[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44582-44585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21442]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 62

[CT067-7224; A-1-FRL-7043-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Connecticut; Revisions to State Plan for Municipal Waste Combustors and 
Incorporation of Regulation Into State Implementation Plan for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Connecticut's 
State Plan for Municipal Waste Combustors (MWC) submitted by the 
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on November 28, 2000 
and June 4, 2001. The MWC State Plan implements and enforces provisions 
at least as protective as the EPA's Emission Guidelines (EGs) 
applicable to existing MWC units with capacity to combust more than 250 
tons per day of municipal solid waste. Further, the EPA is proposing to 
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Connecticut on June 4, 2001. This is a SIP-strengthening 
revision that incorporates the nitrogen oxide limits and related 
regulatory provisions of Connecticut's adopted Regulation Section 22a-
174-38 Municipal Waste Combustors into the SIP to further reduce 
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from MWC units. These 
actions are being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 24, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air 
Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England, One Congress 
Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023. Copies of the State 
submittal and the EPA's technical support document are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the 
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
EPA New England, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA and the 
Bureau of Air Management, Department of Environmental Protection, State 
Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Brown at (617) 918-1532 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the following text the terms ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' mean the EPA. This notice is organized according to 
the following Table of Contents.

I. What Revisions to the MWC State Plan and Ozone State 
Implementation Plan Did Connecticut Submit to EPA?
    A. Connecticut's November 28, 2000 Submittal.
    1. Definitions
    2. Emission Limits
    B. Connecticut's June 4, 2001 Submittal.
II. Why Did Connecticut Submit Revisions to the MWC State Plan and 
SIP?
III. What Action is the EPA Taking Today?
IV. What are the Administrative Requirements?

I. What Revisions to the MWC State Plan and Ozone State 
Implementation Plan Did Connecticut Submit to EPA?

A. Connecticut's November 28, 2000 Submittal

    On November 28, 2000, the Connecticut Department of Environmental 
Protection (CT DEP) submitted a revision to its State Plan to implement 
the Municipal Waste Combustor Emission Guidelines and New Source 
Performance Standards. The November submittal consisted of the revised 
Connecticut regulation 22a-174-38 (Section 38) which CT DEP adopted and 
which became effective on October 26, 2000, a statement of changes made 
to Section 38, and documentation of a public hearing.
    The changes made to Section 38 included revisions to the 
definitions, emission limits and compliance schedule as discussed 
below.
1. Definitions
    There was a minor revision to the definition of ``NOX 
emission reduction credit'' or ``ERC'' in Section 38 (a)(21) to make 
this definition consistent with other CT DEP usage.
2. Emission Limits
    Emission limits in Section 38(c) Table 38-1 were revised to add 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) limits for mass burn waterwall 
combustors for which construction commenced after December 20, 1989. 
The new emission limits are 29 ppmv SO\2\ or an 80% reduction by weight 
or volume. These emission limits are more stringent than the federal 
requirements for SO2 for MWCs constructed after December 20, 
1989 (30 ppmv or 80% reduction).
    Emissions limits in Section 38(c) Table 38-1 were revised to add 
hydrogen chloride (HCl) emission limits for mass burn waterwall 
combustors for which construction commenced after December 20, 1989. 
The HCl emission

[[Page 44583]]

limits are 25 ppmv or a 95 percent reduction by weight or volume. These 
emission limits are equivalent to the federal requirements for HCl for 
MWCs constructed after December 20, 1989.
    Emissions limits in Section 38(c) Table 38-3 were revised to add 
NOX emission limits for mass burn waterwall combustors for 
which construction commenced after December 20, 1989 and on or before 
September 20, 1994. The NOX emission limits are 180 ppmv, 
which conforms with the federal requirements for NOX for 
mass burn waterwall MWCs constructed after December 20, 1989.

