated,
[[Page 65462]]
specimen types, and number of specimens per reactor; the other
addresses amount of testing.
Request for Comments on Issues Related to Thermal Annealing
Comments were received from NEI on the five issues on thermal
annealing that were included in the proposed rule at the Commission's
direction. In addition, OCRE and one utility, Pacific Gas and Electric,
submitted comments on Issue 4, concerning the preferred regulatory
process (including opportunity for public participation). Public
Comments on the five issues are summarized below:
Issue 1: The technical adequacy of the NRC staff's guidance.
Comment: The detailed comments submitted on 10 CFR 50.66 are
summarized in the Summary of Comments section on the Thermal Annealing
Rule. In addition, NEI suggested that draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1027,
be revised to include acceptance criteria where an action is required,
but the acceptance criteria was not defined. NEI further commented that
the re-embrittlement rate equation (DG-1027, Equation 1) appeared to be
very conservative and would result in a post-anneal operating life that
is less than industry believes justified.
Response: The NRC is concurrently revising the noted draft
regulatory guide and will address this comment in the resolution of
comments for the guide.
Issue 2: The sufficiency of the guidance and criteria to support a
certification that if satisfied, a plant with an annealed vessel can
safely resume operation.
Comment: NEI noted that ``The reactor pressure vessel thermal
annealing rule and guide address appropriate issues to assure public
health and safety and that the annealed reactor pressure vessel may be
safely operated. The prior NRC staff approval of the reactor vessel
annealing plan assures a clear process and criteria to restart
following the vessel anneal. The licensee needs only to attest to
compliance with the approved plan prior to resuming operations. The
resumption of operations should not be needlessly delayed while a
report documenting performance of the vessel anneal and recovery of the
embrittled material properties is confirmed, because the vessel anneal
will only improve the material properties. The final report should be
submitted on a schedule that considers when the vessel would have
exceeded the RTPTS or uppershelf energy (USE) screening criteria
without an anneal. The material property recovery will document prior
to the time when the vessel would have exceeded the screening criteria,
thereby assuring that the vessel is safe to operate at restart and for
the duration justified by the material embrittlement recovery.''
Response: NRC agrees with the NEI comment, except NRC believes it
is necessary for the licensee to submit the final report within three
months of completing or terminating the anneal, unless an extension is
authorized by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Issue 3: Whether health and safety concerns are best served by
approval of the thermal annealing plan or of readiness for restart.
Comment: NEI noted that ``The performance of a reactor pressure
vessel anneal in accordance with an approved annealing plan improves
the public health and safety by reducing the probability of core melt
frequency. This improvement occurs because of the increase in reactor
vessel material ductility. The amount of recovery achieved by a thermal
anneal will be documented prior to the original date when the reactor
vessel would have exceeded the PTS or USE screening limit. Therefore, a
demonstration for ``restart readiness'' is an extra burden that will
not provide any further improvement of the public health and safety.''
Response: The NRC's determination as to the procedures for NRC
review of the Thermal Annealing Operation Plan, Requalification
Inspection and Test Program and justification for restart discussed
below in further detail in the Opportunities for Public Participation
section.
Issue 4: The preferred regulatory process (including opportunities
for public participation) and the commenter's basis for recommending a
particular process.
Comment: NEI noted that ``The industry recommends that a hearing
opportunity be provided, but that it be a non-adjudicatory, 10 CFR Part
2, Subpart L type hearing on the docketed record. The essential
features of the hearing process proposed are as follows. The NRC would
at time of receiving the licensee proposed annealing plan issue a
Federal Register announcement that staff is performing the review per
10 CFR 50.66. A Subpart L hearing could be held, if requested by an
intervener, after the NRC staff has issued a safety evaluation report
on the licensee annealing plan, but prior to commencement of the
reactor vessel thermal annealing unless the NRC staff makes a ``no
significant hazards determination.'' Enclosure 4 provides additional
details that support this industry position.'' Additional detailed
comments by NEI and the comments on this subject by OCRE are discussed
under the Opportunities for Public Participation heading.
Response: The rule provides for public participation in the
regulatory process by incorporating a public meeting on the Licensee's
Thermal Annealing Report a minimum of 30 days before the start of
thermal annealing, and a public meeting after the licensee completes
the anneal but before the reactor is restarted. The opportunity for
public hearings in thermal annealing should be limited to those cases
where there is an unreviewed safety question or a change to the
Technical Specifications or where the licensee did not comply with the
Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and Requalification Inspection and
Test Program. Expanded discussion on this issue is provided below under
the Opportunities for Public Participation heading.
Issue 5: Whether there are health and safety issues concerning
thermal annealing that cannot be addressed generically and would
warrant plant-specific consideration.
Comment: NEI noted that ``Thermal annealing to reduce material
irradiation embrittlement is a well understood metallurgical
phenomenon. The supporting thermal and stress analysis used to
demonstrate that the vessel is not damaged during the anneal are
standard technologies used at nuclear plants. Because thermal annealing
uses well understood technology, public health and safety is reasonably
assured.''
Response: The NRC agrees with this comment.
Opportunities for Public Participation
The Supplementary Information section of the proposed rule
discussed the four options the Commission considered for structuring
the regulatory process related to public participation in the NRC's
review and approval of a licensee's proposal for thermal annealing of a
reactor vessel. The proposed rule, at the Commission's direction,
requested comments on the preferred regulatory process (including
opportunities for public participation). The four options included:
(1) No hearings under the rule as proposed;
(2) Discretionary opportunity for hearing under rule as proposed in
which situation the Commission would decide on a case-by-case basis to
determine whether a hearing should be held;
[[Page 65463]]
(3) Required opportunity for hearing under rule as proposed, but
work could commence if the NRC were to make a ``no significant hazard
determination'' on the proposed thermal annealing; and
(4) Modify the proposed rule to require suspension of license prior
and during the thermal annealing at which time no hearing would be
afforded and the license would only be reinstated if the licensee
demonstrates that it has addressed the reactor embrittlement such that
it is acceptable to operate the plant.
Three comments were submitted on the subject. OCRE and NEI
addressed all of the alternatives in detail and they, as well as one
utility, identified and discussed individual preferred alternatives.
NEI commented that each of the four alternatives has a sufficiently
serious flaw to prevent adoption. With respect to the no hearing
alternative, NEI agrees that annealing is presently subject to approval
by the Director of NRR in accordance with Part 50 Appendix G rather
than being the subject of a license amendment as an unreviewed safety
question under Sec. 50.59. However, NEI believes that annealing is an
important process from a regulatory standpoint and that public
participation, in the form of informal hearings, is appropriate. NEI
objected to a discretionary opportunity for a hearing because it
provides significant uncertainty in the process for licensees and
members of the public. NEI's objection to requiring a hearing, as
discussed in staff Option 3, is that it would allow those who object to
the resumption of operation, on other than technical grounds, to use
hearings to delay restart. Option 4 is objectionable to NEI because it
does not provide the licensee with any stability or predictability
since the licensee would be required to demonstrate compliance after
the annealing was performed, and does not provide the public with any
opportunity to express its views.
NEI further commented that a license amendment is not necessary to
approve a thermal annealing plan because annealing will not change the
reactor vessel or other components in a manner inconsistent with the
facility technical specifications nor will it require changes in the
FSAR, and further, that a licensee is not required to modify its
procedures to address or accommodate the annealing process. NEI noted
that, while there is an incentive for the licensee to obtain credit for
its improved P/T curves, and could seek a licensee amendment to do so,
the licensee's existing P/T curves could remain in force.
Despite the conclusion that a license amendment is not necessary
for thermal annealing, NEI recommended that a hearing opportunity be
provided, but that it be a non-adjudicatory, Subpart L type hearing on
the record. NEI gave the following advantages for this approach: (1)
The NRC would be provided with a clear understanding of the licensee's
annealing process, and the NRC's hearing process; (2) a Subpart L
hearing is held on the written record and typically does not include
the discovery or live testimony associated with adjudicatory hearings,
but allows the public to participate in a meaningful way without
consuming the vast NRC, licensee, and public resources required for an
adjudicatory hearing; and (3) it would provide predictability and
stability by ensuring that all issues which could be subject to a
hearing are addressed prior to restart. Any inspection or test
performed in order to restart would be for the purpose of confirming
compliance with the rule.
OCRE supported the proposed rule provided that the public hearing
rights were preserved with regard to reactor pressure vessel annealing.
It is OCRE's position on the request for public comment that, based on
the Sholly decision, the NRC must offer the opportunity for a formal
adjudicatory hearing on the application for annealing and on the
licensee's justification for subsequent operation where the licensee
cannot certify that the thermal annealing was performed in accordance
with the approved application. OCRE commented that approval by the
Director of NRR of the application for annealing and restart of the
reactor, if the licensee cannot certify that annealing was performed in
accordance with the approved application, will give the licensee the
authority to operate in ways in which they otherwise could not, and is
thus, a de facto license amendment. OCRE fully supported Option 3 which
requires opportunity for hearing under the rule as proposed. OCRE
suggested that the adequacy of the thermal annealing plan, as well as
the vessel's ability to perform its safety function after annealing,
could be raised in the hearing on the thermal annealing plan and that
the licensee's implementation of the thermal annealing plan could not
commence until any hearing is concluded or unless the NRC makes a ``no
significant hazards determination'' with respect to thermal annealing.
With respect to Option 1, OCRE concluded that the informal hearings
or public meetings proposed by the Commission for the initial thermal
annealing are not a substitute for adjudicatory hearings required by
the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and do not give the interveners the same
rights as they would have in a Section 189a hearing. OCRE found Option
2 preferable to having no hearing. However, OCRE contended that this
option is flawed by the assumption that ``Section 189a of the AEA does
not afford an interested member of the public a right to request a
hearing.'' They contend that approval by the Director, NRR to anneal
the reactor pressure vessel or to restart after annealing does
constitute a de facto operating licensing amendment for which the
opportunity for a hearing is required. OCRE found Options 1 and 4
unacceptable in that they do not provide the opportunity for a formal
adjudicatory hearing.
The comment from the utility suggested that Option 1 is the
appropriate approach as long as the annealing process to be implemented
is approved in advance by the NRC staff and the utility certifies that
they have complied with the approved annealing process during the
annealing operation, as provided for in the proposed rule. The utility
further commented that if Technical Specifications changes or
amendments to the operating license are required in order to perform
the annealing then the opportunity for hearings would be required due
to the normal license amendment process and if the final safety
analysis report (FSAR) were required to be updated to reflect the
thermal annealing process, the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 would apply.
The utility suggested that if those changes did not constitute an
``unreviewed safety question,'' no amendment would be needed and the
license amendment process should not be invoked and that if a member of
the public is concerned about a licensee's compliance with the NRC
approved thermal annealing plan, those concerns could be addressed
pursuant to the 10 CFR 2.206 petition process. The utility commented
that, under its proposal, existing regulatory provisions for public
participation would apply as appropriate and no new prescriptive
requirements would be necessary.
The Commission has considered the public comments and has modified
the proposed rule as follows. A licensee that seeks to utilize thermal
annealing to mitigate the effects of neutron irradiation of the nuclear
reactor vessel must, at least three years prior to the date at which
the limiting fracture toughness criteria in Sec. 50.61 or Appendix G to
Part 50 would be exceeded, submit a Thermal Annealing Report to the NRC
staff for review. The
[[Page 65464]]
report shall contain four sections: (i) Thermal Annealing Operating
Plan, (ii) Requalification Inspection and Test Program, (iii) Program
for determining Fracture Toughness Recovery and Reembrittlement Trend,
and (iv) a section identifying any changes to the description of the
facility as described in the updated final safety analysis report
(FSAR) which constitute unreviewed safety questions (USQs) under
Sec. 50.59, and changes to the facility's technical specifications,
which are necessary either to perform the thermal annealing, or to
operate following completion of the annealing. Section 50.66(a)
provides that the NRC will, within three years of submission of a
licensee's annealing report, document its views on whether the plan for
conducting thermal annealing constitutes an unreviewed safety question
or otherwise requires a change to the plant's technical specifications.
Such a determination is the threshold determination for whether NRC
approval is required before undertaking the activity. In the event the
NRC were to conclude, contrary to the licensee, that an unreviewed
safety question is present or a change to the technical specifications
is necessary, the NRC would, as a discretionary enforcement matter,
issue an appropriate order to the licensee prohibiting annealing prior
to issuance of a license amendment. An opportunity for formal
adjudicatory hearing would be provided in connection with the license
amendment; however, if the NRC makes a finding that the proposed change
to the FSAR description or technical specification constitutes a ``no
significant hazards consideration'' pursuant to Section 189.(a)(2)(A),
the licensee may conduct the thermal annealing prior to completion of
any hearing. In any event, at least 30 days before the licensee starts
to thermal anneal and before the NRC completes its review, the NRC will
hold a public meeting on the licensee's proposed Thermal Annealing Plan
and Requalification Inspection and Test Program.
Following the completion of the annealing operation, the licensee
must confirm in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, that the thermal annealing was performed in accordance with
the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and the Requalification and
Inspection Test Program. In support of this confirmation, the licensee
must submit a report, within three months of completion or termination
of the anneal, that presents the results of the annealing operation.
Within two weeks of the licensee's written confirmation that the
thermal annealing was completed in accordance with the Thermal
Annealing Plan, and prior to restart, the NRC shall: (1) Place in its
public document room a summary of the NRC staff's inspection of the
licensee's thermal annealing process to confirm that the thermal
annealing was completed in accordance with the Thermal Annealing
Operating Plan and the Requalification Inspection and Test Program, and
(2) hold a public meeting with the licensee to permit the licensee to
explain the results of the reactor vessel annealing to the NRC and the
public, for the NRC to discuss its inspection of the reactor vessel
annealing process, and to provide an opportunity for the public to
comment to the NRC on the annealing operation and the results of the
Staff's inspection.
Within 45 days of the licensee's written confirmation that the
thermal annealing was completed, the NRC shall complete full
documentation of the NRC's inspection of the licensee's annealing
process to confirm that the annealing was completed in accordance with
the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and the Requalification Inspection
and Test Program.
The licensee may resume operation if: (1) The licensee concludes
that the thermal annealing operation was performed in compliance with
the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan, the Requalification Inspection
and Test Program, and the provisions of Section 50.66(b), (2) a summary
of the NRC's inspection of the thermal annealing is placed in the NRC
public document room as required by Section 50.66(c) (2) and (3) the
NRC holds the public meeting required by Section 50.66(f)(2), unless
the staff takes action against the licensee. Since NRC approval to
resume operation is not necessary, an opportunity for hearing would not
be provided in this situation. If, however, the licensee cannot
conclude that the thermal annealing was performed in compliance with
the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan or the Requalification Inspection
and Test Program, the licensee must submit a justification for
continued operation to the Director. If the noncompliance presents an
unreviewed safety question, as determined by the licensee or directed
by the NRC following its review of the report, then the plant may not
restart until the Director has approved restart. Those failures to
comply with the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and the
Requalification Inspection and Test Program, which either (1) Are
considered to be ``unreviewed safety questions'' or (2) require changes
to the technical specifications as a result of the noncompliances,
would also be subject to an opportunity for a formal adjudicatory
hearing in accordance with the Commission's regulations governing
license amendments. However, the licensee may restart prior to
completion of the hearing if the Director makes a finding that such
restart constitutes a ``no significant hazards consideration,'' as
provided under Section 189.(a)(2)(A) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended.
The regulatory process for thermal annealing and the associated
hearing opportunities are consistent with long-standing NRC regulatory
practices defining those matters which present sufficient potential
effect on public health and safety (e.g., are unreviewed safety
questions) to justify both prior NRC review of the change, and an
opportunity for hearings (with the associated time and resource impacts
on both the licensee and the NRC). With respect to the thermal
annealing review process, the Commission reassessed the regulatory
requirements and processes for assuring safety. The Commission
determined that the most important safety matters are normally
addressed in license conditions, technical specifications, and the
FSAR. The regulatory process for NRC consideration of licensee-
initiated changes concerning these matters, and the associated
opportunities for hearings is in 10 CFR 50.59. In view of this well-
established regulatory process for important safety information, the
Commission determined that a regulatory process requiring NRC approval
of a thermal annealing plan is not necessary, because the licensee is
already required to comply with its license conditions, technical
specifications, and FSAR. Important changes to license conditions,
technical specifications, and FSAR from a safety standpoint are subject
to both prior NRC review and approval and an opportunity for hearing.
With respect to restart following completion of the annealing, the 15-
day delay period should be sufficient time for review of the licensee's
input given the NRC staff's understanding of the annealing operation
plan prior to implementation, ongoing resident inspections and
headquarters inspections of the implementation of thermal annealing
operating plan. The Commission did not adopt NEI's suggestion for
informal hearings where the Director must approve restart if the
Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and Requalification Inspection and
Test Program were not complied with, because the Commission does not
see
[[Page 65465]]
any distinction (in terms of safety implications) between the subject
matter of hearings under this rule, as compared with other actions
under Part 50 which would require formal hearings.
As discussed earlier in the supplementary information, previously
performed research analyses indicated the potential for plastic
deformation of the main coolant piping for a typical U.S. plant design
and anticipated annealing conditions. There are also questions
regarding how thermal growth of the pressure vessel is treated, and the
adequacy of the thermal and stress analyses used to predict response of
the overall system under thermal annealing conditions. Additionally,
there may be questions in other areas such as temperature limits for
the concrete structures, and potential radiological hazards associated
with removing and storing the reactor internals during the annealing
process, and fire hazards associated with heating the vessel.
Recognition of the numerous complex technical questions related to
4 thermal annealing and of the potential benefits for operating nuclear
power plants has resulted in a cooperative effort, funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy and the industry, to perform Annealing
Demonstration Projects. Projects are planned to demonstrate two
different annealing processes, evaluating heater designs and vessel
designs. It is anticipated that the annealing demonstration projects
will answer many of the generic questions regarding thermal annealing
of U.S. pressure vessel and piping designs.
The Thermal Annealing Report, required by the thermal annealing
rule, is designed to facilitate a detailed review by the licensee of
plant-specific questions and considerations in performing a thermal
annealing. The proposed rule specifically discusses the potential for
unreviewed safety questions and technical specification changes that
may result from or be related to thermal annealing of the reactor
pressure vessel. With completion of the demonstration projects and as
the staff and industry gain experience with thermal annealing, many of
the issues related to annealing will be better understood and related
questions will be answered. However, until this experience is realized,
the staff will critically review licensee determinations regarding
unreviewed safety questions and the need for technical specification
changes associated with each proposed thermal annealing. The level of
staff effort is expected to be significantly greater during its review
of the initial proposed vessel annealings than that which will be
required after experience is gained.
The thermal annealing rule has been structured to provide time for
the staff to thoroughly review the licensee's annealing plan and
determination regarding unreviewed safety questions and the need for
technical specification changes. If the staff identifies an unreviewed
safety question or the need for a technical specification change, the
licensee would be so notified and the existing NRC regulatory practices
would be invoked to address the issues.
Backfitting Issues
Comments were received on backfitting issues from the Nuclear
Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG). NUBARG commented that
they do not object to the new NRC position in Appendix G to 10 CFR Part
50 which prohibits core criticality before completion of hydrostatic
pressure and leak tests as a conservative measure to enhance safety.
However, they are concerned that amending Appendix G on the basis of a
compliance exception may set a bad precedent for avoiding backfitting
analyses. NUBARG stated that ``The logic of the proposed rule would
seem to allow the NRC to avoid a backfitting analysis by (1) invoking
the intent of one requirement to override the explicit provisions of
another, (2) using the compliance exception when the practice being
eliminated seems specifically contemplated by and specified in the
pertinent regulation, and (3) overlooking the fact that the NRC has
apparently accepted this position in practice by some licensees * * *''
In NUBARG's view, this proposed amendment should be supported by a
backfit analysis. The Commission has reviewed this comment and has
concluded that use of the compliance exception under Sec. 50.109 for
the changes in Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 is appropriate. The Backfit
Analysis section contains further discussion on this subject. The issue
of explicitly prohibiting core criticality before completing pressure
and leak tests has been addressed previously (letter from J. M. Taylor,
EDO, to N. S. Reynolds and D. F. Stenger, NUBARG, dated February 2,
1990) and the NUBARG comment did not provide new information. The
Commission has concluded that any backfit requirements in this
amendment are necessary to bring the facilities into compliance with
licenses, or the rules and orders of the Commission, or into
conformance with written commitments by the licensees. Therefore, a
backfit analysis is not required pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i).
NUBARG also commented on the amendment to Appendix H to 10 CFR Part
50 regarding surveillance that would preclude reducing the amount of
testing if the initial test results agreed with predicted results.
Although NUBARG recognizes the change would be prospective, it believes
that NRC should provide flexibility to allow continued relief for any
licensee who lacks such an authorization but has relied on the
provision. The Commission believes that sufficient flexibility already
exists in that licensees who do not have an authorization may seek an
exemption under 10 CFR Part 50.12.
Another aspect of the backfitting concern raised by NUBARG
addresses the proposed amendment to Sec. 50.61 which, based on the
adequate protection exception, would impose a uniform methodology for
calculating the reference temperature. NUBARG contends that to rely on
the adequate protection exception is arguably erroneous because the
change in methodology is not likely an adequate protection issue (i.e.,
for most plants, the screening criteria will not be approached for many
years). As discussed further under Backfit Analysis, the Commission
believes that a new backfit analysis is not required for this
conforming change, which corrects an inadvertent omission from the
previous rulemaking. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the
adequate protection basis for the backfit continues to apply from the
previous rulemaking (56 FR 22300; May 15, 1991) to Sec. 50.61.
Criminal Penalties
For purposes of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the
Commission is issuing the final rule under one or more of Sections
161b, 161i or 161o of the AEA. Willful violations of the rule will be
subject to criminal enforcement.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact
The Commission has
FR Doc. 95-30665 Fracture Toughness Requirements for Light Water Reactor Pressure Vessels
determined under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in
Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of human environment and,
therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
The individual actions covered in this final rule would either
serve to enhance safety of the reactor pressure vessel, thereby
decreasing the environmental impact of plant operation, or have no
[[Page 65466]]
impact on the environment. Therefore, in all cases these individual
actions will not have an adverse impact on the environment.
PTS Rule (10 CFR 50.61)
The inclusion of thermal annealing as an option for mitigating the
effects of neutron irradiation serves to decrease the environmental
impact of plant operation by enhancing the safety of the reactor
pressure vessel.
The incorporation of the Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, method
for determining RTNDT into the PTS rule has no impact on the
environment because this change will result in values of RTPTS
which are consistent with those currently used in plant operation.
The restructuring of the PTS rule is the type of action described
in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore, an
environmental assessment is not necessary for this change.
Thermal Annealing Rule (10 CFR 50.66)
The thermal annealing rule (10 CFR 50.66) permits and provides
requirements for the thermal annealing of a reactor vessel to restore
fracture properties of the reactor vessel material which have been
degraded by neutron irradiation. This final rule only applies when a
licensee elects to use it. The final rule provides an alternative for
assuring compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.61 and Appendix
G of 10 CFR Part 50.
The application of thermal annealing to a reactor vessel improves
the condition of the reactor vessel material. In addition, this rule
establishes requirements to avoid damaging the reactor system and to
protect against accidents during the annealing operation.
This rule is one of several regulatory requirements that will
function to ensure reactor vessel integrity. In that sense, this rule
has a positive impact on the environment by reducing the potential for
vessel failure. For these reasons, the Commission has determined that
there is no significant impact and, therefore, an environmental
statement is not required.
Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50
The prohibition of core criticality before completion of the
required pressure and leak tests will serve to reduce the potential for
vessel failure, and thereby decrease the potential environmental impact
of plant operation.
The restructuring of Sections IV and V of Appendix G is clarifying
or corrective in nature, and is the type of action described in
categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore, an environmental
assessment is not necessary for this change.
The changing of the reference from Appendix G of Section III of the
ASME Code to Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME Code has no impact on
the environment because the requirements in the Appendices are
identical. Therefore, there is no adverse impact on the environment
from this change.
The referencing of the thermal annealing rule results in no adverse
impact on the environment because Appendix G currently permits the use
of thermal annealing to reduce fracture toughness loss of the RPV
materials due to irradiation embrittlement.
Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50
Concerning the amendments to Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50 in the
final rule, the requirement that all irradiation surveillance tests be
made (i.e., no reduction in testing is permitted) will have a positive
impact on the environment in helping to assure the integrity of the
reactor pressure vessel.
The restructuring of Section II.C is the type of action described
in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore, an
environmental assessment is not necessary for this change.
The clarification of the applicable version of ASTM Standard E 185
will result in no adverse impact to the environment since there will be
no change to current surveillance programs. Changes to future
surveillance programs will make the programs more effective in
assessing irradiation embrittlement effects to the RPV materials,
thereby helping to assure the integrity of the reactor pressure vessel
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule amends information collection requirements that are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and
Budget, approval number 3150-0011.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 6,000 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information and Records
Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0011), Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC 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.
Regulatory Analysis
The NRC staff has prepared a regulatory analysis for the amendments
to 10 CFR 50.61, Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50, and Appendix H of 10 CFR
Part 50 that describes the factors and alternatives considered by the
Commission in deciding to issue these amendments. A copy of the
regulatory analysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee
at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Single copies of the analysis may be
obtained from Alfred Taboada, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
telephone (301) 415-6014.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rules
which are affected by the amendments will: (1) Preclude brittle
fracture of embrittled vessels during PTS events, (2) provide the
general fracture toughness requirements for RPVs, including ductile
fracture toughness requirements and pressure-temperature limits, (3)
provide the requirements for surveillance programs to monitor
irradiation embrittlement of RPV beltline materials, and (4) provide
for a method for restoring the fracture toughness of RPV beltline
materials used in nuclear facilities licensed under the provision of 10
CFR 50.21(b) and 10 CFR 50.22. The companies that own these facilities
do not fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' as
set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business Size
Standards in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at
13 CFR Part 121, or the size standards established by the NRC at 10 CFR
2.810 (60 FR 18344; April 11, 1995).
[[Page 65467]]
Backfit Analysis
PTS Rule (10 CFR 50.61)
The revision to Sec. 50.61 requires licensees to calculate
RTPTS using the same methodology specified in Regulatory Guide
1.99, Revision 2, for determining RTNDT. This change was logically
a requisite part of the previous rulemaking (56 FR 22300; May 15, 1991)
to Sec. 50.61 that set forth a unified method for calculating radiation
embrittlement of the reactor beltline materials in Part 50. However,
the Commission, at that time, inadvertently failed to make the
conforming change to Sec. 50.61. The Commission believes that the
backfit statement for the previous amendment, which determined that the
backfit was necessary to ensure that the facility continues to provide
adequate protection to the public health and safety, is applicable to
this conforming change to Sec. 50.61.
The restructuring of the PTS rule does not impose any backfits as
defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) because there is no change in
requirements due to this restructuring.
The inclusion of thermal annealing in Sec. 50.61 does not
constitute a backfit as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) because the
decision to perform annealing is voluntary, no annealing has been
conducted in this country, and there are no staff positions or
Commission requirements relied upon by licensees that are being
changed.
Thermal Annealing Rule (10 CFR 50.66)
The final thermal annealing rule establishes requirements with
respect to applications for thermal annealing. However, the Commission
has determined that the rule does not impose a ``backfit'' as defined
in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). The thermal annealing rule does not require any
licensee to perform thermal annealing. Under existing requirements, all
licensees are required to evaluate whether they exceed the PTS
screening limits in 10 CFR 50.61 and the Charpy upper shelf screening
limits in Appendix G of CFR Part 50. However, these rules provide an
alternative means for meeting these screening limits (e.g., performing
thermal annealing). No licensee currently has pending before the NRC an
application for thermal annealing, nor has any current licensee been
granted permission to conduct thermal annealing. The rule does not
reflect any new or different NRC staff position which conflicts with a
prior NRC staff position or Commission rule. Thus, the final rule will
have a purely prospective effect on future applications for thermal
annealing. The Commission has stated in other rulemakings establishing
prospective requirements (10 CFR Part 52 and the License Renewal Rule,
10 CFR Part 54) that the Backfit Rule was not intended to protect the
future applicant from current changes in Commission requirements.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the rule does not impose
backfits and a backfit analysis need not be prepared for the final
thermal annealing rule.
Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50
The restructuring of Sections IV and V of this appendix,
referencing of the thermal annealing rule, changing the reference from
Appendix G of Section III of the ASME Code to Appendix G of Section XI
of the ASME Code, and deleting the ``design to permit annealing''
requirement do not impose any backfits as defined in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(1), because they are either prospective in nature or are of a
clarifying nature.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, Paragraph IV.2.d. of the final rule
explicitly prohibits core criticality before completion of ASME Code
hydrostatic pressure and leak tests. This is intended to make clear
that licensees may not use nuclear heat in order to perform ASME Code
hydrostatic tests. This amendment can be construed as a backfit,
inasmuch as the prior version of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, Paragraph
IV.A.5 could be read to permit core criticality during ASME hydrostatic
tests and Section XI of the ASME Code does not explicitly prohibit core
criticality prior to completion of these tests. However, the Commission
never intended the disputed language in Paragraph IV.A.5 of Appendix G
to permit core criticality before successful completion of the required
ASME hydrostatic tests. The scope of Appendix G is ``fracture toughness
requirements'' only; that scope is stated clearly in the title of
Appendix G, and Appendix G was not intended to specify system
operational requirements. It is not correct, therefore, to interpret
paragraph IV.A.5. as permitting nuclear hydrotesting. The final phrase
in IV.A.5, ``depending on whether the core is critical during the
test,'' was included in the rule for the sake of completeness, to
specify appropriate fracture toughness requirements in the event that a
licensee for some reason wanted to have the core critical during
hydrotest, and was given approval to do so (e.g., as in the case of the
Hatch units, where nuclear hydrotesting was allowed one last time as an
approved exception.) The ASME Code's hydrostatic testing provisions for
the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) provides the necessary
assurance that GDC-14 is met. GDC-14 inter alia requires RCPB testing
in order to provide an extremely low probability of RCPB failure, in
terms of abnormal leakage, rapidly propagating failure, and gross
rupture. Using heat produced by a critical reactor core to perform such
testing essentially undercuts the basic safety principle embodied in
GDC-14 that testing should be completed prior to nuclear reactor
operation. It makes little sense to allow core criticality--thereby
allowing the reactor to be in an operational condition where a loss of
coolant could have significant consequences--prior to successful
completion of tests that are intended to ensure that the probability of
such coolant losses during such an operational condition are extremely
low.\1\ The ASME Code, Section XI, requires that the System Leakage
Test be performed prior to plant startup following each refueling
outage (Table-2500-1, Examination Category B-P, Note 2). The only way
to interpret the ASME Code as permitting core criticality prior to
completion of the hydrostatic tests is to read the term, ``plant
startup'' as referring to something other than reactor criticality.
This is neither the normal industry practice, nor has it been the NRC
staff's longstanding interpretation of this provision of the ASME code.
Indeed, it does not appear that the NRC staff has construed either
Appendix G, Paragraph IV.A.5 nor Section XI of the ASME Code as
permitting core criticality prior to successful completion of ASME Code
hydrostatic tests. Moreover, the vast majority of nuclear utility
licensees do not use nuclear heat to perform ASME code hydrostatic
tests. This suggests that most licensees hold the same interpretation
of Appendix G and Section XI of the ASME Code as the Commission. In
sum, the Commission believes Section XI of the ASME Code, which is
endorsed by 10 CFR 50.55a, implicitly prohibits core criticality prior
to successful completion of hydrostatic testing. Therefore, the
Commission concludes that the change in the language of Appendix G,
Paragraph IV.2.d. is necessary to assure compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a
and the ASME Code.
\1\ The Commission is aware that NUBARG has presented an
argument to the NRC that performance of ASME Code hydrostatic tests
are more effective at the higher temperatures achieved when using
nuclear heat, as compared with the heat sources normally employed by
utilities in performing the hydrostatic tests. However, for the
reasons set forth in the 1990 letter from James M. Taylor, EDO to N.
S. Reynolds and D.F. Stenger, NUBARG, the Commission rejects this
argument.
[[Page 65468]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has concluded that any backfit requirements in this
amendment are necessary to bring the facilities into compliance with
licenses, or the rules and orders of the Commission, or into
conformance with written commitments by the licensees. Therefore, a
backfit analysis is not required pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i).
Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50
The amendments to Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50 are either
prospective in nature or of a clarifying nature, and hence do not
involve any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(1).
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50
Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire
protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and
reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and
record keeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting
the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
FACILITIES
1. The general authority citation for Part 50 is corrected to read
as set forth below, and the section-specific authority citations
continue to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68
Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234,
83 Stat. 1444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201,
2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended 1244, 1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101,
185, 68 Stat. 955 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235), sec. 102, Pub.
L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, and
50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56
also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections
50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.
91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also
issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections
50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat.
2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68
Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under
sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also
issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
2. In Sec. 50.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.
* * * * *
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in
this part appear in Secs. 50.30, 50.33, 50.33a, 50.34, 50.34a, 50.35,
50.36, 50.36a, 50.48, 50.49, 50.54, 50.55, 50.55a, 50.59, 50.60, 50.61,
50.63, 50.64, 50.65, 50.66, 70.71, 50.72, 50.73, 50.75, 50.80, 50.82,
50.90, 50.91, 50.120, and Appendices A, B, E, G, H, I, J, K, M, N, O,
Q, and R, to this part.
* * * * *
3. Section 50.61 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.61 Fracture toughness requirements for protection against
pressurized thermal shock events.
(a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
(1) ASME Code means the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division I, ``Rules for
the Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components,'' edition and
addenda and any limitations and modifications thereof as specified in
Sec. 50.55a.
(2) Pressurized Thermal Shock Event means an event or transient in
pressurized water reactors (PWRs) causing severe overcooling (thermal
shock) concurrent with or followed by significant pressure in the
reactor vessel.
(3) Reactor Vessel Beltline means the region of the reactor vessel
(shell material including welds, heat affected zones and plates or
forgings) that directly surrounds the effective height of the active
core and adjacent regions of the reactor vessel that are predicted to
experience sufficient neutron radiation damage to be considered in the
selection of the most limiting material with regard to radiation
damage.
(4) RTNDT means the reference temperature for a reactor vessel
material, under any conditions. For the reactor vessel beltline
materials, RTNDT must account for the effects of neutron
radiation.
(5) RTNDT(U) means the reference temperature for a reactor
vessel material in the pre-service or unirradiated condition, evaluated
according to the procedures in the ASME Code, Paragraph NB-2331 or
other methods approved by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
(6) EOL Fluence means the best-estimate neutron fluence projected
for a specific vessel beltline material at the clad-base-metal
interface on the inside surface of the vessel at the location where the
material receives the highest fluence on the expiration date of the
operating license.
(7) RTPTS means the reference temperature, RTNDT,
evaluated for the EOL Fluence for each of the vessel beltline
materials, using the procedures of paragraph (c) of this section.
(8) PTS Screening Criterion means the value of RTPTS for the
vessel beltline material above which the plant cannot continue to
operate without justification.
(b) Requirements.
(1) For each pressurized water nuclear power reactor for which an
operating license has been issued, the licensee shall have projected
values of RTPTS, accepted by the NRC, for each reactor vessel
beltline material for the EOL fluence of the material. The assessment
of RTPTS must use the calculation procedures given in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) and
(c)(3) of this section. The assessment must specify the bases for the
projected value of RTPTS for each vessel beltline material,
including the assumptions regarding core loading patterns, and must
specify the copper and nickel contents and the fluence value used in
the calculation for each beltline material. This assessment must be
updated whenever there is a significant 2 change in projected
values of RTPTS, or upon a request for a change in the expiration
date for operation of the facility.
\2\ Changes to RTPTS values are considered significant if
either the previous value or the current value, or both values,
exceed the screening criterion prior to the expiration of the
operating license, including any renewed term, if applicable, for
the plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The pressurized thermal shock (PTS) screening criterion is 270
deg.F for plates, forgings, and axial weld materials, and 300 deg.F
for circumferential weld materials. For the purpose of comparison with
this criterion, the value of RTPTS for the reactor vessel must be
evaluated according to the procedures of paragraph (c) of this section,
for each weld and plate, or forging, in the reactor vessel beltline.
RTPTS must be determined for each vessel beltline material using
the EOL fluence for that material.
(3) For each pressurized water nuclear power reactor for which the
value of RTPTS for any material in the beltline is projected to
exceed the PTS screening criterion using the EOL fluence, the licensee
shall implement those flux
[[Page 65469]]
reduction programs that are reasonably practicable to avoid exceeding
the PTS screening criterion set forth in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section. The schedule for implementation of flux reduction measures may
take into account the schedule for submittal and anticipated approval
by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, of detailed
plant-specific analyses, submitted to demonstrate acceptable risk with
RTPTS above the screening limit due to plant modifications, new
information or new analysis techniques.
(4) For each pressurized water nuclear power reactor for which the
analysis required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section indicates that no
reasonably practicable flux reduction program will prevent RTPTS
from exceeding the PTS screening criterion using the EOL fluence, the
licensee shall submit a safety analysis to determine what, if any,
modifications to equipment, systems, and operation are necessary to
prevent potential failure of the reactor vessel as a result of
postulated PTS events if continued operation beyond the screening
criterion is allowed. In the analysis, the licensee may determine the
properties of the reactor vessel materials based on available
information, research results, and plant surveillance data, and may use
probabilistic fracture mechanics techniques. This analysis must be
submitted at least three years before RTPTS is projected to exceed
the PTS screening criterion.
(5) After consideration of the licensee's analyses, including
effects of proposed corrective actions, if any, submitted in accordance
with paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section, the Director, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may, on a case-by-case basis, approve
operation of the facility with RTPTS in excess of the PTS
screening criterion. The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, will consider factors significantly affecting the potential
for failure of the reactor vessel in reaching a decision.
(6) If the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,
concludes, pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this section, that operation
of the facility with RTPTS in excess of the PTS screening
criterion cannot be approved on the basis of the licensee's analyses
submitted in accordance with paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this
section, the licensee shall request and receive approval by the
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, prior to any operation
beyond the criterion. The request must be based upon modifications to
equipment, systems, and operation of the facility in addition to those
previously proposed in the submitted analyses that would reduce the
potential for failure of the reactor vessel due to PTS events, or upon
further analyses based upon new information or improved methodology.
(7) If the limiting RTPTS value of the plant is projected to
exceed the screening criteria in paragraph (b)(2), or the criteria in
paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(6) of this section cannot be satisfied,
the reactor vessel beltline may be given a thermal annealing treatment
to recover the fracture toughness of the material, subject to the
requirements of Sec. 50.66. The reactor vessel may continue to be
operated only for that service period within which the predicted
fracture toughness of the vessel beltline materials satisfy the
requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(6) of this section, with
RTPTS accounting for the effects of annealing and subsequent
irradiation.
(c) Calculation of RTPTS. RTPTS must be calculated for
each vessel beltline material using a fluence value, f, which is the
EOL fluence for the material. RTPTS must be evaluated using the
same procedures used to calculate RTNDT, as indicated in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section, and as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3)
of this section.
(1) Equation 1 must be used to calculate values of RTNDT for
each weld and plate, or forging, in the reactor vessel beltline.
Equation 1: RTNDT=RTNDT(U)+M+RTNDT
(i) If a measured value of RTNDT(U) is not available, a
generic mean value for the class 3 of material may be used if
there are sufficient test results to establish a mean and a standard
deviation for the class.
\3\ The class of material for estimating RTNDT(U) is
generally determined for welds by the type of welding flux (Linde
80, or other), and for base metal by the material specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) For generic values of weld metal, the following generic mean
values must be used unless justification for different values is
provided: 0 deg.F for welds made with Linde 80 flux, and -56 deg.F for
welds made with Linde 0091, 1092 and 124 and ARCOS B-5 weld fluxes.
(iii) M means the margin to be added to account for uncertainties
in the values of RTNDT(U), copper and nickel contents, fluence and
the calculational procedures. M is evaluated from Equation 2.
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19DE95.003
(A) In Equation 2, U is the standard deviation for
RTNDT(U). If a measured value of RTNDT(U) is used, then
U is determined from the precision of the test method. If
a measured value of RTNDT(U) is not available and a generic mean
value for that class of materials is used, then U is the
standard deviation obtained from the set of data used to establish the
mean. If a generic mean value given in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of this
section for welds is used, then U is 17 deg.F.
(B) In Equation 2, is the standard deviation for
RTNDT. The value of to be used is
28 deg.F for welds and 17 deg.F for base metal; the value of
need not exceed one-half of RTNDT.
(iv) RTNDT is the mean value of the transition
temperature shift, or change in RTNDT, due to irradiation, and
must be calculated using Equation 3.
Equation 3: RTNDT=(CF)f(0.28-0.10 log f)
(A) CF ( deg.F) is the chemistry factor, which is a function of
copper and nickel content. CF is given in Table 1 for welds and in
Table 2 for base metal (plates and forgings). Linear interpolation is
permitted. In Tables 1 and 2, ``Wt-% copper'' and ``Wt-% nickel'' are
the best-estimate values for the material, which will normally be the
mean of the measured values for a plate or forging. For a weld, the
best estimate values will normally be the mean of the measured values
for a weld deposit made using the same weld wire heat number as the
critical vessel weld. If these values are not available, the upper
limiting values given in the material specifications to which the
vessel material was fabricated may be used. If not available,
conservative estimates (mean plus one standard deviation) based on
generic data 4 may be used if justification is provided. If none
of these alternatives are available, 0.35% copper and 1.0% nickel must
be assumed.
\4\ Data from reactor vessels fabricated to the same material
specification in the same shop as the vessel in question and in the
same time period is an example of ``generic data.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) f is the best estimate neutron fluence, in units of 1019
n/cm2 (E greater than 1 MeV), at the clad-base-metal interface on
the inside surface of the vessel at the location where the material in
question receives the highest fluence for the period of service in
question. As specified in this paragraph, the EOL fluence for the
vessel beltline material is used in calculating KRTPTS.
(v) Equation 4 must be used for determining RTPTS using
equation 3 with EOL fluence values for determining RTPTS.
Equation 4: RTPTS=RTNDT(U)+M+RTPTS
(2) To verify that RTNDT for each vessel beltline material is
a bounding value for the specific reactor vessel, licensees shall
consider plant-specific information that could affect the level of
[[Page 65470]]
embrittlement. This information includes but is not limited to the
reactor vessel operating temperature and any related surveillance
program 5 results.
\5\ Surveillance program results means any data that
demonstrates the embrittlement trends for the limiting beltline
material, including but not limited to data from test reactors or
from surveillance programs at other plants with or without
surveillance program integrated per 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Results from the plant-specific surveillance program must be
integrated into the RTNDT estimate if the plant-specific
surveillance data has been deemed credible as judged by the following
criteria:
(A) The materials in the surveillance capsules must be those which
are the controlling materials with regard to radiation embrittlement.
(B) Scatter in the plots of Charpy energy versus temperature for
the irradiated and unirradiated conditions must be small enough to
permit the determination of the 30-foot-pound temperature
unambiguously.
(C) Where there are two or more sets of surveillance data from one
reactor, the scatter of RTNDT values must be less than
28 deg.F for welds and 17 deg.F for base metal. Even if the range in
the capsule fluences is large (two or more orders of magnitude), the
scatter may not exceed twice those values.
(D) The irradiation temperature of the Charpy specimens in the
capsule must equal the vessel wall temperature at the cladding/base
metal interface within 25 deg.F.
(E) The surveillance data for the correlation monitor material in
the capsule, if present, must fall within the scatter band of the data
base for the material.
(ii)(A) Surveillance data deemed credible according to the criteria
of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section must be used to determine a
material-specific value of CF for use in Equation 3. A material-
specific value of CF is determined from Equation 5.
