[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66672-66686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28415]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6896-7]
RIN 2060-AH13
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The
proposed rule is applicable to both major and area landfill sources,
and contains the same requirements as the Emission Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards (EG/NSPS) for MSW landfills. The proposed
rule adds startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) requirements, adds
operating condition deviations for out-of-bounds monitoring parameters,
and changes the reporting frequency for one type of report.
The proposed rule fulfills the requirements of section 112(d) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), which requires the Administrator to regulate
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed in section 112(b),
and helps implement the Urban Air Toxics Strategy developed under
section 112(k) of the CAA. The intent of the standards is to protect
the public health by requiring new and existing sources to control
emissions of HAP to the level reflecting the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). The HAP emitted by MSW landfills include, but are
not limited to, vinyl chloride, ethyl benzene, toluene, and benzene.
Each of the HAP emitted from MSW landfills can cause adverse health
effects provided sufficient exposure. For example, vinyl chloride can
adversely affect the central nervous system and has been shown to
increase the risk of liver cancer in humans, while benzene is known to
cause leukemia in humans.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before January 8, 2001.
Public Hearing: If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by November 27, 2000, a public hearing will be held on
December 7, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in
duplicate, if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket No. A-98-28, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.
The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person
listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10:00
a.m. and will be held at EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or an alternate site nearby.
Docket. Docket No. A-98-28 for this proposal and associated Docket
No. A-88-09 contain supporting information used in developing the
standards. These dockets are located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor,
central mall), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Michele Laur, Waste and Chemical
Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5256, facsimile number (919) 541-
0246, electronic mail (e-mail) address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by e-mail to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and
encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket
number: Docket No. A-98-28. No confidential business information (CBI)
should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online
at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information''.
Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to
the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that
proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket:
Attention: Ms. Michele Laur, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room
740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27701. Do not
submit CBI electronically.
The EPA will disclose information identified as ``Confidential
Business Information'' only to the extent allowed and by the procedures
set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies
a submission when it is received by the EPA, the information may be
made available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact JoLynn
Collins, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standard Division
(MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
[[Page 66673]]
27711, telephone (919) 541-5671, at least 2 days in advance of the
public hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these
proposed emission standards.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered by the EPA in the development of this action.
The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the
rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members
of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their
preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the
case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The
regulatory text and other materials related to this action are
available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request
from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this action is also available on the WWW through
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of
this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The
TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of
air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed,
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
potentially
Category NAICS code SIC code regulated
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry: Air and water 924110 9511 Solid waste
resource and solid waste landfills.
management.
Industry: Refuse systems-- 562212 4953 Solid waste
solid waste landfills. landfills.
State, local, and Tribal 562212 4953 Solid waste
government agencies. 924110 landfills; Air
and water
resource and
solid waste
management.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
Secs. 63.1935 and 63.1940 of proposed subpart AAAA. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline
The information presented in the preamble is organized as follows:
I. Introduction and Background Information
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What are the health effects associated with municipal solid
waste landfills?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What source categories are affected by this proposed rule?
B. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the
emissions?
C. What is the affected source?
D. What would the proposed rule require?
E. When would I have to begin complying with the proposed rule?
F. Are new and existing sources defined differently for purposes
of the proposed rule than for the EG/NSPS and what is the effect of
this difference?
G. How must I demonstrate compliance?
III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule
A. How did EPA select the affected source?
B. How did EPA determine the basis and level of the proposed
rule for existing and new major sources?
C. How did EPA determine the standard for area sources?
D. Why is NMOC used as a surrogate for HAP?
E. How did EPA select the format of the standard?
F. How did EPA determine the requirements of the proposed rule?
G. What is the basis for the startup, shutdown, and malfunction,
and monitoring and reporting requirements?
H. How did EPA determine compliance dates?
I. What are some of the special issues affecting MSW landfills?
IV. Summary of the Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
C. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in This Document
ASCII--American Standard Code for Information Interchange
CAA--Clean Air Act
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CEMS--continuous emissions monitoring systems
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CMS--continuous monitoring system
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
EG--emission guidelines
FR--Federal Register
GACT--generally available control technology
HAP--hazardous air pollutants
ICR--Information Collection Request
kg/year--kilograms per year
m\3\--cubic meters
MACT--maximum achievable control technology
mg/dscm--milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
mg/m\3\--milligrams per cubic meter
Mg/year--megagrams per year
MSW--municipal solid waste
NAICS--North American Industrial Classification System
NESHAP--national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
ng/dscm--nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
NMOC--nonmethane organic compounds
NSPS--new source performance standards
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS--Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
OP--Office of Policy
PCS--petroleum contaminated soils
PMACT--presumptive maximum achievable control technology
ppmv--parts per million by volume
Pub. L.--Public Law
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SIC--Standard Industrial Classification
SSM--startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TTN--Technology Transfer Network
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C.--United States Code
VOC--volatile organic compounds
[[Page 66674]]
I. Introduction and Background Information
The proposed subpart AAAA is based on the emission guidelines and
new source performance standards in 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and
WWW, with some additional requirements, and further ensures the
reduction of HAP emissions from MSW landfills. The additional
requirements above and beyond the EG/NSPS are provisions for a SSM plan
with the associated records and reports, reporting of operating
condition deviations for out-of-range monitoring parameters, and one
type of annual report required by the EG/NSPS is required to be
submitted every 6 months instead of once a year.