B. Connecticut's June 4, 2001 Submittal

    On June 4, 2001, the CT DEP submitted a request for parallel 
processing of proposed revisions to its State Implementation Plan for 
Ozone (SIP). Under the parallel processing procedure, we work closely 
with the CT DEP while it is developing its revision to its SIP. The 
State submits a copy of the proposed SIP revision to us concurrent with 
its public hearing. We review this proposed state action, and prepare a 
notice of proposed rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register. 
Thus, we provide for concurrent public comment periods on both the 
state action and Federal action. After the CT DEP submits the formal 
MWC Plan and SIP revision request (including a final state rule and 
response to all public comments raised during the State's public 
participation process), we will prepare a final rulemaking notice. If 
the CT DEP's formal SIP submittal contains changes which occur after 
the EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such changes must be described 
in our final rulemaking action. If the changes are significant, then we 
must decide whether it is appropriate to re-propose the state's action.
    The June 4, 2001, request for parallel processing consisted of the 
revised Connecticut regulation 22a-174-38 (Section 38) which 
Connecticut adopted and which became effective on October 26, 2000, a 
request that the adopted Section 38 be incorporated into the SIP to 
further reduce NOX emissions from MWC units, and a 
calculation of the additional NOX reductions anticipated.
    The revised Section 38 included additional NOX emission 
limits and compliance schedules that were previously adopted in the 
state regulation but were never submitted to the EPA for approval. 
Specifically, emission limits in Section 38(c) were revised by adding a 
new ``Table 38-3a Additional Nitrogen Oxide Emission Limits.'' Table 
38-3a adds more stringent NOX limits that MWC owners and 
operators must comply with by May 1, 2003. These ``Phase II'' 
NOX limits are more stringent than the federal requirements 
for NOX for MWC units and are included in Table 1 along with 
the existing Phase I limits for comparison. In addition to the Phase II 
NOX emission limits, the compliance schedule in Section 
38(m) is revised to add a deadline of May 1, 2003, by which time MWC 
owners and operators must meet the new Phase II NOX emission 
limits.
    The Phase II NOX emission limits and compliance schedule 
were adopted into Section 38, which became effective on October 26, 
2000. However, the regulatory text was not submitted to the EPA with 
the November 28, 2000 SIP revision and CT DEP did not request this 
revision be made to MWC State Plan at that time. In its June 4, 2001 
SIP submittal, CT DEP is now requesting that we approve these more 
stringent NOX limits and compliance schedule into the MWC 
State Plan.
    In addition, CT DEP requested that the NOX limits and 
related regulatory provisions in its adopted Section 38 be incorporated 
into the SIP since the state will achieve further NOX 
emission reductions from MWC units. The SIP submittal presented an 
analysis of the additional NOX reductions expected from the 
Phase II NOX limits. Connecticut DEP projected annual heat 
input for MWC units based on a projected utilization rate of 90 percent 
of the maximum rated capacity of the affected MWC units. The statewide 
NOX reductions achieved by the Phase II NOX 
limits were then calculated relative to reductions already achieved by 
Connecticut's NOX Rule that requires reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) to be applied to major sources of 
NOX. The reductions achieved by NOX RACT have 
already been included in the SIP and, therefore, only Phase II 
reductions beyond NOX RACT reductions are creditable as 
additional NOX reductions. The Phase II limits are expected 
to achieve a creditable NOX reduction of 592 tons per year, 
248 tons per ozone season, and 1.62 tons per summer day.

     Table 1.--Existing ``Phase I'' NOX Emission Limits and Additional
  ``Phase II'' NOX Emission Limits in Connecticut Reg. Sec. 22a-174-38
                       Table 38-3 and Table 38-3a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   NOX emission limit
                                                       (ppmv) \1\
     Municipal waste combustor yTechnology     -------------------------
                                                  Phase I      Phase II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Burn Refractory Combustor................          185          177
Mass Burn Waterwall Combustor for which                 205          200
 construction commenced on or before December
 20, 1989 \2\.................................
Mass Burn Waterwall Combustor for which                 180          177
 construction commenced after December 20,
 1989 \3\, and on or before September 20, 1994
Mass Burn Waterwall Combustor for which
 construction commenced after September 20,
 1994:
    For one-year period following initial               180          177
     performance test.........................
    For period of time subsequent to one-year           150          150
     period above.............................
Processed-Municipal Solid Waste Combustor.....          220          146
Reciprocating Grate Waste Tire Fired                     79         N/A
 Incinerator/Boiler...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Corrected to seven percent oxygen, dry basis, or equivalent
  percentage carbon dioxide as specified In CT Sec. 22a-174-38.
\2\ The Phase II Limits apply to combustors for which construction
  commenced on or before December 31, 1985.
\3\ The Phase II Limits apply to combustors for which construction
  commenced after December 31, 1985.

II. Why Did Connecticut Submit Revisions to the MWC State Plan and SIP?

    The CT DEP submitted attainment demonstrations for both the 
Southwest Connecticut nonattainment area and the Greater Connecticut 
nonattainment area on September 16, 1998. The EPA published proposed 
rulemaking regarding CT DEP's attainment demonstration for the 
Southwest Connecticut nonattainment area on December 16, 1999 (64 FR 
70348). The proposal indicated that the attainment analysis for 
Southwest Connecticut did