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19DE95.004
(B) In Equation 5, ``n'' is the number of surveillance data points,
``Ai'' is the measured value of RTNDT and
``fi'' is the fluence for each surveillance data point. If there
is clear evidence that the copper and nickel content of the
surveillance weld differs from the vessel weld, i.e. differs from the
average for the weld wire heat number associated with the vessel weld
and the surveillance weld, the measured values of RTNDT
must be adjusted for differences in copper and nickel content by
multiplying them by the ratio of the chemistry factor for the vessel
material to that for the surveillance weld.
(iii) For cases in which the results from a credible plant-specific
surveillance program are used, the value of to be
used is 14 deg.F for welds and 8.5 deg.F for base metal; the value of
need not exceed one-half of DRTNDT.
(iv) The use of results from the plant-specific surveillance
program may result in an RTNDT that is higher or lower than those
determined in paragraph (c)(1).
(3) Any information that is believed to improve the accuracy of the
RTPTS value significantly must be reported to the Director, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Any value of RTPTS that has been
modified using the procedures of paragraph (c)(2) of this section is
subject to the approval of the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, when used as provided in this section.
Table 1.--Chemistry Factor for Weld Metals, deg.F
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickel, wt-%
Copper, wt-% ---------------------------------------------------------------------
0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0......................................... 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
0.01...................................... 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
0.02...................................... 21 26 27 27 27 27 27
0.03...................................... 22 35 41 41 41 41 41
0.04...................................... 24 43 54 54 54 54 54
0.05...................................... 26 49 67 68 68 68 68
0.06...................................... 29 52 77 82 82 82 82
0.07...................................... 32 55 85 95 95 95 95
0.08...................................... 36 58 90 106 108 108 108
0.09...................................... 40 61 94 115 122 122 122
0.10...................................... 44 65 97 122 133 135 135
0.11...................................... 49 68 101 130 144 148 148
0.12...................................... 52 72 103 135 153 161 161
0.13...................................... 58 76 106 139 162 172 176
0.14...................................... 61 79 109 142 168 182 188
0.15...................................... 66 84 112 146 175 191 200
0.16...................................... 70 88 115 149 178 199 211
0.17...................................... 75 92 119 151 184 207 221
0.18...................................... 79 95 122 154 187 214 230
0.19...................................... 83 100 126 157 191 220 238
0.20...................................... 88 104 129 160 194 223 245
0.21...................................... 92 108 133 164 197 229 252
[[Page 65471]]
0.22...................................... 97 112 137 167 200 232 257
0.23...................................... 101 117 140 169 203 236 263
0.24...................................... 105 121 144 173 206 239 268
0.25...................................... 110 126 148 176 209 243 272
0.26...................................... 113 130 151 180 212 246 276
0.27...................................... 119 134 155 184 216 249 280
0.28...................................... 122 138 160 187 218 251 284
0.29...................................... 128 142 164 191 222 254 287
0.30...................................... 131 146 167 194 225 257 290
0.31...................................... 136 151 172 198 228 260 293
0.32...................................... 140 155 175 202 231 263 296
0.33...................................... 144 160 180 205 234 266 299
0.34...................................... 149 164 184 209 238 269 302
0.35...................................... 153 168 187 212 241 272 305
0.36...................................... 158 172 191 216 245 275 308
0.37...................................... 162 177 196 220 248 278 311
0.38...................................... 166 182 200 223 250 281 314
0.39...................................... 171 185 203 227 254 285 317
0.40...................................... 175 189 207 231 257 288 320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Chemistry Factor for Base Metals, deg.F
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nickel, wt-%
Copper, wt-% ---------------------------------------------------------------------
0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0......................................... 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
0.01...................................... 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
0.02...................................... 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
0.03...................................... 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
0.04...................................... 22 26 26 26 26 26 26
0.05...................................... 25 31 31 31 31 31 31
0.06...................................... 28 37 37 37 37 37 37
0.07...................................... 31 43 44 44 44 44 44
0.08...................................... 34 48 51 51 51 51 51
0.09...................................... 37 53 58 58 58 58 58
0.10...................................... 41 58 65 65 67 67 67
0.11...................................... 45 62 72 74 77 77 77
0.12...................................... 49 67 79 83 86 86 86
0.13...................................... 53 71 85 91 96 96 96
0.14...................................... 57 75 91 100 105 106 106
0.15...................................... 61 80 99 110 115 117 117
0.16...................................... 65 84 104 118 123 125 125
0.17...................................... 69 88 110 127 132 135 135
0.18...................................... 73 92 115 134 141 144 144
0.19...................................... 78 97 120 142 150 154 154
0.20...................................... 82 102 125 149 159 164 165
0.21...................................... 86 107 129 155 167 172 174
0.22...................................... 91 112 134 161 176 181 184
0.23...................................... 95 117 138 167 184 190 194
0.24...................................... 100 121 143 172 191 199 204
0.25...................................... 104 126 148 176 199 208 214
0.26...................................... 109 130 151 180 205 216 221
0.27...................................... 114 134 155 184 211 225 230
0.28...................................... 119 138 160 187 216 233 239
0.29...................................... 124 142 164 191 221 241 248
0.30...................................... 129 146 167 194 225 249 257
0.31...................................... 134 151 172 198 228 255 266
0.32...................................... 139 155 175 202 231 260 274
0.33...................................... 144 160 180 205 234 264 282
0.34...................................... 149 164 184 209 238 268 290
0.35...................................... 153 168 187 212 241 272 298
0.36...................................... 158 173 191 216 245 275 303
0.37...................................... 162 177 196 220 248 278 308
0.38...................................... 166 182 200 223 250 281 313
0.39...................................... 171 185 203 227 254 285 317
0.40...................................... 175 189 207 231 257 288 320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65472]]
4. A new Sec. 50.66 is added under the center heading ``Issuance,
Limitations, and Conditions of Licenses and Construction Permits'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 50.66 Requirements for thermal annealing of the reactor pressure
vessel.
(a) For those light water nuclear power reactors where neutron
radiation has reduced the fracture toughness of the reactor vessel
materials, a thermal annealing may be applied to the reactor vessel to
recover the fracture toughness of the material. The use of a thermal
annealing treatment is subject to the requirements in this section. A
report describing the licensee's plan for conducting the thermal
annealing must be submitted in accordance with Sec. 50.4 at least three
years prior to the date at which the limiting fracture toughness
criteria in Sec. 50.61 or Appendix G to Part 50 would be exceeded.
Within three years of the submittal of the Thermal Annealing Report and
at least thirty days prior to the start of the thermal annealing, the
NRC will review the Thermal Annealing Report and place the results of
its evaluation in its Public Document Room. The licensee may begin the
thermal anneal after:
(1) Submitting the Thermal Annealing Report required by paragraph
(b) of this section;
(2) the NRC places the results of its evaluation of the Thermal
Annealing Report in the Public Document Room; and
(3) the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section have been
satisfied.
(b) Thermal Annealing Report. The Thermal Annealing Report must
include: a Thermal Annealing Operating Plan; a Requalification
Inspection and Test Program; a Fracture Toughness Recovery and
Reembrittlement Trend Assurance Program; and Identification of
Unreviewed Safety Questions and Technical Specification Changes.
(1) Thermal Annealing Operating Plan.
The thermal annealing operating plan must include:
(i) A detailed description of the pressure vessel and all
structures and components that are expected to experience significant
thermal or stress effects during the thermal annealing operation;
(ii) An evaluation of the effects of mechanical and thermal
stresses and temperatures on the vessel, containment, biological
shield, attached piping and appurtenances, and adjacent equipment and
components to demonstrate that operability of the reactor will not be
detrimentally affected. This evaluation must include:
(A) Detailed thermal and structural analyses to establish the time
and temperature profile of the annealing operation. These analyses must
include heatup and cooldown rates, and must demonstrate that localized
temperatures, thermal stress gradients, and subsequent residual
stresses will not result in unacceptable dimensional changes or
distortions in the vessel, attached piping and appurtenances, and that
the thermal annealing cycle will not result in unacceptable degradation
of the fatigue life of these components.
(B) The effects of localized high temperatures on degradation of
the concrete adjacent to the vessel and changes in thermal and
mechanical properties, if any, of the reactor vessel insulation, and on
detrimental effects, if any, on containment and the biological shield.
If the design temperature limitations for the adjacent concrete
structure are to be exceeded during the thermal annealing operation, an
acceptable maximum temperature for the concrete must be established for
the annealing operation using appropriate test data.
(iii) The methods, including heat source, instrumentation and
procedures proposed for performing the thermal annealing. This shall
include any special precautions necessary to minimize occupational
exposure, in accordance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable
(ALARA) principle and the provisions of Sec. 20.1206.
(iv) The proposed thermal annealing operating parameters, including
bounding conditions for temperatures and times, and heatup and cooldown
schedules.
(A) The thermal annealing time and temperature parameters selected
must be based on projecting sufficient recovery of fracture toughness,
using the procedures of paragraph (e) of this section, to satisfy the
requirements of Sec. 50.60 and Sec. 50.61 for the proposed period of
operation addressed in the application.
(B) The time and temperature parameters evaluated as part of the
thermal annealing operating plan, and supported by the evaluation
results of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, represent the bounding
times and temperatures for the thermal annealing operation. If these
bounding conditions for times and temperatures are violated during the
thermal annealing operation, then the annealing operation is considered
not in accordance with the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan, as
required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and the licensee must
comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(2) Requalification Inspection and Test Program. The inspection and
test program to requalify the annealed reactor vessel must include the
detailed monitoring, inspections, and tests proposed to demonstrate
that the limitations on temperatures, times and temperature profiles,
and stresses evaluated for the proposed thermal annealing conditions of
paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section have not been exceeded, and to
determine the thermal annealing time and temperature to be used in
quantifying the fracture toughness recovery. The requalification
inspection and test program must demonstrate that the thermal annealing
operation has not degraded the reactor vessel, attached piping or
appurtenances, or the adjacent concrete structures to a degree that
could affect the safe operation of the reactor.
(3) Fracture Toughness Recovery and Reembrittlement Trend Assurance
Program. The percent recovery of RTNDT and Charpy upper-shelf
energy due to the thermal annealing treatment must be determined based
on the time and temperature of the actual vessel thermal anneal. The
recovery of RTNDT and Charpy upper-shelf energy provide the basis
for establishing the post-anneal RTNDT and Charpy upper-shelf
energy for each vessel material. Changes in the RTNDT and Charpy
upper-shelf energy with subsequent plant operation must be determined
using the post-anneal values of these parameters in conjunction with
the projected reembrittlement trend determined in accordance with
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section. Recovery and reembrittlement
evaluations shall include:
(i) Recovery Evaluations.
(A) The percent recovery of both RTNDT and Charpy upper-shelf
energy must be determined by one of the procedures described in
paragraph (e) of this section, using the proposed lower bound thermal
annealing time and temperature conditions described in the operating
plan.
(B) If the percent recovery is determined from testing surveillance
specimens or from testing materials removed from the reactor vessel,
then it shall be demonstrated that the proposed thermal annealing
parameters used in the test program are equal to or bounded by those
used in the vessel annealing operation.
(C) If generic computational methods are used, appropriate
justification must be submitted as a part of the application.
(ii) Reembrittlement Evaluations.
(A) The projected post-anneal reembrittlement of RTNDT must be
[[Page 65473]]
calculated using the procedures in Sec. 50.61(c), or must be determined
using the same basis as that used for the pre-anneal operating period.
The projected change due to post-anneal reembrittlement for Charpy
upper-shelf energy must be determined using the same basis as that used
for the pre-anneal operating period.
(B) The post-anneal reembrittlement trend of both RTNDT and
Charpy upper-shelf energy must be estimated, and must be monitored
using a surveillance program defined in the Thermal Annealing Report
and which conforms to the intent of Appendix H of this part, ``Reactor
Vessel Material Surveillance Program Requirements.''
(4) Identification of Unreviewed Safety Questions and Technical
Specification Changes. Any changes to the facility as described in the
updated final safety analysis report constituting unreviewed safety
questions, and any changes to the technical specifications, which are
necessary to either conduct the thermal annealing or operate the
nuclear power reactor following the annealing, must be identified. The
section shall demonstrate that the Commission's requirements continue
to be complied with, and that there is reasonable assurance of adequate
protection to the public health and safety following the changes.
(c) Completion or Termination of Thermal Annealing.
(1) If the thermal annealing was completed in accordance with the
Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and the Requalification Inspection and
Test Program, the licensee shall so confirm in writing to the Director,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The licensee may restart its
reactor after the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section have
been met.
(2) If the thermal annealing was completed but the annealing was
not performed in accordance with the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan
and the Requalification Inspection and Test Program, the licensee shall
submit a summary of lack of compliance with the Thermal Annealing
Operating Plan and the Requalification Inspection and Test Program and
a justification for subsequent operation to the Director, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Any changes to the facility as described in
the updated final safety analysis report which are attributable to the
noncompliances and constitute unreviewed safety questions, and any
changes to the technical specifications which are required as a result
of the noncompliances, shall also be identified.
(i) If no unreviewed safety questions or changes to technical
specifications are identified, the licensee may restart its reactor
after the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section have been
met.
(ii) If any unreviewed safety questions or changes to technical
specifications are identified, the licensee may not restart its reactor
until approval is obtained from the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation and the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section
have been met.
(3) If the thermal annealing was terminated prior to completion,
the licensee shall immediately notify the NRC of the premature
termination of the thermal anneal.
(i) If the partial annealing was otherwise performed in accordance
with the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and relevant portions of the
Requalification Inspection and Test Program, and the licensee does not
elect to take credit for any recovery, the licensee need not submit the
Thermal Annealing Results Report required by paragraph (d) of this
section but instead shall confirm in writing to the Director, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation that the partial annealing was otherwise
performed in accordance with the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and
relevant portions of the Requalification Inspection and Test Program.
The licensee may restart its reactor after the requirements of
paragraph (f)(2) of this section have been met.
(ii) If the partial annealing was otherwise performed in accordance
with the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and relevant portions of the
Requalification Inspection and Test Program, and the licensee elects to
take full or partial credit for the partial annealing, the licensee
shall confirm in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation that the partial annealing was otherwise performed in
compliance with the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and relevant
portions of the Requalification Inspection and Test Program. The
licensee may restart its reactor after the requirements of paragraph
(f)(2) of this section have been met.
(iii) If the partial annealing was not performed in accordance with
the Thermal Annealing Operating Plan and relevant portions of the
Requalification Inspection and Test Program, the licensee shall submit
a summary of lack of compliance with the Thermal Annealing Operating
Plan and the Requalification Inspection and Test Program and a
justification for subsequent operation to the Director, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Any changes to the facility as described in
the updated final safety analysis report which are attributable to the
noncompliances and constitute unreviewed safety questions, and any
changes to the technical specifications which are required as a result
of the noncompliances, shall also be identified.
(A) If no unreviewed safety questions or changes to technical
specifications are identified, the licensee may restart its reactor
after the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section have been
met.
(B) If any unreviewed safety questions or changes to technical
specifications are identified, the licensee may not restart its reactor
until approval is obtained from the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation and the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section
have been met.
(d) Thermal Annealing Results Report. Every licensee that either
completes a thermal annealing, or that terminates an annealing but
elects to take full or partial credit for the annealing, shall provide
the following information within three months of completing the thermal
anneal, unless an extension is authorized by the Director, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation:
(1) The time and temperature profiles of the actual thermal
annealing;
(2) The post-anneal RTNDT and Charpy upper-shelf energy values
of the reactor vessel materials for use in subsequent reactor
operation;
(3) The projected post-anneal reembrittlement trends for both
RTNDT and Charpy upper-shelf energy; and
(4) The projected values of RTPTS and Charpy upper-shelf
energy at the end of the proposed period of operation addressed in the
Thermal Annealing Report.
(e) Procedures for Determining the Recovery of Fracture Toughness.
The procedures of this paragraph must be used to determine the percent
recovery of RTNDT, Rt, and percent recovery of
Charpy upper-shelf energy, Ru. In all cases, Rt and Ru
may not exceed 100.
(1) For those reactors with surveillance programs which have
developed credible surveillance data as defined in Sec. 50.61, percent
recovery due to thermal annealing (Rt and Ru) must be
evaluated by testing surveillance specimens that have been withdrawn
from the surveillance program and that have been annealed under the
same time and temperature conditions as those given the beltline
material.
(2) Alternatively, the percent recovery due to thermal annealing
(Rt and Ru) may be determined from the results of
[[Page 65474]]
a verification test program employing materials removed from the
beltline region of the reactor vessel 6 and that have been
annealed under the same time and temperature conditions as those given
the beltline material.
\6\ For those cases where materials are removed from the
beltline of the pressure vessel, the stress limits of the applicable
portions of the ASME Code Section III must be satisfied, including
consideration of fatigue and corrosion, regardless of the Code of
record for the vessel design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Generic computational methods may be used to determine recovery
if adequate justification is provided.
(f) Public information and participation.
(1) Upon receipt of a Thermal Annealing Report, and a minimum of 30
days before the licensee starts thermal annealing, the Commission
shall:
(i) Notify and solicit comments from local and State governments in
the vicinity of the site where the thermal annealing will take place
and any Indian Nation or other indigenous people that have treaty or
statutory rights that could be affected by the thermal annealing,
(ii) Publish a notice of a public meeting in the Federal Register
and in a forum, such as local newspapers, which is readily accessible
to individuals in the vicinity of the site, to solicit comments from
the public, and
(iii) Hold a public meeting on the licensee's Thermal Annealing
Report.
(2) Within 15 days after the NRC's receipt of the licensee
submissions required by paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3)(i)-(iii)
of this section, the NRC staff shall place in the NRC Public Document
Room a summary of its inspection of the licensee's thermal annealing,
and the Commission shall hold a public meeting:
(i) For the licensee to explain to NRC and the public the results
of the reactor pressure vessel annealing,
(ii) for the NRC to discuss its inspection of the reactor vessel
annealing, and
(iii) for the NRC to receive public comments on the annealing.
(3) Within 45 days of NRC's receipt of the licensee submissions
required by paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3)(i)-(iii) of this
section, the NRC staff shall complete full documentation of its
inspection of the licensee's annealing process and place this
documentation in the NRC Public Document Room.
5. In 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G is revised to read as follows:
Appendix G to Part 50--Fracture Toughness Requirements
I. Introduction and scope.
II. Definitions.
III. Fracture toughness tests.
IV. Fracture toughness requirements.
I. Introduction and Scope
This appendix specifies fracture toughness requirements for
ferritic materials of pressure-retaining components of the reactor
coolant pressure boundary of light water nuclear power reactors to
provide adequate margins of safety during any condition of normal
operation, including anticipated operational occurrences and system
hydrostatic tests, to which the pressure boundary may be subjected
over its service lifetime.
The ASME Code forms the basis for the requirements of this
appendix. ``ASME Code'' means the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. If no section is
specified, the reference is to Section III, Division 1, ``Rules for
Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components.'' ``Section XI''
means Section XI, Division 1, ``Rules for Inservice Inspection of
Nuclear Power Plant Components.'' If no edition or addenda are
specified, the ASME Code edition and addenda and any limitations and
modifications thereof, which are specified in Sec. 50.55a, are
applicable.
The sections, editions and addenda of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code specified in Sec. 50.55a have been approved for
incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register.
A notice of any changes made to the material incorporated by
reference will be published in the Federal Register. Copies of the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code may be purchased from the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, United Engineering Center,
345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017, and are available for
inspection at the NRC Library, 11545 Rockville Pike, Two White Flint
North, Rockville, MD 20852-2738.
The requirements of this appendix apply to the following
materials:
A. Carbon and low-alloy ferritic steel plate, forgings,
castings, and pipe with specified minimum yield strengths not over
50,000 psi (345 MPa), and to those with specified minimum yield
strengths greater than 50,000 psi (345 MPa) but not over 90,000 psi
(621 MPa) if qualified by using methods equivalent to those
described in paragraph G-2110 of Appendix G of Section XI of the
latest edition and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by
reference into Sec. 50.55a(b)(2).
B. Welds and weld heat-affected zones in the materials specified
in paragraph I.A. of this appendix.
C. Materials for bolting and other types of fasteners with
specified minimum yield strengths not over 130,000 psi (896 MPa).
Note: The adequacy of the fracture toughness of other ferritic
materials not covered in this section must be demonstrated to the
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, on an individual
case basis.
II. Definitions
A. Ferritic material means carbon and low-alloy steels, higher
alloy steels including all stainless alloys of the 4xx series, and
maraging and precipitation hardening steels with a predominantly
body-centered cubic crystal structure.
B. System hydrostatic tests means all preoperational system
leakage and hydrostatic pressure tests and all system leakage and
hydrostatic pressure tests performed during the service life of the
pressure boundary in compliance with the ASME Code, Section XI.
C. Specified minimum yield strength means the minimum yield
strength (in the unirradiated condition) of a material specified in
the construction code under which the component is built under
Sec. 50.55a.
D. RTNDT means the reference temperature of the material,
for all conditions.
(i) For the pre-service or unirradiated condition, RTNDT is
evaluated according to the procedures in the ASME Code, Paragraph
NB-2331.
(ii) For the reactor vessel beltline materials, RTNDT must
account for the effects of neutron radiation.
E. RTNDT means the transition temperature shift, or change
in RTNDT, due to neutron radiation effects, which is evaluated
as the difference in the 30 ft-lb (41 J) index temperatures from the
average Charpy curves measured before and after irradiation.
F. Beltline or Beltline region of reactor vessel means the
region of the reactor vessel (shell material including welds, heat
affected zones, and plates or forgings) that directly surrounds the
effective height of the active core and adjacent regions of the
reactor vessel that are predicted to experience sufficient neutron
radiation damage to be considered in the selection of the most
limiting material with regard to radiation damage.
III. Fracture Toughness Tests
A. To demonstrate compliance with the fracture toughness
requirements of Section IV of this appendix, ferritic materials must
be tested in accordance with the ASME Code and, for the beltline
materials, the test requirements of Appendix H of this part. For a
reactor vessel that was constructed to an ASME Code earlier than the
Summer 1972 Addenda of the 1971 Edition (under Sec. 50.55a), the
fracture toughness data and data analyses must be supplemented in a
manner approved by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, to demonstrate equivalence with the fracture toughness
requirements of this appendix.
B. Test methods for supplemental fracture toughness tests
described in paragraph IV.A.1.b of this appendix must be submitted
to and approved by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, prior to testing.
C. All fracture toughness test programs conducted in accordance
with paragraphs III.A and III.B must comply with ASME Code
requirements for calibration of test equipment, qualification of
test personnel, and retention of records of these functions and of
the test data.
IV. Fracture Toughness Requirements
A. The pressure-retaining components of the reactor coolant
pressure boundary that are made of ferritic materials must meet the
requirements of the ASME Code, supplemented by the additional
requirements set forth below, for fracture toughness during system
hydrostatic tests and any condition of
[[Page 65475]]
normal operation, including anticipated operational occurrences.
Reactor vessels may continue to be operated only for that service
period within which the requirements of this section are satisfied.
For the reactor vessel beltline materials, including welds, plates
and forgings, the values of RTNDT and Charpy upper-shelf energy
must account for the effects of neutron radiation, including the
results of the surveillance program of Appendix H of this part. The
effects of neutron radiation must consider the radiation conditions
(i.e., the fluence) at the deepest point on the crack front of the
flaw assumed in the analysis.
1. Reactor Vessel Charpy Upper-Shelf Energy Requirements
a. Reactor vessel beltline materials must have Charpy upper-
shelf energy,1 in the transverse direction for base material
and along the weld for weld material according to the ASME Code, of
no less than 75 ft-lb (102 J) initially and must maintain Charpy
upper-shelf energy throughout the life of the vessel of no less than
50 ft-lb (68 J), unless it is demonstrated in a manner approved by
the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, that lower
values of Charpy upper-shelf energy will provide margins of safety
against fracture equivalent to those required by Appendix G of
Section XI of the ASME Code. This analysis must use the latest
edition and addenda of the ASME Code incorporated by reference into
Sec. 50.55a(b)(2) at the time the analysis is submitted.
\1\ Defined in ASTM E 185-79 and -82 which are incorporated by
reference in Appendix H to Part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Additional evidence of the fracture toughness of the beltline
materials after exposure to neutron irradiation may be obtained from
results of supplemental fracture toughness tests for use in the
analysis specified in section IV.A.1.a.
c. The analysis for satisfying the requirements of section
IV.A.1 of this appendix must be submitted, as specified in
Sec. 50.4, for review and approval on an individual case basis at
least three years prior to the date when the predicted Charpy upper-
shelf energy will no longer satisfy the requirements of section
IV.A.1 of this appendix, or on a schedule approved by the Director,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
2. Pressure-Temperature Limits and Minimum Temperature Requirements
a. Pressure-temperature limits and minimum temperature
requirements for the reactor vessel are given in Table 3, and are
defined by the operating condition (i.e., hydrostatic pressure and
leak tests, or normal operation including anticipated operational
occurrences), the vessel pressure, whether or not fuel is in the
vessel, and whether the core is critical. In Table 3, the vessel
pressure is defined as a percentage of the preservice system
hydrostatic test pressure. The appropriate requirements on both the
pressure-temperature limits and the minimum permissible temperature
must be met for all conditions.
b. The pressure-temperature limits identified as ``ASME Appendix
G limits'' in Table 3 require that the limits must be at least as
conservative as limits obtained by following the methods of analysis
and the margins of safety of Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME
Code.
c. The minimum temperature requirements given in Table 3 pertain
to the controlling material, which is either the material in the
closure flange or the material in the beltline region with the
highest reference temperature. As specified in Table 3, the minimum
temperature requirements and the controlling material depend on the
operating condition (i.e., hydrostatic pressure and leak tests, or
normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences), the
vessel pressure, whether fuel is in the vessel, and whether the core
is critical. The metal temperature of the controlling material, in
the region of the controlling material which has the least favorable
combination of stress and temperature, must exceed the appropriate
minimum temperature requirement for the condition and pressure of
the vessel specified in Table 1.
d. Pressure tests and leak tests of the reactor vessel that are
required by Section XI of the ASME Code must be completed before the
core is critical.
B. If the procedures of Section IV.A. of this appendix do not
indicate the existence of an equivalent safety margin, the reactor
vessel beltline may be given a thermal annealing treatment to
recover the fracture toughness of the material, subject to the
requirements of Sec. 50.66. The reactor vessel may continue to be
operated only for that service period within which the predicted
fracture toughness of the beltline region materials satisfies the
requirements of Section IV.A. of this appendix using the values of
RTNDT and Charpy upper-shelf energy that include the effects of
annealing and subsequent irradiation.
Table 1.--Pressure and Temperature Requirements for the Reactor Pressure Vessel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel Requirements for pressure-
Operating condition pressure temperature limits Minimum temperature requirements
-------------------------------------------\1\------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hydrostatic pressure and leak
tests (core is not critical):
1.a Fuel in the vessel.......... ASME Appendix G Limits.... (\2\)
20%
1.b Fuel in the vessel.......... >20% ASME Appendix G Limits.... (\2\) +90 deg.F (\6\)
1.c No fuel in the vessel ALL (Not Applicable).......... (\3\) +60 deg.F
(Preservice Hydrotest Only).
2. Normal operation (incl. heat-up
and cool-down), including
anticipated operational occurrences:
2.a Core not critical........... ASME Appendix G Limits.... (\2\)
20%
2.b Core not critical........... >20% ASME Appendix G Limits.... (\2\) +120 deg.F (\6\)
2.c Core critical............... ASME Appendix G Limits + Larger of [(\4\)] or [(\2\) + 40
20% 40 deg.F. deg.F]
2.d Core critical............... >20% ASME Appendix G Limits + Larger of [(\4\)] or [(\2\) +
40 deg.F. 160 deg.F]
2.e Core critical for BWR (\5\). ASME Appendix G Limits + (\2\) + 60 deg.F
20% 40 deg.F.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percent of the preservice system hydrostatic test pressure.
\2\ The highest reference temperature of the material in the closure flange region that is highly stressed by
the bolt preload.
\3\ The highest reference temperature of the vessel.
\4\ The minimum permissible temperature for the inservice system hydrostatic pressure test.
\5\ For boiling water reactors (BWR) with water level within the normal range for power operation.
\6\ Lower temperatures are permissible if they can be justified by showing that the margins of safety of the
controlling region are equivalent to those required for the beltline when it is controlling.
[[Page 65476]]
6. In 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H is revised to read as follows:
Appendix H to Part 50--Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program
Requirements
I. Introduction
II. Definitions
III. Surveillance Program Criteria
IV. Report of Test Results
I. Introduction
The purpose of the material surveillance program required by
this appendix is to monitor changes in the fracture toughness
properties of ferritic materials in the reactor vessel beltline
region of light water nuclear power reactors which result from
exposure of these materials to neutron irradiation and the thermal
environment. Under the program, fracture toughness test data are
obtained from material specimens exposed in surveillance capsules,
which are withdrawn periodically from the reactor vessel. These data
will be used as described in Section IV of Appendix G to Part 50.
ASTM E 185-73, -79, and -82, ``Standard Practice for Conducting
Surveillance Tests for Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor
Vessels,'' which are referenced in the following paragraphs, have
been approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the
Federal Register. Copies of ASTM E 185-73, -79, and -82, may be
purchased from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916
Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 and are available for inspection
at the NRC Library, 11545 Rockville Pike, Two White Flint North,
Rockville, MD 20852-2738.
II. Definitions
All terms used in this Appendix have the same meaning as in
Appendix G.
III. Surveillance Program Criteria
A. No material surveillance program is required for reactor
vessels for which it can be conservatively demonstrated by
analytical methods applied to experimental data and tests performed
on comparable vessels, making appropriate allowances for all
uncertainties in the measurements, that the peak neutron fluence at
the end of the design life of the vessel will not exceed 1017
n/cm2 (E > 1 MeV).
B. Reactor vessels that do not meet the conditions of paragraph
III.A of this appendix must have their beltline materials monitored
by a surveillance program complying with ASTM E 185, as modified by
this appendix.
1. The design of the surveillance program and the withdrawal
schedule must meet the requirements of the edition of ASTM E 185
that is current on the issue date of the ASME Code to which the
reactor vessel was purchased. Later editions of ASTM E 185 may be
used, but including only those editions through 1982. For each
capsule withdrawal, the test procedures and reporting requirements
must meet the requirements of ASTM E 185-82 to the extent
practicable for the configuration of the specimens in the capsule.
2. Surveillance specimen capsules must be located near the
inside vessel wall in the beltline region so that the specimen
irradiation history duplicates, to the extent practicable within the
physical constraints of the system, the neutron spectrum,
temperature history, and maximum neutron fluence experienced by the
reactor vessel inner surface. If the capsule holders are attached to
the vessel wall or to the vessel cladding, construction and
inservice inspection of the attachments and attachment welds must be
done according to the requirements for permanent structural
attachments to reactor vessels given in Sections III and XI of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (ASME Code). The design and location of the capsule holders
must permit insertion of replacement capsules. Accelerated
irradiation capsules may be used in addition to the required number
of surveillance capsules.
3. A proposed withdrawal schedule must be submitted with a
technical justification as specified in Sec. 50.4. The proposed
schedule must be approved prior to implementation.
C. Requirements for an Integrated Surveillance Program.
1. In an integrated surveillance program, the representative
materials chosen for surveillance for a reactor are irradiated in
one or more other reactors that have similar design and operating
features. Integrated surveillance programs must be approved by the
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, on a case-by-case
basis. Criteria for approval include the following:
a. The reactor in which the materials will be irradiated and the
reactor for which the materials are being irradiated must have
sufficiently similar design and operating features to permit
accurate comparisons of the predicted amount of radiation damage.
b. Each reactor must have an adequate dosimetry program.
c. There must be adequate arrangement for data sharing between
plants.
d. There must be a contingency plan to assure that the
surveillance program for each reactor will not be jeopardized by
operation at reduced power level or by an extended outage of another
reactor from which data are expected.
e. There must be substantial advantages to be gained, such as
reduced power outages or reduced personnel exposure to radiation, as
a direct result of not requiring surveillance capsules in all
reactors in the set.
2. No reduction in the requirements for number of materials to
be irradiated, specimen types, or number of specimens per reactor is
permitted.
3. After (the effective date of this section), no reduction in
the amount of testing is permitted unless previously authorized by
the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
IV. Report of Test Results
A. Each capsule withdrawal and the test results must be the
subject of a summary technical report to be submitted, as specified
in Sec. 50.4, within one year of the date of capsule withdrawal,
unless an extension is granted by the Director, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
B. The report must include the data required by ASTM E 185, as
specified in paragraph III.B.1 of this appendix, and the results of
all fracture toughness tests conducted on the beltline materials in
the irradiated and unirradiated conditions.
C. If a change in the Technical Specifications is required,
either in the pressure-temperature limits or in the operating
procedures required to meet the limits, the expected date for
submittal of the revised Technical Specifications must be provided
with the report.
Dated at Rockville MD, this 12th day of December, 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-30665 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30593 Official/Unofficial Weighing Service
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65235-65236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30593]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 65235]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
7 CFR Part 800
Official/Unofficial Weighing Service
AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) is amending portions of Part 800, General Regulations under the
United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (USGSA). The action is
being taken to reinstate the regulations contained in 7 CFR Part 800
prior to the effective date of the direct final rule that was published
in the Federal Register on August 2, 1995 (60 FR 39242). The action is
necessary because we received adverse comments on the direct final
rule, and we were unable to withdraw it before the effective date. We
will follow this action with a proposed rule to provide adequate
opportunity to comment on proposed changes contained in the direct
final rule.
DATES: December 19, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George Wollam, USDA-GIPSA, Room 0623-South Building, 1400 Independence
Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20090-6454, telephone (202) 720-0292.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be not-significant for the purpose
of Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by OMB.
Executive Order 12778
This amended rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have a retroactive
effect. The United States Grain Standards Act provides in section 87g
that no State or subdivision may require or impose any requirements or
restriction concerning the inspection, weighing, or description of
grain under the Act. Otherwise, this rule will not preempt any State or
local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which
must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
James R. Baker, Administrator, GIPSA, has determined that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Most users of the official inspection and weighing
services and those persons that perform those services do not meet the
requirements for small entities as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Further, the standards are
applied equally to all entities.
Information Collection and Recordkeeping Requirements
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35), the information collection and Recordkeeping requirements
in Part 800 have been approved previously by OMB and assigned OMB No.
0580-0013.
Background
The direct final rule published August 2, 1995, (60 FR 39242)
notified the public of amendments to those regulations that prohibit
official agencies to provide official weighing service when they
provide similar unofficial service. GIPSA had planned to allow agencies
to do both official and unofficial weighing within their assigned
areas. Two written adverse comments in response to the direct final
rule were received. The direct final rule was inadvertently not
withdrawn prior to its effective date. The rule became effective on
October 2, 1995. This final rule amends the regulations by reinstating
the regulations that were in effect prior to the effective date of the
direct final rule. The agency now plans to publish a proposed rule for
public comment before taking further action to change the regulations.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that, upon
good cause, it is impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public
interest to give preliminary notice or to engage in further public
procedure prior to implementing this action and that good cause exist
for not postponing the effective date of this action until 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) This action
reinstates the regulations prior to effective date of the direct final
rule the was inadvertently not withdrawn; and (2) a proposed rule will
be published before any further changes to the regulations are made and
the public will be afforded the opportunity to comment.
Final Action
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 800
Administrative practice and procedure, Conflict of interests,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 800 is amended as
follows:
PART 800--GENERAL REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 800 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C.
71 et seq.)
2. Section 800.76(a) is revised as follows:
Sec. 800.76 Prohibited services; restricted services.
(a) Prohibited services. No agency shall perform any function or
provide any service on the basis of unofficial standards, procedures,
factors, or criteria if the agency is designated or authorized to
perform the service or provide the service on an official basis under
the Act.
* * * * *
3. Section 800.186(c)(3) introductory text is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 800.186 Standards of conduct.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Engage in any outside (unofficial) work or activity that:
* * * * *
4. Section 800.195(f)(5)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 800.195 Delegations.
* * * * *
[[Page 65236]]
(f) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) Unofficial activities. The delegated State or personnel
employed by the State shall not perform any unofficial service that is
the same as any of the official services covered by the delegation.
5. Section 800.196(g)(6)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 800.196 Delegations
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) Unofficial activities. The agency or personnel employed by the
agency shall not perform any unofficial service that is the same as the
official services covered by the designation.
* * * * *
Dated: December 8, 1995.
James R. Baker,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-30593 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30361 Foreign Option Transactions
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65236-65237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30361]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 30
Foreign Option Transactions
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) is
issuing this Order pursuant to which Option Contracts on a spot foreign
exchange operation between the Deutsche Mark and the French Franc (DEM/
FRF) traded on the Marche a Terme International de France (MATIF) may
be offered or sold to persons located in the United States. This Order
makes it unlawful for any person to engage in the offer or sale of a
foreign option product until the Commission, by order, authorizes such
foreign option to be offered or sold in the United States and the
procedures established by the Mutual Recognition Memorandum of
Understanding (MRMOU) with the French Commission des Operations de
Bourse.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Warren R. Gorlick, Esq., Division of
Trading and Markets, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three
Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20581.
Telephone: (202) 418-5435.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission has issued the following
Order:
United States of America Before the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission
Order Pursuant to the Mutual Recognition Memorandum of
Understanding with the French Commission des Operations de Bourse
and Rule 30.3(a) Permitting Option Contracts on the DEM/FRF Traded
on the Marche a Terme International de France (MATIF) to Be Offered
or Sold to Persons Located in the United States Thirty Days After
Publication of This Notice in the Federal Register Absent Further
Notice
By Order issued on December 17, 1991 (Initial Order) 1, the
Commission authorized, pursuant to the Mutual Recognition Memorandum of
Understanding (MRMOU) 2 and Commission rule 30.3(a),3 certain
option products traded on the MATIF to be offered or sold in the United
States.
\1\ See 56 FR 66345 (December 23, 1991).
\2\ See 55 FR 23902 (June 13, 1990). Among other things, this
arrangement provides a mechanism pursuant to which certain option
products traded on the Marche a Terme International de France
(MATIF) may be offered or sold to customers resident in the United
States thirty days after publication in the Federal Register of a
notice specifying the particular option contracts to be offered or
sold.
\3\ Commission rule 30.3(a), 17 CFR 30.3(a), makes it unlawful
for any person to engage in the offer or sale of a foreign option
product until the Commission, by order, authorizes such foreign
option to be offered or sold in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By letter dated October 24, 1995, MATIF notified the Commission
that on October 23, 1995 it would be introducing Option Contracts based
on the DEM/FRF and requested that the Commission supplement its Initial
Order authorizing the offer and sale in the United States of Options on
the Notional Bond, the 3-month PIBOR, the 3-month EURODEM Futures
Contracts; a Supplemental Order, 57 FR 10987 (April 1, 1992),
authorizing the offer and sale in the United States of Options on the
Long-Term ECU Bond Futures Contracts; a Supplemental Order, 59 FR 22971
(May 4, 1994), authorizing the offer and sale in the United States of
Options on the USD/DEM and USD/FRF; and a Supplemental Order, 60 FR
34458 (July 3, 1995), authorizing the offer and sale in the United
States of Options on the GBP/DEM and the DEM/ITL by also authorizing
the MATIF's Option Contracts on the DEM/FRF to be offered or sold to
persons located in the United States.4 Based upon the foregoing,
and pursuant to the terms of the MRMOU, the Commission hereby publishes
this Order in the Federal Register pursuant to which the particular
Option Contracts specified herein may be offered or sold thirty days
after the publication of this Order.
\4\ See letter dated October 24, 1995 from Catherine Langlais,
MATIF, to Jane C. Kang, Esq., Division of Trading and Markets. See
also letter dated November 6, 1995 from Frederic Perier, Commission
des Operations de Bourse, to Andrea M. Corcoran, Director, Division
of Trading and Markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, pursuant to Commission rule 30.3(a), 17 CFR 30.3(a),
and Article II, paragraph 6(b) and Article V, paragraph 6 of the MRMOU
signed by the Commission on June 6, 1990 (55 FR 23902 (June 13, 1990)),
and subject to the terms and conditions specified in the MRMOU, the
Commission hereby issues this Order pursuant to which Option Contracts
based on the DEM/FRF traded on the MATIF may be offered or sold to
persons located in the United States thirty days after publication of
this Order in the Federal Register, unless prior to that date the
Commission receives any comments which may result in a determination to
delay the effective date of the Order pending review of such comments.
Under such circumstances the Commission will provide notice.
Contract Specifications
DEM/FRF Option
Type
European style
Underlying Interest
Spot currency transaction DEM against FRF
Contract Size
DEM 100,000
Strike Price
Expressed in FRF, with 2 decimals.
Strike price intervals: 1 Centime (3.40-3.41)
Quotation
Premium in % of the DEM nominal, with 2 decimals.
Ex: 0.45% stands for 100,000 x 0.45/100 = DEM 450.
In specific cases, premium with 3 decimals.
Tick
Size: 0.01%
Value: 0.01/100 x 100,000 = DEM 10
Expiration
3 monthly + 3 quarterly expirations from March (H), June (M), September
(U), December (Z)
Last Trading Day
Thursday following the 3rd Wednesday of expiration month at 9:00 am
(New York time)
[[Page 65237]]
First Trading Day
First business day following an expiration date
Exercise
After settlement of a spot-fixing on the expiration date, automatic
exercise of in-the-money options.
Exercise: exchange of underlying currencies
Trading Hours
Open outcry: 9:15 am to 5:00 pm (Paris time)
THS (after hours trading): 5:00 pm to 9:15 am
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 30
Commodity futures, Commodity options, Foreign transactions.
Accordingly, 17 CFR part 30 is amended as set forth below:
PART 30--FOREIGN FUTURES AND FOREIGN OPTION TRANSACTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 2(a)(1)(A), 4, 4c, and 8a of the Commodity
Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 2, 6, 6c and 12a.
2. Appendix B to part 30 is amended by adding the following entry
after the existing entries for the ``Marche a Terme International de
France'' to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 30--Option Contracts Permitted to be Offered or Sold
in the U.S. Pursuant to Sec. 30.3(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange Type of contract FR date and citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marche a Terme International Option Contracts on December 19, 1995;
de France. the Deutsche Mark 60 FR 65237
and the French
Franc (DEM/FRF).
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued in Washington, D.C. on December 6, 1995.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-30361 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30257 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65387-65436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30257]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-5327-5]
RIN 2060-AD00
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources
Municipal Waste Combustors
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action adds standards of performance for new municipal
waste combustor (MWC) units and emission guidelines for existing MWC's.
The standards and guidelines implement sections 111 and 129 of the
Clean Air Act and are based on the Administrator's determination that
MWC's cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The
standards and guidelines apply to MWC units at plants with aggregate
capacities to combust greater than 35 megagrams per day (Mg/day)
(approximately 40 tons per day) of municipal solid waste (MSW) and
require sources to achieve emission levels reflecting the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants that the
Administrator determined is achievable, taking into consideration the
cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air-quality
health and environmental impacts and energy requirements. The
promulgated standards and guidelines establish emission levels for MWC
organics (dioxins/furans), MWC metals (cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), mercury
(Hg), particulate matter (PM), and opacity), MWC acid gases (hydrogen
chloride (HCl) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and MWC fugitive ash emissions. Some of the pollutants
being regulated are considered to be carcinogens and at sufficient
concentrations can cause toxic effects following exposure. The
standards and guidelines also establish requirements for MWC operating
practices (carbon monoxide (CO), load, flue gas temperature at the PM
control device inlet, and operator training/certification).
Additionally, the standards for new MWC plants also require a siting
analysis and materials separation plan.