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Under section 112(d) of the CAA, we are required to regulate major
sources of the 188 HAP listed in section 112(b). On July 16, 1992, we
published a list of industrial source categories, which included MSW
landfills, that emit one or more of these HAP. We must promulgate
standards for the control of emissions of HAP from both new and
existing major source MSW landfills. For ``major'' source MSW landfills
(those that emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a listed pollutant
or 25 tpy or more of a combination of pollutants), the CAA requires us
to develop standards that require the application of MACT.
Under section 112(k) of the CAA, EPA developed a strategy to
control emissions of HAP from area sources in urban areas, identifying
33 HAP that present the greatest threat to public health in the largest
number of urban areas as the result of emissions from area sources.
Municipal solid waste landfills were listed as one of the 29 area
source categories on July 19, 1999 because 13 of the listed HAP are
emitted from MSW landfills (64 FR 38706).
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
The CAA requires NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction
in emissions of HAP that is achievable for new and existing major
sources. This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that all major hazardous air pollutant emission sources
achieve the level of control already achieved by the better-controlled
and lower-emitting sources in each category. For new sources, the MACT
floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost, nonair quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
Finally, the CAA allows NESHAP to reflect an alternative standard
for area sources. The alternative standard provides for the use of
generally available control technologies (GACT) or management practices
to reduce emissions of HAP.
C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills?
The proposed rule ensures reductions of emissions of nearly 30 HAP
including, but not limited to, vinyl chloride, ethyl benzene, toluene,
and benzene. The degree of adverse effects to human health from
exposure to these HAP can range from mild to severe. The extent and
degree to which the human health effects may be experienced are
dependent upon the ambient concentration observed in the area (as
influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain);
the frequency of and duration of exposures; characteristics of exposed
individuals (genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and
lifestyle), which vary significantly with the population; and
pollutant-specific characteristics (toxicity, half-life in the
environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence).
Vinyl Chloride. Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of vinyl
chloride in air has resulted in central nervous system (CNS) effects,
such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches in humans. Chronic (long-
term) exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation and oral exposure
in humans has resulted in liver damage. There are human and animal
studies showing adverse effects which raise a concern about potential
reproductive and developmental hazards to humans from exposure to vinyl
chloride. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via
inhalation. Vinyl chloride exposure has been shown to increase the risk
of a rare form of liver cancer in humans. The EPA has classified vinyl
chloride as a Group A, known human carcinogen.
Ethyl Benzene. Acute exposure to ethyl benzene in humans results in
respiratory effects, such as throat irritation and chest constriction,
irritation of the eyes, and neurological effects such as dizziness.
Chronic exposure to ethyl benzene by inhalation in humans has shown
conflicting results regarding its effects on the blood. Animal studies
have reported effects on the blood, liver, and kidneys from chronic
inhalation exposure to ethyl benzene. No information is available on
the developmental or reproductive effects of ethyl benzene in humans,
but animal studies have reported developmental effects, including birth
defects in animals exposed via inhalation. The EPA has classified ethyl
benzene in Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
Toluene. Acute inhalation of toluene by humans may cause effects to
the CNS, such as fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and nausea, as well as
irregular heartbeat. Repeated exposure to high concentrations may
induce loss of coordination, tremors, decreased brain size, involuntary
eye movements, and impaired speech, hearing, and vision. Chronic
inhalation exposure of humans to lower levels of toluene also causes
irritation of the upper respiratory tract, eye irritation, sore throat,
nausea, dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep. Studies of
children of pregnant women exposed by inhalation to toluene or to mixed
solvents have reported CNS problems, facial and limb abnormalities, and
delayed development. In addition, inhalation of toluene during
pregnancy may increase the risk of spontaneous abortion. The EPA has
developed a reference concentration of 0.4 milligrams per cubic meter
for toluene. Inhalation of this concentration or less over a lifetime
would be unlikely to result in adverse noncancer effects. No data exist
that suggest toluene is carcinogenic. The EPA has classified toluene in
Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
Benzene. Acute inhalation exposure of humans to benzene may cause
drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory
tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness. Chronic
inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in the blood,
including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia, in
occupational settings. Reproductive effects have been reported for
women exposed by inhalation to high levels, and adverse effects on the
[[Page 66675]]
developing fetus have been observed in animal tests. Increased
incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood
cells) has been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene.
The EPA has classified benzene as a Group A, known human carcinogen.
The proposed rule reduces nonhazardous air pollutant volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions as well. Emissions of VOC have been
associated with a variety of health and welfare impacts. Volatile
organic compound emissions, together with nitrogen oxides, are
precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone, or smog. Exposure to
ambient ozone is responsible for a series of public health impacts,
such as alterations in lung capacity; eye, nose, and throat irritation;
nausea; and aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Ozone exposure
can also damage forests and crops.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule contains the same requirements as the EG/NSPS,
plus SSM definition and reporting of deviations for out-of-range
monitoring parameters. Also, the proposed rule requires compliance
reporting every 6 months while the EG/NSPS requires annual reporting.
A. What Source Categories Are Affected by This Proposed Rule?
The proposed rule applies to all MSW landfills that are major
sources or are co-located with a major source, and some landfills that
are area sources. However, most requirements are proposed to take
effect when landfills emit equal to or greater than 50 megagrams per
year (Mg/year) nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) and have a design
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million cubic
meters (m3).
We estimate that all MSW landfills that are major sources of HAP
have a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m3 and emit or will emit 50 Mg/yr or greater of
NMOC. Therefore the requirements of the proposed rule would apply to
all MSW landfill major sources. Several MSW landfill area sources would
also be subject to the requirements of these proposed standards.
B. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
The majority of emissions of HAP at MSW landfills come from the
natural anaerobic (without air) decomposition of municipal solid waste.
