Requested Flexibility. As part of the proposal, WM is requesting that the USEPA grant regulatory flexibility from the requirement of the RCRA that restricts application of bulk liquids in MSW landfills, as presented in 40 CFR 258.28(a) as follows. • It prohibits the placement of liquid wastes other than leachate, gas condensate, and non-septic household waste in any MSW landfill. • Leachate or gas condensate is allowed provided the landfill unit is designed with a composite liner and leachate collection system as described in section 258.40(a)(2). • The addition of septic waste is allowed. Neither landfill has the specified liner therefore reg relief is needed to allow recirculation of leachate in both landfills. Secondly, the reg prohibits the placement of liquid waste other than leachate/gas condensate and non septic household waste in any MSW landfill. Therefore both landfills require regulatory relief in order to add any other bulk liquids. As described in Section 2, liquids are needed to enhance the biological degradation of waste in the landfills. Therefore, WM proposes to add liquids to both landfills and to add certain nonhazardous liquid wastes (e.g., leachate, stormwater, gray water, septic waste, etc.). The Maplewood Landfill currently has an active landfill gas collection system that is in operation; if odor problems or air quality problems occur, then the system will be expanded as needed (e.g., using additional extraction xxxxx or trenches or by placing less permeable cover and affected areas). As part of this project, WM has agreed to design and construct an active landfill gas collection system at the King Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx prior to the commencement of liquids addition, and to conduct Subpart WWW-compliant landfill gas collection and monitoring. Further, both the Maplewood and King Xxxxxx County Landfills have liner systems that are superior in performance to the liner system described above.
Requested Flexibility. This section is intended to describe the federal and state regulatory flexibility needed for this XL project. To the extent such action is necessary and appropriate, it will be provided as part of this project and subject to public notice and comment. In general, the County proposes to undertake a proposed bioreactor landfill project within the limitations established in this XL agreement. The County is requesting specific flexibility under the current federal regulations requirements for liquid addition as described below. Additionally, the County has agreed to request, and have incorporated, certain changes in its Title V air permit applicable to the Facility. As described in Section II, the addition of bulk liquids over a portion of Subcell 8-4 is expected to enhance the biological degradation of waste in the landfill. As part of the proposal, the County is requesting that the USEPA grant regulatory flexibility from the requirement of the RCRA that restricts application of bulk liquids in MSW landfills presented in 40 CFR 258.28(a), which provides as follows. " It permits the addition of leachate or gas condensate, provided the landfill unit is designed with a composite liner and leachate collection system as described in 40 C.F.R. § 258.40(a)(2). " It prohibits the placement of liquid wastes other than leachate, gas condensate, and non-septic household waste in any MSW landfill. " It permits the addition of septic waste Since the liner with which the Facility was constructed meets the performance, but not design, standard set forth in C.F.R. § 258.40(a)(2), regulatory flexibility is needed to allow recirculation of leachate over it. Additionally, RCRA prohibits the placement of liquid waste other than leachate/gas condensate and non septic household waste in any MSW landfill. Therefore the County needs regulatory change in order to add storm water to Subcell 8-4 of the Facility. Regarding LFG, a LFG collection system is already in operation at Cell 8. The County s Title V Permit application will incorporate the County s AOS as revised, which in turn will provide that prior to the introduction of liquids under this project, a baseline surface methane concentration level will be obtained to establish the baseline performance of the current gas collection and control system located in the test cell. Subsequent surface methane concentrations will be checked according to the requirements in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart WWW. If the quarterly surface monitoring est...