DATES: Effective Dates. June 19, 1996 for the standards for new sources
(Secs. 60.50b through 60.59b) and December 19, 1995 for the emission
guidelines for existing sources (Secs. 60.30b through 60.39b). The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
June 19, 1996 for the standards for new sources. See table 3 of this
preamble for a summary of the retrofit schedules for existing MWC
sources. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for a discussion of the schedule
for judicial review.
Comments. Comments on the Information Collection Request (ICR)
document associated with the final standards for new sources are
requested, as discussed in section VI.B of this preamble. Comments on
the ICR document must be received on or before February 20, 1996. Refer
to Section VI.B for further information on this request for comment.
ADDRESSES: Comments. As noted above, comments on the ICR document
[[Page 65388]]
associated with the final standards for new source are requested. See
section VI.B and the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble
for further information on obtaining a copy of the ICR document and
addresses for submitting comments on the ICR document.
Background Information. The principal background information for
the final standards and guidelines includes: (1) A background
information document (BID) entitled, ``Municipal Waste Combustion:
Background Information for Promulgated Standards and Guidelines--
Summary of Public Comments and Responses'' (EPA-453/R-95-0136), which
contains a summary of all the significant public comments submitted
regarding the proposed standards and guidelines, the EPA's response to
these comments, and a summary of the changes made to the standards and
guidelines as a result of the comments; and (2) several technical
documents listed under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, including all of the
background information documents that supported the proposal and
promulgation of the subpart Ea standards and subpart Ca guidelines. A
document entitled ``FACT SHEET: New Municipal Waste Combustors--Subpart
Eb Standards,'' which succinctly summarizes the final standards, and a
document entitled ``FACT SHEET: Existing Municipal Waste Combustors--
Subpart Cb Emission Guidelines,'' which succinctly summarizes the
guidelines, are also available. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
instructions and addresses for obtaining these documents.
Docket. Docket Nos. A-90-45 and A-89-08, containing supporting
information used in developing the standards and guidelines, are
available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (Mail Code 6102), 401 M Street
SW, Washington DC 20460 [phone: (202) 260-7548]. The docket is located
at the above address in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor,
central mall). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Walter Stevenson at (919) 541-5264
or Mr. Fred Porter at (919) 541-5251, Combustion Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background Information.
On December 20, 1989, the EPA proposed standards and guidelines for
MWC's in subparts Ea and Ca of 40 CFR 60, respectively. The subparts Ea
and Ca were promulgated on February 11, 1991 and were developed under
authority of paragraph (b) of section 111 of the Clean Air Act of 1977.
The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act required the EPA to review
these emission standards and guidelines and determine if they were
fully consistent with the requirements of section 129. The EPA reviewed
the subpart Ea standards and subpart Ca guidelines and concluded that
they were not fully consistent with the requirements of section 129.
Therefore, the EPA proposed to revise the standards and guidelines in a
September 20, 1994 proposal to make the standards and guidelines fully
consistent with the requirements of section 129. Municipal waste
combustors that begin construction after September 20, 1994 or that
begin modification or reconstruction after June 19, 1996 and that meet
all other applicability criteria are subject to the revised standards
(subpart Eb). Municipal waste combustors that were constructed on or
before September 20, 1994 and that meet all other applicability
criteria are subject to the revised guidelines (subpart Cb). Municipal
waste combustors that were constructed after December 20, 1989 and on
or before September 20, 1994 and that meet all other applicability
criteria are subject to both the subpart Ea standards (1991 standards
for new sources) and the subpart Cb guidelines (1995 retrofit
guidelines for existing sources). In this final rule, the EPA is
withdrawing the subpart Ca guidelines (1991 guidelines for existing
sources). In a separate action in today's Federal Register the EPA is
publishing a direct final rule amending the text of subpart Ea.
This Federal Register final rule discusses: (1) The standards for
new MWC's, (2) the guidelines for existing MWC's, (3) the withdrawal of
the 1991 subpart Ca guidelines for existing MWC's, and (4) a request
for public comment on the ICR document. This preamble and regulatory
text are available on the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
electronic bulletin board. Also available on the EPA's TTN are FACT
SHEETS, which summarize the final standards and guidelines. They are
suggested reading for persons requiring an overview of the standards
and guidelines. The FACT SHEETS can also be obtained by calling Donna
Collins at (919) 541-5578. The TTN contains 18 electronic bulletin
boards, and the following 5 items are included in the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) bulletin board under menu item ``Recently Signed
Rules'' in file ``MWC2.ZIP'':
(1) ``FACT SHEET: New Municipal Waste Combustors--Subpart Eb
Standards (1995).''
(2) ``FACT SHEET: Existing Municipal Waste Combustors--Subpart Cb
Emission Guidelines (1995).''
(3) Federal Register notice for this promulgation: ``Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Municipal Waste Combustors'' (this document).
(4) ``Municipal Waste Combustion: Background Information for
Promulgated Standards and Guidelines--Summary of Public Comments and
Responses,'' EPA-453/R-95-0136.
(5) Information Collection Request document for these standards for
new sources: ``Standard Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR No.
1506.5--1995 Standards for New Municipal Waste Combustors (Subpart
Eb),'' September 29, 1995.
The TTN is accessible 24 hours per day, 7 days per week except
Monday morning from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. when the system is updated.
The service is free except for the cost of the phone call. Dial (919)
541-5742 to access the TTN. The TTN is compatible with up to a 14,400
bits-per-second (bps) modem. An alternative way to access the TTN is by
``telenet,'' using access code ``ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov''. Further
instructions for accessing the TTN can be obtained by calling the help
desk at (919) 541-5384.
Documents in the Docket. The background information for today's
promulgation includes all of the documents that supported the proposal
and promulgation of the subpart Ea standards and subpart Ca guidelines
(docket No. A-90-45 and docket No. A-89-08). Key background information
documents used in developing the subpart Ea standards, the subpart Ca
guidelines, and today's promulgated standards and guidelines are as
follows:
(1) ``Municipal Waste Combustors--Background Information for
Proposed Standards: 111(b) Model Plant Description and Cost Report,''
EPA-450/3-89-27b, August 1989;
(2) ``Municipal Waste Combustors--Background Information for
Proposed Standards: Post-Combustion Technology Performance,'' EPA-450/
3-89-27c, August 1989;
(3) ``Municipal Waste Combustion Assessment: Combustion Control at
[[Page 65389]]
Existing Facilities,'' EPA-600/8-89-057, August 1989;
(4) ``Municipal Waste Combustion Assessment, Technical Basis for
Good Combustion Practices,'' EPA-600/8-89-063, August 1989;
(5) ``Municipal Waste Combustors--Background Information for
Proposed Standards: Control of NOX Emissions,'' EPA-450/3-89-27d,
August 1989;
(6) ``Municipal Waste Combustors--Background Information for
Proposed Standards: Cost Procedures,'' EPA-450/3-89-27a, August 1989;
(7) ``Economic Impact Analysis for Proposed Emission Standards and
Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors,'' EPA-450/3-91-029, March
1994;
(8) ``Municipal Waste Combustors--Background Information for
Proposed Guidelines for Existing Facilities,'' EPA-450/3-89-27e, August
1989;
(9) ``Municipal Waste Combustion: Background Information for
Promulgated Standards and Guidelines--Summary of Public Comments and
Responses,'' EPA-453/R-95-0136, 1995.
These documents and additional technical information are contained
in dockets A-90-45 and A-89-08. Docket materials are available for
inspection and copying as described in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
judicial review of the actions taken by this notice is available by
filing of a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of
this rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, the
requirements that are in today's notice may not be challenged later in
the civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these
requirements (42 U.S.C. 7607(b)).
Preamble Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in the introductory text (preamble) to the final
standards and guidelines.
I. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Measurement Units
A. Acronyms
B. Abbreviations and Measurement Units
II. Background and Withdrawal of the 1991 Subpart Ca Emission
Guidelines
III. Summary of Considerations in Developing the 1995 Standards for New
Sources and Guidelines for Existing Sources
A. Purpose of the Standards and Guidelines
B. Technical Basis of the Standards and Guidelines
C. Stakeholders and Public Involvement
IV. Standards of Performance for New Sources (1995)--Summary of the
Standards, Impacts of the Standards, and Significant Issues and Changes
to the Proposed Standards
A. Summary of the Standards
B. Significant Issues and Changes to the Proposed Standards
1. Applicability
2. Emission Limits for MWC Metals, Acid Gases, Organics,
Nitrogen Oxides, and Ash Fugitive Emissions
3. Good Combustion Practices
4. Operator Training and Certification
5. Air Curtain Incinerators
6. Siting Analysis/Materials Separation Plan
7. Compliance and Performance Testing
8. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
C. Impacts of the Standards
V. Guidelines for Existing Sources (1995)--Summary of the Guidelines,
Impacts of the Guidelines, and Significant Issues and Changes to the
Proposed Guidelines
A. Summary of the Guidelines
B. Significant Issues and Changes to the Proposed Guidelines
1. Designated Facilities
2. Emission Limits for MWC Metals, Acid Gases, Organics,
Nitrogen Oxides, and Fugitive Ash Emissions
3. Good Combustion Practices
4. Operator Training and Certification
5. Air Curtain Incinerators
6. Compliance and Performance Testing
7. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Compliance
Schedules
C. Impacts of the Guidelines
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
E. Executive Order 12875
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements
I. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Measurement Units
The following definitions, acronyms, and measurement units are
provided to clarify the preamble to the final standards and guidelines.
A. Acronyms
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BID Background Information Document
CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system(s)
COMS continuous opacity monitoring system(s) dioxins/furans
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans
DSI dry sorbent injection
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESP electrostatic precipitator
FF fabric filter
GCP good combustion practices
ICR information collection request
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MSW municipal solid waste
MWC municipal waste combustor
MWI medical waste incinerator
NSR New Source Review
NOX nitrogen oxides
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM particulate matter
RDF refuse-derived fuel
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SD spray dryer
SNCR selective noncatalytic reduction
TEQ basis 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalent
based on the 1989 international toxic equivalency factors
B. Abbreviations and Measurement Units
deg.C=degrees Celsius (degrees Fahrenheit= deg.C*9/5+32)
Cd=cadmium
CO=carbon monoxide
CO2=carbon dioxide
dscf=dry standard cubic feet (at 14.7 pounds per square inch, 68
deg.F)
dscm=dry standard cubic meters (at 14 pounds per square inch, 68
deg.F)
g=gram (454 grams per pound)
g/yr=grams per year
gr=grains (7,000 grains per pound)
HCl=hydrogen chloride
Hg=mercury
kg=kilogram (0.454 kilograms per pound)
kg/yr=kilograms per year
m3=cubic meter (35.3 cubic feet per cubic meter)
mg=milligrams (10-3 grams)
Mg=megagram (1.1 tons)
Mg/d=megagrams per day
Mg/yr=megagrams per year
ng=nanogram (10-9 grams)
Pb=lead
ppmv=parts per million by volume
SO2=sulfur dioxide
tons/d=tons per day
tons/yr=tons per year
total mass basis (dioxins/furans=total mass of tetra- through octa-
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibzofurans
II. Background and Withdrawal of the 1991 Subpart Ca Emission
Guidelines
By the mid-1980's, several studies had been performed to determine
whether MWC emissions should be regulated and, if so, under what
section of the Clean Air Act. As set forth in the Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (52 FR 25399, July 7, 1987), the EPA decided to
regulate air emissions from MWC's under section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, and to base the
[[Page 65390]]
regulation on best demonstrated technology, as required by section 111.
On December 20, 1989, the EPA proposed standards for new MWC's and
guidelines for existing MWC's (54 FR 52251 and 54 FR 52209,
respectively). On November 15, 1990, 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air
Act were enacted and added section 129 to the Clean Air Act. Section
129 of the Clean Air Act specifies that revised standards and
guidelines must be developed for MWC's in accordance with the
requirements of both section 111 and new section 129. Section 129
further specifies that revised standards and guidelines be developed
for both large and small MWC plants and that the revised standards and
guidelines must reflect more restrictive performance levels. Section
129 includes a schedule for revising the 1991 standards and guidelines.
When the EPA did not comply with the section 129 schedule, the
Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Integrated
Waste Services Association filed complaints with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The resulting consent
decree required the EPA Administrator to sign a notice of proposed
rulemaking not later than September 1, 1994 and a notice of
promulgation not later than October 31, 1995 (Nos. CV-92-2093, CV-93-
0284, and CV-93-5144). The proposal notice for the standards and
guidelines was signed as scheduled and published on September 20, 1994
(59 FR 48198 and 59 FR 48228, respectively). This notice responds to
the requirement for the Administrator to sign the final standards and
guidelines by October 31, 1995.
The standards and guidelines promulgated on February 11, 1991 (56
FR 5488 and 56 FR 5514, respectively) apply to only large MWC's
(capacities above 225 Mg/day) and reflect best demonstrated technology.
Today's notice promulgates revised standards and guidelines that are
fully consistent with sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act and
extend coverage of the revised standards and guidelines to MWC units
located at MWC plants with aggregate plant capacity above 35 Mg/day.
Today's promulgated standards for new sources are more stringent
than the standards promulgated on February 11, 1991. Today's
promulgated standards will apply to plants for which construction
commenced after September 20, 1994 or for which reconstruction or
modification commenced after June 19, 1996. The guidelines will apply
to all MWC's constructed prior to September 20, 1994. The February 11,
1991 subpart Ea standards will remain in effect for plants constructed,
modified, or reconstructed between December 20, 1989 and September 20,
1994. Sources subject to the February 11, 1991 subpart Ea standards are
also subject to the guidelines being promulgated today under subpart
Cb. In some cases, the promulgated subpart Cb guidelines are more
stringent than the existing subpart Ea standards. The control
technologies being used to meet the emission limits included in the
1991 subpart Ea standards will be able to comply with the promulgated
subpart Cb guidelines, except supplemental controls would be required
to reduce Hg emissions and fugitive ash emissions. The direct final
rule also being published in today's Federal Register will provide
consistency between the subpart Ea and Cb rules.
Today's promulgated guidelines under subpart Cb for existing
sources are more stringent than the guidelines promulgated under
subpart Ca on February 11, 1991. Today's promulgated guidelines will
apply to MWC's for which construction commenced on or before September
20, 1994. Today's promulgated guidelines are based on maximum
achievable control technology, or MACT, and will require MWC plants to
purchase and install different types of air pollution control equipment
than the best demonstrated technology-based guidelines promulgated in
1991 under subpart Ca. In consideration of public comments, which
supported the withdrawal of subpart Ca, and to satisfy the MACT
requirements of section 129 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is
withdrawing the 1991 subpart Ca guidelines as a part of today's action.
III. Summary of Considerations in Developing the 1995 Standards for New
Sources and Guidelines for Existing Sources
A. Purpose of the Standards and Guidelines
Under sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is
required to develop and adopt performance standards and guidelines for
MWC's. Congress specifically added section 129 to the Clean Air Act to
address public concerns about MWC's and other solid waste combustion
units. Under section 111, performance standards and guidelines must be
developed for new and existing stationary sources that may contribute
to air pollution and that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. Under section 129 of the Clean Air Act, the
standards and guidelines adopted for MWC's must be based on MACT.
Independent of Clean Air Act requirements, the general public is
concerned about emissions from all sources including MWC's. This is
understandable considering (1) about two-thirds of the MWC population
is located in air quality nonattainment areas with high population
densities, and (2) the EPA's 1994 MWC Dioxin Survey identified a
limited number of older poorly controlled MWC's with atypically high
dioxin/furan emissions (interim corrective actions have been taken at
these MWC's).
The MWC industry has aggressively controlled new MWC plants built
since 1990, and almost half of the existing population currently is
equipped with high efficiency air pollution control equipment. The
other older half of the population has control equipment with lower
efficiency. As mentioned earlier, health effects are associated with
many of the pollutants emitted from MWC's, and the standards and
guidelines being promulgated today will bring all MWC units up to the
same high performance level.
The EPA estimates that in the United States, there are about 307
operating MWC units at 128 plants, providing a total U.S. MSW
combustion capacity of about 94,000 Mg/day. Approximately 16 percent of
MSW generated in the United States is combusted.
Emissions from MWC's contain organics (dioxins/furans), metals (Cd,
Pb, Hg, PM, and opacity), acid gases (Hcl and SO2), and NOX.
These pollutants can have adverse effects on both public health and
welfare. The EPA recently released a draft report reassessing the
health effects of human exposure to dioxins/furans. In the draft
report, which is currently undergoing review, MWC's are identified as
one source of dioxin/furan emissions. Other MWC emissions of principal
concern include Pb, Cd, and Hg. Acid gas and NOX emissions
contribute to acid rain when emissions of SO2 and NOX are
chemically transformed in the atmosphere into sulfuric and nitric acids
and return to earth as wet deposition such as rain, fog, or snow, or as
dry deposition such as fine particles or gases. Acid deposition damages
lakes and harms forests and buildings. Nitrogen oxides also contribute
to low-level ozone and urban area smog formation.
Today's standards and guidelines are set forth as emission limits
and will significantly reduce MWC emissions.
[[Page 65391]]
B. Technical Basis of Standards and Guidelines
Section 129(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires the revised
standards for new MWC's and revised guidelines for existing MWC's to
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of designated air
pollutants, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, and any non-air-quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements that the Administrator determines are
achievable for a particular category of sources. (This control level is
commonly referred to as the ``maximum achievable control technology, or
``MACT''.) Section 129 also provides that standards for new sources may
not be less stringent than the emissions control achieved in practice
by the best controlled similar unit. This is commonly referred to as
the ``MACT floor'' for new MWC units. Additionally, section 129
provides that the emission limitations in the guidelines for existing
MWC's may not be less stringent than the average emission limitations
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units in the category.
This is commonly referred to as the ``MACT floor'' for existing MWC
units. Emission control options less stringent than the MACT floor can
not be considered in developing section 129 standards and guidelines.
Technical data on the number and size of MWC's, control
technologies in use, permit emission limits, and emission test data
were used to determine the MACT floor for new and existing MWC's and to
define control alternatives. The types of data EPA considered in
selecting final standards and guidelines included the following: (1)
Over 100 MWC plant-specific questionnaires; (2) emissions information
from literature, and State and local agencies; and (3) EPA and industry
test reports. Overall, the EPA used performance test data from over 60
MWC plants to develop the standards and guidelines. After proposal, the
EPA reviewed additional data submitted with public comments on the
proposal and data that EPA gathered from States and industry. Based on
the new information, the EPA reviewed both the proposed MACT
determinations for new and existing MWC's and the regulatory
alternatives. The reassessment of the standards and guidelines in light
of the new data resulted in the EPA revising the MACT emission rates
for some pollutants.
The most significant changes to the standards and guidelines since
proposal are summarized in sections IV.B and V.B., respectively, of
this preamble. The rationales for these changes as well as other
changes are summarized in the preamble and discussed in more detail in
the BID. In keeping with the Administrator's ``reinventing government''
initiative, several of the changes to the guidelines and standards were
made to streamline the regulations and provide increased flexibility
while optimizing environmental control by using common sense
initiatives. Examples of these changes include the following: (1)
Reduced dioxin/furan testing for MWC plants with low dioxin/furan
emission levels; (2) NOX guidelines for large MWC plants that
allow plants to use an emissions averaging plan to demonstrate
compliance for two or more existing MWC units located at the same
facility; (3) clarification of siting requirements for new MWC's; (4)
providing additional time for MWC operators to obtain operator training
and certification; (5) replacing quarterly reporting with annual
reporting (semiannual reporting if noncompliance); (6) revised text to
clarify that the regulations do not apply to MWC plants with combustion
capacity less than 35 Mg/day; (7) exemption for plants firing small
amounts of MSW (10 Mg/day or less); (8) exemption for combustion of
clean wood; and (9) allowing certain records to be maintained in either
electronic or paper format without duplication. All of these changes
are discussed further in sections IV and V of this preamble, and
represent changes that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the
standards and guidelines without any reduction in environmental
protection.
C. Stakeholders and Public Involvement
Prior to proposal, in accordance with section 117 of the Clean Air
Act, the EPA consulated with advisory committees, independent experts,
Federal departments and agencies, and owners, operators, and
manufacturers of MWC's. Numerous discussions were held with
governmental entities, industry representatives, and environmental
groups including, but not limited to, the following groups: the U.S.
Conference of Majors, the National League of Cities, the National
Association of Counties, the Municipal Waste Management Association,
the Solid Waste Association of North America, the Integrated Waste
Services Association, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources
Defense Council.
The standards and guidelines being adopted today were proposed in
the Federal Register on September 20, 1994 (59 FR 48198 and 59 FR
48228, respectively). The preambles for the proposed standards and
guidelines describe the rationale for the proposed standards and
guidelines. After proposal, the EPA provided interested persons the
opportunity to comment through a written comment period. The public
comment period was from September 20, 1994 to November 21, 1994.
Comments were received from private citizens, industry representatives,
environmental groups, and governmental entities. The comments have been
carefully considered, and changes have been made in the standards and
guidelines where appropriate. Sections IV and V of this preamble
discuss the major revisions to the standards and guidelines to address
the commenters' concerns.
IV. Standards of Performance for New Sources (1995)--Summary of the
Standards, Impacts of the Standards, and Significant Issues and Changes
to the Proposed Standards
This section presents a summary of the final standards, including
identification of the source category and pollutants being regulated,
and presentation of the final emission limits and their associated
performance testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. This section also discusses the most significant changes
to the proposed standards. Also discussed are the impacts of the final
standards.
A. Summary of the Standards
The final standards (subpart Eb) apply to each new MWC unit located
at an MWC facility that has an aggregate plant capacity to combust over
35 Mg/day of MSW, for which construction commenced after September 20,
1994 or modification or reconstruction commenced after June 19, 1996.
Municipal waste combustors that commenced construction on or before
September 20, 1994 are not covered under the subpart Eb standards.
Municipal waste combustors constructed on or before September 20, 1994
are considered existing sources and are subject to the guidelines that
are addressed in section V of this notice.
An MWC is defined as any setting or equipment that combusts MSW
including air curtain incinerators. Municipal solid waste combustion
includes the direct combustion of MSW or the combustion of MSW gases
from pyrolysis or gasification. The MWC unit includes any type of
setting or equipment including combustion equipment with or without
heat recovery.
[[Page 65392]]
Municipal solid waste is defined as a mixture or a single-item
waste stream of household, commercial, and/or institutional discards.
This would include materials such as paper, yard waste, plastics,
leather, rubber, glass, metals, and other combustible and
noncombustible materials. The final MSW definition is revised slightly
from proposal to make it clear that MSW does not include used motor
oil; sewage sludge; wood pallets; construction, renovation, and
demolition wastes (including but not limited to railroad ties and
telephone poles); clean wood; industrial process or manufacturing
wastes; medical waste; or motor vehicles. Although these wastes are not
MSW, they can be intermixed with MSW and can be combusted in MWC
plants. The regulations do not prohibit their combustion. The
definition of MSW includes RDF, which is municipal solid waste that is
shredded (or pelletized) before combustion. Any medical, industrial, or
other type of waste combustor plant with capability to combust greater
than 35 Mg/day of MSW and is in compliance with a federally enforceable
permit to combust less than 10 Mg/day of MSW is not covered by this
standard. Furthermore, cofired MWC plants that combust less than 30
percent MSW (on a calendar quarter basis) are exempt. A summary of the
final standards is presented in table 1. In table 1, significant
revisions made since proposal are marked with an asterisk (*) and are
discussed in section IV.B.
Table 1.--Summary of Standards for new MWC's (Subpart Eb)a
[* indicates a significant change since proposal and the change is
discussed in this preamble]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability
The final standards apply to new MWC
units located at plants with
capacities to combust greater than 35
Mg/day of residential, commercial, and/
or institutional discards. Industrial
manufacturing discards are not covered
by the standards. Any medical,
industrial manufacturing, municipal,
or other type of waste combustor plant
with capacity to combust greater than
35 Mg/day of MSW and with a federally
enforceable permit to combust less
than 10 Mg/day of MSW is not covered.*
Plant Size (MSW combustion capacity) Requirement.
35 Mg/day*.................. Not covered by standards.
>Mg/day but 225 Mg/day Subject to provisions listed
(referred to as small MWC plants). below.
>225 Mg/day (referred to as large MWC Subject to provisions listed
plants). below.
Good Combustion Practices
Applies to large and small MWC plants.
A site-specific operator training manual is required to be
developed and made available for MWC personnel.
The EPA or State MWC operator training course must be completed
by the MWC chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control room
operators.
The ASME (or State-equivalent) operator certification must be
obtained by the MWC chief facility operator (mandatory), shift
supervisors (mandatory), and control room operators (optional).*
The MWC load level is required to be measured and not to exceed
110 percent of the maximum load level measured during the most recent
dioxin/furan performance test.
The PM control device inlet flue gas temperature is required to
be measured and not to exceed the temperature 17 deg.C above the
maximum temperature measured during the most recent dioxin/furan
performance test.
The CO level is required to be measured using CEMS, and the
concentration in the flue gas is required not to exceed the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Averaging
MWC type CO level time
(hours)
Modular starved-air and excess-air. 50 ppmv............... 4
Mass burn waterwall and refractory. 100 ppmv.............. 4
Mass burn rotary refractory........ 100 ppmv.............. 4
Fluidized-bed combustion........... 100 ppmv.............. 4
Pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel- 150 ppmv*............. 4
fired.
Spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed fuel- 150 ppmv*............. 24
fired.
RDF stoker......................... 150 ppmv.............. 24
Mass burn rotary waterwall......... 100 ppmv.............. 24
MWC Organic Emissions (measured as
total mass dioxins/furans):
Dioxins/furans
(performance test by EPA Reference
Method 23)
Large and small MWC plants......... 13 ng/dscm total mass
(mandatory) or 7 ng/
dscm total mass
(optional to qualify
for less frequent
testing).*b.
[[Page 65393]]
Basis for dioxin/furan GCP and SD/FF/carbon
limit injection.
MWC Metal Emissions:
PM (performance test by
EPA Reference Method 5)
Large and small MWC plants....... 24 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/
dscf).*
Opacity (performance test
by EPA Reference Method 9)
Large and small MWC plants....... 10 percent (6-minute
average)
Cd (performance test by
EPA Reference Method 29)
Large and small MWC plants....... 0.020 mg/dscm (8.7 gr/
million dscf).*
Pb (performance test by
EPA Reference Method 29)
Large and small MWC plants....... 0.20 mg/dscm (87 gr/
million dscf).*
Hg (performance test by
EPA Reference Method 29)
Large and small MWC plants....... 0.080 mg/dscm (35 gr/
million dscf) or 85-
percent reduction in
Hg emissions
Basis for PM, opacity, Cd,
Pb, and Hg limits
Large and small MWC plants....... See basis for dioxin/
furan limit
MWC Acid Gas Emissions:
SO2 (performance test by
CEMS)
Large and small MWC plants....... 30 ppmv or 80-percent
reduction in SO2
emissions
HCl (performance test by
EPA Reference Method 26)
Large and small MWC plants....... 25 ppmv or 95-percent
reduction in HCl
emissions
Basis for SO2 and HCl See basis for dioxin/
limits furan limit..
Nitrogen Oxides Emissions:
NOx (performance test by
CEMS)
Large MWC plants................. 150 ppmv, except 180
ppmv is allowed for
the first year of
operation.*
Small MWC plants................. No NOX control
requirement
Basis for NOX limit
Large MWC plants................. SNCR
Small MWC plants................. No NOX control
requirement.
[[Page 65394]]
Fugitive Ash Emissions:
Fugitive emissions
(performance test by EPA Reference
Method 22)
Large and small MWC plants....... Visible emissions less
than 5 percent of the
time from the ash
transfer system
except during
maintenance and
repair activities.*.
Basis for fugitive Wet ash handling or
emissions limit. enclosed ash handling.
Siting Requirements:
Large and small MWC (1) Siting analysis*,
plants. (2) materials
separation plan, and
(3) public meetings
(including response
to comments)
Performance Testing and Monitoring
Requirements:
Reporting frequency..... Annual (semiannual if
violation).*
Load, flue gas Continuous monitoring,
temperature. 4-hour block
arithmetic average.
CO...................... CEMS, 4-hour block or
24-hour daily
arithmetic average,
as applicable.
Dioxins/furans, PM, Cd,
Pb, HC1, and Hg
Large MWC plants................. Annual stack test (see
reduced testing
option for low
emitters of dioxins/
furans).*
Small MWC plants................. Annual or third year
stack test.*
Opacity................. COMS (6-minute
average) and annual
stack test.
SO2..................... CEMS, 24-hour daily
geometric mean.
[[Page 65395]]
NOX (large MWC plants CEMS, 24-hour daily
only). arithmetic average.
Fugitive ash emissions.. Annual test.
*=a significant change since proposal, and the change is discussed in
this preamble.
a All concentration levels in the table are corrected to 7 percent O2,
dry basis.
b Although not part of the dioxin/furan limit, the limit of 13 ng/dscm
total mass is equal to about 0.1 to 0.3 ng/dscm TEQ. The optional
reduced testing limit of 7 ng/dscm total mass is equal to about 0.1 to
0.2 ng/dscm TEQ.
B. Significant Issues and Changes to the Proposed Standards (Issues
were marked with the ``*'' symbol in table 1)
The most significant changes to the standards since proposal are
discussed below. Additional rationales for these changes, as well as
other changes being made are provided in the promulgation BID (EPA-453/
R-95-0136). Some of the changes made that are not discussed below
include GCP requirements, monitoring requirements, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
1. Applicability
At proposal, an MWC plant of 35 Mg/day capacity that cofired 30
percent (10 Mg/day) or less MSW would have been exempt from the
standards. This 30 percent cofiring provision was retained in the final
rule. Additionally, a 10 Mg/day exemption has been added to the final
rule to exempt all combustion units independent of size that fire only
a small amount of MSW. In the final standards, any medical, industrial
manufacturing, or other type of waste combustor capable of combusting
more than 35 Mg/day MSW but actually combusting less than 10 Mg/day of
MSW is not subject to this rule, provided it submits an initial report
containing a copy of the plant's federally enforceable permit limiting
the amount of MSW that may be combusted by the plant to less than 10
Mg/day and keeps records on the daily weight of MSW fired.
At proposal, a cofired combustor was defined as a unit combusting a
fuel feed stream where 30 percent or less was comprised of MSW, as
measured on a 24-hour daily basis. Several commenters expressed concern
about a cofired status determination being made on a daily basis. For
example, some facilities that burn biomass material including yard
waste would have difficulty making a determination of cofired status on
a daily basis. Biomass material including yard waste (which is MSW) and
clean wood (which is not MSW) are often collected together and stored
on- or off-site for a period of time and intermixed before being
combusted. In such cases, it is difficult or impossible to determine
what percentage of the waste combusted daily was yard waste. After
considering the public comments, the EPA determined that the definition
of cofired combustor should be revised to allow for measuring the
percent MSW burned on a calendar quarterly basis. This change is
consistent with current waste refuse storage and recordkeeping
procedures.
Also under the proposal, MWC plants of 25 to 35 Mg/day capacity
were required to submit an initial notification of construction, but
they were not subject to the proposed standards or guidelines. Only MWC
plants greater than 35 Mg/day capacity were covered by the proposal. As
part of the Administrator's ``reinventing government'' initiative, the
initial notification requirement for MWC plants between 25 and 35 Mg/
day capacity was removed from the final rule to minimize the reporting
requirement for smaller plants. This change reduced reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for both the MWC and the EPA, but did not
reduce the level of environmental protection provided by the standards
and guidelines being adopted today.
Under the proposed standards, clean wood was included in the
definition of MSW. Several commenters disagreed with this decision to
cover clean wood under the MWC standards. Under the final rule, clean
wood is not considered to be MSW. Clean wood includes untreated wood or
untreated wood products including clean untreated lumber, tree stumps
(whole or chipped), and tree limbs (whole or chipped). Clean wood is
exempt from the definition of MSW because available data indicate that
combustion of clean wood results in low emission of dioxins/furans, Hg,
and other pollutants. Clean wood is predominantly an agricultural,
industrial, or other nonmunicipal solid waste; regulation of the
combustion of these types of wastes is currently being addressed under
a separate rulemaking. Clean wood does not include yard waste, which is
covered by the final MWC standards; yard waste includes grass, grass
clippings, bushes, shrubs, and clippings from bushes and shrubs that
are generated by residential, commercial/retail, institutional, or
nonmanufacturing industrial sources as part of maintenance activities
associated with yards or other private or public lands.
2. Emission Limits for MWC Metals, Acid Gases, Organics, Nitrogen
Oxides, and Ash Fugitive Emissions
Many commenters expressed concern as to whether the proposed
emission limits for all regulated pollutants are actually achievable by
an MWC. These commenters noted that no single MWC existed with all the
controls proposed as MACT (SD/FF/SNCR and carbon injection) and the
standards may not be achievable. Since proposal, the EPA has obtained
data from 12 new MWC units at 5 MWC plants that have recently begun
operation and all are equipped with the full set of controls proposed
as MACT (SD/FF/SNCR and carbon injection). Data from these plants show
that all proposed emission limits for all pollutants are simultaneously
being achieved. Therefore, the EPA remains convinced that properly
designed, constructed, maintained, and operated MWC plants can comply
with all pollutant emission limits included in the final standards.
For new sources, the MACT floor for each regulated pollutant was
established as the emission level achievable by the best controlled
source. To determine new source MACT for proposal, the EPA evaluated
the performance of SD/FF/SNCR/carbon injection. Since proposal, the EPA
obtained additional information regarding the performance of the
control technologies determined to be MACT (SD/FF/SNCR/carbon
injection). Based on the new information and a reevaluation of the data
used for proposal, the EPA revised the achievable performance levels
for PM, Cd, Pb, Hg, dioxins/furans, and NOX. Changes to the MACT
floor levels and the selected MACT standards resulting from these
reevaluations are discussed below.
[[Page 65396]]
a. MWC Acid Gases. The MACT floor levels and selected MACT emission
limits for MWC acid gases are the same as proposed.
b. MWC Metals. Based on comments and data received since proposal,
the EPA reassessed the achievable performance levels for PM, Cd, and Pb
by SD/FF systems. Based on this reassessment of available data, the
selected PM, Cd, and Pb MACT emission limits were revised. For both
large and small plants, the PM MACT floor and selected MACT limit were
revised to 24 mg/dscm (proposal was 15 mg/dscm). The Cd MACT floor and
selected MACT limit were revised to 0.020 mg/dscm (proposal was 0.010
mg/dscm). The Pb MACT floor and selected MACT limit were revised to
0.20 mg/dscm (proposal was 0.10 mg/dscm). The selected MACT limits for
all three pollutants were revised because, based on available data,
emission levels more stringent than these levels are not considered to
be continuously achievable.
The final MACT limits for Hg emissions for large and small plants
remain at the same levels as proposed (0.080 mg/dscm or an 85 percent
reduction in Hg emissions); however, the MACT floor level was revised.
At proposal, the MACT floor for Hg was based on use of an SD/FF system
combined with GCP. Carbon injection was not commercially operational at
any MWC. At proposal, MACT for Hg was based on use of an SD/FF system
in combination with carbon injection. This MACT selection was based on
evaluation of emission reductions, costs, and other factors, as
described in the proposal preamble (59 FR 48198, September 20, 1994).
Several commenters questioned the selection of an Hg MACT limit based
on carbon injection when carbon injection was not commercially
operated. Since proposal, data have become available for 12 new MWC
units initiating operation using carbon injection commercially, and all
were meeting the proposed Hg limits. Since carbon injection is now in
commercial operation, the EPA revised the final MACT floor for Hg to be
based on SD/FF in combination with carbon injection and GCP.
c. MWC Organics. The final emission limits for dioxins/furans for
new MWC's remain at the same level as proposed; however, the technology
basis for the floor level of control has been changed. As discussed in
section IV.B.2.b regarding MWC metals (Hg), the EPA reviewed new data
received since proposal and concluded that SD/FF combined with GCP and
carbon injection is the best emission control technology being used by
MWC's for Hg and dioxin/furan control, and is, therefore, the basis of
the final MACT floor. The data gathered prior to proposal as well as
data for new units operating with these controls show that a dioxin/
furan level of 13 ng/dscm is achievable. The final MACT emission limit
for dioxins/furans for new units at both large and small plants is
equal to the MACT floor and remains at 13 ng/dscm (total mass basis).
The format of the final dioxin/furan emission limit changed from
the proposed format. The EPA proposed a dual format for the dioxin/
furan emission limit (total or TEQ) and requested comments on the use
of this dual format. No commenters agreed with the dual format as
proposed. The EPA has selected total mass dioxin/furan emissions in the
final standards. The TEQ format is not used. There is no indication
that TEQ's would be a better measure of emissions control performance
than total dioxins/furans. Furthermore, most test data on which the
standards are based were expressed as total dioxins/furans.
Additionally, because there have been different methods for calculating
TEQ over time and the ratio of total dioxins/furans to TEQ dioxins/
furans varies among MWC's, there would be additional uncertainty in
using a TEQ data base. Refer to the promulgation preamble (56 FR 5504)
for the 1991 subpart Ea standards for additional discussion.
Although not part of the dioxin/furan limit, the limit of 13 ng/
dscm total mass is equal to about 0.1 to 0.3 ng/dscm TEQ.
In addition to the final dioxin/furan limit of 13 ng/dscm, a
provision has been added to the final standards allowing less frequent
dioxin/furan testing for new plants achieving dioxin/furan emission
levels lower than 7 ng/dscm. Data for new MWC's using SD/FF/SNCR/carbon
injection technology suggest this is a realistic goal for many new
MWC's and will encourage MWC's to optimize performance of pollution
control systems. Refer to section IV.B.7 for a description of the
alternative dioxin/furan testing schedule.
d. Nitrogen Oxides. As explained at proposal (59 FR 48198,
September 20, 1994), the combination of SD/FF, GCP, and SNCR was the
basis of the new source MACT floor for NOX. These technologies
remain the basis for the final NOX MACT floor. Since proposal, the
EPA has obtained additional NOX data showing that large MWC plants
equipped with SNCR can continuously achieve an emission level of 150
ppmv over a 24-hour averaging period. The new data were obtained from
the same plant that was the basis of the proposed NOX emission
level of 180 ppmv. The new data are representative of what NOX
emission level can be achieved after a plant has had a period of time
to adjust to operation with the SNCR system. Applications of SNCR
typically require some site-specific fine-tuning to achieve optimum
performance levels. Based on the revised data, a two-phase standard is
being adopted. The final NOX standard for MWC's at large plants
allows time to ``fine-tune'' the SNCR system. The final standard for
MWC's at large plants is 180 ppmv (24-hour averaging period) for the
first year of operation, and 150 ppmv (24-hour averaging period)
thereafter.
The final standards do not require NOX control for MWC's at
small plants.
e. MWC Fugitive Ash Emissions. The proposed fugitive ash emission
limit allowed no visible emissions from ash handling and transfer
points. Several commenters objected to the proposed level of no visible
emissions. The commenters were concerned that even where the best ash
management practices such as wetting the ash or enclosing transfer
systems, there may be short periods of time when visible emissions are
observed, such as during maintenance. The proposal was based on about
16 hours of method 22 visible emissions data for ash handling practices
at two MWC plants and observations (not using method 22) at two
additional MWC plants. Since proposal, the EPA has reviewed visible
emission data from other industries that use similar transfer systems.
Based on comments received and the review of additional data, the final
fugitive ash emission limit was revised to limit visible emissions to
no more than 5 percent of the time.
As part of the final fugitive ash emission requirements, an
exemption has been provided during maintenance and repair activities,
because these necessary activities may require opening of an enclosure
that could generate short-term visible emissions.
3. Good Combustion Practices
The proposed standards included CO limits for nine categories of
combustor technologies, including, among others, RDF stoker combustors
and coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustors. Commenters requested
clarification on which CO limit applies to a stoker unit that is
designed to combust coal and RDF but only combusts RDF. Under the final
standards, a spreader stoker unit burning RDF only or cofiring RDF with
coal would be subject to the proposed RDF stoker CO limit. To clarify
this
[[Page 65397]]
requirement, the final CO requirements include an additional category
of combustor technology referred to as ``spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed
fuel-fired combustors,'' which are assigned the same CO limit and
averaging time as RDF stoker combustors (150 ppmv, 24-hour averaging
time). The final standards further clarify that the category of
combustors referred to in the proposed standards as coal/RDF mixed
fuel-fired combustors only includes pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel
streams, and the CO limit and averaging time remains the same as
proposed (150 ppmv, 4-hour averaging time).
4. Operator Training and Certification
The proposed standards required full ASME certification of chief
facility operators and shift supervisors within 6 months of startup of
an affected MWC. Various commenters including ASME pointed out that the
proposed standards did not include sufficient time for ASME to conduct
full certification exams for all MWC operators. After considering these
comments, the EPA revised the operator training requirements to allow
additional time for ASME (or State) certification exams. In the final
standards, chief facility operators and shift supervisors at new MWC
plants must obtain ASME or State-approved provisional certification
within 1 year after promulgation or 6 months after startup, whichever
is later. In addition, by this same date (1 year after promulgation or
6 months after startup, whichever is later), the same personnel must be
either fully certified or scheduled with ASME or the State to take a
full certification exam (instead of actually obtaining full
certification within 1 year, as proposed).
5. Air Curtain Incinerators
No changes were made to the proposed standards for air curtain
incinerators. As discussed above in section IV.B.1, the final standards
do not cover combustion of clean wood; therefore, air curtain
incinerators combusting only clean wood are not covered by the
standards.
6. Siting Analysis/Materials Separation Plan
Various commenters said the proposed siting analysis was not
consistent with section 129 of the Clean Air Act. Commenters also
argued that the proposed siting requirements were either too stringent
or not stringent enough. The siting analysis in the final rule has been
reworded to allow for a consideration of alternatives, on a site-
specific basis, to minimize to the maximum extent practicable potential
risks to the public health or the environment. These changes ensure
consistency with section 129(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act.
7. Compliance and Performance Testing
Both the proposed and final standards require all plants to perform
annual performance tests for dioxin/furan emissions. However, a
provision for less frequent dioxin/furan testing has been added to the
final rule to encourage MWC plants to achieve emission levels
significantly lower than 13 ng/dscm. By achieving low dioxin/furan
emissions, they would qualify for less frequent testing and thereby
reduce their testing costs. If all MWC units at an MWC plant achieve 7
ng/dscm dioxins/furans or less during performance testing for 2
consecutive years of operation, the plant can elect to conduct dioxin/
furan testing on one unit per year. The plant must test units in
sequence (e.g., a 3-unit plant would test unit 1 (year 1), unit 2 (year
2), unit 3 (year 3), unit 1 (year 4), etc.). If an annual performance
test conducted on any unit indicates total dioxin/furan emissions are
greater than 7 ng/dscm, the plant must revert to testing all units
annually beginning the following year until the 2-year compliance
record is reestablished.
For small plants, two options are provided. The one-unit incentive
schedule discussed above is provided for dioxin/furan testing. An
alternative 3-year testing option is also provided for small plants.
The alternative 3-year testing option allows small plants to conduct
performance tests for dioxins/furans, as well as PM, HCl, Cd, Pb, and
Hg only once every 3 years if the plant demonstrates compliance with
all pollutant emission limits for 3 consecutive years and continues to
demonstrate compliance every third year. The owner or operator of a
small plant may choose either option for performance testing.
8. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Reporting requirements have been changed from quarterly as proposed
to annual (semiannual if any emission limits or operating parameters
are violated) to reduce the burden on affected plants. In recognition
of the cost associated with reporting requirements, the EPA
reconsidered the effectiveness of quarterly versus annual reporting for
the purpose of determining compliance. After careful reconsideration,
the EPA has concluded that annual reporting will provide adequate
information for most plants. [The EPA notes, however, that once an MWC
is required to obtain a Title V Operating Permit, the Title V reporting
requirements given in Section 504(a) of the Act will supersede the
annual reporting requirements presented above. Section 504(a) requires
permittees to submit monitoring reports to the permitting authority no
less often than every six months. See 42 U.S.C. 7661c(a).]