Typical municipal solid waste contains household and commercial
rubbish, paints, solvents, pesticides, and adhesives, which contain
numerous organic compounds. During the decomposition process, landfill
gas is generated. This gas is primarily composed of methane and carbon
dioxide. The organic compounds in the decomposing waste are stripped
from the waste by these gases and transported to the surface, or the
organic compounds travel underground to other locations prior to their
release.
A second but significantly lesser source of emissions of HAP comes
from the collection, storage and treatment of landfill leachate.
Landfill leachate is a liquid generated during the waste decomposition
process. This liquid contains a much smaller concentration of the same
HAP contained in landfill gas. During collection, storage and
treatment, small amounts of HAP may volatilize to the air or may come
in contact with groundwater.
Regardless of the emission pathway, it is the decomposition of
organic-containing solid waste that is the source of the HAP. Landfills
have been identified as the source of nearly 30 HAP, including but not
limited to toluene, ethyl benzene, vinyl chloride and benzene.
Estimated uncontrolled emissions from all landfills can be as high as
36,000 tpy.
C. What Is the Affected Source?
The affected source is the entire municipal solid waste landfill in
a contiguous geographical space where household waste is placed in or
on the land and consists of one or more cells that are under common
ownership or control. The facility may receive household waste as well
as other types of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Subtitle D waste. The affected source may also include equipment for
the collection and control of landfill gas or leachate.
D. What Would the Proposed Rule Require?
This proposed rule does not apply to landfills with a design
capacity less than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3 or that
emit less than 50 Mg/yr of NMOC; these landfills continue to remain
subject to the provisions of the EG/NSPS as applicable. Landfills with
a design capacity of greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m3 and that emit at least 50 Mg/yr NMOC also would
continue to be subject to the EG/NSPS as applicable, but there are
additional requirements in this proposed rule that would apply. Listed
below are the requirements of the proposed rule that are beyond the EG/
NSPS requirements.
You would be required to meet the SSM requirements that are listed
in the general provisions to 40 CFR part 63. You would develop and
implement a written SSM plan that describes, in detail, the procedures
for operating and maintaining the collection and control system and the
continuous monitoring system (CMS) during periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (Sec. 63.6(e)(3)). There are also recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for SSM incidents.
The proposed rule would also require you to operate the control
device within the operating parameter boundaries as described in
Sec. 60.758(c)(1) and to continuously monitor control device operating
parameters. Compliance with the operating limits is demonstrated when
monitoring data show that the gas control devices are operating within
the established operating parameter range. Compliance also occurs when
data quality is sufficient to constitute a valid hour of data in a 3-
hour block period.
For the proposed rule, deviations occur when a source's 3-hour
average falls outside the established boundaries. A deviation also
occurs when more than 1 hour in a 3-hour average is considered invalid.
Monitoring data are insufficient to calculate a valid hourly average if
measured values are unavailable for more than one 15-minute period
within the hour. If such a deviation occurs, then the source may be in
violation of operating conditions (that is, in violation of proper
operation and maintenance of a control device). However, consistent
with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a
period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating
in accordance with the SSM plan. The Administrator will determine
whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.6(e). (It should be noted that the EG/NSPS limits the duration
of startup, shutdown or malfunction. See Sec. 60.755(e).)
With one exception, the proposed rule will also require you to
submit the reports that are specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW,
or in the Federal plan, the EPA-approved State plan, or the Tribal plan
that implements 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cc, whichever is applicable. As
an exception, the report required in Sec. 60.757(f) would be submitted
every 6 months rather than annually. This report pertains to the value
and duration that control devices were operating in out-of-bounds
conditions, the duration of periods
[[Page 66676]]
when the landfill gas stream was diverted from the control device(s),
the location of areas that exceed the 500 parts per million methane
concentration limit, and the dates of installation and location of each
added well or collection system expansion.
E. When Would I Have To Begin Complying With the Proposed Rule?
If your landfill is a new affected source, you would need to comply
with the proposed rule by [the effective date of the final rule] or at
the time you begin operating, whichever occurs last. If your landfill
is an existing affected source, you would need to comply with the
proposed rule by 1 year after [the effective date of the final rule].
The compliance dates and time line for the EG/NSPS are unaffected by
this proposed rule. It is important to note that to be in compliance
with the proposed rule, you must follow the requirements of the EG/
NSPS, and you must comply with the additional requirements included in
proposed subpart AAAA.
F. Are New and Existing Sources Defined Differently for Purposes of the
Proposed Rule Than for the EG/NSPS and What Is the Effect of This
Difference?
Yes, there is a difference. For the proposed rule, a new affected
source is one that commenced construction or reconstruction (defined in
40 CFR part 63, subpart A) after November 7, 2000. An existing affected
source is any affected source that is not a new source, that is, any
source that commenced construction on or before November 7, 2000 and
accepted waste at anytime since November 8, 1987.
For purposes of the NSPS, a new source is each MSW landfill for
which construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced on or
after May 30, 1991. For purposes of the EG, an existing source is any
MSW landfill that is not a new source and has accepted waste since
November 8, 1987.
Because regulatory impacts can vary based on these different
definitions, it is important for sources to know how they are defined
and the regulatory implications for each rule that applies to them. The
regulatory implications of new versus existing source determination for
sources affected by the EG/NSPS are well understood, unaffected by this
proposed rule, and, thus, will not be discussed further here. The
regulatory implications of new versus existing source determination for
sources affected by this proposed rule are limited to compliance
timing. While new sources must comply with the proposed subpart by the
publication date of the final rule or at the time they begin operating,
existing sources must comply with the proposed subpart within 1 year of
the publication of the final rule.