Requested Flexibility. As indicated above, there are no current full-scale commercial applications of this technology. As such, there is some risk in attempting to construct and operate a full-scale Steam-Reforming Gasifier. There are two main risks that Georgia-Pacific has identified. The first is that, once constructed, the unit may require an extended period of unforeseen problem resolution and operational deciphering that could possibly extend beyond the promulgated compliance date. The second risk is that the technology will simply not work in full-scale or for this particular operation, in which case a standard recovery boiler would have to be constructed. Again, this will require construction possibly well past the MACT II compliance date. Georgia-Pacific will propose that under either condition stated above, that the existing recovery technology (Smelters) be allowed to operate until either the Gasifier is made functional or the replacement Recovery Boiler is constructed and made operational. Georgia-Pacific also will request that the initial permit reflect emission limits expected from the conventional Xxxxxxxxx Recovery Boiler. Future limits for the Gasifier would be set based on actual performance data generated after start up. The future limits are anticipated to be lower. Georgia-Pacific will also request that the new steam to be generated by the new gasifier system be utilized in any area of the Big Island facility. In other words, the gasifier- generated steam will be used to offset steam generated by a higher cost fossil fuel. This anticipated cost savings is critical in the financial evaluation determining if we can proceed with the project. Currently, the operating permit for the Linerboard/OCC complex and the No.6 Power Boiler restricts the source of steam to operate the linerboard and OCC equipment. This requested flexibility will modify this permit to allow steam generated by the gasifier and associated steam-generating equipment to supply steam in place of some amount of steam from the No. 6 boiler. Additionally, some flexibility in emission limits will be required during the anticipated DOE requested trials on other types of pulp mill liquors. During this time period, Georgia-Pacific will be required to operate the smelters at some capacity to keep the mill in operation. As described previously, there will be some site-specific regulatory changes required at the federal level, and possibly some at the state level,
Requested Flexibility. Through this XL project, the Columbus Division of Water will be given regulatory flexibility from the LCR if a water treatment change is made, and if that change results in an increase in lead levels above the action level. Under Federal and State law, should the City exceed the lead AL, it must begin sampling LSLs immediately and replacing those lines that contribute more than 15 Fg/L of lead. This project will afford the City a temporary suspension of the LSL testing and replacement requirements (for up to [three years]) while the City makes treatment modifications. In exchange for this flexibility, the City Department of Water will contribute $300,000 a year for 15 years to the LSCP. Additionally, the City will take extraordinary steps in considering water treatment changes and conduct increased monitoring in order to maintain lead levels at the lowest levels possible.
Requested Flexibility. This Agreement will function as an “umbrella FPA,” and does not describe any specific federal regulatory flexibility. Facility-, group- or media-specific addenda that describe case- specific agreements with any associated regulatory or policy flexibilities will be negotiated and signed separately, and will be attached to this umbrella FPA. Laboratories are highly diverse facilities that conduct a wide range of research activities. Some of these activities are subject to government regulation, including regulation by EPA. The following is a partial list of EPA regulations that apply to laboratories: . RCRA S Storage and disposal of hazardous wastes S Regulation of underground storage tanks . EPCRA S Emergency planning S Chemical reporting S Annual inventory reporting S Annual release reporting . CAAA S NAAQS for facilities located in nonattainment areas S New source review permits for new facilities or modifications existing facilities (nonattainment areas) S PSD permits for new facilities or modifications to existing facilities (attainment areas) S MACT standards for major air toxics sources S Title V operating permits S Risk management planning S Use of ozone-depleting substances . CWA S Pretreatment for discharge of process waters S Control of stormwater discharges S Oil spill control and countermeasure plans . TSCA S Premanufacture notification for new chemicals S PCBs in electrical equipment S Asbestos insulation and building products S Lead in drinking water systems S Metalworking fluids S Storage and disposal of hazardous wastes S Regulation of underground storage tanks At this point in the development of the Labs21 initiative, EPA has not analyzed any requests for regulatory flexibility under regulations affecting laboratories. The inclusion of this list with this FPA does not imply that EPA has evaluated any specific flexibility as part of this umbrella FPA, nor is it intended to constitute a formal start to granting or committing to grant specific waivers.