C. Impacts of the Standards
The final standards can be achieved by utilizing any technology.
The basis for the MACT-based limits at both proposal and promulgation
remain the combination of GCP/SD/FF and carbon injection for new large
and small plants, and the additional use of SNCR at large plants.
Because the technology basis for the final standards is the same as at
proposal, the impacts analysis presented at proposal has not been
revised. Table 2 provides a brief summary of the air and cost impacts
of the standards. The summary in table 2 provides impacts estimates
relative to two baseline scenarios: a pre-1989 baseline (typical
control prior to the 1991 subpart Ea standards) and a 1991 baseline
(typical control under the 1991 subpart Ea standards). Refer to the
preamble to the proposed standards (59 FR 48198) for a detailed summary
of these air and control cost impacts, as well as a discussion of the
water, solid waste, energy, and economic impacts of the rule. The
national impacts estimates provided in table 2 and discussed in the
proposal preamble represent the EPA's estimate of the worst case of
impacts that would result from implementation of the standards. Recent
data suggest a reduction in the construction of new MWC's. This would
reduce the cost of the standards.
[[Page 65398]]
Table 2.--Impacts of the Current Subpart Ea and Promulgated Subpart Eb Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increment of
promulgated
Parameter standards over 1991 Standards Total b
the 1991 a
standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New MWC's subject to Standards in the Fifth Year After
Promulgation:
Combustion capacity (106 Mg/yr)............................. 0.8 16.8 17.6
Number of MWC plants........................................ 24 48 72
Cost (1990 Dollars):
Capital cost ($106)......................................... 156 613 769
Annualized cost ($106/yr)................................... 43 157 200
Average cost increase ($/Mg MSW combusted).................. 1.95 11.55 13.50
Annual Emissions Reduction (Mg/yr):
SO2......................................................... 3,000 35,000 38,000
Hcl......................................................... 4,000 46,000 50,000
PM.......................................................... 800 5,700 6,500
Cd.......................................................... 1 9 10
Pb.......................................................... 17 140 157
Hg.......................................................... 18 9 27
Nox......................................................... 200 10,300 10,500
Total dioxins/furans (kg/yr)................................ 1 28 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The impacts are based on a pre-1989 baseline (i.e., a baseline prior to the effective date of the subpart Ea
standards.
b The total impacts are calculated by adding the incremental impacts of the promulgated standards (subpart Eb)
to the impacts of the 1991 standards (subpart Ea). These impacts would be equivalent to the total impacts of
the promulgated standards over a pre-1989 baseline.
A number of comments were received on the possible effects on EPA's
costing analysis following the recent Supreme Court decision that
``flow control'' is unconstitutional. The EPA considered the effect of
flow control on the financing of new MWC's. In summary, the EPA finds
that if tipping fees are raised to cover the increased costs of these
regulations, then the lack of ``flow control'' requirements will likely
result in fewer MWC's being constructed and a shift of wastes to other
disposal options. The impacts of the flow control decision is likely to
be very place-specific depending on the relative tipping fees of MWC's
and other disposal options, transportation costs, and institutional
factors.
V. Guidelines for Existing Sources (1995)--Summary of the Guidelines,
Impacts of the Guidelines, and Significant Issues and Changes to the
Proposed Guidelines
This section presents a summary of the final guidelines, including
identification of the source category and pollutants being regulated,
and presentation of the final emission limits and their associated
performance testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements and compliance schedules. This section also provides a
discussion of the most significant issues and changes to the proposed
guidelines. Also mentioned are the impacts of the final guidelines.
The EPA strongly believes (based on emissions data from MWC's which
incorporate the necessary control technology) that the air pollution
control technology to be retrofitted to existing MWC's to meet the
emission guidelines will reduce actual emissions to levels
significantly below the limits established by the emission guidelines.
There remains, however, some uncertainty as to the actual performance
level that will be achieved on a continuous basis by the control
technology when installed at large MWC plants where ESP-based scrubber
systems are used. Therefore, the dioxin/furan emission limits included
in the emission guidelines for some types of MWC's, while still
significantly below the MACT floor, are slightly less stringent than
those included in the proposal.
The EPA will track the implementation of the guidelines and annual
performance test results in order to monitor the level of emissions
including dioxin/furan control actually achieved by the guidelines.
Additionally, the EPA may conduct supplemental dioxin/furan tests. The
EPA will also meet with MWC owners and operators as needed to review
the performance of the air pollution control technology and the
effectiveness of maintenance and operational practices in order to
provide information that will lead to optimal performance of emission
control technology, and will work with MWC owners and operators to
assure a continued high level of public safety.
A. Summary of the Guidelines
The final guidelines require States to develop emission regulations
limiting air emissions from each existing MWC unit located at a MWC
plant that has an aggregate plant capacity to combust more than 35 Mg/
day of MSW, for which construction commenced on or before September 20,
1994.
The aggregate design capacity of all existing MWC's at an MWC plant
shall be considered in determining: (1) Whether a plant is subject to
the guidelines; and (2) what control levels are applicable. The
capacity of new MWC's (i.e., those that commenced construction after
September 20, 1994 or that commenced modification or reconstruction
after June 19, 1996 that are located at the MWC plant are not
considered in determining applicability of the guidelines but would be
considered in determining the applicability of subpart Eb (standards
for new sources). Only MWC units constructed before September 20, 1994
are considered for determining the applicability of the guidelines.
Modification of an existing MWC (or funds spent) to comply with the
emission guidelines would not be considered in determining if an
existing MWC unit was subject to the standards for new MWC's (subpart
Ea or Eb).
Municipal waste combustion plants with a federally enforceable
permit to combust less than 10 Mg/day of MSW are exempt from the
requirements of the guidelines as long as they submit a notification of
exemption and keep daily records of the weight of MSW combusted.
Cofired combustors (i.e., that combust less than 30 percent MSW)
located at a plant with an aggregate plant capacity greater than 35 Mg/
day are exempt from the requirements of the guidelines as
[[Page 65399]]
long as they submit a notification of exemption and keep records of the
weight of MSW combusted on a calendar quarter basis.
The definitions of MWC and MSW have been revised but are the same
for the guidelines as for the standar
FR Doc. 95-30257 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources
ds, and are discussed in the
summary of the standards in section IV.A of this notice.
A summary of the final guidelines is presented in table 3.
Table 3. Summary of Guidelines for Existing MWC's (Subpart Cb) a
[* indicates a significant change since proposal and the change is
discussed in this preamble]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability
The final guidelines apply to existing
MWC's located at plants with
capacities to combust greater than 35
Mg/day of residential, commercial, and/
or institutional discards. Industrial
manufacturing discards are not covered
by the guidelines. Any medical,
industrial manufacturing, municipal,
or other type of waste combustor plant
with capacity to combust greater than
35 Mg/day of MSW and with a federally
enforceable permit to combust less
than 10 Mg/day of MSW is not covered.*
Plant Size (MSW combustion capacity) Requirement
<35 Mg/day*............................ Not covered by guidelines.
> 35 Mg/day but 225 Mg/day Subject to provisions listed
(referred to as small MWC plants). below.
> 225 Mg/day (referred to as large MWC Subject to provisions listed
plants). below.
Good Combustion Practices
Applies to large and small MWC plants.
A site-specific operator training manual is required to be
developed and made available for MWC personnel.
The EPA or a State MWC operator training course would be
required to be completed by the MWC chief facility operator, shift
supervisors, and control room operators.
The ASME (or State-equivalent) provisional and full operator
certification must be obtained by the MWC chief facility operator
(mandatory), shift supervisors (mandatory), and control room operators
(optional).*
The MWC load level is required to be measured and not to exceed
110 percent of the maximum load level measured during the most recent
dioxin/furan performance test.
The maximum PM control device inlet flue gas temperature is
required to be measured and not to exceed the temperature 17 deg.C
above the maximum temperature measured during the most recent dioxin/
furan performance test.
The CO level is required to be measured using a CEMS, and the
concentration in the flue gas is required not to exceed the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Averaging
MWC type CO level time
(hours)
Modular starved-air and excess-air. 50 ppmv............... 4
Mass burn waterwall and refractory. 100 ppmv.............. 4
Mass burn rotary refractory........ 100 ppmv.............. 24
Fluidized-bed combustion........... 100 ppmv.............. 4
Pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel- 150 ppmv*............. 4
fired.
Spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed fuel- 200 ppmv*............. 24
fired.
RDF stoker......................... 200 ppmv.............. 24
Mass burn rotary waterwall......... 250 ppmv.............. 24
MWC Organic Emissions (measured as total mass dioxins/furans):
Dioxins/furans (performance test by EPA Reference Method 23)
Large MWC plants
MWC units utilizing an ESP-based 60 ng/dscm total mass
air pollution control system. (mandatory) or 15 ng/dscm
total mass (optional to
qualify for less frequent
testing).* c
MWC units utilizing a nonESP-based 30 ng/dscm total mass
air pollution control system. (mandatory) or 15 ng/dscm
total mass (optional to
qualify for less frequent
testing).* c
Small MWC plants..................... 125 ng/dscm total mass
(mandatory) or 30 ng/dscm
total mass (optional to
qualify for less frequent
testing).* c
Basis for dioxin/furan limits
Large MWC plants..................... GCP and SD/ESP or GCP and SD/
FF, as specified above.
Small MWC plants..................... GCP and DSI/ESP.
MWC Metal Emissions:
PM (performance test by EPA Reference Method 5)
Large MWC plants..................... 27 mg/dscm (0.012 gr/dscf).
Small MWC plants..................... 70 mg/dscm (0.030 gr/dscf).*
Opacity (performance test by EPA Reference Method 9)
Large and small MWC plants........... 10 percent (6-minute average)
Cd (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29)
Large MWC plants..................... 0.040 mg/dscm (18 gr/million
dscf).
Small MWC plants..................... 0.10 mg/dscm (44 gr/million
dscf).
Pb (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29)
Large MWC plants..................... 0.49 mg/dscm (200 gr/million
dscf).*
Small MWC plants..................... 1.6 mg/dscm (700 gr/million
dscf).
Hg (performance test by EPA Reference Method 29)
Large and small MWC plants........... 0.080 mg/dscm (35 gr/million
dscf) or 85-percent reduction
in Hg emissions.
Basis for PM, opacity, Cd, Pb, and Hg limits
Large MWC plants..................... GCP and SD/ESP/CI or GCP and SD/
FF/CI
[[Page 65400]]
Small MWC plants..................... GCP and DSI/ESP/CI.
MWC Acid Gas Emissions:
SO2 (performance test by CEMS)
Large MWC plants..................... 31 ppmv or 75-percent reduction
in SO2 emissions.*
Small MWC plants..................... 80 ppmv or 50-percent reduction
in SO2 emissions.
HCl (performance test by EPA Reference Method 26)
Large MWC plants..................... 31 ppmv or 95-percent reduction
in HCl emissions.*
Small MWC plants..................... 250 ppmv or 50-percent
reduction in HCl emissions.
Basis for SO2 and HCl limits
Large and small MWC plants........... See basis for MWC metals.
Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
NOX (performance test by CEMS)
Large MWC plants:
Mass burn waterwall................ 200 ppmvb.
Mass burn rotary waterwall......... 250 ppmvb.
Refuse-derived fuel combustor...... 250 ppmvb.
Fluidized bed combustor.............. 240 ppmvb.
Mass burn refractory................. No NOX controlb requirement
Other................................ 200 ppmvb.
Small MWC plants..................... No NOx control requirement.
Basis for NOx limits
Large MWC plants..................... SNCR.
Refractory MWC plants................ No NOX control requirement
Small MWC plants..................... No NOX control requirement.
Fugitive Ash Emissions:
Fugitive Emissions
(performance test by EPA Reference
Method 22)
Large and small plants............... Visible emissions 5 percent of
the time from ash transfer
systems except for maintenance
and repair activities.*
Basis for fugitive emission Wet ash handling or enclosed
limit ash handling.
Performance Testing and Monitoring
Requirements:
Reporting frequency Annual (semiannual if
violation)*.
Load, flue gas temperature Continuous monitoring, 4-hour
block arithmetic average
CO CEMS, 4-hour block or 24-hour
daily arithmetic average, as
applicable
Dioxins/furans, PM, Cd, Pb,
HCl, and Hg
Large MWC plants..................... Annual stack test.*
Small MWC plants..................... Annual or third year stack
test.
Opacity COMS (6-minute average) and
annual stack test.
SO2 CEMS, 24-hour daily geometric
mean.
NOX (large MWC plants only) CEMS, 24-hour daily arithmetic
average.
Fugitive ash emissions Annual test.*
Compliance Schedule:
Large MWC plants
State plans are required to include one of the following three
retrofit schedules for compliance with regulatory requirements: (1)
Full compliance or closure within 1 year following EPA approval of
the State plan; (2) full compliance in 1 to 3 years following
issuance of a revised construction or operation permit if a permit
modification is required or 1 to 3 years following EPA approval of
the State plan if a permit modification is not required, provided the
State plan includes measurable and enforceable incremental steps of
progress toward compliance; or (3) closure in 1 to 3 years following
approval of the State plan, provided the State plan includes a
closure agreement. If a State plan allows the second or third
scheduling options (i.e., more than 1 year), the State plan submitted
to EPA must contain post-1990 test data for dioxins/furans for all
MWC units at large plants under the extended schedule. (See Sec.
60.21(h) of subpart B of 40 CFR 60 for additional information
relating to measurable and enforceable incremental steps of progress
toward compliance).
Small MWC plants
State plans must require full
compliance or closure with
regulatory requirements in 3 years
or less following issuance of a
revised construction or operation
permit if a permit modification is
required, or within 3 years
following EPA approval of the State
plan if a permit modification is not
required.
State plans are required to specify that all MWC's at large MWC
plants for which construction was commenced after June 26, 1987 comply
with the guidelines for Hg and dioxins/furans within 1 year following
issuance of a revised construction or operation permit if a permit
modification is required, or within 1 year following EPA approval of
the State plan, whichever is later.
State plans are required to
specify that owners or operators of
MWC's comply with the operator
training and certification
requirements by 6 months after startup
or 1 year after State plan approval by
the EPA, whichever is later, for large
plants and by 6 months after startup
or 18 months after State plan approval
by the EPA, whichever is later, for
small plants.
*=significant change since proposal, and the change is discussed in this
preamble.
a All concentration levels in the table are converted to 7 percent O2,
dry basis.
b State plans may allow NOX emissions averaging between existing MWC
units at a large MWC plant. The daily weighted average NOX emissions
concentration from the MWC units included in the emissions averaging
plan must comply with the following 24-hour limits: 180 ppmv for mass
burn waterwall combustors; 220 ppmv for mass burn rotary waterwall
combustors; 230 ppmv for refuse-derived fuel combustors; 220 ppmv for
fluidized bed combustors; and 180 ppmv for other combustor types
(excluding mass burn refractory combustors). Refer to the regulatory
text of the emission guidelines for additional requirements. State
plans may also establish a program to allow emissions trading between
non-contiguous MWC plants. Such a program shall meet the requirements
of the Open Market Trading Rule of Ozone Smog Precursors, proposed
August 3, 1995 (60 FR 39668) as finally promulgated.
c Although not part of the dioxin/furan limit, the dioxin/furan total
mass limits of 30 ng/dscm, 60 ng/dscm, and 125 ng/dscm are equal to
about 0.3 to 0.8 ng/dscm TEQ, 0.7 to 1.4 ng/dscm TEQ, and 1.7 to 2.9
ng/dscm TEQ, respectively. The optional reduced testing limits of 15
ng/dscm and 30 ng/dscm total mass are equal to about 0.1 to 0.3 ng/
dscm TEQ and 0.3 to 0.8 ng/dscm TEQ, respectively.
[[Page 65401]]
B. Significant Issues and Changes to the Proposed Guidelines
The most significant changes to the proposed guidelines are
discussed below. Rationales for these changes as well as other changes
not discussed below are provided in the promulgation BID (EPA-453/R-95-
0136). Issues not discussed below include additional changes to GCP
requirements, monitoring requirements, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and compliance schedules.
1. Designated Facilities
Under the final guidelines, any medical, municipal, industrial
manufacturing, or other type of waste combustion plant capable of
combusting greater than 35 Mg/day MSW but actually combusting less than
10 Mg/day of MSW is not a designated facility, as long as the plant
submits an initial report and keeps certain records. This exemption was
not included in the proposed guidelines. This exemption is identical to
the exemption in the standards for new sources. Section IV.B.1 provides
further discussion of the exemption.
Under the final guidelines, a cofired combustor is defined as a
unit combusting a fuel feed stream 30 percent or less MSW, as measured
on a calendar quarterly basis. At proposal, determination of status as
a cofired combustor was measured on a daily basis. This change is
identical to the change made in the standards. Refer to section IV.B.1
for further discussion on the change.
The initial reporting requirement in the proposed guidelines for
MWC plants with combustion capacity greater than 25 Mg/day but less
than or equal to 35 Mg/day is not included in the final guidelines.
Both the proposed and final guidelines exempt plants with capacity less
than 35 Mg/day. Also, an exemption for combustion of clean wood or
clean wood products is included in the final guidelines. This exemption
is identical to the exemption in the standards. Refer to section IV.B.1
for discussion of EPA's rationale for this exemption.
2. Emission Limits for MWC Metals, Acid Gases, Organics, and Nitrogen
Oxides, and Ash Fugitive Emissions
For existing MWC's, the MACT floor levels and the emission limits
for several pollutants have been revised since proposal. See the
proposal preamble (59 FR 48228, September 20, 1994), the promulgation
BID (EPA-453/R-95-0136), and docket A-90-45 for additional details on
the MACT floor analysis methodology and the selection of MACT.
Since proposal, the EPA revised the MACT floors for existing plants
based on new permit information received and an updated inventory of
operating MWC plants. This revision resulted in revised MACT floor
levels for various pollutants for small and large MWC plants. The
revised MACT floor pollutant levels for large plants have resulted in
more stringent MACT emission limits for SO2, HCl, and Pb. In
addition, the revised MACT floors and emission limits for NOX for
large plants include emission levels based on combustor type. Revisions
to the MACT floor that resulted in revisions to the selected MACT level
of control for specific pollutants are discussed below.
While the final emission limits are somewhat different from
proposal, the limits can be achieved using the same control
technologies that were the basis of the proposed emission limits. The
technology bases for large and small plants are summarized in table 3.
a. MWC Acid Gases. Based on the new information and test data
received after proposal and the revised MACT floor analysis, the EPA
revised the MACT limits for SO2 and HCl for the final guidelines
for large plants.
The revised SO2 MACT floor for large plants is 31 ppmv. The
final SO2 emission limit for large plants, which was set at the
MACT floor level of 35 ppmv at proposal, is 31 ppmv because of the
change in the MACT floor at promulgation.
The MACT-based SO2 limit of 80 ppmv for small plants has not
changed from proposal; however, the SO2 MACT floor for small
plants is revised to 98 ppmv. Because the revised floor is more
stringent than the proposal floor (the floor at proposal was 118 ppmv),
the EPA's conclusion that acid gas controls will be needed to achieve
the floor remains the same. In addition, the EPA's conclusion that a
lower emission rate of 80 ppmv is achievable at minimal cost also
remains the same. Therefore, the final SO2 emission limit for
small plants remains at 80 ppmv.
The revised HCl MACT floor for large plants is 31 ppmv. The final
HCl emission limit for large plants, which was set at the MACT floor
level of 35 ppmv at proposal, is 31 ppmv because of the change in the
MACT floor at promulgation.
b. MWC Metals. Based on the new information and test data received
after proposal and the revised MACT floor analysis, the Pb limit for
large plants was revised for the final guidelines. The proposed Pb MACT
emission level for large plants was 0.50 mg/dscm; however, the revised
Pb MACT floor emission level for large plants is 0.49 mg/dscm.
Therefore, the final Pb emission limit for large plants has been
revised to 0.49 mg/dscm.
c. MWC Organics. The dioxin/furan emission limits for large and
small plants were revised since proposal. The MACT floor for dioxins/
furans for MWC's at large plants is 126 ng/dscm total mass. As
documented in the preambles to these proposed guidelines (59 FR 48228,
September 20, 1994) and the promulgated subpart Ca guidelines (56 FR
5514, February 11, 1991), in combination with GCP, SD/ESP systems can
achieve dioxin/furan total mass emissions of 60 ng/dscm and SD/FF
systems can achieve dioxin/furan total mass emissions of 30 ng/dscm.
Therefore, the MACT floor of 126 ng/dscm can be achieved with either
SD/ESP or SD/FF systems.
When determining the final MACT standard (which may be more
stringent than the MACT floor), section 129(a)(2) requires the
Administrator to consider certain factors, including the cost of
achieving the emission reduction. In the Administrator's judgment, it
would be prohibitively expensive and unreasonable to require existing
MWC's with ESP's that can meet a dioxin/furan emission limit of 60 ng/
dscm to retrofit an SD/FF in order to achieve an additional 30 ng/dscm
reduction in emissions. For example, at a typical 1,400 Mg/day MWC
plant already equipped with an SD/ESP, the capital cost to remove the
ESP and retrofit a new FF would be about $14 million. This cost would
be in addition to paying the remaining debt for a relatively new ESP
(about $5 million including interest payments) and would result in a
relatively small increase in control device efficiency.
For the final rule, the Administrator considered several regulatory
options more stringent than the MACT floor; however, because of this
high pollution control device retrofit cost, the Administrator decided
to set separate MACT limits for MWC's with ESP-based control systems
and MWC's with nonESP-based control systems. For MWC's with ESP-based
control systems, the EPA selected a MACT level of 60 ng/dscm total
mass, based on the performance of SD/ESP systems. For MWC's using or
retrofitting nonESP-based control systems, the EPA selected a MACT
level of 30 ng/dscm total mass, based on the performance of SD/FF
systems. The number of MWC plants that will comply by using an SD/ESP
will be limited (only about 10 percent of the MWC plants). The vast
majority of MWC's are expected to use SD/FF systems to comply.
[[Page 65402]]
The MACT floor for dioxins/furans at small MWC plants is 1,500 ng/
dscm total mass. As with large MWC plants, the final emission
guidelines limit for dioxins/furans is more stringent than the MACT
floor. The final guideline limit for dioxins/furans at small MWC plants
is 125 ng/dscm total mass and is based on DSI/ESP technology.
The final MACT limit for Hg is based on use of activated carbon
injection. Activated carbon injection technology used in combination
with DSI/ESP, SD/ESP, or SD/FF technology is expected to result in
supplemental dioxin/furan control, reducing dioxin/furan emissions from
these control systems by more than 50 percent. The final MACT guideline
levels for dioxins/furans for existing units at small and large plants
do not consider supplemental dioxin/furan control from activated carbon
injection because an insufficient amount of emissions data exist to
adequately determine the performance level of activated carbon
injection retrofitted to existing MWC air pollution control systems.
Nonetheless, it is expected that the use of activated carbon injection
will result in additional reduction of dioxins/furans to levels below
the emission limits in the final guidelines.
As with the standards for new MWC's, the final guidelines include a
provision that allows less frequent dioxin/furan testing if a plant is
achieving a significantly lower level of dioxin/furan emissions (15 ng/
dscm for MWC's at large plants and 30 ng/dscm for MWC's at small
plants). This option will encourage optimal performance and minimal
emissions. Refer to section IV.B.7 for a description of the alternative
testing schedule.
Relative to the proposal, the optional TEQ format of the proposed
dioxin/furan emission limits was removed in the final standards, as
explained in section IV.B.2.c. Although not part of the dioxin/furan
limit, the dioxin/furan total mass limits of 30 ng/dscm, 60 ng/dscm,
and 125 ng/dscm are equal to about 0.3 to 0.8 ng/dscm TEQ, 0.7 to 1.4
ng/dscm TEQ, and 1.7 to 2.9 ng/dscm TEQ, respectively.
d. Nitrogen Oxides. After considering data submitted by commenters
regarding requiring SNCR for MWC units at large plants where some could
already achieve the MACT floor level without SNCR, the EPA changed the
proposed NOX emission limit of 180 ppmv for all large plants. The
NOX MACT floor was revised by calculating the MACT floor
separately for each subcategory of combustor type, and the MACT limits
are being promulgated at levels equivalent to the MACT floors for each
combustor type. The final guideline MACT limits are: 200 ppmv for mass
burn waterwall combustors; 250 ppmv for refuse-derived fuel combustors;
250 ppmv for mass burn rotary waterwall combustors; 240 ppmv for
fluidized bed combustors; no limit for mass burn refractory combustors;
and 200 ppmv for other combustors not listed above.
In addition, the EPA has revised the emission guidelines to allow
States to include in their State plans options for averaging of
emissions from units within a large MWC plant, and for trading
emissions between MWC plants. The plant average emission limits for
units being included in an emissions averaging plan within a plant are
approximately 10 percent less than the MACT limits for each combustor
type, as follows: 180 ppmv for mass burn waterwall combustors; 220 ppmv
for mass burn rotary waterwall combustors; 230 ppmv for refuse-derived
fuel combustors; 220 ppmv for fluidized bed combustors; and 180 ppmv
for other combustor types (excluding mass burn rotary refractory
combustors). Emissions trading between units at noncontiguous plants
must be consistent with the requirements of the Open Market Trading
Rule for Ozone Smog Precursors, proposed August 3, 1995 (60 FR 39668),
as finally promulgated. Until the Open Market trading rule is
finalized, it is not possible to reference the rule in the guidelines
text. In the interim, the guideline text indicates NOX emissions
trading must be approved by the Administrator prior to implementation.
After the Open Market Trading Rule is finalized, it is preapproved for
use under the guidelines.
e. Fugitive Ash Emissions. The emission limit for fugitive ash
emissions under the final guidelines is visible emissions no more than
5 percent of the time from ash conveying and transfer systems at MWC's.
An exemption for maintenance and repair activities has been added.
These same changes were made to the standards for new sources. See the
discussion of the standards in section IV.B.2.e for an explanation of
the reasons for these changes.
3. Good Combustion Practices
The final CO guidelines include an additional category of combustor
technology referred to as ``spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired
combustors,'' which is assigned the same CO limit and averaging time as
the RDF stoker combustor category (200 ppmv, 24-hour averaging time).
In the final guidelines, the category of combustors referred to in the
proposal as ``coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustors'' was revised to
``pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustors,'' and the CO limit
and averaging time remains the same as proposed (150 ppmv, 4-hour
averaging time). These same changes were made to the standards for new
sources. See the discussion of the standards in section IV.B.3 for an
explanation of the reasons for these changes.
4. Operator Training and Certification
As discussed in section IV.B.4 for the standards for new sources,
the EPA has clarified the provisional certification requirements and
revised the schedule for full certification of chief facility operators
and shift supervisors to allow sufficient time to schedule exams. As
stated in the proposal preamble, a State-approved ASME-equivalent
certification program may be substituted for ASME certification.
For large plants, the final guidelines specify that a State plan
must require chief facility operators and shift supervisors to obtain
ASME provisional certification by 1 year after State plan approval or 6
months after startup, whichever is later. In addition, a State plan
must require that, by the same date, these personnel obtain full
certification or be scheduled with ASME to take the ASME full
certification exam (instead of actually obtaining full certification
within 1 year as proposed).
For small plants, the final guidelines specify that a State plan
must require chief facility operators and shift supervisors to obtain
ASME provisional certification by 18 months after State plan approval
or 6 months after startup, whichever is later. In addition, a State
plan must require that, by the same date, these personnel obtain full
certification or be scheduled with ASME to take the ASME full
certification exam (instead of actually obtaining full certification
within 1 year as proposed).
5. Air Curtain Incinerators
No changes were made to the proposed guidelines for air curtain
incinerators. As discussed in section V.B.1, the final guidelines do
not cover combustion of clean wood; therefore, air curtain incinerators
combusting only clean wood are not covered by the guidelines.
6. Compliance and Performance Testing
Under the final guidelines, State plans must specify that all
plants are required to perform annual performance testing for dioxin/
furan emissions. However, a provision for less frequent testing has
been added to encourage plants to
[[Page 65403]]
optimize performance and achieve emission levels significantly lower
than the dioxin/furan emission limits in the final guidelines. State
plans may require that, to take advantage of this provision, existing
MWC's must meet a dioxin/furan level of 15 ng/dscm (large plants) or 30
ng/dscm (small plants), for 2 consecutive years. Refer to the
discussion on the standards for new MWC's under section IV.B.7 for a
description of this reduced testing schedule.
7. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Compliance Schedules
Reporting requirements have been changed from quarterly to annual
(semiannual if exceeding the emission limit for any pollutant) to
reduce the economic burden on MWC's. Refer to section IV.B.8 for an
explanation of the reasons for this change.
The EPA revised the proposed compliance schedule for large and
small plants to allow more time for small plants to comply with the
guidelines and to clarify the schedule for plants that select to close
down operation rather than retrofit to comply with the guidelines. The
final compliance schedule is as follows. For large MWC plants, State
plans may allow three alternative compliance schedules: (1) Full
compliance or closure within 1 year following approval of the State
plan; (2) full compliance in 1 to 3 years following issuance of a
revised construction or operation permit if a permit modification is
required or 1 to 3 years following approval of the State plan if a
permit modification is not required, provided the State plan includes
measurable and enforceable incremental steps of progress toward
compliance; or (3) closure in 1 to 3 years following approval of the
State plan, provided the State plan includes a closure agreement. If a
State plan allows the second or third scheduling options (i.e., more
than 1 year), the State plan submitted to EPA must include post-1990
test data for dioxins/furans for all MWC units at large plants under
the schedule. For small MWC plants, State plans must require full
compliance or closure in up to 3 years following issuance of a revised
construction or operation permit if a permit modification is required,
or 3 years following approval of the State plan if a permit
modification is not required.
C. Impacts of the Guidelines
The final guidelines can be achieved by designated facilities that
utilize the same control technologies that were the basis for the
proposed guidelines. The basis for the MACT guidelines selected at both
proposal and promulgation is GCP/SD/ESP(or FF)/SNCR and carbon
injection for large plants and GCP/DSI/ESP and carbon injection for
small plants. Because the technology basis for the final guidelines is
the same as at proposal, the impacts analysis presented at proposal has
not been revised for the promulgated rule. Table 4 provides a brief
summary of the air and cost impacts of the guidelines. The summary in
table 4 provides impacts estimates based on two baseline scenarios: A
pre-1989 baseline (control level prior to the 1991 subpart Ca
guidelines) and a 1991 baseline (control level after the 1991 subpart
Ca guidelines.) Refer to the preamble to the proposed guidelines (59 FR
48228) for a detailed summary of these air and control cost impacts, as
well as a discussion of the water, solid waste, energy, and economic
impacts of the guidelines.
Table 4.--Impacts of the 1991 Subpart Ca and Promulgated Subpart Cb Guidelines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increment of
promulgated 1995
1991 subpart Ca Promulgated 1995 subpart Cb
Parameter guidelines a subpart Cb guidelines over
guidelines a the 1991 subpart
Ca guidelines b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics of Existing MWC's:
Combustion capacity (10 \6\ Mg/yr)................... 35.9 39.0 3.1
Number of MWC plants................................. 158 179 21
Cost (1990 Dollars):
Capital cost ($10 \6\)............................... 888 2,100 1,212
Annualized cost ($10 \6\/yr)......................... 168 445 277
Average cost increase ($/Mg MSW combusted)........... 6.40 13.60 7.20
Annual Emissions Reduction (Mg/yr):
SO2.................................................. 25,000 43,000 18,000
HCl.................................................. 36,000 56,000 20,000
PM................................................... 1,100 3,100 2,000
Cd................................................... 2 5 3
Pb................................................... 30 83 53
Hg................................................... 11 47 36
NOX.................................................. 0 19,000 19,000
Total dioxins/furans (kg/yr)..................... 117 157 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The impacts are based on a pre-1989 baseline (i.e., a baseline prior to the effective date of the subpart Ca
guidelines).
b The impacts are calculated by subtracting the impacts of the 1991 subpart Ca guidelines from the impacts of
the promulgated 1995 subpart Cb guidelines (based on a pre-1989 baseline).
The national impacts estimates provided in table 4 and discussed in
the proposal preamble represent EPA's estimate of the upper limit of
impacts that would result from implementation of the guidelines. To the
extent that any existing MWC's close rather than comply with the
guidelines or switch to other disposal options that may cost less, the
national costs will be lower and air emissions will be less.
A number of comments were received on the possible effects on EPA's
costing analysis following the recent Supreme Court decision that
``flow control'' is unconstitutional. The EPA considered the effect of
flow control on the financing of existing MWC's. In summary, the EPA
finds that if MWC's raise tipping fees to cover the increased costs of
these regulations, then the lack of ``flow control'' will likely result
in a shift of some wastes to other disposal options. The combined
impacts of no flow control and increased tipping fees on individual
MWC's and municipalities are likely to be very
[[Page 65404]]
place-specific depending on the relative tipping fees of MWC's and
other disposal options, transportation costs, and institutional
factors. If tipping fees are not raised to offset emission control
costs, then operators of MWC's will have to finance the costs of the
regulations out of current revenues.
The EPA has identified several ways that State and local
governments can guarantee a continued source of MSW for the MWC's and
provide funds from the general revenue to support the operation of MWC
facilities, accomplishing some of the outcomes that flow control can
produce, including: (1) Government provision of collection services;
(2) contractor provision of collection services under government
contract; (3) franchising collection and hauling to designated
facilities; (4) subsidizing facilities from the general revenues; and
(5) supporting integrated solid waste management programs from the
general revenue.
VI. Administrative Requirements
This section addresses the following administrative requirements:
Docket, Paperwork Reduction Act, Executive Orders 12866 and 12875,
Unfunded Mandates Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Clean Air Act
Procedural Requirements.
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered in the development of this rulemaking. The principal
purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested parties to identify
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial
review, except for interagency review material. 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 7607(d)(7)(A). The docket number for this rulemaking is A-90-45.
Docket No. A-89-08 also includes background information for this
rulemaking that supported the proposal and promulgation of the subpart
Ea standards and subpart Ca guidelines.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1506.5) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2136); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-
2740. This ICR document is also available on the EPA's TTN Clean Air
Act Amendments electronic bulletin board. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this preamble for information on accessing EPA's
TTN electronic bulletin board.
The information required to be collected by this rule is necessary
to identify the regulated entities who are subject to the rule and to
ensure their compliance with the rule. The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are mandatory and are being established under authority of
Section 114 of the Act. All information submitted as part of a report
to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be
safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40,
Chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--Confidentiality of Business Information
(see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976, amended by 43 FR 39999,
September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March
23, 1979).
The annual reporting and recordkeeping burden presented in this ICR
document reflects only part of the burden imposed by this rule. The
rest of the burden was presented to and approved by the OMB in an ICR
document in 1991 for the subpart Ea NSPS promulgated in February 1991.
The ICR document that accompanied the subpart Ea rulemaking summarized
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements that MWC owners and
operators of large MWC units are required to follow to demonstrate
compliance with the 1991 NSPS. As explained elsewhere in this document,
the Clean Air Act Amendments were passed by Congress in 1990, and they
included section 129 that directs the Administrator to extend the NSPS
to small MWC plants, as well as to include emission limits for
additional pollutants and siting requirements. This ICR document for
subpart Eb presents this additional burden imposed by section 129 of
the Act, by summarizing the total annual burden on small plants (i.e.,
for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with all
pollutant emission limits and siting) and the additional annual burden
on large MWC plants (i.e., only for requirements associated with Cd,
Pb, Hg, and fugitive ash emission limits and siting).
The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden summarized in
this ICR document for this collection averaged over the first 3 years
of NSPS application to new MWC's is estimated to be about 69,700 person
hours per year. This would be the estimated annual burden for 64
respondents (i.e., MWC units). This is a worst-case burden estimate, as
discussed under section IV.C. If fewer MWC units are constructed than
have been projected, then the burden will be less than reported here.
The average burden per respondent is about 1,100 person hours per year.
The rule requires an initial one-time notification from each new MWC
regarding all pollutant emission levels and siting and subsequent
annual compliance reports regarding all pollutant emission levels.
Additionally, if any of the pollutant emission limits are exceeded,
respondents would be required to submit semi-annual reports. The rule
includes continuous monitoring requirements for SO2, opacity, CO,
CO2, O2 and annual stack testing requirements for PM,
dioxins/furans, opacity, HCl, Cd, Pb, Hg, and fugitive ash. Efforts
were made to reduce the burden on small plants by allowing them to test
emissions once every 3 years instead of annually if they demonstrate
that they consistently meet the emissions requirements. This burden
estimate 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.
Comments on the ICR document are requested, including the Agency's
need for the information presented in this ICR document, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden. Send comments on the ICR to the Director,
OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2136); 401 M St. S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th St. N.W.; Washington, DC 20503; marked ``Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA''. Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since
the OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after December 19, 1995, a comment to OMB is best assured
of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 18, 1996. The
EPA will publish a response to
[[Page 65405]]
OMB and public comments on the information collection requirements
contained in this proposal in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant,'' and
therefore, subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Order defines ``significant'' regulatory action as one that
is likely to lead to a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the promulgated
standards for new sources will not be a ``significant'' rule because
the annual effect on the economy is expected not to exceed $43 million
over the cost of the existing subpart Ea standards. However, the EPA
considers these promulgated standards to be ``significant'' because of
their relationship to the guidelines for MWC's that are also being
promulgated today. The final guidelines will cost $450 million per year
or less based on a baseline prior to the effective date of the subpart
Ea standards. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review.
Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are
documented in the public docket for this rulemaking.
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a statement to accompany any rule where the estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
will be $100 million or more in any 1 year. Section 203 requires the
EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
Under section 205(a), the EPA generally must select the ``least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule'' and is consistent with statutory requirements.
The EPA has complied with section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, by
promulgating a rule that is the most cost-effective alternative for
regulation of these sources that meets the statutory requirements under
the Clean Air Act. For Hg and dioxins/furans, the EPA adopted standards
that are more stringent than the MACT floor level of control. In the
case of dioxins/furans, the EPA concluded that a standard more
stringent than the MACT floor can be achieved at little or no cost, and
thus represents the most cost-effective control. In the case of Hg, the
MACT floor emissions level is equal to current uncontrolled levels.
However, the EPA concluded, after considering the requisite factors in
section 129(a)(2), that an uncontrolled floor level could not be
justified under the Clean Air Act and that a more stringent emissions
standard based on the use of carbon injection as an add-on control
would be cost-effective. The EPA was unable in this rulemaking to
identify any alternatives other than carbon injection for control of Hg
emissions. To the extent that section 205(a) of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) may be read to have the EPA consider a less stringent
level of Hg control, the EPA concluded that such an alternative would
be ``inconsistent with law'' within the meaning of section 205(b)(2) of
the UMRA. Accordingly, the alternative selected for Hg is the most
cost-effective one available under these circumstances.
The unfunded mandates statement under section 202 must include: (1)
A citation of the statutory authority under which the rule is proposed,
(2) an assessment of the costs and benefits of the rule including the
effect of the mandate on health, safety and the environment, and the
Federal resources available to defray the costs, (3) where feasible,
estimates of future compliance costs and disproportionate impacts upon
particular geographic or social segments of the nation or industry, (4)
where relevant, an estimate of the effect on the national economy, and
(5) a description of the EPA's consultation with State, local, and
tribal officials.
Since this rule is estimated to impose costs to the private sector
and government entities in excess of $100 million, the EPA has prepared
the following statement with respect to these impacts.
1. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this rulemaking, sections 111 and 129
of the Clean Air Act, is fully discussed in section II of this
preamble. The rule establishes emission guidelines for existing MWC's
and standards of performance for new MWC's.
Section 129(a)(2) requires the Administrator to promulgate
standards for new solid waste incinerator units and emission guidelines
for existing units that ``reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of air pollutants listed under section (a)(4) that the
Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, and any non-air-quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable for new or
existing units in each category. The Administrator may distinguish
among classes, types (including mass-burn, refuse-derived fuel, modular
and other types of units), and sizes of units within a category in
establishing such standards * * *'' 42 U.S.C Sec. 7429(a)(2) (emphasis
added). This is commonly referred to as maximum achievable control
technology, or MACT. Section 129(a)(2) further defines a minimum level
of stringency that can be considered for MACT standards--commonly
referred to as the MACT floor--which for new units, is the level of
control achieved by the best controlled similar unit, and for existing
units, is the level of control achieved by the average of the best
performing 12 percent of units in the category. Id.
In the final rule, the Administrator determined for new MWC's that
MACT for all pollutants was equivalent to the pollutants' MACT floor
levels--i.e., the MACT floor levels reflect the maximum achievable,
cost-effective reduction in emissions of the air pollutants specified
in section 129(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act. The promulgated MACT levels
reflect the performance of emission control technology that is in
commercial use at the best controlled similar source (i.e., an MWC
equipped with an SD/FF system, carbon injection, and SNCR, in
combination with GCP's). The September 20, 1994 proposed standards were
more stringent than the MACT floor levels because the proposed levels
were based on carbon injection technology, which was not in commercial
use at the time of proposal. Since proposal, a dozen MWC units equipped
with carbon injection technology have initiated operation; thus, the
best controlled similar unit in the final rule includes carbon
injection (i.e., basis for the MACT floor).
[[Page 65406]]
For existing MWC's, some of the emission limits included in the
emission guidelines promulgated today are the same as the final MACT
floor levels. For several pollutants, however, the Administrator
decided, consistent with section 129(a)(2) after considering costs and
non-air-quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements, to set MACT standards more stringent than the MACT floor,
since more stringent levels could be achieved at either no additional
cost, or minimal costs. The MACT floor levels for acid gases and PM are
stringent enough for existing units at both small and large plants that
they require an acid gas/PM control system. Since an acid gas/PM
control system also controls emissions of all regulated pollutants
except Hg and NOx, establishing emission limits for acid gases and
PM effectively establishes emission limits for the other pollutants
(except Hg and NOx). The cost to comply with the selected emission
limits relative to the cost of the acid gas/PM control system are
minimal.
For example, the same acid gas/PM control system that owners and
operators of MWC's need to meet the MACT emissions guideline levels for
SO2 and PM also controls dioxins/furans to levels more stringent
than the dioxin/furan MACT floor level. Thus, the Administrator
determined that the final dioxin/furan emission guidelines may be
achieved at no additional control costs. In the final rule, for MWC's
at large plants, the Administrator distinguished between the dioxin/
furan emission guidelines for MWC's equipped with ESP-based control
systems and MWC's equipped with nonESP-based control systems. In the
Administrator's judgment, it would be prohibitively expensive and
unreasonable to require existing ESP's that can meet a limit of 60 ng/
dscm to retrofit an SD/FF in order to achieve additional reduction in
emissions beyond the MACT floor (see the proposal preamble, 50 FR
48228, September 20, 1994, for a more detailed discussion). For the
final rule, the Administrator considered several regulatory options
more stringent than the MACT floor; however, because of the high cost
of pollution control device retrofit, the Administrator determined that
MACT for dioxins/furans emitted from MWC's with ESP-based control
systems is 60 ng/dscm, and MACT for dioxins/furans emitted from MWC's
with SD/FF systems is 30 ng/dscm.
The MACT floor for Hg is 0.36 mg/dscm, and MACT for Hg is more
stringent than the MACT floor at a level of 0.080 mg/dscm. To achieve
the Hg emission limit in the emission guidelines, carbon injection will
be required (this exceeds MACT floor requirements). Because of the
toxicity and bioaccumulation potential of Hg, the Administrator
considered the small cost of adding Hg control to be cost-effective.
The cost of Hg control is about $0.25 to $0.35 per gram Hg removed
($250,000 to $350,000 per Mg), which translates to approximately $0.05
to $0.07 per month for a household served by an MWC.