G. How Must I Demonstrate Compliance?
You must demonstrate compliance by meeting the requirements in the
EG/NSPS and by maintaining monitoring parameters within acceptable
ranges. In addition, you must submit reports every 6 months which must
include any notifications of deviations from the monitoring parameter
values. You must develop and implement a written SSM plan according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). If you take action during a SSM
event, you must keep records for that SSM event which demonstrate that
you followed the procedures specified in the SSM plan. You must submit
a report every 6 months if the action is consistent with the SSM plan.
However, if the action is not consistent with the SSM plan, you must
notify EPA within 2 days of the SSM event and must follow up with a
letter within 7 days of the event (Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)).
III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule
A. How Did EPA Select the Affected Source?
Selection of the affected source defines the boundary of the unit
to which the proposed rule applies. This definition is used in
combination with the term ``reconstruction'', defined in Sec. 63.2, to
determine when an ``existing source'' becomes a ``new source''.
The affected source can be narrowly or broadly defined. If narrowly
defined, identification as a new source may occur sooner. By contrast,
identification may be delayed or never occur if the affected source is
broadly defined.
A change to new source status can result in the application of more
stringent control requirements or a shorter time to comply. Since the
reconstruction of an existing source may result in greater emissions of
HAP, it may be desirable to require greater or earlier control.
During the development of the proposed rule, we considered the
impact of a narrow and broad affected source definition. This
evaluation took into consideration the nature of the source category,
noting that landfills do not reconstruct in the same sense as defined
in Sec. 63.2. In addition, we noted that this proposal requires the
same level of control for new and existing sources. Based on this
evaluation, we decided to broadly define the affected source.
B. How Did EPA Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Rule for
Existing and New Major Sources?
To determine the basis and level of control for existing and new
major sources, we gathered readily available data on the physical,
operational, and emission characteristics of landfills. In addition, we
made site visits to 20 landfills in seven States to further
characterize the source and the control technologies in use. From these
data, we developed a database for MSW landfills.
1. How Did EPA Determine the MACT Floor?
To determine the MACT floor for existing sources, we used collected
data to estimate emissions, determine major and area source status, and
identify controls currently in use at landfills. We determined the
source status for 9,539 landfills based on maximum uncontrolled
emission estimates from landfill gas. We estimated 1,140 facilities
are, or will be, major sources of HAP.
Similarly, we used maximum NMOC emission estimates and landfill
capacity data to determine the number of landfills subject to the
landfill gas collection and control requirements of the EG/NSPS. We
identified 1,312 facilities subject to the EG/NSPS level of control. We
determined that the 1,140 major sources are a subset of the EG/NSPS
facilities. Since substantially greater than 12 percent of the existing
major sources apply this level of control, we determined that the MACT
floor for existing sources is the EG/NSPS level of control.
To determine the MACT floor for new sources, we tried to locate
information identifying gas control technologies that are more
effective than the controls required by the EG/NSPS. We were unable to
locate any information identifying any landfill gas emissions control
technologies that are more effective in reducing HAP emissions than the
controls required under the EG/NSPS for MSW landfills. Because no
better controls are available, the EG/NSPS is the emission control
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source and,
therefore, is also the MACT floor for new sources.
The EG/NSPS do not address emissions from landfill wastewater.
Landfill wastewater emissions were evaluated for the proposed rule
because emissions of HAP are possible at any point in a landfill
wastewater collection, storage, and treatment system that is
[[Page 66677]]
open to the atmosphere. However, we have found no information on the
prevalence or effectiveness of any practices that may reduce air
emissions from wastewater collection and treatment at landfills. As a
result, we have been unable to identify a MACT floor for landfill
wastewater emission points.
Limited data are available to characterize the potential emissions
of HAP from landfill wastewater. However, the available data indicate
that volatile concentrations of HAP in landfill wastewater are low. We
developed emission estimates for HAP using several worst case
assumptions, such as assuming that all HAP from landfill wastewater
would volatilize and be released to the atmosphere, and using median
reported HAP concentrations and maximum estimates of all wastewater
produced at landfills. Even with these conservative assumptions, we
estimate that total nationwide emissions from wastewater operations at
all of the landfills in the United States are no more than 57 tpy of
HAP. We expect that this estimate is high for the reasons stated. When
considering that there are more than 10,000 landfills in the United
States, the amount of HAP released from any one landfill's wastewater
operations would be very small. We estimate that emissions from
landfill wastewater represent no more than 0.4 percent of the combined
landfill gas-wastewater emissions.
Metal HAP, including mercury, may be emitted from landfills and
would not be controlled by the EG/NSPS control technologies. No
controls for emissions of metal HAP have been demonstrated for landfill
gas or landfill gas combustion technologies. Therefore, the MACT floor
for metal HAP is no control.
2. How Did EPA Consider Beyond-the-Floor Options?
The EG/NSPS requirements for landfill gas collection and emissions
reductions are the best available control for landfill gas. Therefore,
there were no options to consider that were more stringent than the
MACT floor for landfill gas control. The gas collection system required
by the EG/NSPS (described in Sec. 60.753) is designed to capture as
much landfill gas as possible and requires several parameters to be
monitored to ensure this, including pressure, nitrogen or oxygen
concentration, temperature, and surface methane concentration. There
are no data indicating that collection systems are in use that are more
effective than those required by the EG/NSPS.
