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 primarily intended to describe federal flexibility needed for this XL project. It does also discuss State and local flexibility believed to be necessary to authorize this 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, Yolo County proposes to be able to undertake a proposed bioreactor landfill project that falls within the limitations established in the XL agreement. Yolo County is requesting specific flexibility under the current state and/or federal regulations requirements for liquid addition as described below. Liquids Addition: Yolo County is requesting that U.S. EPA grant site-specific regulatory flexibility from the prohibition in 40 CFR 258.28 Liquid Restrictions, which may preclude addition of useful bulk or non-containerized liquid amendments. The County is proposing to supplement the liquid addition with ground water, but would like to obtain the flexibility to possibly utilize other liquids such as xxxx xxxxxx from waste water treatment plant, septic waste, gray water, and food-processing wastes that is currently land applied. Liquidwastes such as these normally have no beneficial use, may instead beneficially enhance the biodegradation of solid waste in a landfill for this project. Yolo County also requests similar flexibility on liquid amendments from California and local regulatory entities. Several sections of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 27, Environmental Protection, address the recirculation of liquids in lined municipal waste landfills. While the regulations do not specifically endorse bioreactors like the regulations in the State of Washington, regulatory flexibility is provided. This portion of the agreement will describe specific regulations in Title 27 regarding recirculation. Title 27, Chapter 3, Subchapter 2, Article 2, Section 20200, Part (d)(3),Management of liquids at Landfills and Waste Piles states the following: "Liquid or semi-solid waste (i. e. waste containing less than 50% solids, by weight), other than dewatered sewage or water treatment sludge as described in § 20220 (c), shall not be discharged to Class III landfills. Exceptions may be granted by the RWQCB if the discharger can demonstrate that such discharge will not exceed the moisture holding capacity of the waste either initially, or as the result of waste management operations, compaction, or settlement, so long as s...
Requested Flexibility. This XL Project requires regulatory flexibility for the chemical recovery system (including the existing smelters and the black liquor gasification system); and the flexibility to change the Mini-Mill (No. 4 Paper Machine complex and its ancillary equipment) permit in accordance with current regulations. There are no current full-scale commercial applications of the black liquor Steam- Reforming gasification technology of the type proposed by Georgia-Pacific. Georgia- Pacific has identified two principal risks in attempting to construct and operate a gasification system. The first risk is that, once constructed, the gasification system will require an extended period of unforeseen problem resolution. During this commissioning period, the existing smelters must be available to process liquor to accommodate Georgia- Pacific’s ongoing production demands. The Parties recognize that the existing smelters cannot meet the standard of performance expected to be promulgated under MACT II, and that the commissioning period for the gasification system may extend beyond the applicable MACT II compliance date for existing sources (once established). The second risk is that the gasification system will fail (as defined in Project Element 9). In this case, Georgia-Pacific will construct a standard chemical recovery boiler in lieu of a gasification system to comply with MACT II, and will need to continue to operate the existing smelters, while the standard recovery boiler is constructed. Should either of these two situations occur, as part of this XL Project, Georgia-Pacific is requesting the flexibility to operate the existing smelters past the MACT II compliance date for existing sources (once established). There are three VADEQ permit actions necessary to implement this XL project. The first is a permit to construct and operate the new chemical recovery system. The second is to permit a Kraft liquor trial and the third is to change the steam utilization set in the permit for the Mini-Mill. The change is requested to account for the new steam production expected from combustion of the gasification system product gas. As a condition of receiving DOE funding for the gasification project, Georgia-Pacific has agreed to test a Kraft black liquor sample from a yet to be determined source. The details of this trial will be worked out at a later date; however, it is anticipated that the trial will take place after start-up and will not last more than a total of 500 hours, over ...
Requested Flexibility. Through this XLC 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 sampling 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 umbrella 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. 4.1.3 Additional Flexibility
Requested Flexibility. OMP is requesting that:
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.