2. Social Costs and Benefits
This assessment of the cost and benefits to State, local, and
tribal governments of the guidelines is based on EPA's ``Economic
Impact Analysis for Proposed Emission Standards and Guidelines for
Municipal Solid Waste Combustors.'' Measuring the social costs of the
guidelines requires identification of the affected entities by
ownership (public or private), consideration of regulatory
alternatives, calculation of the regulatory compliance costs for each
affected entity, and assessment of the market implications of the
additional pollution control costs. Calculating the social benefits of
the guidelines requires estimating the anticipated reductions in
emissions at MWC's due to regulation, identification of the harmful
effects of exposure to MWC emissions, and valuing the expected
reductions in these damages to society.
a. Affected Entities. For 1996, the base year of the analysis,
there are 179 MWC's in the population of operational facilities
affected by the guidelines. Of this total, 100 are publicly owned and
operated (i.e., facilities owned by State or local governments). There
are no MWC's currently owned, or expected to be owned in the near
future, by tribal governments, so there is no impact on tribal
governments. The remaining 79 MWC's are privately owned and operated.
The EPA developed 16 model plants to characterize the existing
facilities based on the technologies used for combustion and air
pollution control at baseline. Table 5 shows the distribution of
publicly and privately owned MWC's and the estimated MSW volumes
managed by the existing MWC model plants. Of the 100 publicly owned and
operated MWC plants, 38 plants are located in communities with a
population less than 50,000, 11 plants are located in communities with
a population between 50,000 and 100,000, 21 plants are located in
communities with a population between 100,000 and 250,000, and 30
plants are located in communities with a population greater than
250,000. A detailed description of the model plants used to
characterize operational MWC's is presented in table 3-4 of the
``Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Emissions Standards and
Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors'' (EPA-450/3-91-029, 1994).
Table 5.--Summary of Total MSW Throughput at Public and Private MWC's by Model Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Model planta Public Private Total
throughput (Mg/ Public throughput (Mg/ Private throughput (Mg/
yr) share (%) yr) share (%) yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... 813,244 100.0 0 0.0 813,244
2......................................... 1,158,112 81.9 256,034 18.1 1,414,146
3......................................... 1,397,867 100.0 0 0.0 1,397,867
4......................................... 1,914,896 19.3 7,995,967 80.7 9,910,863
5......................................... 3,956,410 61.1 2,523,329 38.9 6,479,739
6......................................... 374,566 56.7 286,119 43.3 660,685
7......................................... 1,008,603 57.5 746,477 42.5 1,755,080
8......................................... 1,547,612 66.5 777,981 33.5 2,325,593
9......................................... 400,346 73.3 145,661 26.7 546,007
10........................................ 425,552 82.5 90,472 17.5 516,024
11........................................ 166,082 42.0 228,966 58.0 395,048
12........................................ 284,596 72.6 107,219 27.4 391,815
14........................................ 343,596 48.4 366,785 51.6 710,381
15........................................ 937,280 29.2 2,277,088 70.8 3,214,368
[[Page 65407]]
16........................................ 58,462 6.7 819,320 93.3 877,782
17........................................ 745,501 52.9 662,673 47.1 1,408,174
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total:................................ 15,078,823 45.9 17,737,993 54.1 32,816,816
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a There is no model plant that matches model plant #13 in the Economic Impact Analysis (EPA-450/3-91-029, March
1994).
b. Regulatory Alternatives Considered. The two broad categories of
regulatory standards available include design standards and emission
standards. Design standards specify the type of control equipment
polluters must install, whereas emission standards specify the maximum
quantity of a given pollutant that any one polluter may release.
Design standards offer the least flexible approach considered in
this analysis. Municipal waste combustors would have to install the
specified control equipment regardless of the additional emission
reductions achieved or the relative cost of alternative means of
emission reductions.
Emission standards allow greater flexibility in the methods used to
reduce emissions. Municipal waste combustors are free to meet the
emission limit in the manner that is least costly to them.
Consequently, for a given level of emission reductions, emission
standards are generally less costly than design standards. Furthermore,
emission standards give MWC's an incentive to develop more effective
means of controlling emissions. In addition, the Act requires the
Administrator to promulgate emission standards unless such standards
are not feasible. See 42 U.S.C. Secs. 7411(h) and 7429(a)(1). Since
emission standards for MWC's are feasible, the EPA is barred from
promulgating design standards for MWC's.
Even though emission standards generally result in a more efficient
allocation of costs than design standards, uniform emission standards
can be more costly than necessary. Uniform emission standards require
the same level of emission control of every discharger. Because
marginal control costs differ for plants of different sizes, different
technologies, different levels of product recovery (i.e., in the
chemical industry), and different levels of baseline control, an
effective solution can be reached if standards are carefully tailored
to the special characteristics of each discharger. This type of
standard is referred to as a differentiated standard.
In formulating its MWC regulatory alternatives, EPA selected
candidate regulatory alternatives that contain control limits for MWC's
differentiated by MWC size classification. Large facilities are defined
as MWC plants with aggregate plant capacities over 225 Mg/day. Small
facilities are defined as MWC plants with aggregate plant capacities
between 35 and 225 Mg/day. Plants with aggregate plant capacities less
than 35 Mg/day are not covered by today's rulemaking. The lower size
threshold of 35 Mg/day aggregate plant capacity for controlling MWC
emissions under today's rulemaking was selected after reviewing the
population distributions of MWI's and MWC's. Most incinerators at
medical waste facilities are smaller incinerators that fire segregated
medical waste with general hospital discards (MSW), and these
incinerators would have the potential to be covered by today's
rulemaking. To avoid overlap with the upcoming MWI rulemaking, this
rulemaking includes the lower size cutoff of 35 Mg/day plant capacity
and MWC plants with aggregate capacities less than or equal to 35 Mg/
day will be addressed under a separate rulemaking. With a lower size
cutoff of 35 Mg/day, today's promulgated MWC rulemaking will cover over
99 percent of the total U.S. MWC combustion capacity but will exclude
97 percent of the total MWI combustion capacity.
The regulatory alternatives for the two selected size
classifications did not specify a particular control technology;
rather, they specified emission limits that facilities would be
required to meet. Current practice indicates that the emission
guideline limits for acid gases, PM, and metals will likely be met with
one of six different types of control technologies, depending on the
applicable emission limits. Table 6 presents acid gas, PM, and metals
control technologies listed in order of increasing efficiency.
Table 6.--Control Technologies Associated With Acid Gas, Particulate
Matter, and Metals Control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCP + ESP
GCP + DSI/ESP
GCP + DSI/FF
GCP + SD/ESP
GCP + SD/FF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In designing MWC regulatory alternatives, the EPA considered
emission limits consistent with the combinations of the acid gas
control technologies listed in table 6. Small plants may be required to
meet one control limit and large plants another under a given
regulatory alternative. Under the final guidelines, more stringent
control requirements are in fact applicable to large plants than to
small plants. This was done in an attempt to equalize the cost impact
on small and large plants. Under the final guidelines the unit cost for
air pollution control retrofit for large plants would be about $16 per
Mg of waste combusted. For similar small plants the retrofit costs
would be about $17 per Mg of waste combusted. Table 7 shows the control
technologies evaluated for the guidelines regulatory alternatives under
two compliance scenarios for acid gas, PM, and metals control. The
control technology bases identified in this table are not intended to
imply a design standard. Rather, the technology bases are identified
only for the purpose of estimating costs and emission reductions.
[[Page 65408]]
Table 7.--Emission Guidelines for Existing MWC'S: Control Technology Bases Used to Estimate the Impacts of the
Regulatory Alternatives a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size Classification (Mg MSW/day)
Regulatory alternative, and baseline ------------------------------------------------------------------------
APCD Small (35 to 225) Large (over 225)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reg. Alt. I:
No control........................... GCP+ESP GCP+SD/FF+CI+SNCR
ESP (low)............................ GCP+ESP GCP+SD/ESP(m)+CI+SNCR
SD/ESP............................... GCP+SD/ESP GCP+SD/ESP(m)+CI+SNCR
SD/FF................................ GCP+SD/FF GCP+SD/FF+CI+SNCR
Reg. Alt. II-A:
No control........................... GCP+DSI/FF+CI GCP+SD/FF+CI+SNCR
ESP (low)............................ GCP+DSI/ESP+CI GCP+SD/ESP(m)+CI+SNCR
SD/ESP............................... GCP+SD/ESP+CI GCP+SD/ESP(m)+CI+SNCR
SD/FF................................ GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/FF+CI+SNCR
Reg. Alt. II-B:
No control........................... GCP+DSI/FF+CI GCP+SD/FF+CI+SNCR
ESP (low)............................ GCP+DSI/ESP+CI GCP+SD/FF+CI+SNCR
SD/ESP............................... GCP+SD/ESP+CI GCP+SD/ESP(m)+CI+SNCR
SD/FF................................ GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/FF+CI+SNCR
Reg. Alt. III;
No control........................... GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/FF+CI+SNCR
ESP (low)............................ GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/FF+CI+SNCR
SD/ESP............................... GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/FF+CI+SNCR
SD/FF................................ GCP+SD/FF+CI GCP+SD/FF+CI+SNCR
MACT Floor:
No control............................. GCP+DSI/FF GCP+SD/FF+SNCR
ESP (low).............................. GCP+DSI/ESP GCP+SD/ESP(M)+SNCR
SD/ESP................................. GCP+SD/ESP GCP+SD/ESP(m)+SNCR
SD/FF.................................. GCP+SD/FF GCP+SD/FF+SNCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: This table is an extract of table 4-2 of the document entitled ``Economic Impact Analysis for Proposed
Emission Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors,'' EPA-450/3-91-029, March 1994. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on obtaining this document.
a The MWC regulation does not mandate a specific type of control equipment. The MWC owner/operator may use any
control equipment that meets the emission standards. The control technologies are the projected compliance
strategies used as the basis for computing costs. If the MWC has equipment that is meeting or exceeding the
control requirements, no additional costs are incurred.
b CI=carbon injection.
Table 7A.--Emission Guidelines for Existing MWC's: Emission Reductions and Annualized Costs of the Regulatory
Alternatives a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory alternative
Pollutant category (Mg/yr)/annualized --------------------------------------------------------------------------
cost ($1990 10 6/yr) Reg. alt. II- Reg. alt. II-
Reg. alt. I A B Reg. alt. III Mact floor
------------------------------------------------------
FR Doc. 95-30257 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources
----------------------------------------------------------
SO2.................................. 41,200 43,300 43,300 45,000 43,300
HCl.................................. 51,600 56,300 56,300 57,300 56,300
PM................................... 3,070 3,070 3,070 3,240 3,070
Pb................................... 74.8 74.8 91.1 102 74.8
Cd................................... 5.24 5.24 5.56 6.02 5.24
Hg................................... 44.7 47.5 47.5 47.5 0
NOX.................................. 8,680 8,680 8,690 8,690 8,680
CO................................... 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300
Dioxins/furans (total mass).......... 0.154 0.156 0.157 0.158 b 0.153
[[Page 65409]]
Annualized cost ($1990 10 6/yr)...... 412 443 448 487 425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: This table is an extract of tables 5-14 and 5-21 of the document entitled ``Economic Impact Analysis for
Proposed Emission Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors,'' EPA-450/3-91-029, March 1994. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on obtaining this document.
a The MWC regulation does not mandate a specific type of control equipment. The MWC owner/operator may use any
control equipment that meets the emission standards. The control technologies are the projected compliance
strategies used as the basis for computing costs. If the MWC has equipment that is meeting or exceeding the
control requirements, no additional costs are incurred.
b The MACT floor is regulatory alternative II-A without carbon injection for mercury and dioxin/furan control.
The majority of the dioxin/furan emission control is achieved by acid gas controls included in alternative II-
A and the floor. It is assumed that adding mercury control (carbon injection) to acid gas control reduces
dioxin/furan emissions by at least an additional 50 percent. The dioxin/furan emission reduction estimate for
the MACT floor is not provided in the ``Economic Impacts Analysis.''
The regulatory alternatives represent alternative levels of control
considered by the EPA, whereas the compliance scenarios represent
potential alternative responses by the MWC owners and operators to the
emission requirements. Generally speaking, the EPA assumed that MWC
owners and operators will choose the minimum-cost control technology
that will meet the emission requirements. However, where there is
uncertainty regarding the actual emission limits that a particular
control technology will achieve in practice, owners may choose a more
conservative (and potentially more costly) compliance strategy to
reduce the risk of noncompliance. A conservative investment decision is
particularly likely when the investment decision affects the facility's
ability to remain in operation (e.g., noncompliance results in plant
shutdown), is a long-term decision, or involves a significant capital
outlay. Consequently, we evaluate two compliance scenarios for meeting
the acid gas, PM, and metals control requirements for existing plants
subject to guidelines.
A more detailed discussion of the regulatory alternatives EPA
considered may be found in the ``Economic Impact Analysis for Proposed
Emission Standards and Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors,''
EPA-450/3-91-029, March 1994 (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on obtaining this document). Control alternatives were also
developed for NOX control and Hg control. Discussion of these
alternatives can be found in the following memos that may be obtained
from the EPA's Air Docket, as specified in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this preamble: (1) ``Update Report on Mercury
Control Technologies for Municipal Waste Combustors'' prepared by K.
Nebel and D. White, Radian Corporation, for W. Stevenson, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, July 1993; (2) ``NOX Control on
Existing MWC's,'' prepared by E. Soderberg et al., Radian Corporation,
for W. Stevenson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 23,
1991; (3) ``Wet Scrubbing Systems Performance and Cost,'' prepared by
K. Nebel, et al., Radian Corporation, for W. Stevenson, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, June 22, 1994; and (4) ``A Summary of
Mercury Emissions and Applicable Control Technologies for Municipal
Waste Combustors,'' prepared by K. Nebel and D. White, Radian
Corporation, for W. Stevenson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
September 1991.
c. Social Costs. The regulatory compliance costs of reducing air
emissions from MWC's include the total and annualized capital costs;
operating and maintenance costs; monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping,
and reporting costs; and total annual costs. The annualized capital
cost is calculated using a 4-percent discount rate for publicly-owned
MWC's and an 8-percent discount rate for privately-owned MWC's. The
total annual cost is calculated as the sum of the annualized capital
cost; operating and maintenance costs; and the monitoring, inspection,
recordkeeping, and reporting costs. There are no Federal funds
available to assist State and local governments in meeting these costs.
Table 8 provides the estimated compliance costs for the final
regulations and their distribution across public and private MWC's. As
shown, the national annual compliance costs for existing MWC's total
$405.5 million, with publicly-owned facilities incurring $229.9
million. This total both represents 56.7 percent of the estimated
national compliance costs and forms the basis for allocating benefits
to publicly-owned MWC's. (The analysis has assumed that benefits are
linear with emission reductions). The level of compliance costs depends
not only on the absolute number of facilities, but also on the baseline
level of pollution control. It is assumed that higher compliance costs
are associated with higher emission reductions and are, thus,
appropriate for allocating the benefits associated with the reduced
emissions.
Table 8.--Summary of Regulatory Compliance Costs for Existing MWC's by Ownership ($1990, 10 \3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Annual operating Annual Total
Ownership category capital and MIRR annual
costs maintenance costs a costs
costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public............................................................ 67,625 154,163 8,092 229,881
Private........................................................... 83,936 87,161 4,575 175,672
---------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 151,561 241,325 12,667 405,553
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a MIRR=Monitoring, inspection, reporting, and recordkeeping.
[[Page 65410]]
The analysis assumes that the entire increase in costs of
combustion services for both public and private entities will be passed
through to MWC customers in the form of increases in the tipping fee
charged by MWC's. As shown in table 9, the estimated increases in the
average tipping fee for publicly-owned MWC's are significant and range
from 36 to 59 percent. The range for privately-owned MWC's is 41 to 65
percent.
Table 9.--Average Tipping Fee In-creases for Existing MWC's by Ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small MWC Large MWC
plants (35 plants a
to 225 Mg/ (over 225 Mg/
Ownership day MSW) day MSW)
(percent (percent
change) change)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public...................................... 59 36
Private..................................... 65 41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Fee increases are computed using the average cost per megagram of MSW
reported in tables 5-10 and 5-11 of the EPA's ``Economic Impact
Analysis for Proposed Emission Standards and Guidelines for Municipal
Solid Waste Combustors,'' (EPA-450/3-91-029) and an average tipping
fee of $57/Mg of MSW. The average tipping fee is based on the 1993
average tipping fee for MWC's reported in Waste Age (Berenyi & Gould,
1993) converted to 1990 dollars.
Section 7.3.1 of the EPA's economic impact analysis (EPA-450/3-91-
029) provides a distributional analysis of the impacts on governmental
entities with respect to their ability to finance the regulatory
compliance capital through revenue bonds. A community's ability to
finance the regulatory compliance capital through revenue bonds is
estimated by comparing the estimated average annual cost per household
to the average annual household income for the community. If the cost
per household exceeds one percent of average annual household income,
then the community is assumed to have potential difficulty issuing
revenue bonds. Of the estimated 100 governmental entities subject to
the guidelines, no governmental entities with a population above 50,000
are projected to have difficulty issuing revenue bonds as a result of
the regulation on existing sources. Overall, 3 of the 100 governmental
entities (all 3 of which have population below 50,000) are projected to
have difficulty issuing such bonds.
Without market adjustments, the social costs of the guidelines
should be equivalent to the national compliance costs shown in table 8.
However, in this analysis, the social costs differ, both because the
total capital costs for both public and private MWC's were discounted
at the social rate equal to 7 percent, and because of tax differences.
Table 10 shows the estimated social cost of the regulations and the
distribution across public and private MWC's. The estimated annual
social cost of the guidelines is $443 million of which 56.7 percent, or
$251.1 million, is attributed to publicly-owned MWC's. This estimate of
social cost is greater than the national compliance costs because the
total capital costs for publicly-owned MWC's is discounted at the
social rate of 7 percent, as opposed to the 4 percent rate used to
compute the national compliance costs.
Table 10.--Summary of Estimated Annual Social Cost by Ownership ($1990)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
social
Ownership category costs Share
($10 \3\ (percent)
per year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public............................................ 251,107 56.7
Private........................................... 191,893 43.3
---------------------
Total....................................... 443,000 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10A provides typical costs of air pollution control retrofits
for existing MWC's. The costs shown in table 10A are for 17 model
existing plants.
Table 10A.--Typical Cost of Air Pollution Control Retrofit for Existing MWC'S
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs ($1990 x 10 6)
Plant size (Mg/day) MWC type -------------------------- Model plant
Capital Annual number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45.......................................................... MOD/SA 2 0.5 10
136......................................................... MOD/SA 3 10.5 9
181......................................................... MOD/EA 3 0.4 11
181......................................................... MB/WW 5 0.9 6
454......................................................... MB/RWW 13 1.6 12
980......................................................... MB/WW 25 3.2 5
2,041....................................................... MB/WW 46 5.0 4
181......................................................... MB/WW a5 0.8 14
454......................................................... MB/RWW a13 1.6 17
544......................................................... RDF 28 2.3 8
1,814....................................................... RDF 64 4.8 7
1,814....................................................... RDF a33 4.4 15
544......................................................... RDF a17 2.0 16
218......................................................... MB/REF 8 0.9 2
680......................................................... MB/REF 39 2.3 1
816......................................................... MB/REF 35 4.1 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See table 5-1 of the ``Economic Impacts Analysis for Proposed Emission Standards and Guidelines for
Municipal Waste Combustors'' (EPA-450/3-91-029) for more information.
a These model plants are assumed to be relatively new units that originally incorporated good combustion in
their design and, therefore, do not need to retrofit good combustion to comply with the guidelines.
[[Page 65411]]
d. Social Benefits. Society will benefit from the proposed
guidelines through the reduction of emissions of dioxins/furans, Cd,
Pb, Hg, PM, HCl, SO2, and NOX. These pollutant categories are
emitted by various types of sources, including MWC's. The level of
pollutant emissions and health effects vary among types of sources, and
total national emissions of these pollutants has been shown to have the
health effects listed in table 11.
Table 11.--Health and Other Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant category Health and other effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics............................... Mortality, morbidity.
Carcinogenicity.
Metals................................. Retardation and brain
damage.
Hypertension.
Central nervous
system injury.
Renal dysfunction.
Acid gases............................. Materials damage.
Dental erosion.
Acid rain.
Mortality, morbidity.
Respiratory tract
problems, permanent harm to
lung.
Soiling and materials
damage.
Reduced agricultural
yield.
Ozone formation.
Particulate matter..................... Mortality, morbidity.
Eye and throat
irritation, bronchitis, lung
damage.
Impaired visibility.
Soiling and materials
damage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of limitations on data on the concentration-response
function and valuation of these functions, benefits have not been
quantified for all pollutants. Benefits have been quantified only for
emissions of SO2 and PM. Benefits have not been quantified for
dioxins/furans, Cd, Pb, Hg, HCl or NOX emission control. Benefits
to the public and environment will result from the control of these
hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) and criteria pollutants. For the
HAP's, dioxin/furan compounds have been associated with chloracne,
reproductive/developmental effects, immune system toxicity, and cancer
(probable human carcinogen). Particulate-associated metals including Pb
and Cd are toxic and can cause effects such as mucous membrane
irritation, gastrointestinal effects, nervous system disorders, skin
irritation, and reproductive and developmental disorders. In regard to
volatile metals, Hg in all forms may be characterized as quite toxic
with each form exhibiting different health effects, including
gastrointestinal and respiratory tract disturbances, central nervous
system effects, and developmental effects. Additionally, HCl is
corrosive and effects the eyes, skin, and mucus membranes, and
dermatitis has been reported from long-term exposure.
Table 12 provides the estimated social benefits associated with
reductions in PM and SO2 emissions from MWC's and their
distribution across public and private MWC's. The estimated social
benefit of reduced PM and SO2 emissions is $106 million with $60.3
million being attributed to reductions at publicly-owned MWC
facilities. These benefits would be experienced annually by the
residents of these municipalities. Proper allocation of these benefits
would be based on the expected emission reductions at public and
private MWC's. However, due to lack of data at the model plant level,
these benefits are allocated across public and private MWC's in the
same proportion as the estimated national compliance costs (i.e., 56.7
percent for public and 43.3 percent for private).
Table 12.--Social Benefit Estimates for SO2 and PM Emission Reductions
by Ownership ($1990)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social benefits ($10 \3\ per
year) a b
Ownership category --------------------------------
PM SO2 Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public................................. 30,779 29,475 60,254
Private................................ 23,521 22,525 46,046
Total.................................. 54,300 52,000 106,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Benefit estimates are $1,200 per Mg of SO2 reduced and $17,700 per Mg
of PM reduced. (This estimate is derived valuing all mortalities at
$4.4 million per life saved. This approach does not consider the
length of the changes in longevity resulting from PM exposure). Social
benefits attributable to public and private MWC's are proportionate to
their share of the total annual costs.
b Does not include benefit credits for dioxins/furans, Cd, and Hg
control.
Table 13 presents a comparison of the estimated social costs and
benefits of the guidelines. Unfortunately, because benefit estimates
are not computed for all pollutants, the social benefit provided in
table 13 is a partial estimate. Because of this fact, the net benefits
(i.e., benefits minus costs) shown in table 13 cannot be used to reach
conclusions regarding the total net benefits of the rule for existing
sources.
Table 13.--Social Costs and Partial Social Benefits From Reducing
Emissions at MWC's by Ownership ($1990, 10 \3\ Per Year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Partial
Ownership category social social
costs benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public............................................ 251,107 60,254
Private........................................... 191,893 46,046
---------------------
Total....................................... 443,000 106,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Effects on the National Economy
The Unfunded Mandates Act requires that the EPA estimate ``the
effect'' of this rule
``on the national economy, such as the effect on productivity,
economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and
international competitiveness of the U.S. goods and services, if and
to the extent that the EPA in its sole discretion determines that
[[Page 65412]]
accurate estimates are reasonably feasible and that such effect is
relevant and material.''
As stated in the Unfunded Mandates Act, such macroeconomic effects tend
to be measurable, in nationwide econometric models, only if the
economic impact of the regulation reaches 0.25 to 0.5 percent of gross
domestic product (in the range of $1.5 billion to $3 billion). A
regulation with a smaller aggregate effect is highly unlikely to have
any measurable impact in macroeconomic terms unless it is highly
focused on a particular geographic region or economic sector. For this
reason, no estimate of this rule's effect on the national economy has
been conducted.
4. Consultation with Government Officials
The Unfunded Mandates Act requires that the EPA describe the extent
of the EPA's consultation with affected State, local, and tribal
officials, summarize the officials' comments or concerns, and summarize
the EPA's response to those comments or concerns. In addition, section
203 of the Clean Air Act requires that the EPA develop a plan for
informing and advising small governments that may be significantly or
uniquely impacted by a proposal. Throughout the development of these
rules (pre-proposal through pre-promulgation phases), the EPA consulted
with representatives of affected State and local governments, including
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the
National Association of Counties, the Solid Waste Association of North
America, and the Municipal Waste Management Association, to inform them
of the proposed rule and determine their concerns. (The EPA also
consulted with representatives from other entities affected by the
proposed rule, such as the Integrated Waste Services Association, the
Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.)
As part of EPA's consultation efforts in this rulemaking, the EPA
mailed a copy of the regulatory summary (FACT SHEET) for the September
20, 1994 proposed MWC standards and guidelines to every elected
official in an area with either an operating MWC, an MWC under
construction, or a planned MWC. (The EPA also mailed copies of the
summary to all owners and operators of these MWC's.) This mailout
exceeded 400 informational packages. Since approximately half of the
MWC's are owned and/or operated by municipalities, with this effort,
the EPA was able to ensure that every affected State and local
government was made aware of the proposed rule and had the necessary
information to provide comment.
In addition, over a 3-month period, EPA staff consulted with State
and local government representatives to discuss their comments
regarding the final draft package. Letters were received during this
time period from the U.S. Conference Mayors and the Integrated Waste
Services Association (see docket A-90-45, items IV-D-44 and IV-D-85,
respectively), which raised various concerns; however, in subsequent
meetings, the EPA learned that State and local officials, as well as
industry representatives, were mainly concerned with the following
sections of the final draft emission guidelines: (1) The achievability
for some MWC's of the final draft NOX emission limit included in
the emission guidelines; (2) the fact that because the EPA had not
subcategorized by combustor type for purposes of determining the
NOX emission limit as it had when it determined the CO emission
limit, some MWC's would be forced to install retrofit technology in
order to meet the more stringent NOX limit, (3) the achievability
for MWC's with large new ESP's of the final draft dioxin/furan emission
limit included in the emission guidelines; and (4) the inconsistency
between some of the definitions in the draft rules with the definitions
given in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ea, which establishes emission limits
for MWC's that commence construction after December 20, 1989, but on or
before September 20, 1994.
As a result of these consultations, the EPA decided to modify the
final regulatory package to address these concerns. The final emission
guidelines promulgated today:
(1) Subcategorize MWC's by combustor type for the purpose of
establishing different NOx emission guidelines; and
(2) Establish separate dioxin/furan emission guidelines for MWC's
with ESP-based systems and MWC's with nonESP-based systems. In
addition, in order to address the fourth concern identified by State
and local governments, the EPA is publishing today under a separate
Federal Register notice, a direct final rule that modifies the
applicability and definitions sections of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ea to
improve clarity and make them consistent with those provided in the
standards and emission guidelines promulgated in this notice.
Documentation of the EPA's consideration of comments on the
proposed standards and guidelines is provided in the BID's for the
proposed and final standards and guidelines. Refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION and ADDRESSES sections of this preamble for information on
how to acquire copies of these documents.
As discussed in section IV.F, the number of affected small entities
is not expected to be substantial. The full analysis of potential
regulatory impacts on households, small governments, and small
businesses is included in the economic impact analysis in the docket
and listed under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Because the number of
affected small entities is expected to be insubstantial (i.e., the EPA
considers that the regulation is likely to affect less than 20 percent
of small entities with MWC's--see section IV.F for a more detailed
explanation), no plan to inform and advise small governments is
required under section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. However, as
described above, the EPA has communicated and consulted with small
governments and businesses that will be affected by the standards and
guidelines, keeping them informed about the content of this
promulgation. Refer to section III.C. for a description of these
communications.
E. Executive Order 12875
To reduce the burden of Federal regulations on States and small
governments, the President issued Executive Order 12875 on October 26,
1993, entitled ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.'' Under
Executive Order 12875, the EPA is required to consult with
representatives of affected State, local, and tribal governments, and
keep these affected parties informed about the content and effect of
the promulgated standards and emission guidelines. Section III.A of
this notice provides a brief summary of the need for the final
standards and guidelines. Sections IV.C and V.C provide brief summaries
of the cost of the final guidelines and standards. Section III.C
provides a brief account of the actions that the EPA has taken to
communicate and consult with the affected parties. The discussion
provided below provides a brief summary of the content of the final
standards and guidelines. For more information on the content of the
final standards and guidelines, refer to sections IV.A and V.A of this
notice.
The promulgated standards and guidelines establish emission
limitations for new and existing MWC units located at MWC plants with
plant capacities to combust greater than 35 Mg/day of MSW. The
standards and guidelines do not specify which type of air pollution
control equipment must be
[[Page 65413]]
used at MWC's to meet the promulgated emission limitations. The EPA
expects, however, that, as a result of the promulgated standards and
guidelines, most new and existing MWC's at large MWC plants (plants
with greater than 225 Mg/day capacity) will use SD/FF systems with
activated carbon injection (new plants) or retrofit SD/FF or SD/ESP
systems with activated carbon injection (existing plants) for dioxins/
furans, metals, and acid gas control, and will use SNCR for NOX
control. New MWC's at small MWC plants (plants with 35 to 225 Mg/day
capacity) are expected to install SD/FF systems with activated carbon
injection, and existing MWC's at small plants are expected to install
DSI/ESP systems with activated carbon injection. Selective noncatalytic
reduction technology would not be necessary for either new or existing
MWC's at small MWC plants.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Section 605 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal
agencies to give special consideration to the impacts of regulations on
small entities, which are small businesses, small organizations, and
small governments. The major purpose of the RFA is to keep paperwork
and regulatory requirements from getting out of proportion to the scale
of the entities being regulated without compromising the objectives of,
in this case, the Clean Air Act.
If a regulation is likely to have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, the EPA may give special
consideration to those small entities when analyzing regulatory
alternatives and drafting the regulation. In the case at hand, the EPA
considers that a regulation that is likely to affect 20 percent or more
of small entities with MWC's is a regulation that will affect a
substantial number of small entities.
Definitions of small entities are flexible. For analysis of the
regulations being proposed today, the EPA considers a small business in
this industry to be one with gross annual revenue less than $6 million,
and a small government to be one that serves a population less than
50,000. (A typical city of 50,000 generates about 90 Mg/day of MSW.)
Most small governments dispose of their MSW by landfilling and,
therefore, will not be affected by regulation of MWC emissions. In
regard to small organizations such as independent not-for-profit
enterprises, the EPA finds that they have no more than a very minor
involvement with MWC's, and for that reason the EPA has not found it
necessary to study potential direct impacts on small organizations.
The final regulations do not apply to MWC plants with capacity less
than 35 Mg/day. The EPA estimates that few if any small-entity MWC's
would be affected by today's promulgated standards and guidelines.
Thus, the number of affected small entities is not expected to be
substantial, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Nevertheless, the EPA has conducted an extensive analysis of potential
regulatory impacts on households, small governments, and small
businesses. The analysis is summarized in the preambles to the proposed
standards (59 FR 48198) and guidelines (59 FR 48228.) The full analysis
is included in the economic impact assessment in the docket and is
listed at the beginning of today's notice under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
On December 20, 1989, the EPA proposed standards and guidelines for
MWC's that applied to all sizes of MWC's. The 1989 proposal had no
lower size cutoff. Small businesses, small governments, and groups
representing small-entity interests commented extensively on the need
to lighten the potential regulatory burden on small entities. Most
commenters suggested a small size cutoff considerably smaller than the
one now being proposed. The most frequently suggested levels were 5 to
11 Mg/day, 18 Mg/day, 23 Mg/day, and 45 Mg/day. The EPA has used these
suggestions and the information submitted by these commenters, as well
as information from other sources, to fulfill the intent of the RFA.
The EPA has incorporated into the standards and guidelines being
promulgated today several features that will mitigate and, in most
cases eliminate, any potential, adverse economic impacts on small
entities. These features are as follows:
(1) The standards and guidelines will apply only to MWC's with a
plant capacity of greater than 35 Mg/day. This cutoff eliminates from
the purview of the regulation and guidelines the overwhelming majority
of projected new and existing very small MWC's;
(2) The standards and guidelines are ``tiered'' so that the
stringency (and therefore potential economic burden) of the emission
standards and guidelines increases as the size of the MWC plant
increases. Plants with capacities less than or equal to 35 Mg/day are
not covered under the final standards and guidelines. Plants with
capacities of 35 to 225 Mg/day are not required to control NOx.
Only plants with capacities larger than 225 Mg/day--plants not often
associated with small entities--are subject to a full complement of
rigorous standards;
(3) As opposed to design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards, the standards for new sources and the guidelines for
existing sources consist predominantly of emission limits. Emission
limits give MWC owners and operators of new and existing MWC's the
freedom to select the most economical means of compliance.
(4) The guidelines are not the usual type of regulation governed by
the RFA. The guidelines will not apply directly to any MWC's, but will
be used as a guide by individual State air pollution control agencies
in developing site-specific regulations for MWC's. States are allowed
some flexibility in implementing the guidelines.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA certifies
that the standards and guidelines will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because the number of
small entities affected is not substantial.
G. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements
The following procedural requirements of the Clean Air Act are
addressed: Administrative listing, periodic review, external
participation, and economic impact assessment.
1. Administrator Listing--Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act
As prescribed by section 111 of the Clean Air Act, establishment of
standards of performance and emission guidelines for MWC's is based on
the Administrator's determination (52 FR 25399, July 7, 1987) that
these sources contribute significantly to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Additionally, section 129 of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act
directs the Administrator to promulgate revised standards for new MWC's
and guidelines for existing MWC's.
2. Periodic Review--Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act
Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act require that the
standards and guidelines be reviewed not later than 5 years following
the initial promulgation. At that time and at 5-year intervals
thereafter, the Administrator shall review the standards and guidelines
and revise them if necessary. This review will include an assessment of
such factors as the need for integration with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in
emission control technology, and reporting requirements.
[[Page 65414]]
3. External Participation
In accordance with section 117 of the Clean Air Act, publication of
this promulgation was preceded by consultation with appropriate
advisory committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and
agencies.
4. Economic Impact Assessment
Section 317A of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to prepare an
economic impact assessment for any standards or guidelines promulgated
under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. An economic impact
assessment was prepared for the promulgated standards and guidelines.
In the manner described in the sections of this preamble regarding the
impacts of and rationale for the promulgated standards and guidelines,
the EPA considered all aspects of the economic impact assessment in
promulgating the standards and guidelines. The economic impact
assessment is included in the list of key technical documents at the
beginning of today's notice under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: October 31, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Part 60, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7429, and 7601.
2. Section 60.17 of subpart A of part 60 is amended by revising
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) ASME QRO-1-1994, Standard for the Qualification and
Certification of Resource Recovery Facility Operators, IBR approved for
Secs. 60.56a, 60.54b(a) and 60.54b(b).
(2) ASME PTC 4.1-1964 (Reaffirmed 1991), Power Test Codes: Test
Code for Steam Generating Units (with 1968 and 1969 Addenda), IBR
approved for Secs. 60.46b, 60.58a(h)(6)(ii), and 60.58b(i)(6)(ii).
(3) ASME Interim Supplement 19.5 on Instruments and Apparatus:
Application, Part II of Fluid Meters, 6th Edition (1971), IBR approved
for Secs. 60.58a(h)(6)(ii) and 60.58b(i)(6)(ii).
* * * * *
3. Section 60.23 of subpart B of part 60 is amended by revising
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.23 Adoption and submittal of State plans; public hearings.
(a) * * *
(1) Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart, within 9
months after notice of the availability of a final guideline document
is published under Sec. 60.22(a), each State shall adopt and submit to
the Administrator, in accordance with Sec. 60.4 of subpart A of this
part, a plan for the control of the designated pollutant to which the
guideline document applies.
* * * * *
4. Section 60.24 of subpart B of part 60 is amended by revising
paragraph (f) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 60.24 Emission standards and compliance schedules.
* * * * *
(f) Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart on a case-
by-case basis for particular designated facilities or classes of
facilities, States may provide for the application of less stringent
emissions standards or longer compliance schedules than those otherwise
required by paragraph (c) of this section, provided that the State
demonstrates with respect to each such facility (or class of
facilities):
* * * * *
5. Subpart C of part 60 is amended by revising Sec. 60.30 to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.30 Scope.
The following subparts contain emission guidelines and compliance
times for the control of certain designated pollutants in accordance
with section 111(d) and section 129 of the Clean Air Act and subpart B
of this part.
(a) Subpart Ca--[Removed and Reserved]
(b) Subpart Cb--Municipal Waste Combustors
(c) Subpart Cc--[Reserved]
(d) Subpart Cd--Sulfuric Acid Production Plants
Subpart Ca--[Removed and Reserved]
5a. Part 60 is amended by removing and reserving subpart Ca.
Subpart Cb--[Redesignated as Subpart Cd]
Subpart Cc--[Reserved]
6. Part 60 is amended by redesignating subpart Cb as Cd, reserving
subpart Cc, and revising the new subpart Cd to read as follows:
Subpart Cd--Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Sulfuric Acid
Production Units
Sec.
60.30d Designated facilities.
60.31d Emission guidelines.
60.32d Compliance times.
Subpart Cd--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Sulfuric
Acid Production Units
Sec. 60.30d Designated facilities.
Sulfuric acid production units. The designated facility to which
Secs. 60.31d and 60.32d apply is each existing ``sulfuric acid
production unit'' as defined in Sec. 60.81(a) of subpart H of this
part.
Sec. 60.31d Emissions guidelines.
Sulfuric acid production units. The emission guideline for
designated facilities is 0.25 grams sulfuric acid mist (as measured by
EPA Reference Method 8 of appendix A of this part) per kilogram (0.5
pounds per ton) of sulfuric acid produced, the production being
expressed as 100 percent sulfuric acid.
Sec. 60.32d Compliance times.
Sulfuric acid production units. Planning, awarding of contracts,
and installation of equipment capable of attaining the level of the
emission guideline established under Sec. 60.31d can be accomplished
within 17 months after the effective date of a State emission standard
for sulfuric acid mist.
7. Part 60 is further amended by adding a new subpart Cb to read as
follows:
Subpart Cb--Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal
Waste Combustors That Are Constructed on or Before December 19, 1995
Sec.
60.30b Scope.
60.31b Definitions.
60.32b Designated facilities.
60.33b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor metals,
acid gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.
60.34b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor operating
practices.
60.35b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor operator
training and certification.
60.36b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor fugitive
ash emissions.
60.37b Emission guidelines for air curtain incinerators.
[[Page 65415]]
60.38b Compliance and performance testing.
60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines, and compliance
schedules.
Subpart Cb--Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Schedules for
Municipal Waste Combustors
Sec. 60.30b Scope.
This subpart contains emission guidelines and compliance schedules
for the control of certain designated pollutants from certain municipal
waste combustors in accordance with section 111(d) and section 129 of
the Clean Air Act and subpart B of this part. The provisions in these
emission guidelines supersede the provisions of Sec. 60.24(f) of
subpart B of this part.
Sec. 60.31b Definitions.
Terms used but not defined in this subpart have the meaning given
them in the Clean Air Act and subparts A, B, and Eb of this part.
Municipal waste combustor plant means one or more municipal waste
combustor units at the same location for which construction was
commenced on or before September 20, 1994.
Municipal waste combustor plant capacity means the aggregate
municipal waste combustor unit capacity of all municipal waste
combustor units at a municipal waste combustor plant for which
construction was commenced on or before September 20, 1994.
Sec. 60.32b Designated facilities.
(a) The designated facility to which these guidelines apply is each
municipal waste combustor unit located within a municipal waste
combustor plant with an aggregate municipal waste combustor plant
capacity greater than 35 megagrams per day of municipal solid waste for
which construction was commenced on or before September 20, 1994.
(b) Any waste combustion unit at a medical, industrial, or other
type of waste combustor plant that is capable of combusting more than
35 megagrams per day of municipal solid waste and is subject to a
federally enforceable permit limiting the plantwide maximum amount of
municipal solid waste that may be combusted to less than or equal to 10
megagrams per day is not subject to this subpart if the owner or
operator:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim,
(2) Provides a copy of the federally enforceable permit that limits
the firing of municipal solid waste to less than 10 megagrams per day,
and
(3) Keeps records of the amount of municipal solid waste fired on a
daily basis.
(c) Physical or operational changes made to an existing municipal
waste combustor unit primarily for the purpose of complying with
emission guidelines under this subpart are not considered in
determining whether the unit is a modified or reconstructed facility
under subpart Ea or subpart Eb of this part.
(d) A qualifying small power production facility, as defined in
section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that
burns homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy is
not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility
notifies the Administrator of this exemption and provides data
documenting that the facility qualifies for this exemption.
(e) A qualifying cogeneration facility, as defined in section
3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), that burns
homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy
and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) that are used for
industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes, is not subject to
this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility notifies the
Administrator of this exemption and provides data documenting that the
facility qualifies for this exemption.
(f) Any unit combusting a single-item waste stream of tires is not
subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the unit:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim, and
(2) Provides data documenting that the unit qualifies for this
exemption.
(g) Any unit required to have a permit under section 3005 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act is not subject to this subpart.
(h) Any materials recovery facility (including primary or secondary
smelters) that combusts waste for the primary purpose of recovering
metals is not subject to this subpart.
(i) Any cofired combustor, as defined under Sec. 60.51b of subpart
Eb of this part, that meets the capacity specifications in paragraph
(a) of this section is not subject to this subpart if the owner or
operator of the cofired combustor:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim,
(2) Provides a copy of the federally enforceable permit (specified
in the definition of cofired combustor in this section), and
(3) Keeps a record on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of
municipal solid waste combusted at the cofired combustor and the weight
of all other fuels combusted at the cofired combustor.
(j) Air curtain incinerators, as defined under Sec. 60.51b of
subpart Eb of this part, that meet the capacity specifications in
paragraph (a) of this section, and that combust a fuel stream composed
of 100 percent yard waste are exempt from all provisions of this
subpart except the opacity standard under Sec. 60.37b, the testing
procedures under Sec. 60.38b, and the reporting and recordkeeping
provisions under Sec. 60.39b.
(k) Air curtain incinerators that meet the capacity specifications
in paragraph (a) of this section and that combust municipal solid waste
other than yard waste are subject to all provisions of this subpart.
(l) Pyrolysis/combustion units that are an integrated part of a
plastics/rubber recycling unit (as defined in Sec. 60.51b) are not
subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the plastics/rubber
recycling unit keeps records of the weight of plastics, rubber, and/or
rubber tires processed on a calendar quarter basis; the weight of
chemical plant feedstocks and petroleum refinery feedstocks produced
and marketed on a calendar quarter basis; and the name and address of
the purchaser of the feedstocks. The combustion of gasoline, diesel
fuel, jet fuel, fuel oils, residual oil, refinery gas, petroleum coke,
liquified petroleum gas, propane, or butane produced by chemical plants
or petroleum refineries that use feedstocks produced by plastics/rubber
recycling units are not subject to this subpart.
Sec. 60.33b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor metals,
acid gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.
(a) The emission limits for municipal waste combustor metals are
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section.