Similarly, there are no known technologies that can regularly
achieve reduction efficiencies greater than those specified in the EG/
NSPS. The EG/NSPS regulations require 98 percent reduction efficiency
for NMOC, or a maximum outlet concentration of 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) if an enclosed combustion device is used. These reduction
efficiencies can be regularly achieved by several types of control
technologies with proper operation.
Because there are no collection and control technologies more
stringent than the EG/NSPS, MACT for both existing and new sources is
the same as the MACT floor, that is the control level of the EG/NSPS.
We have been unable to identify a MACT floor for landfill
wastewater because we have not found information on the prevalence of
any practices that may reduce air emissions from wastewater collection
and treatment. Therefore, we were unable to consider control options,
and we propose that the MACT not include any control requirements or
emission limits for these operations. As previously stated, emissions
from landfill wastewater are expected to be minimal, no more than 0.4
percent of all landfill emissions.
The EG/NSPS do not require control of emissions of metal HAP, and
no capture devices or controls for metals have been demonstrated for
landfill gas or for landfill gas combustion technologies. For this
reason, the MACT floor and the MACT for control of metal HAP at new and
existing major source landfills are no control, and no other options
were considered.
C. How Did EPA Determine the Standard for Area Sources?
The CAA requires control of area sources listed pursuant to section
112(c). Under section 112(k), we must consider regulation of any listed
area source category and ultimately regulate enough such categories to
account for 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of the identified
HAP. We are proposing to regulate some area source landfills, but do
not believe that all area source landfills warrant regulation to meet
the requirements of section 112(k).
Area sources may be controlled using MACT or GACT. To determine
control requirements for area sources, we reviewed the area sources and
their emissions profile and are proposing to apply GACT to these
sources. For MSW area source landfills that are 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m3 or greater in design capacity, and that emit 50
Mg per year or more of NMOC (or approximately 5.9 Mg of HAP per year),
EPA has selected GACT to be the same as MACT. The EG/NSPS already cover
these sources, so requiring GACT does not impose additional control
burdens on these sources. Additionally, as discussed in the previous
section, there are no control options more stringent than those
required by the EG/NSPS.
For MSW landfills smaller than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million
m3, or that emit less than 50 Mg per year of NMOC, this
proposal requires no control for area sources. These landfills are
costly to control, and they emit relatively little HAP. During the
development of the EG/NSPS, we also made a decision not to control
these smaller landfills. As discussed in the preamble to the EG/NSPS
(61 FR 9916), the design capacity exemption of 2.5 million Mg or 2.5
million m3 excludes those landfills that can least afford
the cost of landfill gas collection and control systems, for example,
small businesses and, particularly, municipalities. Furthermore, the
analysis for the EG/NSPS found that a more stringent design capacity
exemption level would increase the number of landfills required to
apply control, while only achieving an additional 25 percent NMOC
emissions reduction. The emission rate cutoff of 50 Mg per year of
NMOC, in conjunction with the design capacity exemption, required
control of less than 5 percent of all landfills (at the time of EG/NSPS
promulgation), but reduced NMOC emissions by approximately 53 percent.
Other reasons for exempting the smaller area source landfills from
control requirements exist. For example, many existing area source MSW
landfills are closed (82 percent were closed as of January 1999).
Landfill emissions are at their highest level within the year right
after closure and then begin to decrease steadily. Thus, landfills are
a unique emissions source, because they have naturally diminishing
emissions over time. It makes little sense to require expensive
controls for small, closed area source landfills when their emissions
are low and will decrease over time. As emissions decrease, there would
be a dramatic decrease in the average cost effectiveness per Mg of NMOC
reduction achieved through control of small, closed area source
landfills.
Most new landfills will be much larger than the design capacity
cutoff of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3. Economies-of-
scale make it cheaper to operate larger facilities, thus encouraging
companies and municipalities to build ever larger landfills that
receive waste from larger areas. Whereas waste was previously moved not
much farther than 15 miles from point-of-origin to the landfill, it
[[Page 66678]]
now moves an average of 45 miles, and the trend is increasing. The
effect of this will be to ensure that future facilities will be very
large to be cost competitive.
D. Why Is NMOC Used As a Surrogate for HAP?
The proposed rule would require the collection and control of
landfill gas, which is the same pollutant regulated by the EG/NSPS. By
volume, landfill gas is approximately 50 percent methane, 50 percent
carbon dioxide, and less than 1 percent of many different NMOC.
Nonmethane organic compounds include VOC, HAP, and odorous compounds.
Therefore, by collecting and controlling landfill gas, HAP emitted by
landfills are collected and controlled. To reduce the burden and
complexity of measuring and monitoring the various HAP, NMOC is
specified as a surrogate in the proposed rule for determining the
applicability of collection and control of HAP emissions. Nonmethane
organic compounds are an appropriate surrogate for HAP because all HAP
are contained in the NMOC portion of landfill gas. Also, landfill
owners and operators are already required to estimate NMOC under the
EG/NSPS. It is not necessary to increase the burden by requiring
specific HAP measurements.
E. How Did EPA Select the Format of the Standard?
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires that emission standards for
control of HAP be prescribed unless, in the judgement of the
Administrator, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce emission
standards. Section 112(h) identifies two conditions under which it is
not considered feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards: (1)
If the HAP cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and
constructed to emit or capture such pollutant, or (2) if the
application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources
is not practicable due to technological and economic limitation. If it
is not feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards, then the
Administrator may instead promulgate design, equipment, work practice,
and operational standards, or a combination of these.
We concluded that the format used in the EG/NSPS was appropriate
for the proposed rule for this source category for the same reasons the
format was selected for the EG/NSPS. An emission standard is not
appropriate for gas collection system design because it is not feasible
to measure gas generated versus gas collected at a landfill, and then
to determine what performance a collection system is achieving.