Requested Flexibility. IP asks that its Androscoggin Mill be exempted from all BMP requirements specified in 40 CFR 430.03(c) through (j). EPA and the ME DEP intend to provide this flexibility by issuing site-specific rules that exempts IP from these requirements and incorporating these changes in applicable portions of IP’s reissued effluent discharge permit for that purpose. At the conclusion of the project, if the project is judged to be a success, EPA and ME DEP intend to allow IP to continue operating under the site-specific rule promulgated at the time of the FPA. However, the EPA and ME DEP may withdraw the exemption at any time in the future if the terms and objectives of the FPA are not met, or if the exemption becomes inconsistent with future statutory or regulatory requirements. The Project Signatories to the Agreement do not anticipate any need to provide flexibility from any additional requirements. If additional flexibility should become necessary and is determined to be appropriate by EPA or the ME DEP, the FPA will be renegotiated and will be subject to public notice and comment, as appropriate.
Requested Flexibility. This Agreement will function as an Aumbrella FPA@ and does not describe any specific federal or state regulatory flexibility. Media-specific Addenda that describe specific federal and/or state regulatory flexibilities to be granted under the Gold Track program are attached to this umbrella FPA. Each Addendum will identify: the flexibility negotiated by NJDEP, USEPA and the stakeholder group for a particular media, the superior environmental performance to be gained in connection with extending that media-specific flexibility, a description of the legal implementing mechanism (ie., rulemaking and/or permit modification) that will enable the granting of flexibility, and the evaluation process to judge the effectiveness and benefits gained from the granting flexibility. If, in the future, NJDEP wishes to amend the flexibilities offered under Gold Track beyond those currently specified in the attached Addenda, NJDEP will coordinate closely with USEPA in cases where the proposed regulatory flexibility affects a federally delegated, authorized or approved program. Any future amendments to the FPA or Addenda will be developed jointly by NJDEP and EPA in conjunction with stakeholder input, as described in Section VII. of this Agreement.
Requested Flexibility. IBM has proposed that EPA exempt IBM’s wastewater treatment sludge produced from its copper metallization process for semiconductor manufacture from the F006 definition (40 CFR 261.31) through a site-specific rulemaking. Through this proposal, IBM seeks to exempt the manufacturing process -- specifically copper metallization -- rather than delisting the wastewater treatment sludge, which would normally occur through EPA’s delisting process under 40 CFR 260.22.
Requested Flexibility. The Toxic Substances Control Act requires a 90 day waiting period before a new chemical that is subject to a PMN can be manufactured. Thus, EPA has 90 days to evaluate chemicals to determine whether there is an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. In many cases, the review does not require 90 days, with a lack of agency action determined at a meeting 20-25 days into the assessment process. The remaining 65-70 days involve no further agency analysis, yet a company submitting a PMN is unable to manufacture or import the chemical during this time, which causes delays in its ability to commercialize products, with resulting loss in income those new products would generate. By using the P2 Assessment Framework, Kodak intends to commercialize chemicals of lower potential risk and these chemicals will generally have been assessed within 20-25 days. Kodak seeks to manufacture these PMN chemicals in 45 days. Importantly, Kodak is not seeking regulatory flexibility from those instances when a chemical is not completely assessed in 20-25 days and enters the standard review process.(This is discussed more fully in Section IV(B)(3) of this FPA.
Requested Flexibility. In general, Buncombe County proposes to be able to undertake a leachate recirculation/gas recovery project that falls within the limitations established in this XL Agreement. Buncombe County is requesting specific flexibility under the current federal and state regulations for liquid addition to the landfill. Buncombe County is requesting that U.S. EPA grant site-specific regulatory flexibility from the prohibition in 40 CFR 258.28, Liquid Restrictions, which currently precludes the recirculation of leachate in Subtitle D landfill cells not constructed with the standard Subtitle D composite liner system. Buncombe County desires to construct the remainder of its landfill cells with an approved alternative liner while implementing this leachate recirculation/gas recovery project. Buncombe County is also requesting that U.S. EPA grant site-specific regulatory flexibility from the prohibition in 40 CFR 258.28, Liquid Restrictions, which currently precludes the addition of useful bulk or non-containerized liquid amendments. During periods of low leachate generation, Buncombe County desires to supplement the leachate flow with water from the adjoining French Broad River to maintain moisture levels in the landfill. Buncombe County requests that the State of North Carolina provide similar flexibility.