(1) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
particulate matter and opacity at least as protective as the emission
limits for particulate matter and opacity specified in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
(i) The emission limit for particulate matter contained in the
gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located
within a large municipal waste combustor plant is 27 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) The emission limit for particulate matter contained in the
gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located
within a small municipal waste combustor plant is 70
[[Page 65416]]
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(iii) The emission limit for opacity exhibited by the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located within
a small or large municipal waste combustor plant is 10 percent (6-
minute average).
(2) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
cadmium and lead at least as protective as the emission limits for
cadmium and lead specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv)
of this section.
(i) The emission limit for cadmium contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located within
a large municipal waste combustor plant is 0.040 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(ii) The emission limit for cadmium contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located within
a small municipal waste combustor plant is 0.10 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(iii) The emission limit for lead contained in the gases discharged
to the atmosphere from a designated facility located within a large
municipal waste combustor plant is 0.49 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(iv) The emission limit for lead contained in the gases discharged
to the atmosphere from a designated facility located within a small
municipal waste combustor plant is 1.6 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(3) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
mercury at least as protective as the emission limits specified in this
paragraph. The emission limit for mercury contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located within
a small or large municipal waste combustor plant is 0.080 milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter or 15 percent of the potential mercury
emission concentration (an 85-percent reduction by weight), corrected
to 7 percent oxygen, whichever is less stringent.
(b) The emission limits for municipal waste combustor acid gases,
expressed as sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride, are specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
sulfur dioxide at least as protective as the emission limits for sulfur
dioxide specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(i) The emission limit for sulfur dioxide contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located within
a large municipal waste combustor plant is 31 parts per million by
volume or 25 percent of the potential sulfur dioxide emission
concentration (75-percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to
7 percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is less stringent. Compliance
with this emission limit is based on a 24-hour daily geometric mean.
(ii) The emission limit for sulfur dioxide contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located within
a small municipal waste combustor plant is 80 parts per million by
volume or 50 percent of the potential sulfur dioxide emission
concentration (50-percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to
7 percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is less stringent. Compliance
with this emission limit is based on a 24-hour geometric mean.
(2) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
hydrogen chloride at least as protective as the emission limits for
hydrogen chloride specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of
this section.
(i) The emission limit for hydrogen chloride contained in the gases
discharged to the atmosphere from a designated facility located within
a large municipal waste combustor plant is 31 parts per million by
volume or 5 percent of the potential hydrogen chloride emission
concentration (95-percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to
7 percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is less stringent.
(ii) The emission limit for hydrogen chloride contained in the
gases discharged to the atmosphere from an affected facility located
within a small municipal waste combustor plant is 250 parts per million
by volume or 50 percent of the potential hydrogen chloride emission
concentration (50-percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to
7 percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is less stringent.
(c) The emission limits for municipal waste combustor organics,
expressed as total mass dioxins/furans, are specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(1) For approval, a State plan shall include an emission limit for
dioxins/furans contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from
a designated facility located within a large municipal waste combustor
plant at least as protective as the emission limit for dioxins/furans
specified in either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii) of this section,
as applicable.
(i) The emission limit for designated facilities that employ an
electrostatic precipitator-based emission control system is 60
nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(ii) The emission limit for designated facilities that do not
employ an electrostatic precipitator-based emission control system is
30 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(2) For approval, a State plan shall include an emission limit for
dioxins/furans contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from
a designated facility located within a small municipal waste combustor
plant at least as protective as the emission limit for dioxins/furans
specified in this paragraph. The emission limit for dioxins/furans for
designated facilities located within a small municipal waste combustor
plant is 125 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass),
corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(d) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
nitrogen oxides at least as protective as the emission limits listed in
table 1 of this subpart for designated facilities located within large
municipal waste combustor plants. Table 1 provides emission limits for
the nitrogen oxides concentration level for each type of designated
facility.
Table 1.--Nitrogen Oxides Guidelines for Designated Facilities at Large
Municipal Waste Combustor Plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen
oxides
emission
Municipal waste combustor technology limit (parts
per million
by volume) a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall....................................... 200
Mass burn rotary waterwall................................ 250
Refuse-derived fuel combustor............................. 250
Fluidized bed combustor................................... 240
Mass burn refractory combustors........................... no limit
Otherb.................................................... 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
b Excludes mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors.
(1) A State plan may allow nitrogen oxides emissions averaging as
specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(v) of this section.
(i) An owner or operator of a large municipal waste combustor plant
may elect to implement a nitrogen oxides emissions averaging plan for
the designated facilities that are located at that plant and that are
subject to subpart Cb, except as specified in paragraphs
[[Page 65417]]
(d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
(A) Municipal waste combustor units subject to subpart Ea or Eb
cannot be included in the emissions averaging plan.
(B) Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustor units cannot be
included in the emissions averaging plan.
(ii) The designated facilities included in the nitrogen oxides
emissions averaging plan must be identified in the initial compliance
report specified in Sec. 60.59b(f) or in the annual report specified in
Sec. 60.59b(g), as applicable, prior to implementing the averaging
plan. The designated facilities being included in the averaging plan
may be redesignated each calendar year. Partial year redesignation is
allowable with State approval.
(iii) To implement the emissions averaging plan, the average daily
(24-hour) nitrogen oxides emission concentration level for gases
discharged from the designated facilities being included in the
emissions averaging plan must be no greater than the levels specified
in table 2 of this subpart. Table 2 provides emission limits for the
nitrogen oxides concentration level for each type of designated
facility.
Table 2.--Nitrogen Oxides Limits For Existing Designated Facilities
Included in an Emissions Averaging Plan at Large Municipal Waste
Combustor Plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen
oxides
emission
Municipal waste combustor technology limit (parts
per million
by volume)a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall....................................... 180
Mass burn rotary waterwall................................ 220
Refuse-derived fuel combustor............................. 230
Fluidized bed combustor................................... 220
Otherb.................................................... 180
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
b Excludes mass burn refractory municipal waste combustors. Mass burn
refractory municipal waste combustors may not be included in an
emissions averaging plan.
(iv) Under the emissions averaging plan, the average daily nitrogen
oxides emissions specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section
shall be calculated using equation (1). Designated facilities that are
offline shall not be included in calculating the average daily nitrogen
oxides emission level.
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19DE95.000
where:
NOX 24-hr=24-hr daily average nitrogen oxides emission
concentration level for the emissions averaging plan (parts per million
by volume corrected to 7 percent oxygen).
NOX i-hr=24-hr daily average nitrogen oxides emission
concentration level for designated facility i (parts per million by
volume, corrected to 7 percent oxygen), calculated according to the
procedures in Sec. 60.58b(h) of this subpart.
Si=maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit load for
designated facility i (pounds per hour steam or feedwater flow as
determined in the most recent dioxin/furan performance test).
h=total number of designated facilities being included in the daily
emissions average.
(v) For any day in which any designated facility included in the
emissions averaging plan is offline, the owner or operator of the
municipal waste combustor plant must demonstrate compliance according
to either paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) of this section or both paragraphs
(d)(1)(v)(B) and (d)(1)(v)(C) of this section.
(A) Compliance with the applicable limits specified in table 2 of
this subpart shall be demonstrated using the averaging procedure
specified in paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section for the designated
facilities that are online.
(B) For each of the designated facilities included in the emissions
averaging plan, the nitrogen oxides emissions on a daily average basis
shall be calculated and shall be equal to or less than the maximum
daily nitrogen oxides emission level achieved by that designated
facility on any of the days during which the emissions averaging plan
was achieved with all designated facilities online during the most
recent calendar quarter. The requirements of this paragraph do not
apply during the first quarter of operation under the emissions
averaging plan.
(C) The average nitrogen oxides emissions (kilograms per day)
calculated according to paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(2) of this section shall
not exceed the average nitrogen oxides emissions (kilograms per day)
calculated according to paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(1) of this section.
(1) For all days during which the emissions averaging plan was
implemented and achieved and during which all designated facilities
were online, the average nitrogen oxides emissions shall be calculated.
The average nitrogen oxides emissions (kilograms per day) shall be
calculated on a calendar year basis according to paragraphs
(d)(1)(v)(C)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(v)(C)(1)(iii) of this section.
(i) For each designated facility included in the emissions
averaging plan, the daily amount of nitrogen oxides emitted (kilograms
per day) shall be calculated based on the hourly nitrogen oxides data
required under Sec. 60.38b(a) and specified under Sec. 60.58b(h)(5) of
subpart Eb of this part, the flue gas flow rate determined using table
19-1 of EPA Reference Method 19 or a State-approved method, and the
hourly average steam or feedwater flow rate.
(ii) The daily total nitrogen oxides emissions shall be calculated
as the sum of the daily nitrogen oxides emissions from each designated
facility calculated under paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(1)(i) of this section.
(iii) The average nitrogen oxides emissions (kilograms per day) on
a calendar year basis shall be calculated as the sum of all daily total
nitrogen oxides emissions calculated under paragraph
(d)(1)(v)(C)(1)(ii) of this section divided by the number of calendar
days for which a daily total was calculated.
(2) For all days during which one or more of the designated
facilities under the emissions averaging plan was offline, the average
nitrogen oxides emissions shall be calculated. The average nitrogen
oxides emissions (kilograms per day) shall be calculated on a calendar
year basis according to paragraphs (d)(1)(v)(C)(2)(i) through
(d)(1)(v)(C)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) For each designated facility included in the emissions
averaging plan, the daily amount of nitrogen oxides emitted (kilograms
per day) shall be calculated based on the hourly nitrogen oxides data
required under Sec. 60.38b(a) and specified under Sec. 60.58b(h)(5) of
subpart Eb of this part, the flue gas flow rate determined using table
19-1 of EPA Reference Method 19 or a State-approved method, and the
hourly average steam or feedwater flow rate.
(ii) The daily total nitrogen oxides emissions shall be calculated
as the sum of the daily nitrogen oxides emissions from each designated
facility calculated under paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(2)(i) of this section.
(iii) The average nitrogen oxides emissions (kilograms per day) on
a calendar year basis shall be calculated
[[Page 65418]]
as the sum of all daily total nitrogen oxides emissions calculated
under paragraph (d)(1)(v)(C)(2)(ii) of this section divided by the
number of calendar days for which a daily total was calculated.
(2) A State plan may establish a program to allow owners or
operators of municipal waste combustor plants to engage in trading of
nitrogen oxides emission credits. A trading program must be approved by
the Administrator before implementation.
Sec. 60.34b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor
operating practices.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
carbon monoxide at least as protective as the emission limits for
carbon monoxide listed in table 3 of this subpart. Table 3 provides
emission limits for the carbon monoxide concentration level for each
type of designated facility located within a small or large municipal
waste combustor plant.
Table 3.--Municipal Waste Combustor Operating Guidelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon
monoxide
emissions
Municipal waste combustor technology level Averaging
(parts per time (hrs)
million by
volume)a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall........................... 100 4
Mass burn refractory.......................... 100 4
Mass burn rotary refractory................... 100 24
Mass burn rotary waterwall.................... 250 24
Modular starved air........................... 50 4
Modular excess air............................ 50 4
Refuse-derived fuel stoker.................... 200 24
Buddling fluidized bed combustor.............. 100 4
Circulating fluidized bed combustor........... 100 4
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-
fired combustor.............................. 150 4
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed
fuel-fired combustor......................... 200 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of
oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
Calculated as an arithmetic average.
(b) For approval, a State plan shall include requirements for
municipal waste combustor operating practices at least as protective as
those requirements listed in Sec. 60.53b(b) and (c) of subpart Eb of
this part.
Sec. 60.35b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor operator
training and certification.
For approval, a State plan shall include requirements for
designated facilities located within small or large municipal waste
combustor plants for municipal waste combustor operator training and
certification at least as protective as those requirements listed in
Sec. 60.54b of subpart Eb of this part. The State plan shall require
compliance with these requirements according to the schedule specified
in Sec. 60.39b(c)(4).
Sec. 60.36b Emission guidelines for municipal waste combustor fugitive
ash emissions.
For approval, a State plan shall include requirements for municipal
waste combustor fugitive ash emissions at least as protective as those
requirements listed in Sec. 60.55b of subpart Eb of this part.
Sec. 60.37b Emission guidelines for air curtain incinerators.
For approval, a State plan shall include emission limits for
opacity for air curtain incinerators at least as protective as those
listed in Sec. 60.56b of subpart Eb of this part.
Sec. 60.38b Compliance and performance testing.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall include the performance
testing methods listed in Sec. 60.58b of subpart Eb of this part, as
applicable, except as provided for under Sec. 60.24(b)(2) of subpart B
of this part and paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) For approval, a State plan shall include for designated
facilities at large municipal waste combustor plants the alternative
performance testing schedule for dioxins/furans specified in
Sec. 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of subpart Eb of this part, as applicable, for
those designated facilities that achieve a dioxin/furan emission level
less than or equal to 15 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter total
mass, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(c) For approval, a State plan shall include for designated
facilities at small municipal waste combustor plants the alternative
performance testing schedule for dioxins/furans specified in
Sec. 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of subpart Eb of this part, as applicable, for
those designated facilities that achieve a dioxin/furan emission level
less than or equal to 30 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter total
mass, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
Sec. 60.39b Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines and compliance
schedules.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall include the reporting and
recordkeeping provisions listed in Sec. 60.59b of subpart Eb of this
part, as applicable, except for the siting requirements under
Sec. 60.59b(a), (b)(5), and (d)(11) of subpart Eb of this part.
(b) Not later than December 19, 1996, each State in which a
designated facility is operating shall submit to the Administrator a
plan to implement and enforce the emission guidelines. The compliance
schedule specified in this paragraph is in accordance with section
129(b)(2) of the Act and supersedes the compliance schedule provided in
Sec. 60.23(a)(1) of subpart B of this part.
(c) For approval, a State plan shall include the compliance
schedules specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this
section.
(1) A State plan shall allow designated facilities located within
large municipal waste combustor plants to comply wi
FR Doc. 95-30257 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources
th all requirements
of a State plan (or close) within 1 year after approval of the State
plan, except as provided by paragraph (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(i) A State plan that allows designated facilities more than 1 year
but less than 3 years following the date of issuance of a revised
construction or operation permit, if a permit modification is
[[Page 65419]]
required, or more than 1 year but less than 3 years following approval
of the State plan, if a permit modification is not required, shall
include measurable and enforceable incremental steps of progress toward
compliance. Suggested measurable and enforceable activities are
specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through (c)(1)(i)(J) of this
section.
(A) Date for obtaining services of an architectural and engineering
firm regarding the air pollution control device(s);
(B) Date for obtaining design drawings of the air pollution control
device(s);
(C) Date for submittal of permit modifications, if necessary;
(D) Date for submittal of the final control plan to the
Administrator. [Sec. 60.21 (h)(1) of subpart B of this part.];
(E) Date for ordering the air pollution control device(s);
(F) Date for obtaining the major components of the air pollution
control device(s);
(G) Date for initiation of site preparation for installation of the
air pollution control device(s);
(H) Date for initiation of installation of the air pollution
control device(s);
(I) Date for initial startup of the air pollution control
device(s); and
(J) Date for initial performance test(s) of the air pollution
control device(s).
(ii) A State plan that allows designated facilities more than 1
year but up to 3 years after State plan approval to close shall require
a closure agreement. The closure agreement must include the date of
plant closure.
(2) If the State plan requirements for a designated facility
located within a large municipal waste combustor plant include a
compliance schedule longer than 1 year after approval of the State plan
in accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (c)(1)(ii) of this section,
the State plan submittal (for approval) shall include performance test
results for dioxin/furan emissions for each designated facility that
has a compliance schedule longer than 1 year following the approval of
the State plan, and the performance test results shall have been
conducted during or after 1990. The performance test shall be conducted
according to the procedures in Sec. 60.38b.
(3) A State plan shall allow designated facilities located within
small municipal waste combustor plants to comply with all requirements
of the State plan (or close) within 3 years following the date of
issuance of a revised construction or operation permit, if a permit
modification is required, or within 3 years following approval of the
State plan, if a permit modification is not required.
(4) A State plan shall require compliance with the municipal waste
combustor operator training and certification requirements under
Sec. 60.35b according to the schedule specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i)
through (c)(4)(iii) of this section.
(i) For designated facilities located within small municipal waste
combustor plants, the State plan shall require compliance with the
municipal waste combustor operator training and certification
requirements specified under Sec. 60.54b (a) through (c) of subpart Eb
of this part by the date 6 months after startup of a designated
facility or 18 months after State plan approval, whichever is later.
(ii) For designated facilities located within large municipal waste
combustor plants, the State plan shall require compliance with the
municipal waste combustor operator training and certification
requirements specified under Sec. 60.54b (a) through (c) of subpart Eb
of this part by the date 6 months after the date of startup or 12
months after State plan approval, whichever is later.
(iii) For designated facilities located within small or large
municipal waste combustor plants, the State plan shall require
compliance with the requirements specified in Sec. 60.54b (d), (f), and
(g) of subpart Eb of this part no later than 6 months after startup or
12 months after State plan approval, whichever is later.
(A) The requirement specified in Sec. 60.54b(d) of subpart Eb of
this part does not apply to chief facility operators, shift
supervisors, and control room operators who have obtained full
certification from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers on or
before the date of State plan approval.
(B) The owner or operator may request that the Administrator waive
the requirement specified in Sec. 60.54b(d) of subpart Eb of this part
for chief facility operators, shift supervisors, and control room
operators who have obtained provisional certification from the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers on or before the date of State plan
approval.
(C) The initial training requirements specified in
Sec. 60.54b(f)(1) of subpart Eb of this part shall be completed no
later than the date specified in paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(C)(1),
(c)(4)(iii)(C)(2), or (c)(4)(iii)(C)(3), of this section whichever is
later.
(1) The date 6 months after the date of startup of the affected
facility;
(2) Twelve months after State plan approval; or
(3) The date prior to the day when the person assumes
responsibilities affecting municipal waste combustor unit operation.
(5) A State plan shall require all designated facilities for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction is commenced after June
26, 1987 that are located within a large municipal waste combustor
plant to comply with the emission limit for mercury specified in
Sec. 60.33b(a)(3) and the emission limit for dioxins/furans specified
in Sec. 60.33b(c)(1) within 1 year following issuance of a revised
construction or operation permit, if a permit modification is required,
or within 1 year following approval of the State plan, whichever is
later.
(d) In the event no plan for implementing the emission guidelines
is adopted, all designated facilities meeting the applicability
requirements under Sec. 60.32b shall be in compliance with the
guidelines no later than December 19, 2000.
8. Part 60 is amended by adding subpart Eb as follows:
Subpart Eb--Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors for
Which Construction is Commenced After September 20, 1994
Sec.
60.50b Applicability and delegation of authority.
60.51b Definitions.
60.52b Standards for municipal waste combustor metals, acid gases,
organics, and nitrogen oxides.
60.53b Standards for municipal waste combustor operating practices.
60.54b Standards for municipal waste combustor operator training
and certification.
60.55b Standards for municipal waste combustor fugitive ash
emissions.
60.56b Standards for air curtain incinerators.
60.57b Siting requirements.
60.58b Compliance and performance testing.
60.59b Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Subpart Eb--Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors
for Which Construction is Commenced After September 20, 1994
Sec. 60.50b Applicability and delegation of authority.
(a) The affected facility to which this subpart applies is each
municipal waste combustor unit located within a municipal waste
combustor plant with an aggregate municipal waste combustor plant
capacity greater than 35 megagrams per day of municipal solid waste for
which construction is commenced after September 20, 1994 or for which
modification or reconstruction is commenced after June 19, 1996.
[[Page 65420]]
(b) Any waste combustion unit at a medical, industrial, or other
type of waste combustor plant that is capable of combusting more than
35 megagrams per day of municipal solid waste and is subject to a
federally enforceable permit limiting the plantwide maximum amount of
municipal solid waste that may be combusted to less than or equal to 10
megagrams per day is not subject to this subpart if the owner or
operator:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim;
(2) Provides a copy of the federally enforceable permit that limits
the firing of municipal solid waste to less than 10 megagrams per day;
and
(3) Keeps records of the amount of municipal solid waste fired on a
daily basis.
(c) An affected facility to which this subpart applies is not
subject to subpart E or Ea of this part.
(d) Physical or operational changes made to an existing municipal
waste combustor unit primarily for the purpose of complying with
emission guidelines under subpart Cb are not considered a modification
or reconstruction and do not result in an existing municipal waste
combustor unit becoming subject to this subpart.
(e) A qualifying small power production facility, as defined in
section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that
burns homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy is
not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility
notifies the Administrator of this exemption and provides data
documenting that the facility qualifies for this exemption.
(f) A qualifying cogeneration facility, as defined in section
3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), that burns
homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy
and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) that are used for
industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes, is not subject to
this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility notifies the
Administrator of this exemption and provides data documenting that the
facility qualifies for this exemption.
(g) Any unit combusting a single-item waste stream of tires is not
subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the unit:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim; and
(3) Provides data documenting that the unit qualifies for this
exemption.
(h) Any unit required to have a permit under section 3005 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act is not subject to this subpart.
(i) Any materials recovery facility (including primary or secondary
smelters) that combusts waste for the primary purpose of recovering
metals is not subject to this subpart.
(j) Any cofired combustor, as defined under Sec. 60.51b, located at
a plant that meets the capacity specifications in paragraph (a) of this
section is not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the
cofired combustor:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim;
(2) Provides a copy of the federally enforceable permit (specified
in the definition of cofired combustor in this section); and
(3) Keeps a record on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of
municipal solid waste combusted at the cofired combustor and the weight
of all other fuels combusted at the cofired combustor.
(k) Air curtain incinerators, as defined under Sec. 60.51b, located
at a plant that meet the capacity specifications in paragraph (a) of
this section and that combust a fuel stream composed of 100 percent
yard waste are exempt from all provisions of this subpart except the
opacity limit under Sec. 60.56b, the testing procedures under
Sec. 60.58b(l), and the reporting and recordkeeping provisions under
Sec. 60.59b (e) and (i).
(l) Air curtain incinerators located at plants that meet the
capacity specifications in paragraph (a) of this section combusting
municipal solid waste other than yard waste are subject to all
provisions of this subpart.
(m) Pyrolysis/combustion units that are an integrated part of a
plastics/rubber recycling unit (as defined in Sec. 60.51b) are not
subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the plastics/rubber
recycling unit keeps records of the weight of plastics, rubber, and/or
rubber tires processed on a calendar quarter basis; the weight of
chemical plant feedstocks and petroleum refinery feedstocks produced
and marketed on a calendar quarter basis; and the name and address of
the purchaser of the feedstocks. The combustion of gasoline, diesel
fuel, jet fuel, fuel oils, residual oil, refinery gas, petroleum coke,
liquified petroleum gas, propane, or butane produced by chemical plants
or petroleum refineries that use feedstocks produced by plastics/rubber
recycling units are not subject to this subpart.
(n) The following authorities shall be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a State: None.
(o) This subpart shall become effective June 19, 1996.
Sec. 60.51b Definitions.
Air curtain incinerator means an incinerator that operates by
forcefully projecting a curtain of air across an open chamber or pit in
which burning occurs. Incinerators of this type can be constructed
above or below ground and with or without refractory walls and floor.
Batch municipal waste combustor means a municipal waste combustor
unit designed so that it cannot combust municipal solid waste
continuously 24 hours per day because the design does not allow waste
to be fed to the unit or ash to be removed while combustion is
occurring.
Bubbling fluidized bed combustor means a fluidized bed combustor in
which the majority of the bed material remains in a fluidized state in
the primary combustion zone.
Calendar quarter means a consecutive 3-month period
(nonoverlapping) beginning on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October
1.
Calendar year means the period including 365 days starting January
1 and ending on December 31.
Chief facility operator means the person in direct charge and
control of the operation of a municipal waste combustor and who is
responsible for daily onsite supervision, technical direction,
management, and overall performance of the facility.
Circulating fluidized bed combustor means a fluidized bed combustor
in which the majority of the fluidized bed material is carried out of
the primary combustion zone and is transported back to the primary zone
through a recirculation loop.
Clean wood means untreated wood or untreated wood products
including clean untreated lumber, tree stumps (whole or chipped), and
tree limbs (whole or chipped). Clean wood does not include yard waste,
which is defined elsewhere in this section, or construction,
renovation, and demolition wastes (including but not limited to
railroad ties and telephone poles), which are exempt from the
definition of municipal solid waste in this section.
Cofired combustor means a unit combusting municipal solid waste
with nonmunicipal solid waste fuel (e.g., coal, industrial process
waste) and subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting the unit
to combusting a fuel feed stream, 30 percent or less of the weight of
which is comprised, in aggregate, of municipal solid waste as measured
on a calendar quarter basis.
[[Page 65421]]
Continuous emission monitoring system means a monitoring system for
continuously measuring the emissions of a pollutant from an affected
facility.
Dioxin/furan means tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans.
Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions that are
enforceable by the Administrator including the requirements of 40 CFR
parts 60, 61, and 63, requirements within any applicable State
implementation plan, and any permit requirements established under 40
CFR 52.21 or under 40 CFR 51.18 and 40 CFR 51.24.
First calendar half means the period starting on January 1 and
ending on June 30 in any year.
Four-hour block average or 4-hour block average means the average
of all hourly emission concentrations when the affected facility is
operating and combusting municipal solid waste measured over 4-hour
periods of time from 12:00 midnight to 4 a.m., 4 a.m. to 8 a.m., 8 a.m.
to 12:00 noon, 12:00 noon to 4 p.m., 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., and 8 p.m. to
12:00 midnight.
Large municipal waste combustor plant means a municipal waste
combustor plant with a municipal waste combustor aggregate plant
capacity for affected facilities that is greater than 225 megagrams per
day of municipal solid waste.
Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustor means a field-
erected combustor that combusts municipal solid waste in a refractory
wall furnace. Unless otherwise specified, this includes combustors with
a cylindrical rotary refractory wall furnace.
Mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor means a field-
erected combustor that combusts municipal solid waste in a cylindrical
rotary waterwall furnace.
Mass burn waterwall municipal waste combustor means a field-erected
combustor that combusts municipal solid waste in a waterwall furnace.
Materials separation plan means a plan that identifies both a goal
and an approach to separate certain components of municipal solid waste
for a given service area in order to make the separated materials
available for recycling. A materials separation plan may include
elements such as dropoff facilities, buy-back or deposit-return
incentives, curbside pickup programs, or centralized mechanical
separation systems. A materials separation plan may include different
goals or approaches for different subareas in the service area, and may
include no materials separation activities for certain subareas or, if
warranted, an entire service area.
Maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit load means the
highest 4-hour arithmetic average municipal waste combustor unit load
achieved during four consecutive hours during the most recent dioxin/
furan performance test demonstrating compliance with the applicable
limit for municipal waste combustor organics specified under
Sec. 60.52b(c).
Maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device temperature
means the highest 4-hour arithmetic average flue gas temperature
measured at the particulate matter control device inlet during four
consecutive hours during the most recent dioxin/furan performance test
demonstrating compliance with the applicable limit for municipal waste
combustor organics specified under Sec. 60.52b(c).
Modification or modified municipal waste combustor unit means a
municipal waste combustor unit to which changes have been made after
June 19, 1996 if the cumulative cost of the changes, over the life of
the unit, exceed 50 percent of the original cost of construction and
installation of the unit (not including the cost of any land purchased
in connection with such construction or installation) updated to
current costs; or any physical change in the municipal waste combustor
unit or change in the method of operation of the municipal waste
combustor unit increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by the
unit for which standards have been established under section 129 or
section 111. Increases in the amount of any air pollutant emitted by
the municipal waste combustor unit are determined at 100-percent
physical load capability and downstream of all air pollution control
devices, with no consideration given for load restrictions based on
permits or other nonphysical operational restrictions.
Modular excess-air municipal waste combustor means a combustor that
combusts municipal solid waste and that is not field-erected and has
multiple combustion chambers, all of which are designed to operate at
conditions with combustion air amounts in excess of theoretical air
requirements.
Modular starved-air municipal waste combustor means a combustor
that combusts municipal solid waste and that is not field-erected and
has multiple combustion chambers in which the primary combustion
chamber is designed to operate at substoichiometric conditions.
Municipal solid waste or municipal-type solid waste or MSW means
household, commercial/retail, and/or institutional waste. Household
waste includes material discarded by single and multiple residential
dwellings, hotels, motels, and other similar permanent or temporary
housing establishments or facilities. Commercial/retail waste includes
material discarded by stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses,
nonmanufacturing activities at industrial facilities, and other similar
establishments or facilities. Institutional waste includes material
discarded by schools, nonmedical waste discarded by hospitals, material
discarded by nonmanufacturing activities at prisons and government
facilities, and material discarded by other similar establishments or
facilities. Household, commercial/retail, and institutional waste does
not include used oil; sewage sludge; wood pallets; construction,
renovation, and demolition wastes (which includes but is not limited to
railroad ties and telephone poles); clean wood; industrial process or
manufacturing wastes; medical waste; or motor vehicles (including motor
vehicle parts or vehicle fluff). Household, commercial/retail, and
institutional wastes include:
(1) Yard waste;
(2) Refuse-derived fuel; and
(3) Motor vehicle maintenance materials limited to vehicle
batteries and tires except as specified in Sec. 60.50b(g).
Municipal waste combustor, MWC, or municipal waste combustor unit:
(1) Means any setting or equipment that combusts solid, liquid, or
gasified municipal solid waste including, but not limited to, field-
erected incinerators (with or without heat recovery), modular
incinerators (starved-air or excess-air), boilers (i.e., steam
generating units), furnaces (whether suspension-fired, grate-fired,
mass-fired, air curtain incinerators, or fluidized bed-fired), and
pyrolysis/combustion units. Municipal waste combustors do not include
pyrolysis/combustion units located at a plastics/rubber recycling unit
(as specified in Sec. 60.50b(m) of this section). Municipal waste
combustors do not include internal combustion engines, gas turbines, or
other combustion devices that combust landfill gases collected by
landfill gas collection systems.
(2) The boundaries of a municipal solid waste combustor are defined
as follows. The municipal waste combustor unit includes, but is not
limited to, the municipal solid waste fuel feed system, grate system,
flue gas system, bottom ash system, and the combustor water system. The
municipal waste combustor boundary starts at the
[[Page 65422]]
municipal solid waste pit or hopper and extends through:
(i) The combustor flue gas system, which ends immediately following
the heat recovery equipment or, if there is no heat recovery equipment,
immediately following the combustion chamber,
(ii) The combustor bottom ash system, which ends at the truck
loading station or similar ash handling equipment that transfer the ash
to final disposal, including all ash handling systems that are
connected to the bottom ash handling system; and
(iii) The combustor water system, which starts at the feed water
pump and ends at the piping exiting the steam drum or superheater.
(3) The municipal waste combustor unit does not include air
pollution control equipment, the stack, water treatment equipment, or
the turbine-generator set.
Municipal waste combustor acid gases means all acid gases emitted
in the exhaust gases from municipal waste combustor units including,
but not limited to, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride gases.
Municipal waste combustor metals means metals and metal compounds
emitted in the exhaust gases from municipal waste combustor units.
Municipal waste combustor organics means organic compounds emitted
in the exhaust gases from municipal waste combustor units and includes
tetra-through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans.
Municipal waste combustor plant means one or more municipal waste
combustor units at the same location for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction is commenced after September 20, 1994.
Municipal waste combustor plant capacity means the aggregate
municipal waste combustor unit capacity of all municipal waste
combustor units at a municipal waste combustor plant for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction of the units commenced
after September 20, 1994. Any municipal waste combustor units for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction is commenced on or before
September 20, 1994 are not included for determining applicability under
this subpart.
Municipal waste combustor unit capacity means the maximum charging
rate of a municipal waste combustor unit expressed in megagrams per day
of municipal solid waste combusted, calculated according to the
procedures under Sec. 60.58b(j). Section 60.58b(j) includes procedures
for determining municipal waste combustor unit capacity for continuous
and batch feed municipal waste combustors.
Municipal waste combustor unit load means the steam load of the
municipal waste combustor unit measured as specified in
Sec. 60.58b(i)(6).
Particulate matter means total particulate matter emitted from
municipal waste combustor units as measured by EPA Reference Method 5
(see Sec. 60.58b(c)).
Plastics/rubber recycling unit means an integrated processing unit
where plastics, rubber, and/or rubber tires are the only feed materials
(incidental contaminants may be included in the feed materials) and
they are processed into a chemical plant feedstock or petroleum
refinery feedstock, where the feedstock is marketed to and used by a
chemical plant or petroleum refinery as input feedstock. The combined
weight of the chemical plant feedstock and petroleum refinery feedstock
produced by the plastics/rubber recycling unit on a calendar quarter
basis shall be more than 70 percent of the combined weight of the
plastics, rubber, and rubber tires processed by the plastics/rubber
recycling unit on a calendar quarter basis. The plastics, rubber, and/
or rubber tire feed materials to the plastics/rubber recycling unit may
originate from the separation or diversion of plastics, rubber, or
rubber tires from MSW or industrial solid waste, and may include
manufacturing scraps, trimmings, and off-specification plastics,
rubber, and rubber tire discards. The plastics, rubber, and rubber tire
feed materials to the plastics/rubber recycling unit may contain
incidental contaminants (e.g., paper labels on plastic bottles, metal
rings on plastic bottle caps, etc.).
Potential hydrogen chloride emission concentration means the
hydrogen chloride emission concentration that would occur from
combustion of municipal solid waste in the absence of any emission
controls for municipal waste combustor acid gases.
Potential mercury emission concentration means the mercury emission
concentration that would occur from combustion of municipal solid waste
in the absence of any mercury emissions control.
Potential sulfur dioxide emissions means the sulfur dioxide
emission concentration that would occur from combustion of municipal
solid waste in the absence of any emission controls for municipal waste
combustor acid gases.
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor
means a combustor that fires coal and refuse-derived fuel
simultaneously, in which pulverized coal is introduced into an air
stream that carries the coal to the combustion chamber of the unit
where it is fired in suspension. This includes both conventional
pulverized coal and micropulverized coal.
Pyrolysis/combustion unit means a unit that produces gases,
liquids, or solids through the heating of municipal solid waste, and
the gases, liquids, or solids produced are combusted and emissions
vented to the atmosphere.
Reconstruction means rebuilding a municipal waste combustor unit
for which the reconstruction commenced after June 19, 1996, and the
cumulative costs of the construction over the life of the unit exceed
50 percent of the original cost of construction and installation of the
unit (not including any cost of land purchased in connection with such
construction or installation) updated to current costs (current
dollars).
Refractory unit or refractory wall furnace means a combustion unit
having no energy recovery (e.g., via a waterwall) in the furnace (i.e.,
radiant heat transfer section) of the combustor.
Refuse-derived/fuel means a type of municipal solid waste produced
by processing municipal solid waste through shredding and size
classification. This includes all classes of refuse-derived fuel
including low-density fluff refuse-derived fuel through densified
refuse-derived fuel and pelletized refuse-derived fuel.
Refuse-derived fuel stoker means a steam generating unit that
combusts refuse-derived fuel in a semisuspension firing mode using air-
fed distributors.
Same location means the same or contiguous property that is under
common ownership or control including properties that are separated
only by a street, road, highway, or other public right-of-way. Common
ownership or control includes properties that are owned, leased, or
operated by the same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, subdivision, or
any combination thereof including any municipality or other
governmental unit, or any quasi-governmental authority (e.g., a public
utility district or regional waste disposal authority).
Second calendar half means the period starting July 1 and ending on
December 31 in any year.
Shift supervisor means the person who is in direct charge and
control of the operation of a municipal waste combustor and who is
responsible for onsite supervision, technical direction, management,
and overall performance of the facility during an assigned shift.
Small municipal waste combustor plant means a municipal waste
combustor plant with a municipal waste combustor plant capacity for
affected
[[Page 65423]]
facilities that is greater than 35 megagrams per day but equal to or
less than 225 megagrams per day of municipal solid waste.
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor
means a combustor that fires coal and refuse-derived fuel
simultaneously, in which coal is introduced to the combustion zone by a
mechanism that throws the fuel onto a grate from above. Combustion
takes place both in suspension and on the grate.
Standard conditions means a temperature of 20 deg. C and a pressure
of 101.3 kilopascals.
Total mass dioxin/furan or total mass means the total mass of
tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans,
as determined using EPA Reference Method 23 and the procedures
specified under Sec. 60.58b(g).
Twenty-four hour daily average or 24-hour daily average means
either the arithmetic mean or geometric mean (as specified) of all
hourly emission concentrations when the affected facility is operating
and combusting municipal solid waste measured over a 24-hour period
between 12:00 midnight and the following midnight.
Untreated lumber means wood or wood products that have been cut or
shaped and include wet, air-dried, and kiln-dried wood products.
Untreated lumber does not include wood products that have been painted,
pigment-stained, or ``pressure-treated.'' Pressure-treating compounds
include, but are not limited to, chromate copper arsenate,
pentachlorophenol, and creosote.
Waterwall furnace means a combustion unit having energy (heat)
recovery in the furnace (i.e., radiant heat transfer section) of the
combustor.
Yard waste means grass, grass clippings, bushes, shrubs, and
clippings from bushes and shrubs that are generated by residential,
commercial/retail, institutional, and/or industrial sources as part of
maintenance activities associated with yards or other private or public
lands. Yard waste does not include construction, renovation, and
demolition wastes, which are exempt from the definition of municipal
solid waste in this section. Yard waste does not include clean wood,
which is exempt from the definition of municipal solid waste in this
section.
Sec. 60.52b Standards for municipal waste combustor metals, acid
gases, organics, and nitrogen oxides.
(a) The limits for municipal waste combustor metals are specified
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
(1) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases
that contain particulate matter in excess of 24 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(2) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases
that exhibit greater than 10 percent opacity (6-minute average).
(3) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases
that contain cadmium in excess of 0.020 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(4) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility any gases
that contain lead in excess of 0.20 milligrams per dry standard cubic
meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(5) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from the affected facility any gases
that contain mercury in excess of 0.080 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter or 15 percent of the potential mercury emission
concentration (85-percent reduction by weight), corrected to 7 percent
oxygen, whichever is less stringent.
(b) The limits for municipal waste combustor acid gases are
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
(1) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases
that contain sulfur dioxide in excess of 30 parts per million by volume
or 20 percent of the potential sulfur dioxide emission concentration
(80-percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to 7 percent
oxygen (dry basis), whichever is less stringent. The averaging time is
specified under Sec. 60.58b(e).
(2) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases
that contain hydrogen chloride in excess of 25 parts per million by
volume or 5 percent of the potential hydrogen chloride emission
concentration (95-percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to
7 percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is less stringent.
(c) The limits for municipal waste combustor organics are specified
in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
(1) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction commences after September
20, 1994, but on or before November 20, 1997 shall cause to be
discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases
that contain dioxin/furan emissions that exceed 30 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter (total mass), corrected to 7 percent oxygen, for
the first 3 years following the date of initial startup. After the
first 3 years following the date of initial startup, no owner or
operator shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that
affected facility any gases that contain dioxin/furan total mass
emissions that exceed 13 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total
mass), corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
(2) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant for which
construction,
[[Page 65424]]
modification, or reconstruction commences after November 20, 1997 shall
cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility
any gases that contain dioxin/furan total mass emissions that exceed 13
nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), corrected to 7
percent oxygen.
(d) The limits for nitrogen oxides are specified in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.
(1) During the first year of operation after the date on which the
initial performance test is completed or is required to be completed
under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part, no owner or operator of an
affected facility located within a large municipal waste combustor
plant shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from that
affected facility any gases that contain nitrogen oxides in excess of
180 parts per million by volume, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry
basis). The averaging time is specified under Sec. 60.58b(h).
(2) After the first year of operation following the date on which
the initial performance test is completed or is required to be
completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part, no owner or
operator of an affected facility located within a large municipal waste
combustor plant shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from
that affected facility any gases that contain nitrogen oxides in excess
of 150 parts per million by volume, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry
basis). The averaging time is specified under Sec. 60.58b(h).
Sec. 60.53b Standards for municipal waste combustor operating
practices.
(a) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from that affected facility any gases
that contain carbon monoxide in excess of the emission limits specified
in table 1 of this subpart.
Table 1.--Municipal Waste Combustor Operating Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon monoxide
emission limit
Municipal waste combustor technology (parts per Averaging time
million by (hours)
volume) a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall................. 100 4
Mass burn refractory................ 100 4
Mass burn rotary waterwall.......... 100 24
Modular starved air................. 50 4
Modular excess air.................. 50 4
Refuse-derived fuel stoker.......... 150 24
Bubbling fluidized bed combustor.... 100 4
Circulating fluidized bed combustor. 100 4
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel
mixed fuel-fired combustor......... 150 4
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived
fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor.... 150 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of
oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis). The
averaging times are specified in greater detail in Sec. 60.58b(i).
(b) No owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall cause such
facility to operate at a load level greater than 110 percent of the
maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit load as defined in
Sec. 60.51b, except as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of
this section. The averaging time is specified under Sec. 60.58b(i).
(1) During the annual dioxin/furan performance test and the 2 weeks
preceding the annual dioxin/furan performance test, no municipal waste
combustor unit load limit is applicable.
(2) The municipal waste combustor unit load limit may be waived in
accordance with permission granted by the Administrator or delegated
State regulatory authority for the purpose of evaluating system
performance, testing new technology or control technologies, diagnostic
testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving facility
performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling facility
emissions.
(c) No owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall cause such
facility to operate at a temperature, measured at the particulate
matter control device inlet, exceeding 17 deg.C above the maximum
demonstrated particulate matter control device temperature as defined
in Sec. 60.51b, except as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of
this section. The averaging time is specified under Sec. 60.58b(i). The
requirements specified in this paragraph apply to each particulate
matter control device utilized at the affected facility.
(1) During the annual dioxin/furan performance test and the 2 weeks
preceding the annual dioxin/furan performance test, no particulate
matter control device temperature limitations are applicable.
(2) The particulate matter control device temperature limits may be
waived in accordance with permission granted by the Administrator or
delegated State regulatory authority for the purpose of evaluating
system performance, testing new technology or control technologies,
diagnostic testing, or related activities for the purpose of improving
facility performance or advancing the state-of-the-art for controlling
facility emissions.
Sec. 60.54b Standards for municipal waste combustor operator training
and certification.
(a) No later than the date 6 months after the date of startup of an
affected facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant or on December 19, 1996, whichever is later, each chief
facility operator and shift supervisor shall obtain and maintain a
current provisional operator certification from either the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers [QRO-1-1994 (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of this part)] or a State
certification program.
(b) Not later than the date 6 months after the date of startup of
an affected facility located within a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant or on December 19, 1996, whichever is later, each chief
facility operator and shift
[[Page 65425]]
supervisor shall have completed full certification or shall have
scheduled a full certification exam with either the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers [QRO-1-1994 (incorporated by reference--see
Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of this part)] or a State certification
program.
(c) No owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall allow the facility
to be operated at any time unless one of the following persons is on
duty and at the affected facility: A fully certified chief facility
operator, a provisionally certified chief facility operator who is
scheduled to take the full certification exam according to the schedule
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, a fully certified shift
supervisor, or a provisionally certified shift supervisor who is
scheduled to take the full certification exam according to the schedule
specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(i) The requirement specified in paragraph (c) of this section
shall take effect 6 months after the date of startup of the affected
facility or on December 19, 1996, whichever is later.
(ii) If one of the persons listed in paragraph (c) of this section
must leave the affected facility during their operating shift, a
provisionally certified control room operator who is onsite at the
affected facility may fulfill the requirement in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(d) All chief facility operators, shift supervisors, and control
room operators at affected facilities located within a small or large
municipal waste combustor plant must complete the EPA or State
municipal waste combustor operator training course no later than the
date 6 months after the date of startup of the affected facility or by
December 19, 1996, whichever is later.