Monitoring of surface concentration alone will not demonstrate the
fraction of gas that is collected, nor will it determine whether the
system is designed and performing optimally. However, monitoring
surface concentrations will indicate when cover maintenance and well
adjustments should be made, as well as when additional wells should be
added to the collection system. Surface monitoring also provides a
safeguard against uncertainties in determining the area of influence of
the wells.
Because an emission standard is not feasible for gas collection, a
design and operational standard was set under the EG/NSPS for gas
collection systems. The specifications for active collection systems do
not give prescriptive design specifications, but they do present
criteria on which to base a collection system design plan. The EG/NSPS
set an emission standard for the control devices because once gas is
collected, the destruction efficiency of a control device can be
established.
F. How Did EPA Determine the Requirements of the Proposed Rule?
To determine the requirements of the proposed rule, the EPA
compared the two statutory authorities that regulate landfills.
Landfills are already regulated in the EG/NSPS under authority of
section 111 of the CAA. The proposed rule would regulate landfills as
required under section 112. We compared the requirements of section
112, which requires regulations to control HAP, to the requirements of
section 111, which regulates the emissions of landfill gas pursuant to
the EG/NSPS. We determined that there are no better controls than the
collection and control system required by the EG/NSPS. Therefore, the
proposed rule incorporates the control requirements of the EG/NSPS as
MACT. The next step was to determine if the rules promulgated under
section 111 met all the section 112 rule requirements.
We compared the general provisions developed for regulations under
these two CAA sections. The essential differences between the section
111 general provisions and the section 112 general provisions are the
SSM provisions, continuous parameter monitoring data being a measure of
compliance with the operating conditions, and reporting of deviations
every 6 months as opposed to annual reporting. Therefore, the proposed
rule contains the provisions of the EG/NSPS, plus the provisions
discussed above from section 112.
G. What Is the Basis for the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction and
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements?
In the proposed rule, we have included the recordkeeping
requirements in the 40 CFR part 63 general provisions (59 FR 12408,
March 16, 1994) requiring operators to develop a plan for how gas
collection and control systems would be operated during SSM events, and
how malfunctioning gas collection and control systems would be
repaired. We believe that it is appropriate to require compliance on a
continual basis for sources that emit HAP. We require a SSM plan
because deviations occur during SSM events, that is, air pollution is
emitted in quantities greater than anticipated by the applicable
standards. The plan is a means to minimize the emissions to the extent
possible.
Deviations from the requirements of the standards are typically
direct indications of noncompliance with the emission standards, and,
therefore, are directly enforceable. Therefore, an owner or operator
must demonstrate that the SSM plan was followed during an SSM event
that has caused the deviation to certify compliance with the emission
standards.
You must keep records of all periods of SSM events of gas
collection and control equipment and all measurements taken during
these periods. This approach is consistent with the requirement that
control systems be operated at all times, but it allows special
situations to occur, such as unpredicted and reasonably unavoidable
failures of air pollution control systems, when it is technically
impossible to properly operate these systems.
Rules developed under section 112 of the CAA typically include
monitoring strategies that incorporate the concepts of enhanced
monitoring that were established in section 114(a)(3) of the CAA. This
approach is designed to ensure that monitoring procedures developed for
section 112 standards provide data that can be used to determine
compliance with applicable standards, including emission standards.
For the proposed rule, continuous emissions monitoring systems
(CEMS) are not appropriate. We considered use of CEM but found them to
be infeasible due to the lack of CEM technology for landfill sources
regulated by the proposed rule. Therefore, we established operating
parameters that must be continuously monitored to determine a
facility's compliance status.
[[Page 66679]]
To determine compliance status, parameters must be monitored with a
frequency that will allow the source owner or operator to certify
whether compliance is continuous or intermittent for each recordkeeping
period associated with the applicable emission limitation or standard.
For the proposed rule, control device operating parameters will be
directly enforceable and will be used to determine a source's
compliance status.
H. How Did EPA Determine Compliance Dates?
The compliance date for existing sources is required by section
112(i)(3) of the CAA to be as ``* * * expeditiously as practicable, but
in no event later than 3 years after the effective date * * *.'' We are
proposing a compliance date of 1 year after publication of the final
rule for existing sources. One year was chosen because much of the
effort required to comply with the proposed rule is already taken into
account under compliance with the EG/NSPS. The only additional
requirement under the proposed rule will be for a source to prepare a
SSM plan and prepare to submit reports every 6 months rather than
annually under the EG/NSPS. We consider 1 year sufficient time to make
these adjustments. Also, the additional requirements do not go into
effect until a landfill has met the collection control applicability
criteria of the EG/NSPS (design capacity of equal to or greater than
2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 and emit equal to or
greater than 50 Mg/yr of NMOC). This may result in certain sources
having additional time to prepare for compliance with the proposed
rule.
The compliance date for new sources must be the effective date of
the final rule as required by section 112(i)(1) of the CAA. Section
112(d)(10) provides that regulations promulgated under section 112(d)
are effective upon publication. However, although a new source must be
in compliance by the effective date of the final rule, a majority of
the provisions of the proposed rule will only apply to landfills with a
design capacity of equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m3, and will not take effect until a source emits
equal to or greater than 50 Mg/year of NMOC, and is required to install
controls under the EG/NSPS.
Because of the large number of landfills, the nature of landfills
history, and the fact that emissions steadily decrease after closure,
we determined that an applicability date was needed to make the
proposed rule manageable. November 8, 1987 was chosen as that date for
the reasons outlined in the preamble of the proposed EG/NSPS (56 FR
24468, May 30, 1991).