[[Page 44584]]

not prove attainment by 2007. Specifically, the EPA calculated a 5 ppb 
shortfall between the future year modeled ozone values and the ozone 
standard. Based on this shortfall, we proposed conditional approval of 
the attainment demonstration and developed additional emission 
reduction targets of 3.8 percent VOC and 0.3 percent NOX 
reductions from the 1990 baseline as one of the conditions for 
approval. These additional emission reductions needed for attainment 
are referred to as the ``shortfall.''
    In response to the EPA's conditional approval of the attainment 
demonstration, CT DEP submitted a SIP revision concerning addenda to 
the ozone attainment demonstrations for Greater Connecticut and 
Southwest Connecticut on February 8, 2000. The February submittal 
committed to adopt additional NOX emission limits applicable 
to MWC units and to submit these regulations to the EPA by December 31, 
2000.
    On November 28, 2000 CT DEP submitted a revision to the MWC Plan. 
The revision included revised Connecticut regulation 22a-174-38 which 
Connecticut adopted and which became effective on October 26, 2000. The 
revised regulation established more stringent ``Phase II'' 
NOX limits for MWC units which MWC owners and operators must 
comply with no later than May 1, 2003. However, at that time, 
Connecticut did not request that the Phase II NOX limits be 
incorporated into the MWC Plan and the provisions related to the Phase 
II standards were struck out of the regulatory text submitted to us.
    On June 4, 2001, Connecticut submitted a revision to the MWC Plan 
and the SIP formally requesting that EPA incorporate the state adopted 
MWC regulations, including the Phase II NOX limits, into the 
MWC Plan and the SIP. The Phase II NOX standards further 
reduce emissions of NOX from MWC units and partially 
addresses the shortfall of additional VOC and NOX emission 
reductions needed for attainment of the ozone standard in Southwest 
Connecticut.
    Connecticut's original MWC Plan was developed for implementing the 
MWC emission guidelines and was submitted to the EPA on October 12, 
1999. On December 19, 1995, according to sections 111 and 129 of the 
Clean Air Act (Act), the EPA issued new source performance standards 
(NSPS) applicable to new MWCs and emissions guidelines (EG) applicable 
to existing MWCs. The NSPS and EG are codified at 40 CFR Part 60, 
Subparts Eb and Cb, respectively. See 60 FR 65387. Subparts Cb and Eb 
regulate the following: particulate matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, 
hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, 
mercury, and dioxin and dibenzofurans. Subparts Eb and Cb apply only to 
MWC units with individual capacity to combust more than 250 tons/day of 
municipal solid waste (large MWC units).
    Connecticut's October 1999 plan contained state regulation Sec. 
22a-174-38 for MWC units (Section 38). Section 38 included ``Phase I'' 
NOX emission limits (see Table 1) and a NOX 
emission trading program. The regulation also included emission limits 
for particulate matter, cadmium, lead, mercury, sulfur dioxide, 
hydrogen chloride, dioxin/furan and opacity. The EPA approved the plan 
and Section 38 by a direct final rule on April 20, 2000 (65 FR 21354). 
Please refer to that notice for more information.

III. What Action Is the EPA Taking Today?

    We are proposing to approve the revisions to the MWC Plan and SIP 
which were submitted by CT DEP on November 28, 2000 and June 4, 2001. 
Our review of Connecticut's November 28, 2000 and June 4, 2001 
submittals indicates that the revisions to the MWC Plan are at least as 
protective as the emission guidelines applicable to existing MWC units 
with capacity to combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid 
waste. Connecticut's MWC Plan, as approved by EPA, covers only large, 
existing MWC units. Small and new units are not subject to the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb and are not subject to this 
approval of the MWC Plan under sections 111(d) and 129 of the Act. 
Connecticut's additional mercury emission limits of 0.028 mg/dscm or 85 
percent reduction by weight are not proposed as part of the MWC Plan, 
and will not be federally enforceable. Connecticut's shutdown 
provisions for mass burn refractory units are also not proposed for 
inclusion in the MWC Plan.
    We are proposing to approve the NOX emission limits and 
related regulatory provisions of Connecticut's MWC rule sec. 22a-174-38 
into Connecticut's ozone SIP. We are proposing approval of this SIP-
strengthening revision under section 110 of the Act.
    Connecticut DEP has demonstrated its legal authority to adopt 
emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to the 
designated facilities; enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards 
and compliance schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain information 
necessary to determine compliance; require record keeping; conduct 
inspections and tests; require the use of monitors; require emission 
reports of owners and operators; and make emission data publicly 
available.
    The November 28, 2000 submittal also included documentation of 
adequate public notice and public hearing. As indicated above, the June 
4, 2001 submittal requested parallel processing to facilitate 
expeditious approval into the SIP by October 2001. Connecticut DEP 
issued a public hearing notice on June 1, 2001 and held a public 
hearing on July 10, 2001 and is preparing a final SIP revision 
concurrent with our proposed approval.
    We are soliciting public comments on the revisions discussed in 
this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be 
considered before we take final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to the EPA New England office listed in the ADDRESSES section 
of this action.
    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.

IV. What Are the Administrative Requirements?

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the

[[Page 44585]]

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also 
does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 
on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. 
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 62

    Administrative practice and Procedures, Air pollution control, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Waste treatment and disposal.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 15, 2001.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 01-21442 Filed 8-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P