(e) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall develop and update
on a yearly basis a site-specific operating manual that shall, at a
minimum, address the elements of municipal waste combustor unit
operation specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(11) of this
section.
(1) A summary of the applicable standards under this subpart;
(2) A description of basic combustion theory applicable to a
municipal waste combustor unit;
(3) Procedures for receiving, handling, and feeding municipal solid
waste;
(4) Municipal waste combustor unit startup, shutdown, and
malfunction procedures;
(5) Procedures for maintaining proper combustion air supply levels;
(6) Procedures for operating the municipal waste combustor unit
within the standards established under this subpart;
(7) Procedures for responding to periodic upset or off-
specification conditions;
(8) Procedures for minimizing particulate matter carryover;
(9) Procedures for handling ash;
(10) Procedures for monitoring municipal waste combustor unit
emissions; and
(11) Reporting and recordkeeping procedures.
(f) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall establish a
training program to review the operating manual according to the
schedule specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section with
each person who has responsibilities affecting the operation of an
affected facility including, but not limited to, chief facility
operators, shift supervisors, control room operators, ash handlers,
maintenance personnel, and crane/load handlers.
(1) Each person specified in paragraph (f) of this section shall
undergo initial training no later than the date specified in paragraph
(f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), or (f)(1)(iii) of this section whichever is
later.
(i) The date 6 months after the date of startup of the affected
facility;
(ii) The date prior to the day the person assumes responsibilities
affecting municipal waste combustor unit operation; or
(iii) December 19, 1996.
(2) Annually, following the initial review required by paragraph
(f)(1) of this section.
(g) The operating manual required by paragraph (e) of this section
shall be kept in a readily accessible location for all persons required
to undergo training under paragraph (f) of this section. The operating
manual and records of training shall be available for inspection by the
EPA or its delegated enforcement agency upon request.
Sec. 60.55b Standards for municipal waste combustor fugitive ash
emissions.
(a) On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, no owner or operator of an affected facility located
within a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall cause to
be discharged to the atmosphere visible emissions of combustion ash
from an ash conveying system (including conveyor transfer points) in
excess of 5 percent of the observation period (i.e., 9 minutes per 3-
hour period), as determined by EPA Reference Method 22 observations as
specified in Sec. 60.58b(k), except as provided in paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section.
(b) The emission limit specified in paragraph (a) of this section
does not cover visible emissions discharged inside buildings or
enclosures of ash conveying systems; however, the emission limit
specified in paragraph (a) of this section does cover visible emissions
discharged to the atmosphere from buildings or enclosures of ash
conveying systems.
(c) The provisions specified in paragraph (a) of this section do
not apply during maintenance and repair of ash conveying systems.
Sec. 60.56b Standards for air curtain incinerators.
On and after the date on which the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, the owner or operator of an air curtain incinerator
located at a plant with a plant capacity to combust greater than 35
megagrams per day of municipal solid waste and that combusts a fuel
feed stream composed of 100 percent yard waste and no other municipal
solid waste materials shall at no time cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from that incinerator any gases that exhibit greater than
10-percent opacity (6-minute average), except that an opacity level of
up to 35 percent (6-minute average) is permitted during startup periods
during the first 30 minutes of operation of the unit.
Sec. 60.57b Siting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant, for which the initial
application for a construction permit under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I,
or part 52, as applicable, is submitted after December 19, 1995, shall
prepare a materials separation plan, as defined in Sec. 60.51b, for the
affected facility and its service area, and shall comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(10) of this
section. The initial application is defined as representing a good
faith submittal for complying with the requirements under 40 CFR part
51, subpart I, or part 52, as applicable, as determined by the
Administrator.
(1) The owner or operator shall prepare a preliminary draft
materials separation plan and shall make the plan available to the
public as specified in
[[Page 65426]]
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) The owner or operator shall distribute the preliminary draft
materials separation plan to the principal public libraries in the area
where the affected facility is to be constructed.
(ii) The owner or operator shall publish a notification of a public
meeting in the principal newspaper(s) serving the area where the
affected facility is to be constructed and where the waste treated by
the affected facility will primarily be collected. As a minimum, the
notification shall include the information specified in paragraphs
(a)(1)(ii)(A) through (a)(1)(ii)(D) of this section.
(A) The date, time, and location of the public meeting.
(B) The location of the public libraries where the preliminary
draft materials separation plan may be found, including normal business
hours of the libraries.
(C) An agenda of the issues to be discussed at the public meeting.
(D) The dates that the public comment period on the preliminary
draft materials separation plan begins and ends.
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct a public meeting, accept
comments on the preliminary draft materials separation plan, and comply
with the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through
(a)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) The public meeting shall be conducted in the county where the
affected facility is to be located.
(ii) The public meeting shall be scheduled to occur 30 days or more
after making the preliminary draft materials separation plan available
to the public as specified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(iii) Suggested issues to be addressed at the public meeting are
listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A) through (a)(2)(iii)(H) of this
section.
(A) The expected size of the service area for the affected
facility.
(B) The amount of waste generation anticipated for the service
area.
(C) The types and estimated amounts of materials proposed for
separation.
(D) The methods proposed for materials separation.
(E) The amount of residual waste to be disposed.
(F) Alternate disposal methods for handling the residual waste.
(G) Identification of the location(s) where responses to public
comment on the preliminary draft materials separation plan will be
available for inspection, as specified in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4)
of this section.
(H) Identification of the locations where the final draft materials
separation plan will be available for inspection, as specified in
paragraph (a)(7).
(iv) Nothing in this section shall preclude an owner or operator
from combining this public meeting with any other public meeting
required as part of any other Federal, State, or local permit review
process except the public meeting required under paragraph (b)(4) of
this section.
(3) Following the public meeting required by paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, the owner or operator shall prepare responses to the
comments received at the public meeting.
(4) The owner or operator shall make the document summarizing
responses to public comments available to the public (including
distribution to the principal public libraries used to announce the
meeting) in the service area where the affected facility is to be
located.
(5) The owner or operator shall prepare a final draft materials
separation plan for the affected facility considering the public
comments received at the public meeting.
(6) As required under Sec. 60.59b(a), the owner or operator shall
submit to the Administrator a copy of the notification of the public
meeting, a transcript of the public meeting, the document summarizing
responses to public comments, and copies of both the preliminary and
final draft materials separation plans on or before the time the
facility's application for a construction permit is submitted under 40
CFR part 51, subpart I, or part 52, as applicable.
(7) As part of the distribution of the siting analysis required
under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the owner or operator shall
make the final draft materials separation plan required under paragraph
(a)(5) of this section available to the public, as specified in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(8) As part of the public meeting for review of the siting analysis
required under paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the owner or operator
shall address questions concerning the final draft materials separation
plan required by paragraph (a)(5) of this section including discussion
of how the final draft materials separation plan has changed from the
preliminary draft materials separation plan that was discussed at the
first public meeting required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(9) If the owner or operator receives any comments on the final
draft materials separation plan during the public meeting required in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the owner or operator shall respond
to those comments in the document prepared in accordance with paragraph
(b)(5) of this section.
(10) The owner or operator shall prepare a final materials
separation plan and shall submit, as required under
Sec. 60.59b(b)(5)(ii), the final materials separation plan as part of
the initial notification of construction.
(b) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant, for which the initial
application for a construction permit under 40 CFR part 51, subpart I,
or part 52, as applicable, is submitted after December 19, 1995 shall
prepare a siting analysis in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) of this section and shall comply with the requirements specified
in paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(7) of this section.
(1) The siting analysis shall be an analysis of the impact of the
affected facility on ambient air quality, visibility, soils, and
vegetation.
(2) The analysis shall consider air pollution control alternatives
that minimize, on a site-specific basis, to the maximum extent
practicable, potential risks to the public health or the environment.
(3) The owner or operator shall make the siting analysis and final
draft materials separation plan required by paragraph (a)(5) of this
section available to the public as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
and (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) The owner or operator shall distribute the siting analysis and
final draft materials separation plan to the principal public libraries
in the area where the affected facility is to be constructed.
(ii) The owner or operator shall publish a notification of a public
meeting in the principal newspaper(s) serving the area where the
affected facility is to be constructed and where the waste treated by
the affected facility will primarily be collected. As a minimum, the
notification shall include the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(3)(ii)(A) through (b)(3)(ii)(D) of this section.
(A) The date, time, and location of the public meeting.
(B) The location of the public libraries where the siting analyses
and final draft materials separation plan may be found, including
normal business hours.
(C) An agenda of the issues to be discussed at the public meeting.
(D) The dates that the public comment period on the siting analyses
and final draft materials separation plan begins and ends.
[[Page 65427]]
(4) The owner or operator shall conduct a public meeting and accept
comments on the siting analysis and the final draft materials
separation plan required under paragraph (a)(5) of this section. The
public meeting shall be conducted in the county where the affected
facility is to be located and shall be scheduled to occur 30 days or
more after making the siting analysis available to the public as
specified under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(5) The owner or operator shall prepare responses to the comments
on the siting analysis and the final draft materials separation plan
that are received at the public meeting.
(6) The owner or operator shall make the document summarizing
responses to public comments available to the public (including
distribution to all public libraries) in the service area where the
affected facility is to be located.
(7) As required under Sec. 60.59b(b)(5), the owner or operator
shall submit a copy of the notification of the public meeting, a
transcript of the public meeting, the document summarizing responses to
public comments, and the siting analysis as part of the initial
notification of construction.
(c) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant, for which construction
is commenced after September 20, 1994 shall prepare a siting analysis
in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Subpart I, or part 52, as
applicable, and shall submit the siting analysis as part of the initial
notification of construction. Affected facilities subject to paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section are not subject to this paragraph.
Sec. 60.58b Compliance and performance testing.
(a) The provisions for startup, shutdown, and malfunction are
provided in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(1) Except as provided by Sec. 60.56b, the standards under this
subpart apply at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction. Duration of startup, shutdown, or malfunction periods
are limited to 3 hours per occurrence.
(i) The startup period commences when the affected facility begins
the continuous burning of municipal solid waste and does not include
any warmup period when the affected facility is combusting fossil fuel
or other nonmunicipal solid waste fuel, and no municipal solid waste is
being fed to the combustor.
(ii) Continuous burning is the continuous, semicontinuous, or batch
feeding of municipal solid waste for purposes of waste disposal, energy
production, or providing heat to the combustion system in preparation
for waste disposal or energy production. The use of municipal solid
waste solely to provide thermal protection of the grate or hearth
during the startup period when municipal solid waste is not being fed
to the grate is not considered to be continuous burning.
(2) The opacity limits for air curtain incinerators specified in
Sec. 60.56b apply at all times as specified under Sec. 60.56b except
during periods of malfunction. Duration of malfunction periods are
limited to 3 hours per occurrence.
(b) The owner or operator of a small or large municipal waste
combustor plant shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
continuous emission monitoring system and record the output of the
system for measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the flue
gas at each location where carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen
oxides emissions are monitored and shall comply with the test
procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(7) of this section.
(1) The span value of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) monitor shall
be 25 percent oxygen (or carbon dioxide).
(2) The monitor shall be installed, evaluated, and operated in
accordance with Sec. 60.13 of subpart A of this part.
(3) The initial performance evaluation shall be completed no later
than 180 days after the date of initial startup of the municipal waste
combustor, as specified under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(4) The monitor shall conform to Performance Specification 3 in
appendix B of this part except for section 2.3 (relative accuracy
requirement).
(5) The quality assurance procedures of appendix F of this part
except for section 5.1.1 (relative accuracy test audit) shall apply to
the monitor.
(6) If carbon dioxide is selected for use in diluent corrections,
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels shall be
established during the initial performance test according to the
procedures and methods specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through
(b)(6)(iv) of this section. This relationship may be reestablished
during performance compliance tests.
(i) The emission rate correction factor and the integrated bag
sampling and analysis procedure of EPA Reference Method 3B shall be
used to determine the oxygen concentration at the same location as the
carbon dioxide monitor.
(ii) Samples shall be taken for at least 30 minutes in each hour.
(iii) Each sample shall represent a 1-hour average.
(iv) A minimum of three runs shall be performed.
(7) As required by Sec. 60.59b(f)(5), the relationship between
carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations that is established in
accordance with paragraph (b)(6) of this section shall be submitted to
the EPA as part of the initial performance test report.
(c) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(11) of this section shall be used to determine compliance
with the emission limits for particulate matter and opacity under
Sec. 60.52b(a)(1) and (a)(2).
(1) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall be used to select sampling
site and number of traverse points.
(2) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall be used for gas analysis.
(3) The EPA Reference Method 5 shall be used for determining
compliance with the particulate matter emission limit. The minimum
sample volume shall be 1.7 cubic meters. The probe and filter holder
heating systems in the sample train shall be set to provide a gas
temperature no greater than 160plus-minus14 deg.C. An oxygen or
carbon dioxide measurement shall be obtained simultaneously with each
Method 5 run.
(4) An owner or operator may request that compliance with the
particulate matter emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The
relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected
facility shall be established as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this
section.
(5) As specified under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part, all
performance tests shall consist of three test runs. The average of the
particulate matter emission concentrations from the three test runs is
used to determine compliance.
(6) In accordance with paragraphs (c)(7) and (c)(11) of this
section, EPA Reference Method 9 shall be used for determining
compliance with the opacity limit except as provided under
Sec. 60.11(e) of subpart A of this part.
(7) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall conduct an initial
performance test for particulate matter emissions and opacity as
required under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(8) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous
[[Page 65428]]
opacity monitoring system for measuring opacity and shall follow the
methods and procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through
(c)(8)(iv) of this section.
(i) The output of the continuous opacity monitoring system shall be
recorded on a 6-minute average basis.
(ii) The continuous opacity monitoring system shall be installed,
evaluated, and operated in accordance with Sec. 60.13 of subpart A of
this part.
(iii) The continuous opacity monitoring system shall conform to
Performance Specification 1 in appendix B of this part.
(iv) The initial performance evaluation shall be completed no later
than 180 days after the date of the initial startup of the municipal
waste combustor unit, as specified under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this
part.
(9) Following the date that the initial performance test for
particulate matter is completed or is required to be completed under
Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part for an affected facility located
within a large municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or operator
shall conduct a performance test for particulate matter on an annual
basis (no more than 12 calendar months following the previous
performance test).
(10) Following the date that the initial performance test for
particulate matter is completed or is required to be completed under
Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part for an affected facility located
within a small municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or operator
shall conduct a performance test for particulate matter on an annual
basis (no more than 12 calendar months following the previous
performance test). If all performance tests over a 3-year period
indicate compliance with the particulate matter emission limit, the
owner or operator may elect not to conduct a performance test for the
subsequent 2 years. At a minimum, a performance test for particulate
matter shall be conducted every third year (no more than 36 months
following the previous performance test) at a small municipal waste
combustor plant. If a performance test conducted every third year
indicates compliance with the particulate matter emission limit, the
owner or operator may elect not to conduct a performance test for an
additional 2 years. If any performance test indicates noncompliance
with the particulate matter emission limit, performance tests shall be
required annually until all annual performance tests over a 3-year
period indicate compliance with the particulate matter emission limit.
(11) Following the date that the initial performance test for
opacity is completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of
subpart A of this part for an affected facility located within a small
or large municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or operator shall
conduct a performance test for opacity on an annual basis (no more than
12 calendar months following the previous performance test) using the
test method specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section.
(d) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs (d)(1)
and (d)(2) of this section shall be used to determine compliance with
the emission limits for cadmium, lead, and mercury under
Sec. 60.52b(a).
(1) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs
(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(ix) of this section shall be used to determine
compliance with the emission limits for cadmium and lead under
Sec. 60.52b(a) (3) and (4).
(i) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall be used for determining the
location and number of sampling points.
(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall be used for flue gas
analysis.
(iii) The EPA Reference Method 29 shall be used for determining
compliance with the cadmium and lead emission limits.
(iv) An oxygen or carbon dioxide measurement shall be obtained
simultaneously with each Method 29 test run for cadmium and lead
required under paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section.
(v) An owner or operator may request that compliance with the
cadmium or lead emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The
relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected
facility shall be established as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this
section.
(vi) All performance tests shall consist of a minimum of three test
runs conducted under representative full load operating conditions. The
average of the cadmium or lead emission concentrations from three test
runs or more shall be used to determine compliance.
(vii) Following the date of the initial performance test or the
date on which the initial performance test is required to be completed
under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an
affected facility located within a large municipal waste combustor
plant shall conduct a performance test for compliance with the emission
limits for cadmium and lead on an annual basis (no more than 12
calendar months following the previous performance test).
(viii) Following the date that the initial performance test for
cadmium is completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of
subpart A of this part for an affected facility located within a small
municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or operator shall conduct a
performance test for cadmium emissions on an annual basis (no more than
12 calendar months following the previous performance test). If all
performance tests over a 3-year period indicate compliance with the
cadmium emission limit, the owner or operator may elect not to conduct
a performance test for the subsequent 2 years. At a minimum, a
performance test for cadmium shall be conducted every third year (no
more than 36 months following the previous performance test) at a small
municipal waste combustor plant. If a performance test conducted every
third year indicates compliance with the cadmium emission limit, the
owner or operator may elect not to conduct a performance test for an
additional 2 years. If any performance test indicates noncompliance
with the cadmium emission limit, performance tests shall be conducted
annually until all annual performance tests over a 3-year period
indicate compliance with the cadmium emission limit.
(ix) Following the date that the initial performance test for lead
is completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart
A of this part for an affected facility located within a small
municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or operator shall conduct a
performance test for lead emissions on an annual basis (no more than 12
calendar months following the previous performance test). If all three
performance tests over a 3-year period indicate compliance with the
lead emission limit, the owner or operator may elect not to conduct a
performance test for the subsequent 2 years. At a minimum, a
performance test for lead shall be conducted every third year (no more
than 36 months following the previous performance test) at a small
municipal waste combustor plant. If a performance test conducted every
third year indicates compliance with the lead emission limit, the owner
or operator may elect not to conduct a performance test for an
additional 2 years. If any performance test indicates noncompliance
with the lead emission limit, performance tests shall be conducted
annually until all annual performance tests over a 3-year period
indicate compliance with the lead emission limit.
[[Page 65429]]
(2) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs
(d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(xi) of this section shall be used to determine
compliance with the mercury emission limit under Sec. 60.52b(a)(5).
(i) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall be used for determining the
location and number of sampling points.
(ii) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall b
FR Doc. 95-30257 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources
e used for flue gas
analysis.
(iii) The EPA Reference Method 29 shall be used to determine the
mercury emission concentration. The minimum sample volume when using
Method 29 for mercury shall be 1.7 cubic meters.
(iv) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide) measurement shall be obtained
simultaneously with each Method 29 test run for mercury required under
paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section.
(v) The percent reduction in the potential mercury emissions (%PHg)
is computed using equation 1:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19DE95.001
where:
%PHg = percent reduction of the potential mercury emissions
achieved.
Ei = potential mercury emission concentration measured at the
control device inlet, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis).
Eo = controlled mercury emission concentration measured at the
mercury control device outlet, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry
basis).
(vi) All performance tests shall consist of a minimum of three test
runs conducted under representative full load operating conditions. The
average of the mercury emission concentrations or percent reductions
from three test runs or more is used to determine compliance.
(vii) An owner or operator may request that compliance with the
mercury emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide measurements
corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The relationship
between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected facility
shall be established as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(viii) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within
a small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall conduct an
initial performance test for mercury emissions as required under
Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(ix) Following the date that the initial performance test for
mercury is completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an affected facility
located within a large municipal waste combustor plant shall conduct a
performance test for mercury emissions on a annual basis (no more than
12 calendar months from the previous performance test).
(x) Following the date that the initial performance test for
mercury is completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of
subpart A of this part for an affected facility located within a small
municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or operator shall conduct a
performance test for mercury emissions on an annual basis (no more than
12 calendar months following the previous performance test). If all
three performance tests over a 3-year period indicate compliance with
the mercury emission limit, the owner or operator may elect not to
conduct a performance test for the subsequent 2 years. At a minimum, a
performance test for mercury shall be conducted every third year (no
more than 36 months following the previous performance test) at a small
municipal waste combustor plant. If a performance test conducted every
third year indicates compliance with the mercury emission limit, the
owner or operator may elect not to conduct a performance test for an
additional 2 years. If any performance test indicates noncompliance
with the mercury emission limit, performance tests shall be conducted
annually until all annual performance tests over a 3-year period
indicate compliance with the mercury emission limit.
(xi) The owner or operator of an affected facility where activated
carbon injection is used to comply with the mercury emission limit
shall follow the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this section
for measuring and calculating carbon usage.
(e) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (e)(14) of this section shall be used for determining
compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limit under
Sec. 60.52b(b)(1).
(1) The EPA Reference Method 19, section 4.3, shall be used to
calculate the daily geometric average sulfur dioxide emission
concentration.
(2) The EPA Reference Method 19, section 5.4, shall be used to
determine the daily geometric average percent reduction in the
potential sulfur dioxide emission concentration.
(3) An owner or operator may request that compliance with the
sulfur dioxide emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The
relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected
facility shall be established as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this
section.
(4) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall conduct an
initial performance test for sulfur dioxide emissions as required under
Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part. Compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emission limit (concentration or percent reduction) shall be determined
by using the continuous emission monitoring system specified in
paragraph (e)(5) of this section to measure sulfur dioxide and
calculating a 24-hour daily geometric average emission concentration or
a 24-hour daily geometric average percent reduction using EPA Reference
Method 19, sections 4.3 and 5.4, as applicable.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring
system for measuring sulfur dioxide emissions discharged to the
atmosphere and record the output of the system.
(6) Following the date that the initial performance test for sulfur
dioxide is completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of
subpart A of this part, compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission
limit shall be determined based on the 24-hour daily geometric average
of the hourly arithmetic average emission concentrations using
continuous emission monitoring system outlet data if compliance is
based on an emission concentration, or continuous emission monitoring
system inlet and outlet data if compliance is based on a percent
reduction.
(7) At a minimum, valid continuous monitoring system hourly
averages shall be obtained as specified in paragraphs (e)(7)(i) and
(e)(7)(ii) for 75 percent of the operating hours per day for 90 percent
of the operating days per calendar quarter that the affected facility
is combusting municipal solid waste.
(i) At least two data points per hour shall be used to calculate
each 1-hour arithmetic average.
(ii) Each sulfur dioxide 1-hour arithmetic average shall be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous
emission monitoring system data.
(8) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required under paragraph (e)(6)
of this section shall be expressed in parts per million corrected to 7
percent oxygen (dry basis) and used to calculate the 24-hour daily
geometric average emission concentrations and daily geometric average
emission percent reductions. The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be
calculated using the data points
[[Page 65430]]
required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2) of subpart A of this part.
(9) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data shall be
used in calculating average emission concentrations and percent
reductions even if the minimum continuous emission monitoring system
data requirements of paragraph (e)(7) of this section are not met.
(10) The procedures under Sec. 60.13 of subpart A of this part
shall be followed for installation, evaluation, and operation of the
continuous emission monitoring system.
(11) The initial performance evaluation shall be completed no later
than 180 days after the date of initial startup of the municipal waste
combustor as specified under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(12) The continuous emission monitoring system shall be operated
according to Performance Specification 2 in appendix B of this part.
(i) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by Performance Specification 2 in
appendix B of this part, sulfur dioxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
data shall be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute
period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods
specified in paragraphs (e)(12)(i)(A) and (e)(12)(i)(B) of this
section.
(A) For sulfur dioxide, EPA Reference Method 6, 6A, or 6C shall be
used.
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B
shall be used.
(ii) The span value of the continuous emissions monitoring system
at the inlet to the sulfur dioxide control device shall be 125 percent
of the maximum estimated hourly potential sulfur dioxide emissions of
the municipal waste combustor unit. The span value of the continuous
emission monitoring system at the outlet of the sulfur dioxide control
device shall be 50 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential
sulfur dioxide emissions of the municipal waste combustor unit.
(13) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests shall be performed in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F
of this part.
(14) When sulfur dioxide emissions data are not obtained because of
continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks, and zero and span adjustments, emissions data shall be obtained
by using other monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator or
EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary, valid emissions data
for a minimum of 75 percent of the hours per day that the affected
facility is operated and combusting municipal solid waste for 90
percent of the days per calendar quarter that the affected facility is
operated and combusting municipal solid waste.
(f) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (f)(8) of this section shall be used for determining compliance
with the hydrogen chloride emission limit under Sec. 60.52b(b)(2).
(1) The EPA Reference Method 26 or 26A, as applicable, shall be
used to determine the hydrogen chloride emission concentration. The
minimum sampling time for Method 26 shall be 1 hour.
(2) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide) measurement shall be obtained
simultaneously with each Method 26 test run for hydrogen chloride
required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(3) The percent reduction in potential hydrogen chloride emissions
(% PHCl) is computed using equation 2:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19DE95.002
where:
%PHCl=percent reduction of the potential hydrogen chloride
emissions achieved.
Ei=potential hydrogen chloride emission concentration measured
at the control device inlet, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry
basis).
Eo=controlled hydrogen chloride emission concentration measured
at the control device outlet, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry
basis).
(4) An owner or operator may request that compliance with the
hydrogen chloride emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The
relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected
facility shall be established as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this
section.
(5) As specified under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part, all
performance tests shall consist of three test runs. The average of the
hydrogen chloride emission concentrations or percent reductions from
the three test runs is used to determine compliance.
(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall conduct an
initial performance test for hydrogen chloride as required under
Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(7) Following the date that the initial performance test for
hydrogen chloride is completed or is required to be completed under
Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an
affected facility located within a large municipal waste combustor
plant shall conduct a performance test for hydrogen chloride emissions
on an annual basis (no more than 12 calendar months following the
previous performance test).
(8) Following the date that the initial performance test for
hydrogen chloride is completed or is required to be completed under
Sec. 60.8 of this part, the owner or operator of an affected facility
located within a small municipal waste combustor plant shall conduct a
performance test for hydrogen chloride emissions on an annual basis (no
more than 12 calendar months following the previous performance test).
If all performance tests over a 3-year period indicate compliance with
the hydrogen chloride emission limit, the owner or operator may elect
not to conduct a performance test for the subsequent 2 years. At a
minimum, a performance test for hydrogen chloride shall be conducted
every third year (no more than 36 months following the previous
performance test) at a small municipal waste combustor plant. If a
performance test conducted every third year indicates compliance with
the hydrogen chloride emission limit, the owner or operator may elect
not to conduct a performance test for an additional 2 years. If any
performance test indicates noncompliance with the hydrogen chloride
emission limit, performance tests shall be conducted annually until all
annual performance tests over a 3-year period indicate compliance with
the hydrogen chloride emission limit.
(g) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (g)(9) of this section shall be used to determine compliance
with the limits for dioxin/furan emissions under Sec. 60.52b(c).
(1) The EPA Reference Method 1 shall be used for determining the
location and number of sampling points.
(2) The EPA Reference Method 3 shall be used for flue gas analysis.
(3) The EPA Reference Method 23 shall be used for determining the
dioxin/furan emission concentration.
(i) The minimum sample time shall be 4 hours per test run.
(ii) An oxygen (or carbon dioxide) measurement shall be obtained
simultaneously with each Method 23 test run for dioxins/furans.
(4) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall conduct an
initial performance test for dioxin/furan emissions in accordance with
paragraph (g)(3) of this section, as required under Sec. 60.8 of
subpart A of this part.
[[Page 65431]]
(5) Following the date that the initial performance test for
dioxins/furans is completed or is required to be completed under
Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part, the owner or operator of an
affected facility located within small and large municipal waste
combustor plants shall conduct performance tests for dioxin/furan
emissions in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) of this section,
according to one of the schedules specified in paragraphs (g)(5)(i)
through (g)(5)(iii) of this section.
(i) For affected facilities located within small and large
municipal waste combustor plants, performance tests shall be conducted
on an annual basis (no more than 12 calendar months following the
previous performance test.)
(ii) For affected facilities located within small municipal waste
combustor plants where all performance tests for an affected facility
over a 3-year period indicate compliance with the dioxin/furan emission
limit, the owner or operator may elect not to conduct a performance
test for the subsequent 2 years for that affected facility. At a
minimum, a performance test for dioxin/furan emissions shall be
conducted every third year (no more than 36 months following the
previous performance test) for each affected facility. If a performance
test conducted every third year indicates compliance with the dioxin/
furan emission limit, the owner or operator may elect not to conduct a
performance test on the affected facility for an additional 2 years. If
any performance test indicates noncompliance with the dioxin/furan
emission limit, performance tests shall be conducted annually until all
annual performance tests for the affected facility over a 3-year period
indicate compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit.
(iii) For affected facilities located within small or large
municipal waste combustor plants where all performance tests for all
affected facilities over a 2-year period indicate that dioxin/furan
emissions are less than or equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic
meter (total mass) for all affected facilities located within a
municipal waste combustor plant, the owner or operator of the municipal
waste combustor plant may elect to conduct annual performance tests for
one affected facility (i.e., unit) per year at the municipal waste
combustor plant. At a minimum, a performance test for dioxin/furan
emissions shall be conducted annually (no more than 12 months following
the previous performance test) for one affected facility at the
municipal waste combustor plant. Each year a different affected
facility at the municipal waste combustor plant shall be tested, and
the affected facilities at the plant shall be tested in sequence (e.g.,
unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, as applicable). If each annual performance test
continues to indicate a dioxin/furan emission level less than or equal
to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), the owner or
operator may continue conducting a performance test on only one
affected facility per year. If any annual performance test indicates a
dioxin/furan emission level greater than 7 nanograms per dry standard
cubic meter (total mass), performance tests thereafter shall be
conducted annually on all affected facilities at the plant until and
unless all annual performance tests for all affected facilities at the
plant over a 2-year period indicate a dioxin/furan emission level less
than or equal to 7 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass).
(6) The owner or operator of an affected facility that selects to
follow the performance testing schedule specified in paragraph
(g)(5)(iii) of this section shall follow the procedures specified in
Sec. 60.59b(g)(4) for reporting the selection of this schedule.
(7) The owner or operator of an affected facility where activated
carbon is used to comply with the dioxin/furan emission limits
specified in Sec. 60.52b(c) or the dioxin/furan emission level
specified in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of this section shall follow the
procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this section for measuring and
calculating the carbon usage rate.
(8) An owner or operator may request that compliance with the
dioxin/furan emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The
relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected
facility shall be established as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this
section.
(9) As specified under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part, all
performance tests shall consist of three test runs. The average of the
dioxin/furan emission concentrations from the three test runs is used
to determine compliance.
(h) The procedures and test methods specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (h)(12) of this section shall be used to determine compliance
with the nitrogen oxides emission limit for municipal waste combustors
located at large municipal waste combustor plants under Sec. 60.52b(d)
(no nitrogen oxides performance tests are required for affected
facilities located within small municipal waste combustor plants).
(1) The EPA Reference Method 19, section 4.1, shall be used for
determining the daily arithmetic average nitrogen oxides emission
concentration.
(2) An owner or operator may request that compliance with the
nitrogen oxides emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The
relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected
facility shall be established as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this
section.
(3) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
large municipal waste combustor plant subject to the nitrogen oxides
limit under Sec. 60.52b(d) shall conduct an initial performance test
for nitrogen oxides as required under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this
part. Compliance with the nitrogen oxides emission limit shall be
determined by using the continuous emission monitoring system specified
in paragraph (h)(4) of this section for measuring nitrogen oxides and
calculating a 24-hour daily arithmetic average emission concentration
using EPA Reference Method 19, section 4.1.
(4) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
large municipal waste combustor plant subject to the nitrogen oxides
emission limit under Sec. 60.52b(d) shall install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for measuring
nitrogen oxides discharged to the atmosphere, and record the output of
the system.
(5) Following the date that the initial performance test for
nitrogen oxides is completed or is required to be completed under
Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part, compliance with the emission limit
for nitrogen oxides required under Sec. 60.52b(d) shall be determined
based on the 24-hour daily arithmetic average of the hourly emission
concentrations using continuous emission monitoring system outlet data.
(6) At a minimum, valid continuous emission monitoring system
hourly averages shall be obtained as specified in paragraphs (h)(6)(i)
and (h)(6)(ii) of this section for 75 percent of the operating hours
per day for 90 percent of the operating days per calendar quarter that
the affected facility is combusting municipal solid waste.
(i) At least 2 data points per hour shall be used to calculate each
1-hour arithmetic average.
(ii) Each nitrogen oxides 1-hour arithmetic average shall be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
[[Page 65432]]
continuous emission monitoring system data.
(7) The 1-hour arithmetic averages required by paragraph (h)(5) of
this section shall be expressed in parts per million by volume (dry
basis) and used to calculate the 24-hour daily arithmetic average
concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be calculated
using the data points required under Sec. 60.13(e)(2) of subpart A of
this part.
(8) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must be
used in calculating emission averages even if the minimum continuous
emission monitoring system data requirements of paragraph (h)(6) of
this section are not met.
(9) The procedures under Sec. 60.13 of subpart A of this part shall
be followed for installation, evaluation, and operation of the
continuous emission monitoring system. The initial performance
evaluation shall be completed no later than 180 days after the date of
initial startup of the municipal waste combustor unit, as specified
under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(10) The owner or operator shall operate the continuous emission
monitoring system according to Performance Specification 2 in appendix
B of this part and shall follow the procedures and methods specified in
paragraphs (h)(10)(i) and (h)(10)(ii) of this section.
(i) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by Performance Specification 2 of
appendix B of this part, nitrogen oxides and oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
data shall be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute
period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods
specified in paragraphs (h)(10)(i)(A) and (h)(10)(i)(B) of this
section.
(A) For nitrogen oxides, EPA Reference Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E
shall be used.
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B
shall be used.
(ii) The span value of the continuous emission monitoring system
shall be 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential nitrogen
oxide emissions of the municipal waste combustor unit.
(11) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests shall be performed in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F
of this part.
(12) When nitrogen oxides continuous emissions data are not
obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments, emissions
data shall be obtained using other monitoring systems as approved by
the Administrator or EPA Reference Method 19 to provide, as necessary,
valid emissions data for a minimum of 75 percent of the hours per day
for 90 percent of the days per calendar quarter the unit is operated
and combusting municipal solid waste.
(i) The procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(12)
of this section shall be used for determining compliance with the
operating requirements under Sec. 60.53b.
(1) Compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limits in
Sec. 60.53b(a) shall be determined using a 4-hour block arithmetic
average for all types of affected facilities except mass burn rotary
waterwall municipal waste combustors and refuse-derived fuel stokers.
(2) For affected mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste
combustors and refuse-derived fuel stokers, compliance with the carbon
monoxide emission limits in Sec. 60.53b(a) shall be determined using a
24-hour daily arithmetic average.
(3) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring
system for measuring carbon monoxide at the combustor outlet and record
the output of the system and shall follow the procedures and methods
specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (i)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) The continuous emission monitoring system shall be operated
according to Performance Specification 4A in appendix B of this part.
(ii) During each relative accuracy test run of the continuous
emission monitoring system required by Performance Specification 4A in
appendix B of this part, carbon monoxide and oxygen (or carbon dioxide)
data shall be collected concurrently (or within a 30- to 60-minute
period) by both the continuous emission monitors and the test methods
specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A) and (i)(3)(ii)(B) of this
section.
(A) For carbon monoxide, EPA Reference Method 10, 10A, or 10B shall
be used.
(B) For oxygen (or carbon dioxide), EPA Reference Method 3A or 3B
shall be used.
(iii) The span value of the continuous emission monitoring system
shall be 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential carbon
monoxide emissions of the municipal waste combustor unit.
(4) The 4-hour block and 24-hour daily arithmetic averages
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this section shall be
calculated from 1-hour arithmetic averages expressed in parts per
million by volume corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis). The 1-hour
arithmetic averages shall be calculated using the data points generated
by the continuous emission monitoring system. At least two data points
shall be used to calculate each 1-hour arithmetic average.
(5) An owner or operator may request that compliance with the
carbon monoxide emission limit be determined using carbon dioxide
measurements corrected to an equivalent of 7 percent oxygen. The
relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels for the affected
facility shall be established as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this
section.
(6) The procedures specified in paragraphs (i)(6)(i) through
(i)(6)(v) of this section shall be used to determine compliance with
load level requirements under Sec. 60.53b(b).
(i) The owner or operator of an affected facility with steam
generation capability shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
steam flow meter or a feedwater flow meter; measure steam (or
feedwater) flow in kilograms per hour (or pounds per hour) on a
continuous basis; and record the output of the monitor. Steam (or
feedwater) flow shall be calculated in 4-hour block arithmetic
averages.
(ii) The method included in the ``American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Power Test Codes: Test Code for Steam Generating Units, Power
Test Code 4.1--1964 (R1991)'' section 4 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of this part) shall be used for calculating the
steam (or feedwater) flow required under paragraph (i)(6)(i) of this
section. The recommendations in ``American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Interim Supplement 19.5 on Instruments and Apparatus:
Application, Part II of Fluid Meters, 6th edition (1971),'' chapter 4
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17 of subpart A of this part)
shall be followed for design, construction, installation, calibration,
and use of nozzles and orifices except as specified in (i)(6)(iii) of
this section.
(iii) Measurement devices such as flow nozzles and orifices are not
required to be recalibrated after they are installed.
(iv) All signal conversion elements associated with steam (or
feedwater flow) measurements must be calibrated according to the
manufacturer's instructions before each dioxin/furan
[[Page 65433]]
performance test, and at least once per year.
(a) [Reserved].
(7) To determine compliance with the maximum particulate matter
control device temperature requirements under Sec. 60.53b(c), the owner
or operator of an affected facility shall install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a device for measuring on a continuous basis the
temperature of the flue gas stream at the inlet to each particulate
matter control device utilized by the affected facility. Temperature
shall be calculated in 4-hour block arithmetic averages.
(8) The maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit load
shall be determined during the initial performance test for dioxins/
furans and each subsequent performance test during which compliance
with the dioxin/furan emission limit specified in Sec. 60.52b(c) is
achieved. The maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit load
shall be the highest 4-hour arithmetic average load achieved during
four consecutive hours during the most recent test during which
compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit was achieved.
(9) For each particulate matter control device employed at the
affected facility, the maximum demonstrated particulate matter control
device temperature shall be determined during the initial performance
test for dioxins/furans and each subsequent performance test during
which compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit specified in
Sec. 60.52b(c) is achieved. The maximum demonstrated particulate matter
control device temperature shall be the highest 4-hour arithmetic
average temperature achieved at the particulate matter control device
inlet during four consecutive hours during the most recent test during
which compliance with the dioxin/furan limit was achieved.
(10) At a minimum, valid continuous emission monitoring system
hourly averages shall be obtained as specified in paragraphs (i)(10)(i)
and (i)(10)(ii) of this section for 75 percent of the operating hours
per day for 90 percent of the operating days per calendar quarter that
the affected facility is combusting municipal solid waste.
(i) At least two data points per hour shall be used to calculate
each 1-hour arithmetic average.
(ii) At a minimum, each carbon monoxide 1-hour arithmetic average
shall be corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-
hour arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) continuous
emission monitoring system data.
(11) All valid continuous emission monitoring system data must be
used in calculating the parameters specified under paragraph (i) of
this section even if the minimum data requirements of paragraph (i)(10)
of this section are not met. When carbon monoxide continuous emission
data are not obtained because of continuous emission monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments,
emissions data shall be obtained using other monitoring systems as
approved by the Administrator or EPA Reference Method 10 to provide, as
necessary, the minimum valid emission data.
(12) Quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration drift
tests for the carbon monoxide continuous emission monitoring system
shall be performed in accordance with procedure 1 in appendix F of this
part.
(j) The procedures specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of
this section shall be used for calculating municipal waste combustor
unit capacity as defined under Sec. 60.51b.
(1) For municipal waste combustor units capable of combusting
municipal solid waste continuously for a 24-hour period, municipal
waste combustor unit capacity, in megagrams per day of municipal solid
waste combusted, shall be calculated based on 24 hours of operation at
the maximum charging rate. The maximum charging rate shall be
determined as specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this
section as applicable.
(i) For combustors that are designed based on heat capacity, the
maximum charging rate shall be calculated based on the maximum design
heat input capacity of the unit and a heating value of 10,500
kilojoules per kilogram.
(ii) For combustors that are not designed based on heat capacity,
the maximum charging rate shall be the maximum design charging rate.
(2) For batch feed municipal waste combustor units, municipal waste
combustor unit capacity, in megagrams per day of municipal solid waste
combusted, shall be calculated as the maximum design amount of
municipal solid waste that can be charged per batch multiplied by the
maximum number of batches that could be processed in a 24-hour period.
The maximum number of batches that could be processed in a 24-hour
period is calculated as 24 hours divided by the design number of hours
required to process one batch of municipal solid waste, and may include
fractional batches (e.g., if one batch requires 16 hours, then 24/16,
or 1.5 batches, could be combusted in a 24-hour period). For batch
combustors that are designed based on heat capacity, the design heating
value of 10,500 kilojoules per kilogram for all municipal solid waste
shall be used in calculating the municipal waste combustor unit
capacity in megagrams per day of municipal solid waste.
(k) The procedures specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(3) of
this section shall be used for determining compliance with the fugitive
ash emission limit under Sec. 60.55b.
(1) The EPA Reference Method 22 shall be used for determining
compliance with the fugitive ash emission limit under Sec. 60.55b. The
minimum observation time shall be a series of three 1-hour
observations. The observation period shall include times when the
facility is transferring ash from the municipal waste combustor unit to
the area where ash is stored or loaded into containers or trucks.
(2) The average duration of visible emissions per hour shall be
calculated from the three 1-hour observations. The average shall be
used to determine compliance with Sec. 60.55b.
(3) The owner or operator of an affected facility shall conduct an
initial performance test for fugitive ash emissions as required under
Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(l) The procedures specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(3) of
this section shall be used to determine compliance with the opacity
limit for air curtain incinerators under Sec. 60.56b.
(1) The EPA Reference Method 9 shall be used for determining
compliance with the opacity limit.
(2) The owner or operator of the air curtain incinerator shall
conduct an initial performance test for opacity as required under
Sec. 60.8 of subpart A of this part.
(3) Following the date that the initial performance test is
completed or is required to be completed under Sec. 60.8 of subpart A
of this part, the owner or operator of the air curtain incinerator
shall conduct a performance test for opacity on an annual basis (no
more than 12 calendar months following the previous performance test).
(m) The owner or operator of an affected facility where activated
carbon injection is used to comply with the mercury emission limit
under Sec. 60.52b(a)(5), or the dioxin/furan emission limits under
Sec. 60.52(b)(c), or the dioxin/furan emission level specified in
Sec. 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) shall follow the procedures specified in
paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(3) of this section.
(1) During the performance tests for dioxins/furans and mercury, as
[[Page 65434]]
applicable, the owner or operator shall estimate an average carbon mass
feed rate based on carbon injection system operating parameters such as
the screw feeder speed, hopper volume, hopper refill frequency, or
other parameters appropriate to the feed system being employed, as
specified in paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) An average carbon mass feed rate in kilograms per hour or
pounds per hour shall be estimated during the initial performance test
for mercury emissions and each subsequent performance test for mercury
emissions.
(ii) An average carbon mass feed rate in kilograms per hour or
pounds per hour shall be estimated during the initial performance test
for dioxin/furan emissions and each subsequent performance test for
dioxin/furan emissions.
(2) During operation of the affected facility, the carbon injection
system operating parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of the
carbon mass feed rate (e.g., screw feeder setting) must equal or exceed
the level(s) documented during the performance tests specified under
paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this section.