I. What Are Some of the Special Issues Affecting MSW Landfills?
1. Petroleum Contaminated Soil
The majority of emissions of HAP at MSW landfills come from the
biodegradation of the municipal solid waste in the landfill in the form
of landfill gas emissions. However, some landfills may also emit HAP
from volatilization of HAP contained in their surface covers if they
use petroleum contaminated soils (PCS) as cover material.
Available information indicates several States allow the use of PCS
as daily cover, but we do not know how many landfills actually use PCS.
Also, most States impose some level of restriction on the use of PCS,
such as limiting concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons allowed
in the soil, but those restrictions appear to be based on water quality
concerns and vary by State, or sometimes on a case-by-case basis within
a State.
Additionally, it appears that PCS used at landfills may be
declining. It appears that most PCS used at landfills are obtained from
the excavation and remediation of underground storage tanks. Available
information indicates that the number of underground storage tanks that
are being excavated for removal is declining and that, in many
instances, States are simply allowing the excavated soil to be returned
to the excavation site. Therefore, we believe that the amount of PCS
available for use as cover material at landfills is declining. Finally,
little is known about control of air emissions from PCS in use at
landfills, but available information indicates that there is little or
no control. An important consideration in this matter is one of overall
emissions. Again, evidence indicates that the majority of air emissions
from PCS may occur during excavation, storage, and transport prior to
entering the boundaries of a landfill for use as cover material.
We are soliciting comment about the use of PCS at MSW landfills.
Specifically, we are interested in any information regarding the amount
of PCS used and the number of landfills using them, as well as levels
of contamination (in terms of total petroleum hydrocarbon
concentrations or total benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene).
On the basis of our current information on emissions and controls for
landfilling PCS, we do not consider this a landfill issue. We plan to
evaluate PCS in the context of a future MACT standard for site
remediation activities.
2. Mercury Emissions From Landfills
We are also seeking information with respect to mercury emissions
from landfills. Municipal solid waste landfills receive refuse that
contains mercury in organic and inorganic forms. Common wastes that
contain mercury that are routinely disposed of in landfills include
thermometers, batteries, light switches, thermostats, and fluorescent
lights. Mercury has been identified as one of the many HAP present in
landfill gas. Furthermore, mercury has been identified in emissions
from the working face of landfills, that is, it is emitted from waste
being deposited at the surface of the landfill prior to burial. Mercury
emissions have also been measured in trucks transporting waste to
landfills and in waste transfer containers, such as dumpsters and
curbside waste carts. Thus, it is clear that mercury is emitted from
MSW prior to the waste entering landfills.
Insufficient data are available to us to adequately characterize
the concentrations of mercury in landfill gas, the emissions of mercury
in fugitive landfill gas, and in residuals from landfill gas combustion
devices. Although we have concluded that the MACT floor for mercury
control is no control, we are interested in characterizing mercury in
landfill gas because of its bioaccumulative capacity and known health
effects. We specifically request comment or data on mercury
concentrations in landfill gas, mercury emissions from fugitive
landfill gas, and from landfill gas control devices.
3. Bioreactor Operation of Landfills
Conventional MSW landfills currently practice ``dry tomb''
operations. Dry tomb operations means the infiltration of liquids into
the solid waste stream is minimized. This can be accomplished by
placement of bottom and side liners and by placement of a low
permeability final cap over the waste. In addition, some sites install
and operate systems to remove leachate produced during the natural
biodegradation process. The rationale for using this method was
minimization of groundwater contamination. The method also resulted in
a slower biodegradation process and reduced landfill gas.
A newer concept, bioreactor operation, is gaining interest in the
solid waste industry. In contrast to conventional landfilling,
bioreactor operation attempts to maximize liquid infiltration of the
solid waste stream by
[[Page 66680]]
leachate recirculation and in some cases by the introduction of other
liquids. Bioreactor landfill operations can take one of two forms,
aerobic or anaerobic, each with its own potential benefits and risks.
In general, the rationale for using either or both of these methods is
the potential achievement of improved environmental and economic
benefits such as:
More rapid biodegradation and earlier stabilization of
waste;
Extended use of current sites and reduced need for new
sites;
Improved quality of leachate and reduced risk of
groundwater contamination; and
Earlier and more rapid generation of landfill gas
resulting in more economical energy recovery.
While we agree that some environmental benefits may result from
either or both forms of bioreactor operation at landfills, we are
concerned about the potential impact on public health and the
environment.
The operation of a landfill as an aerobic bioreactor requires the
injection of air along with the addition of liquids. This operation may
result in the rapid decomposition of waste, the generation of large
quantities of gases such as carbon dioxide, and increased internal
landfill temperature. During this type of operation, there is potential
for fugitive emissions of VOC and HAP unless aggressive steps are taken
to collect and control these emissions. In addition, the combination of
air in the waste stream and increased internal landfill temperature
could increase the potential for a landfill fire. Once started,
landfill fires are difficult to extinguish and potentially lead to
increased release of dioxin/furan emissions from the combustion of
municipal solid waste. Active prevention of landfill fires may need to
include frequent monitoring of landfill temperatures, as well as the
development of a contingency plan should a fire occur. If the potential
for a fire is great enough, it may be inappropriate to allow aerobic
bioreactor operation.
The operation of a landfill as an anaerobic bioreactor may result
in generation of landfill gas, including methane, sooner after waste
deposition and at a more rapid rate than with conventional landfilling.