(3) The owner or operator shall estimate the total carbon usage of
the plant (kilograms or pounds) for each calendar quarter by two
independent methods, according to the procedures in paragraphs
(m)(3)(i) and (m)(3)(ii) of this section.
(i) The weight of carbon delivered to the plant.
(ii) Estimate the average carbon mass feed rate in kilograms per
hour or pounds per hour for each hour of operation for each affected
facility based on the parameters specified under paragraph (m)(1) of
this section, and sum the results for all affected facilities at the
plant for the total number of hours of operation during the calendar
quarter.
Sec. 60.59b Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of an affected facility located at a
municipal waste combustor plant with a capacity to combust greater than
35 megagrams per day shall submit, on or before the date the
application for a construction permit is submitted under 40 CFR part
51, subpart I, or part 52, as applicable, the items specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
(1) The preliminary and final draft materials separation plans
required by Sec. 60.57b(a)(1) and (a)(5).
(2) A copy of the notification of the public meeting required by
Sec. 60.57b(a)(1)(ii).
(3) A transcript of the public meeting required by
Sec. 60.57b(a)(2).
(4) A copy of the document summarizing responses to public comments
required by Sec. 60.57b(a)(3).
(b) The owner or operator of an affected facility located at a
municipal waste combustor plant with a capacity to combust greater than
35 megagrams per day shall submit a notification of construction, which
includes the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5)
of this section.
(1) Intent to construct.
(2) Planned initial startup date.
(3) The types of fuels that the owner or operator plans to combust
in the affected facility.
(4) The municipal waste combustor unit capacity, municipal waste
combustor plant capacity, and supporting capacity calculations prepared
in accordance with Sec. 60.58b(j).
(5) Documents associated with the siting requirements under
Sec. 60.57b (a) and (b), as specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through
(b)(5)(v) of this section.
(i) The siting analysis required by Sec. 60.57b (b)(1) and (b)(2).
(ii) The final materials separation plan for the affected facility
required by Sec. 60.57b(a)(10).
(iii) A copy of the notification of the public meeting required by
Sec. 60.57b(b)(3)(ii).
(iv) A transcript of the public meeting required by
Sec. 60.57b(b)(4).
(v) A copy of the document summarizing responses to public comments
required by Sec. 60.57b (a)(9) and (b)(5).
(c) The owner or operator of an air curtain incinerator subject to
the opacity limit under Sec. 60.56b shall provide a notification of
construction that includes the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(d) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant and subject to the
standards under Secs. 60.52b, 60.53b, 60.54b, 60.55b, and 60.57b shall
maintain records of the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (d)(15) of this section, as applicable, for each affected
facility for a period of at least 5 years.
(1) The calendar date of each record.
(2) The emission concentrations and parameters measured using
continuous monitoring systems as specified under paragraphs (d)(2)(i)
and (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) The measurements specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(A) through
(d)(2)(i)(D) of this section shall be recorded and be available for
submittal to the Administrator or review onsite by an inspector.
(A) All 6-minute average opacity levels as specified under
Sec. 60.58b(c).
(B) All 1-hour average sulfur dioxide emission concentrations as
specified under Sec. 60.58b(e).
(C) All 1-hour average nitrogen oxides emission concentrations as
specified under Sec. 60.58b(h) (large municipal waste combustor plants
only).
(D) All 1-hour average carbon monoxide emission concentrations,
municipal waste combustor unit load measurements, and particulate
matter control device inlet temperatures as specified under
Sec. 60.58b(i).
(ii) The average concentrations and percent reductions, as
applicable, specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(D)
of this section shall be computed and recorded, and shall be available
for submittal to the Administrator or review on-site by an inspector.
(A) All 24-hour daily geometric average sulfur dioxide emission
concentrations and all 24-hour daily geometric average percent
reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions as specified under
Sec. 60.58b(e).
(B) All 24-hour daily arithmetic average nitrogen oxides emission
concentrations as specified under Sec. 60.58b(h) (large municipal waste
combustor plants only).
(C) All 4-hour block or 24-hour daily arithmetic average carbon
monoxide emission concentrations, as applicable, as specified under
Sec. 60.58b(i).
(D) All 4-hour block arithmetic average municipal waste combustor
unit load levels and particulate matter control device inlet
temperatures as specified under Sec. 60.58b(i).
(3) Identification of the calendar dates when any of the average
emission concentrations, percent reductions, or operating parameters
recorded under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(E) of this
section, or the opacity levels recorded under paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A) of
this section are above the applicable limits, with reasons for such
exceedances and a description of corrective actions taken.
(4) For affected facilities that apply activated carbon for mercury
or dioxin/furan control, the records specified in paragraphs (d)(4)(i)
through (d)(4)(v) of this section.
(i) The average carbon mass feed rate (in kilograms per hour or
pounds per hour) estimated as required under Sec. 60.58b(m)(1)(i) of
this section during the initial mercury performance test and all
subsequent annual performance tests, with supporting calculations.
(ii) The average carbon mass feed rate (in kilograms per hour or
pounds per hour) estimated as required under
[[Page 65435]]
Sec. 60.58b(m)(1)(ii) of this section during the initial dioxin/furan
performance test and all subsequent annual performance tests, with
supporting calculations.
(iii) The average carbon mass feed rate (in kilograms per hour or
pounds per hour) estimated for each hour of operation as required under
Sec. 60.58b(m)(3)(ii) of this section, with supporting calculations.
(iv) The total carbon usage for each calendar quarter estimated as
specified by paragraph 60.58b(m)(3) of this section, with supporting
calculations.
(v) Carbon injection system operating parameter data for the
parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of carbon feed rate
(e.g., screw feeder speed).
(5) [Reserved]
(6) Identification of the calendar dates for which the minimum
number of hours of any of the data specified in paragraphs (d)(6)(i)
through (d)(6)(v) of this section have not been obtained including
reasons for not obtaining sufficient data and a description of
corrective actions taken.
(i) Sulfur dioxide emissions data;
(ii) Nitrogen oxides emissions data (large municipal waste
combustor plants only);
(iii) Carbon monoxide emissions data;
(iv) Municipal waste combustor unit load data; and
(v) Particulate matter control device temperature data.
(7) Identification of each occurrence that sulfur dioxide emissions
data, nitrogen oxides emissions data (large municipal waste combustors
only), or operational data (i.e., carbon monoxide emissions, unit load,
and particulate matter control device temperature) have been excluded
from the calculation of average emission concentrations or parameters,
and the reasons for excluding the data.
(8) The results of daily drift tests and quarterly accuracy
determinations for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (large municipal
waste combustors only), and carbon monoxide continuous emission
monitoring systems, as required under appendix F of this part,
procedure 1.
(9) The test reports documenting the results of the initial
performance test and all annual performance tests listed in paragraphs
(d)(9)(i) and (d)(9)(ii) of this section shall be recorded along with
supporting calculations.
(i) The results of the initial performance test and all annual
performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the
particulate matter, opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury, dioxins/furans,
hydrogen chloride, and fugitive ash emission limits.
(ii) For the initial dioxin/furan performance test and all
subsequent dioxin/furan performance tests recorded under paragraph
(d)(9)(i) of this section, the maximum demonstrated municipal waste
combustor unit load and maximum demonstrated particulate matter control
device temperature (for each particulate matter control device).
(10) [Reserved]
(11) For each municipal waste combustor subject to the siting
provisions under Sec. 60.57b, the siting analysis, the final materials
separation plan, a record of the location and date of the public
meetings, and the documentation of the responses to public comments
received at the public meetings.
(12) The records specified in paragraphs (d)(12)(i) through
(d)(12)(iii) of this section.
(i) Records showing the names of the municipal waste combustor
chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control room operators
who have been provisionally certified by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers or an equivalent State-approved certification
program as required by Sec. 60.54b(a) including the dates of initial
and renewal certifications and documentation of current certification.
(ii) Records showing the names of the municipal waste combustor
chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control room operators
who have been fully certified by the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers or an equivalent State-approved certification program as
required by Sec. 60.54b(a) including the dates of initial and renewal
certifications and documentation of current certification.
(iii) Records showing the names of the municipal waste combustor
chief facility operator, shift supervisors, and control room operators
who have completed the EPA municipal waste combustor operator training
course or a State-approved equivalent course as required by
Sec. 60.54b(d) including documentation of training completion.
(13) Records showing the names of persons who have completed a
review of the operating manual as required by Sec. 60.54b(f) including
the date of the initial review and subsequent annual reviews.
(14) For affected facilities that apply activated carbon for
mercury or dioxin/furan control, identification of the calendar dates
when the average carbon mass feed rates recorded under (d)(4)(iii) of
this section were less than either of the hourly carbon feed rates
estimated during performance tests for mercury or dioxin/furan
emissions and recorded under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii) of
this section, respectively, with reasons for such feed rates and a
description of corrective actions taken.
(15) For affected facilities that apply activated carbon for
mercury or dioxin/furan control, identification of the calendar dates
when the carbon injection system operating parameter(s) that are the
primary indicator(s) of carbon mass feed rate (e.g., screw feeder
speed) recorded under paragraph (d)(4)(v) of this section are below the
level(s) estimated during the performance tests as specified in
Sec. 60.58b(m)(1)(i) and Sec. 60.58b(m)(1)(ii) of this section, with
reasons for such occurrences and a description of corrective actions
taken.
(e) The owner or operator of an air curtain incinerator subject to
the opacity limit under Sec. 60.56b shall maintain records of results
of the initial opacity performance test and subsequent performance
tests required by Sec. 60.58b(l) for a period of at least 5 years.
(f) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall submit the
information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this
section in the initial performance test report.
(1) The initial performance test data as recorded under paragraphs
(d)(2)(ii)(A) through (d)(2)(ii)(D) of this section for the initial
performance test for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide,
municipal waste combustor unit load level, and particulate matter
control device inlet temperature.
(2) The test report documenting the initial performance test
recorded under paragraph (d)(9) of this section for particulate matter,
opacity, cadmium, lead, mercury, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, and
fugitive ash emissions.
(3) The performance evaluation of the continuous emission
monitoring system using the applicable performance specifications in
appendix B of this part.
(4) The maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit load
and maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device inlet
temperature(s) established during the initial dioxin/furan performance
test as recorded under paragraph (d)(9) of this section.
(5) For affected facilities that apply activated carbon injection
for mercury control, the owner or operator shall submit the average
carbon mass feed rate recorded under paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this
section.
(6) For those affected facilities that apply activated carbon
injection for dioxin/furan control, the owner or
[[Page 65436]]
operator shall submit the average carbon mass feed rate recorded under
paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section.
(g) Following the first year of municipal combustor operation, the
owner or operator of an affected facility located within a small or
large municipal waste combustor plant shall submit an annual report
including the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4)
of this section, as applicable, no later than February 1 of each year
following the calendar year in which the data were collected (once the
unit is subject to permitting requirements under Title V of the Act,
the owner or operator of an affected facility must submit these reports
semiannually).
(1) A summary of data collected for all pollutants and parameters
regulated under this subpart, which includes the information specified
in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(v) of this section.
(i) A list of the particulate matter, opacity, cadmium, lead,
mercury, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, and fugitive ash emission
levels achieved during the performance tests recorded under paragraph
(d)(9) of this section.
(ii) A list of the highest emission level recorded for sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, municipal waste combustor
unit load level, and particulate matter control device inlet
temperature based on the data recorded under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A)
through (d)(2)(ii)(D) of this section.
(iii) List the highest opacity level measured, based on the data
recorded under paragraph (d)(2)(i)(A) of this section.
(iv) The total number of days that the minimum number of hours of
data for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, municipal
waste combustor unit load, and particulate matter control device
temperature data were not obtained based on the data recorded under
paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
(v) The total number of hours that data for sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, municipal waste combustor unit load,
and particulate matter control device temperature were excluded from
the calculation of average emission concentrations or parameters based
on the data recorded under paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
(2) The summary of data reported under paragraph (g)(1) of this
section shall also provide the types of data specified in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(vi) of this section for the calendar year
preceding the year being reported, in order to provide the
Administrator with a summary of the performance of the affected
facility over a 2-year period.
(3) The summary of data including the information specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section shall highlight any
emission or parameter levels that did not achieve the emission or
parameter limits specified under this subpart.
(4) A notification of intent to begin the reduced dioxin/furan
performance testing schedule specified in Sec. 60.58b(g)(5)(iii) of
this section during the following calendar year.
(h) The owner or operator of an affected facility located within a
small or large municipal waste combustor plant shall submit a
semiannual report that includes the information specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (h)(5) of this section for any recorded pollutant or
parameter that does not comply with the pollutant or parameter limit
specified under this subpart, according to the schedule specified under
paragraph (h)(6) of this section.
(1) The semiannual report shall include information recorded under
paragraph (d)(3) of this section for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, municipal waste combustor unit load level, particulate
matter control device inlet temperature, and opacity.
(2) For each date recorded as required by paragraph (d)(3) of this
section and reported as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this section,
the semiannual report shall include the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, municipal waste combustor unit load level,
particulate matter control device inlet temperature, or opacity data,
as applicable, recorded under paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(A) through
(d)(2)(ii)(D) and (d)(2)(i)(A) of this section, as applicable.
(3) If the test reports recorded under paragraph (d)(9) of this
section document any particulate matter, opacity, cadmium, lead,
mercury, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, and fugitive ash emission
levels that were above the applicable pollutant limits, the semiannual
report shall include a copy of the test report documenting the emission
levels and the corrective actions taken.
(4) The semiannual report shall include the information recorded
under paragraph (d)(15) of this section for the carbon injection system
operating parameter(s) that are the primary indicator(s) of carbon mass
feed rate.
(5) For each operating date reported as required by paragraph
(h)(4) of this section, the semiannual report shall include the carbon
feed rate data recorded under paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section.
(6) Semiannual reports required by paragraph (h) of this section
shall be submitted according to the schedule specified in paragraphs
(h)(6)(i) and (h)(6)(ii) of this section.
(i) If the data reported in accordance with paragraphs (h)(1)
through (h)(5) of this section were collected during the first calendar
half, then the report shall be submitted by August 1 following the
first calendar half.
(ii) If the data reported in accordance with paragraphs (h)(1)
through (h)(5) of this section were collected during the second
calendar half, then the report shall be submitted by February 1
following the second calendar half.
(i) The owner or operator of an air curtain incinerator subject to
the opacity limit under Sec. 60.56b shall submit the results of the
initial opacity performance test and all subsequent annual performance
tests recorded under paragraph (e) of this section. Annual performance
tests shall be submitted by February 1 of the year following the year
of the performance test.
(j) All reports specified under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (f), (g),
(h), and (i) of this section shall be submitted as a paper copy,
postmarked on or before the submittal dates specified under these
paragraphs, and maintained onsite as a paper copy for a period of 5
years.
(k) All records specified under paragraphs (d) and (e) of this
section shall be maintained onsite in either paper copy or computer-
readable format, unless an alternative format is approved by the
Administrator.
(l) If an owner or operator would prefer to select a different
annual or semiannual date for submitting the periodic reports required
by paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) of this section, then the dates may be
changed by mutual agreement between the owner or operator and the
Administrator according to the procedures specified in Sec. 60.19(c) of
subpart A of this part.
[FR Doc. 95-30257 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30254 Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65382-65387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30254]
[[Page 65381]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 60
Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors and Emission
Guidelines; Final Rules, Proposed Rule and Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 65382]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-5327-3]
Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the ``Standards of Performance for
Municipal Waste Combustors'' (subpart Ea). These amendments are being
made to improve the clarity of subpart Ea and to make subpart Ea
consistent with subparts Eb and Cb.
DATES: The direct final rule Secs. 60.17, 60.50a, 60.51a, 60.56a,
60.58a, and 60.59a will be effective January 29, 1996 unless
significant adverse comments are received by January 18, 1996. If
significant adverse comments are received on any amendment in this
rule, that amendment will be withdrawn by timely publication in the
Federal Register. The incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this regulation is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of January 29, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Walter Stevenson at (919) 541-5264
or Mr. Fred Porter at (919) 541-5251, Combustion Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If significant adverse comments are received
on any amendment of this direct final rule, the comments will be
addressed in a subsequent rulemaking in the Federal Register based on
those provisions of the proposed rule contained in the Proposed Rules
Section of this Federal Register that is identical to this direct final
rule. The amendments in question will be withdrawn from this direct
final rule. Amendments of the direct final rule that do not receive any
significant adverse comments will become final 40 days from today's
Federal Register notice. If no significant adverse comments are filed
on any provision of this direct final rule, then the entire direct
final rule will become effective 40 days from today's Federal Register
notice and no further action is contemplated on the parallel proposal
published today.
On February 11, 1991 (56 FR 5488), the EPA promulgated in the
Federal Register new source performance standards (NSPS) for municipal
waste combustors (MWC's) for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction is commenced after December 20, 1989. The regulations
were promulgated as subpart Ea in 40 CFR part 60.
Today's action modifies the applicability and definitions sections
of the final regulation to improve clarity and make them consistent
with those of subparts Eb (standards of performance for new MWC's for
which construction commenced after September 20, 1994 or modification
or reconstruction commenced after June 19, 1996, and Cb (emission
guidelines for existing MWC's for which construction commenced on or
before September 20, 1994) that are being promulgated in a separate
section of today's Federal Register. Today's changes do not
significantly modify the requirements of the regulation. The revisions
are discussed in the order in which they appear in the subpart Ea
regulation.
Preamble Outline: The following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. Description of Changes
A. Dates of Applicability
B. Applicability of Cofired Combustors and Tire-Burning
Facilities
C. Applicability of Subpart Ea to Certain Other Facilities
D. Definitions
1. Definitions of Modification and Reconstruction
2. Definition of MSW and Calculation of MWC Unit Capacity
3. Definition of an MWC
E. Clarification of the Carbon Monoxide Standard
F. Update of Operator Training Specifications
G. Clarification of MWC Unit Load Measurement
II. Judicial Review
III. Administrative
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
B. Executive Order 12291 Review
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Description of Changes
A. Dates of Applicability
Subpart Ea is applicable to MWC units with capacities greater than
225 megagrams per day (Mg/day) of municipal solid waste (MSW) for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction was commenced after
December 20, 1989. To avoid overlap with the subpart Eb NSPS, the dates
for applicability for subpart Ea specified in Sec. 60.50a(a) are being
changed to apply to MWC's (1) commencing construction after December
20, 1989 and on or before September 20, 1994 or (2) commencing
modification or reconstruction after December 20, 1989 and on or before
June 19, 1996. The MWC plants that commence construction after
September 20, 1994 or that commence modification or reconstruction
after June 19, 1996 are subject to subpart Eb, which is more stringent
than subpart Ea. The change is also being made to subpart Ea to avoid
the same MWC plant being subject to duplicative requirements under two
NSPS (subparts Ea and Eb). This change is reflected in the definitions
for ``MWC plant'' and ``MWC plant capacity'' in Sec. 60.51a. It should
be noted that plants that are subject to subpart Ea will also be
subject to the emission guidelines contained in subpart Cb, which apply
to plants constructed on or before September 20, 1994.
B. Applicability to Cofired Combustors and Tire-Burning Facilities
The wording in Sec. 60.50a (c), (d), and (e) is being changed so
that cofired facilities and facilities that only burn tires are clearly
defined as not being subject to any sections of subpart Ea. Currently,
they are exempt from all requirements of subpart Ea except
recordkeeping requirements. This change will make subpart Ea consistent
with subparts Eb and Cb. It will also clarify that, for purposes of the
title V operating permits program, such facilities are not considered
subject to subpart Ea. In addition, because the applicability to
cofired combustors has been clarified, the definition of ``cofired
combustor'' has been revised in Sec. 60.51a. Relative to these changes,
Sec. 60.58(j)(3) is being removed and items in Sec. 60.59a (a)(1),
(b)(14), and (m) are being moved to Sec. 60.50a(d).
C. Applicability of Subpart Ea to Certain Other Facilities
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (Act) specifies that qualifying
cogeneration facilities, qualifying small independent power producers,
Solid Waste Disposal Act section 3005 permitted facilities, and
materials recovery facilities recovering metals are not MWC's and are
not regulated under section 129. Subparts Eb and Cb specify that these
units are not subject to subparts Eb and Cb. Additionally, subparts Eb
and Cb specify that pyrolysis/combustion units that are an integrated
part of a plastics/ rubber processing unit are not subject to the MWC
regulations. These exemptions are being incorporated into subpart Ea
(Sec. 60.50a (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k)) to be consistent with
subparts Eb and Cb.
D. Definitions
Revisions are being made to 13 definitions, 13 new definitions are
being added, and 2 are being deleted to clarify subpart Ea and make it
consistent with
[[Page 65383]]
the terms defined in subpart Eb. Several of these definitions are
discussed below.
1. Definitions of Modification and Reconstruction
Two new terms, ``modification'' (or ``modified municipal waste
combustor'') and ``reconstruction'', are being added to Sec. 60.51a to
incorporate the section 129 definition of ``modified solid waste
incineration unit.'' These definitions are very similar to the
definitions of these two terms in Secs. 60.14 and 60.15 of 40 CFR 60
subpart A (the NSPS general provisions). The addition of these
definitions will clarify subpart Ea and make the terms used in subparts
Ea, Eb, Cb, and section 129 relating to modification and reconstruction
consistent with each other.
2. Definition of MSW and Calculation of MWC Unit Capacity
To avoid confusion and possible conflict with the pending medical
waste incinerator (MWI) regulations which were proposed in February
1995 and are scheduled to be promulgated in the near future, the
definition of MSW in Sec. 60.51a of subpart Ea is being revised to be
consistent with subparts Eb and Cb. Additionally, the determination of
``MWC unit capacity'' in Sec. 60.58a(j)(4) and its definition in
Sec. 60.51a are being revised so that only a single heat input value is
used for MSW. This change is being made so that subpart Ea will be
consistent with subparts Eb and Cb. Section 60.59a(b)(15) is also being
deleted.
In addition to the clarification concerning medical waste, the
definition of MSW in Sec. 60.51a is being revised to specify that
``clean wood'' is excluded, while refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and yard
waste are included. To ensure clarity, definitions for ``clean wood'',
``untreated lumber'', and ``yard waste'' are being added to
Sec. 60.51a. Because the definition of MSW is being revised to clarify
that RDF is a type of preprocessed MSW and not a different type of
waste, the phrase ``MSW or RDF'' in several paragraphs is being
replaced with ``MSW'' to avoid redundancy. These clarifications are
consistent with the intent of subpart Ea, and will make the definition
of MSW consistent with subparts Eb and Cb.
3. Definition of an MWC
The definition of an MWC in Sec. 60.51a is being revised to be
consistent with that in subpart Eb. The most significant difference is
the addition of a description of the physical boundaries of an MWC. The
clarification of the boundaries of the affected facility will assist in
considering cost for making reconstruction determinations.
E. Clarification of the Carbon Monoxide Standard
The specifications for the carbon monoxide (CO) standards in
Secs. 60.56a(a) and 60.58(a) (h)(1) and (h)(2) are being revised to
clarify the EPA's intent as to which standard applies to which
combustor type. It was intended that the mass burn refractory unit CO
standard apply to both mass burn refractory units and rotary mass burn
refractory units. This was not clear in the promulgated regulation
because the definition in Sec. 60.51a of mass burn refractory units
excluded rotary mass burn refractory units. In order to clarify this,
the definition of mass burn refractory unit is being clarified to
include rotary mass burn rotary refractory units.
It was also intended that the CO standard for coal/RDF mixed fuel-
fired units be applicable to pulverized coal-type units, as opposed to
spreader stoker-type units that would fall under the RDF stoker
standard. Accordingly, the coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustor CO
standard is being renamed the pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired
combustor CO standard, and a CO standard for spreader stoker coal/RDF
mixed fuel-fired combustors equivalent to the RDF stoker standard is
being listed separately. Corresponding definitions are being added and
revised in Sec. 60.51a.
F. Update of Operator Training Specifications
The operator training requirements in Sec. 60.56a(d) specify that
provisional or operator certification shall be obtained in accordance
with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) QRO-1-1989
requirements or an equivalent State-approved certification program. The
ASME standard was updated in 1994 and so, to be consistent with
subparts Eb and Cb, the reference is being updated to QRO-1-1994.
G. Clarification of MWC Unit Load Measurement
The MWC unit load measurement specified in Sec. 60.58a(h)(6) is
being modified to include feedwater flow monitoring as an alternative
to steam flow measurement. The wording of this section is being revised
to match the wording in subparts Eb and Cb and a definition of ``MWC
unit load'' is being added to Sec. 60.51a.
II. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the actions
taken by this final rule is available only on the filing of a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this action. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements that are subject to
today's rule may not be challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
III. Administrative
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements of the previously
promulgated NSPS were submitted to and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). A copy of this Information Collection
Request (ICR) document (the ICR number is 1506.4, with an OMB approval
number 2060-0210) may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Regulatory
Information Division (Code 2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Today's changes to the NSPS will have no significant impact on the
information collection burden estimates made previously. The burden
will be reduced slightly. Consequently, the ICR has not been revised.
B. Executive Order 12291 Review
The MWC NSPS promulgated on February 11, 1991 was considered a
``major rule'' under Executive Order 12291 and a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) was prepared. The amendments issued today clarify the
rule and do not add any additional control requirements. The EPA
concludes these amendments would have a negligible impact on the
results of the RIA and the change is considered to be within the
flexibility of the analysis.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires the identification
of potentially adverse impacts of Federal regulations upon small
business entities. The Act specifically requires the completion of a
regulatory flexibility analysis in those instances where small business
impacts are possible. Because this rulemaking imposes no adverse
economic impacts, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been
prepared.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 65384]]
Dated: October 31, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60,
subpart Ea of the Code of Federal Regulations is corrected as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7429, and 7601.
Subpart Ea Heading--[Revised]
2. The heading for subpart Ea is revised to read as follows:
Subpart Ea--Standards of Performance for Municipal Waste Combustors
for which Construction is Commenced after December 20, 1989 and on
or before September 20, 1994
3. Section 60.17 of subpart A of part 60 is amended by revising
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) ASME QRO-1-1994, Standard for the Qualification and
Certification of Resource Recovery Facility Operators, IBR approved for
Sec. 60.56a.
(2) ASME PTC 4.1-1964 (Reaffirmed 1991), Power Test Codes: Test
Code for Steam Generating Units (with 1968 and 1969 Addenda), IBR
approved for Secs. 60.46b and 60.58a(h)(6)(ii).
(3) ASME Interim Supplement 19.5 on Instruments and Apparatus:
Application, Part II of Fluid Meters, 6th Edition (1971), IBR approved
for Sec. 60.58a(h)(6)(ii).
* * * * *
4. Section 60.50a is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d),
(e), and (f), removing paragraph (g), redesignating paragraph (h) as
paragraph (l), redesignating paragraph (i) as paragraph (m), and adding
new paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.50a Applicability and delegation of authority.
(a) The affected facility to which this subpart applies is each
municipal waste combustor unit with a municipal waste combustor unit
capacity greater than 225 megagrams per day (250 tons per day) of
municipal solid waste for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction is commenced as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section.
(1) Construction is commenced after December 20, 1989 and on or
before September 20, 1994.
(2) Modification or reconstruction is commenced after December 20,
1989 and on or before June 19, 1996.
* * * * *
(c) Any unit combusting a single-item waste stream of tires is not
subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the unit:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim; and
(2) Provides data documenting that the unit qualifies for this
exemption.
(d) Any cofired combustor, as defined under Sec. 60.51a, located at
a plant that meets the capacity specifications in paragraph (a) of this
section is not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the
cofired combustor:
(1) Notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim;
(2) Provides a copy of the federally enforceable permit (specified
in the definition of cofired combustor in this section); and
(3) Keeps a record on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of
municipal solid waste combusted at the cofired combustor and the weight
of all other fuels combusted at the cofired combustor.
(e) Any cofired combustor that is subject to a federally
enforceable permit limiting the operation of the combustor to no more
than 225 megagrams per day (250 tons per day) of municipal solid waste
is not subject to this subpart.
(f) Physical or operational changes made to an existing municipal
waste combustor unit primarily for the purpose of complying with
emission guidelines under subpart Cb are not considered a modification
or reconstruction and do not result in an existing municipal waste
combustor unit becoming subject to this subpart.
(g) A qualifying small power production facility, as defined in
section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(17)(C)), that
burns homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy is
not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility
notifies the Administrator of an exemption claim and provides data
documenting that the facility qualifies for this exemption.
(h) A qualifying cogeneration facility, as defined in section
3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), that burns
homogeneous waste (such as automotive tires or used oil, but not
including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy
and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) that are used for
industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes, is not subject to
this subpart if the owner or operator of the facility notifies the
Administrator of an exemption claim and provides data documenting that
the facility qualifies for this exemption.
(i) Any unit required to have a permit under section 3005 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act is not subject to this subpart.
(j) Any materials recovery facility (including primary or secondary
smelters) that combusts waste for the primary purpose of recovering
metals is not subject to this subpart.
(k) Pyrolysis/combustion units that are an integrated part of a
plastics/rubber recycling unit (as defined in Sec. 60.51a) are not
subject to this subpart if the owner or operator of the plastics/rubber
recycling unit keeps records of: the weight of plastics, rubber, and/or
rubber tires processed on a calendar quarter basis; the weight of
chemical plant feedstocks and petroleum refinery feedstocks produced
and marketed on a calendar quarter basis; and the name and address of
the purchaser of the feedstocks. The combustion of gasoline, diesel
fuel, jet fuel, fuel oils, residual oil, refinery gas, petroleum coke,
liquified petroleum gas, propane, or butane produced by chemical plants
or petroleum refineries that use feedstocks produced by plastics/rubber
recycling units are not subject to this subpart.
* * * * *
5. Section 60.51a is amended:
a. by removing the definitions of ``coal/RDF mixed fuel fired
combustor'', ``large MWC plant'', ``mass burn refractory MWC'', ``mass
burn rotary waterwall MWC'', ``mass burn waterwall MWC'', ``maximum
demonstrated MWC unit load'', ``medical waste'', ``municipal-type solid
waste or MSW'', ``municipal waste combustor or MWC unit'', ``MWC
plant'', ``MWC plant capacity'', and ``MWC unit capacity'', and;
b. by revising the definitions for ``cofired combustor'', ``maximum
demonstrated particulate matter control device temperature'', and
``standard conditions'', and;
c. by adding new entries to the section. The revised entries and
the new entries are set out to read as follows:
Sec. 60.51a Definitions.
* * * * *
Calendar quarter means a consecutive 3-month period
(nonoverlapping) beginning on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October
1.
* * * * *
[[Page 65385]]
Clean wood means untreated wood or untreated wood products
including clean untreated lumber, tree stumps (whole or chipped), and
tree limbs (whole or chipped). Clean wood does not include yard waste,
which is defined elsewhere in this section, or construction,
renovation, and demolition wastes (which includes but is not limited to
railroad ties and telephone poles), which are exempt from the
definition of municipal solid waste in this section.
Cofired combustor means a unit combusting municipal solid waste
with nonmunicipal solid waste fuel (e.g., coal, industrial process
waste) and subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting the unit
to combusting a fuel feed stream, 30 percent or less of the weight of
which is comprised, in aggregate, of municipal solid waste as measured
on a calendar quarter basis.
* * * * *
Large municipal waste combustor plant means a municipal waste
combustor plant with a municipal waste combustor aggregate plant
capacity for affected facilities that is greater than 225 megagrams per
day (250 tons per day) of municipal solid waste.
Mass burn refractory municipal waste combustor means a field-
erected combustor that combusts municipal solid waste in a refractory
wall furnace. Unless otherwise specified, this includes combustors with
a cylindrical rotary refractory wall furnace.
Mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor means a field-
erected combustor that combusts municipal solid waste in a cylindrical
rotary waterwall furnace.
Mass burn waterwall municipal waste combustor means a field-erected
combustor that combusts municipal solid waste in a waterwall furnace.
Maximum demonstrated municipal waste combustor unit load means the
highest 4-hour arithmetic average municipal waste combustor unit load
achieved during four consecutive hours during the most recent dioxin/
furan performance test demonstrating compliance with the applicable
limit for municipal waste combustor organics specified under
Sec. 60.53a.
Maximum demonstrated particulate matter control device temperature
means the highest 4-hour arithmetic average flue gas temperature
measured at the particulate matter control device inlet during four
consecutive hours during the most recent dioxin/furan performance test
demonstrating compliance with the applicable limit for municipal waste
combustor organics specified under Sec. 60.53a.
* * * * *
Modification or modified municipal waste combustor unit means a
municipal waste combustor unit to which changes have been made if the
cumulative cost of the changes, over the life of the unit, exceed 50
percent of the original cost of construction and installation of the
unit (not including the cost of any land purchased in connection with
such construction or installation) updated to current costs; or any
physical change in the municipal waste combustor unit or change in the
method of operation of the municipal waste combustor unit increases the
amount of any air pollutant emitted by the unit for which standards
have been established under section 129 or section 111. Increases in
the amount of any air pollutant emitted by the municipal waste
combustor unit are determined at 100-percent physical load capability
and downstream of all air pollution control devices, with no
consideration given for load restrictions based on permits or other
nonphysical operational restrictions.
* * * * *
Municipal solid waste or municipal-type solid waste or MSW means
household, commercial/retail, and/or institutional waste. Household
waste includes material discarded by single and multiple residential
dwellings, hotels, motels, and other similar permanent or temporary
housing establishments or facilities. Commercial/retail waste includes
material discarded by stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses,
nonmanufacturing activities at industrial facilities, and other similar
establishments or facilities. Institutional waste includes material
discarded by schools, nonmedical waste discarded by hospitals, material
discarded by nonmanufacturing activities at prisons and government
facilities, and material discarded by other similar establishments or
facilities. Household, commercial/retail, and institutional waste does
not include used oil; sewage sludge; wood pallets; construction,
renovation, and demolition wastes (which includes but is not limited to
railroad ties and telephone poles); clean wood; industrial process or
manufacturing wastes; medical waste; or motor vehicles (including motor
vehicle parts or vehicle fluff). Household, commercial/retail, and
institutional wastes include:
(1) Yard waste;
(2) Refuse-derived fuel; and
(3) Motor vehicle maintenance materials limited to vehicle
batteries and tires except as specified in Sec. 60.50a(c).
Municipal waste combustor, MWC, or municipal waste combustor unit:
(1) Means any setting or equipment that combusts solid, liquid, or
gasified MSW including, but not limited to, field-erected incinerators
(with or without heat recovery), modular incinerators (starved-air or
excess-air), boilers (i.e., steam-generating units), furnaces (whether
suspension-fired, grate-fired, mass-fired, air curtain incinerators, or
fluidized bed-fired), and pyrolysis/combustion units. Municipal waste
combustors do not include pyrolysis/combustion units located at
plastics/ rubber recycling units (as specified in Sec. 60.50a(k) of
this section). Municipal waste combustors do not include internal
combustion engines, gas turbines, or other combustion devices that
combust landfill gases collected by landfill gas collection systems.
(2) The boundaries of an MWC are defined as follows. The MWC unit
includes, but is not limited to, the MSW fuel feed system, grate
system, flue gas system, bottom ash system, and the combustor water
system. The MWC boundary starts at the MSW pit or hopper and extends
through:
(i) The combustor flue gas system, which ends immediately following
the heat recovery equipment or, if there is no heat recovery equipment,
immediately following the combustion chamber;
(ii) The combustor bottom ash system, which ends at the truck
loading station or similar ash handling equipment that transfer the ash
to final disposal, including all ash handling systems that are
connected to the bottom ash handling system; and
(iii) The combustor water system, which starts at the feed water
pump and ends at the piping exiting the steam drum or superheater.
(3) The MWC unit does not include air pollution control equipment,
the stack, water treatment equipment, or the turbine generator set.
* * * * *
Municipal waste combustor plant means one or more MWC units at the
same location for which construction, modification, or reconstruction
is commenced after December 20, 1989 and on or before September 20,
1994.
Municipal waste combustor plant capacity means the aggregate MWC
unit capacity of all MWC units at an MWC plant for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction of the units commenced after December
20,
[[Page 65386]]
1989 and on or before September 20, 1994. Any MWC units for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction is commenced on or before
December 20, 1989 or after September 20, 1994 are not included for
determining applicability under this subpart.
Municipal waste combustor unit capacity means the maximum design
charging rate of an MWC unit expressed in megagrams per day (tons per
day) of MSW combusted, calculated according to the procedures under
Sec. 60.58a(j). Municipal waste combustor unit capacity is calculated
using a design heating value of 10,500 kilojoules per kilogram (4,500
British thermal units per pound) for MSW. The calculational procedures
under Sec. 60.58a(j) include procedures for determining MWC unit
capacity for continuous and batch feed MWC's.
Municipal waste combustor unit load means the steam load of the MWC
unit measured as specified in Sec. 60.58a(h)(6).
* * * * *
Plastics/rubber recycling unit means an integrated processing unit
where plastics, rubber, and/or rubber tires are the only feed materials
(incidental contaminants may be included in the feed materials) and
they are processed into a chemical plant feedstock or petroleum
refinery feedstock, where the feedstock is marketed to and used by a
chemical plant or petroleum refinery as input feedstock. The combined
weight of the chemical plant feedstock and petroleum refinery feedstock
produced by the plastics/rubber recycling unit on a calendar quarter
basis shall be more than 70 percent of the combined weight of the
plastics, rubber, and rubber tires processed by the plastics/rubber
recycling unit on a calendar quarter basis. The plastics, rubber, and/
or rubber tire feed materials to the plastics/rubber recycling unit may
originate from the separation or diversion of plastics, rubber, or
rubber tires from MSW or industrial solid waste, and may include
manufacturing scraps, trimmings, and off-specification plastics,
rubber, and rubber tire discards. The plastics, rubber, and rubber tire
feed materials to the plastics/rubber recycling unit may contain
incidental contaminants (e.g., paper labels on plastic bottles, metal
rings on plastic bottle caps, etc.).
* * * * *
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor or
pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustor means a combustor that
fires coal and RDF simultaneously, in which pulverized coal is
introduced into an air stream that carries the coal to the combustion
chamber of the unit where it is fired in suspension. This includes both
conventional pulverized coal and micropulverized coal.
Pyrolysis/combustion unit means a unit that produces gases,
liquids, or solids through the heating of MSW, and the gases, liquids,
or solids produced are combusted and emissions vented to the
atmosphere.
Reconstruction means rebuilding an MWC unit for which the
cumulative costs of the construction over the life of the unit exceed
50 percent of the original cost of construction and installation of the
unit (not including any cost of land purchased in connection with such
construction or installation) updated to current costs (current
dollars).
Refractory unit or refractory wall furnace means a combustion unit
having no energy recovery (e.g., via a waterwall) in the furnace (i.e.,
radiant heat transfer section) of the combustor.
* * * * *
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed fuel-fired combustor
or spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustor means a
combustor that fires coal and refuse-derived fuel simultaneously, in
which coal is introduced to the combustion zone by a mechanism that
throws the fuel onto a grate from above. Combustion takes place both in
suspension and on the grate.
Standard conditions means a temperature of 20 deg.C (68 deg.F)
and a pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (29.92 inches of mercury).
* * * * *
Untreated lumber means wood or wood products that have been cut or
shaped and include wet, air-dried, and kiln-dried wood products.
Untreated lumber does not include wood products that have been painted,
pigment-stained, or ``pressure-treated.'' Pressure-treating compounds
include, but are not limited to, chromate copper arsenate,
pentachlorophenol, and creosote.
Waterwall furnace means a combustion unit having energy (heat)
recovery in the furnace (i.e., radiant heat transfer section) of the
combustor.
Yard waste means grass, grass clippings, bushes, shrubs, and
clippings from bushes and shrubs that are generated by residential,
commercial/retail, institutional, and/or industrial sources as part of
maintenance activities associated with yards or other private or public
lands. Yard waste does not include construction, renovation, and
demolition wastes, which are exempt from the definition of MSW in this
section. Yard waste does not include clean wood, which is exempt from
the definition of MSW in this section.
6. Section 60.56a, paragraph (a), Table 1, is amended by removing
the entry for ``Coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustors'' and adding
entries for ``Pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustor'' and
``Spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustor'' to the end of
the table; by revising paragraph (d); and by removing and reserving
paragraph (f)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.56a Standards for municipal waste combustor operating
practices.
(a) * * *
Table 1.--MWC Operating Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon monoxide
emission limit
MWC technology (parts per
million by
volume)\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
Pulverized coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustor........ 150
Spreader stoker coal/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustor... 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement
of oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis).
The averaging times are specified in Sec. 60.58a(h).
* * * * *
(d) Within 24 months from the date of start-up of an affected
facility or before February 11, 1993, whichever is later, each chief
facility operator and shift
[[Page 65387]]
supervisor of an affected faciltiy located within a large MWC plant
shall obtain and keep current either a provisional or operator
certification in accordance with ASME QRO-1-1994 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 60.17) or an equivalent State-approved
certification program.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(9) [Reserved]
* * * * *
7. Section 60.58a is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2),
(h)(6)(i), (h)(6)(ii), and (h)(10), redesignating paragraph (h)(6)(iii)
as paragraph (h)(6)(v), adding new paragraphs (h)(6)(iii) and
(h)(6)(iv), removing and reserving paragraph (j)(3), and revising
paragraph (j)(4), to read as follows:
Sec. 60.58a Compliance and performance testing.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Compliance with the carbon monoxide emission limits in
Sec. 60.56a(a) shall be determined using a 4-hour block arithmetic
average for all types of affected facilities except mass burn rotary
waterwall MWC's, RDF stokers, and spreader stoker/RDF mixed fuel-fired
combustors.
(2) For affected mass burn rotary waterwall MWC's, RDF stokers, and
spreader stoker/RDF mixed fuel-fired combustors, compliance with the
carbon monoxide emission limits in Sec. 60.56a(a) shall be determined
using a 24-hour daily arithmetic average.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(i) The owner or operator of an affected facility with steam
generation capability shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
steam flow meter or a feedwater flow meter; measure steam or feedwater
flow in kilograms per hour (pounds per hour) on a continuous basis; and
record the output of the monitor. Steam or feedwater flow shall be
calculated in 4-hour block arithmetic averages.
(ii) The method included in ``American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Power Test Codes: Test Code for Steam Generating Units, Power
Test Code 4.1--1964'', Section 4 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 60.17) shall be used for calculating the steam (or feedwater flow)
required under paragraph (h)(6)(i) of this section. The recommendations
of ``American Society of Mechanical Engineers Interim Supplement 19.5
on Instruments and Apparatus: Application, Part II of Fluid Meters, 6th
edition (1971),'' chapter 4 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 60.17)
shall be followed for design, construction, installation, calibration,
and use of nozzles and orifices except as specified in (h)(6)(iii) of
this section.
(iii) Measurement devices such as flow nozzles and orifices are not
required to be recalibrated after they are installed.
(iv) All signal conversion elements associated with steam (or
feedwater flow) measurements must be calibrated according to the
manufacturer's instructions before each dioxin/furan compliance and
performance test, and at least once per year.
* * * * *
(10) At a minimum, valid CEMS data for carbon monoxide, steam or
feedwater flow, and particulate matter control device inlet temperature
shall be obtained 75 percent of the hours per day for 75 percent of the
days per month the affected facility is operated and combusting MSW.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(3) [Reserved]
(4) The MWC unit capacity shall be calculated using a design
heating value of 10,500 kilojoules per kilogram (4,500 British thermal
units per pound) for all MSW.
* * * * *
Sec. 60.59a [Amended]
8. Section 60.59a is amended by removing paragraphs (a)(1),
(b)(14), (b)(15), and (m), and removing the third sentence of paragraph
(e).
[FR Doc. 95-30254 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.