Current solid waste Federal rules, 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW,
do not require the collection and control of landfill gas unless the
site is 2.5 million Mg in size and has estimated NMOC emissions of 50
Mg per year or more. The NMOC emissions estimate is based on a methane
generation rate, k, derived from conventional landfilling data. The use
of this ``k'' value may not be appropriate under bioreactor landfill
operations since the methane generation rate is expected to be much
greater under these conditions. A value greater than the current
regulatory value, 0.05 per year, may be more appropriate. In addition,
sites currently required to control landfill gas need not control it
until the waste is 2 years old in closed cells or cells at final grade,
or 5 years old in active cells. The timing of gas collection and
control was based on conventional landfilling practices. This timing
may not be appropriate under anaerobic bioreactor operations. To
prevent increased emissions, it may be more appropriate to delay liquid
addition until a final cap is in place or until gas collection and
control has begun, regardless of the age of the waste in active or
closed cells.
There are little data available on full scale anaerobic bioreactor
landfill operations and even less data on aerobic bioreactor landfill
operations. In addition, a great deal of uncertainty exists regarding
the health and environmental impacts associated with each form of
bioreactor operation. Current solid waste Federal rules may not
adequately address the health and environmental impacts associated with
either form of bioreactor operation. Therefore, EPA requests comment on
amending the NSPS to require the application of collection and control
systems to aerobic bioreactor cells, and require the use of a higher
``k'' value for anaerobic bioreactor cells which could result in the
installation and operation of collection and control systems sooner
after waste deposition in these cells.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
We foresee minimal economic impacts to major sources because all of
these landfills are currently required to comply with the EG/NSPS. The
proposed rule would only impose a requirement to prepare a SSM plan,
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for SSM events, and
semiannual reports instead of annual reports. The expected annual cost
to affected major source landfills is only $1,700 (1998 dollars), which
represents less than 0.001 percent of the tipping fees collected by an
average sized landfill. For more information on the economic impacts of
the proposed standards, refer to the economic impact analysis in the
docket.
We also foresee no environmental, energy, or economic impacts for
collection and control of landfill gas to area source landfills. As
with major source landfills, all area source landfills subject to the
proposed rule are already required to implement the EG/NSPS. Area
source landfills that are too small to trigger the EG/NSPS
applicability are not subject to control under the proposed standards
and, therefore, will not incur impacts.
The additional requirements for the SSM plan and the semiannual
report are projected to affect approximately 1,309 MSW landfills in the
first year. The estimated average annual burden for industry for the
first 3 years after promulgation of the final rule would be 39,276
person-hours annually. There will be $13,128 of operation and
maintenance costs associated with monitoring or recordkeeping during
the first 3 years.
It is possible that a source exists that is major but is not
subject to the collection and control requirements of the EG/NSPS. This
could occur if a landfill does not meet the EG/NSPS collection and
control applicability criteria, and the contribution of emissions of
HAP from collocated operations causes the full source to emit at major
source levels. We do not have any data to indicate that this situation
exists, and we believe that this situation is unlikely to occur.
Therefore, no impacts were assessed for this category of facilities.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'', and
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in 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, it has been
determined
[[Page 66681]]
that the proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because it will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more and it does not impose any additional control
requirements above the 1996 EG/NSPS. The EPA considered the 1996 EG/
NSPS to be ``significant'' because the 1996 EG/NSPS were expected to
have an annual effect on the economy in excess of $100 million. The EPA
submitted the 1996 EG/NSPS to OMB for review (61 FR 9905, March 12,
1996). However, the proposed rule is projected to have no significant
impact above the 1996 EG/NSPS. Consequently, the proposed rule is not
submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications''.
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government''. Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement. The
federalism summary impact statement must include a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, a
summary of the nature of their concerns and the EPA's position
supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the
extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been
met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism
implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA
must include a certification from its federalism official stating that
EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful
and timely manner.
The proposed rule for MSW landfills will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. The EPA has concluded that the proposed rule
may create a mandate on a number of city and county governments, and
the Federal government would not provide the funds necessary to pay the
direct costs incurred by these city and county governments in complying
with the mandate. However, the proposed rule does not impose any
additional control costs or result in any additional control
requirements above those considered during promulgation of the 1996 EG/
NSPS. In developing the 1996 EG/NSPS, EPA consulted extensively with
State and local governments to enable them to provide meaningful and
timely input in the development of that rulemaking. Because the control
requirements of the proposed rule are substantially the same as those
developed in 1996, these previous consultations still apply. For a
discussion of EPA's consultations with State and local governments, the
nature of the governments' concerns, and EPA's position supporting the
need for the specific control requirements included in both the EG/NSPS
and the proposed rule, see the preamble to the 1996 EG/NSPS (60 FR
9918, March 12, 1996). Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rule.
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities''.
The proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to the proposed
rule.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation.
The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because it is based on technology performance and not on health and
safety risks. Furthermore, as no alternative technologies exist that
would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost, the results of
any children's health analysis would have no impact on the stringency
decision.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
[[Page 66682]]
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA
to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of the
proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be less than $2.2
million. Thus, the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined
that the proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because the burden
is small and the regulation does not unfairly apply to small
government. Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the URMA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any
other statute unless the agency certified that the rule will not have a
significant impact or a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of the proposed rule, small
entities are defined as: (1) A small business that is primarily engaged
in the collection and disposal of refuse in a landfill operation as
defined by SIC codes 4953 and 5911 with annual receipts less than 6
million dollars; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000, and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of the proposed rule for MSW
landfills on small entities, we certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We have determined that small entities will experience little
impact since this proposed rule will rely on the requirements specified
in 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW. Additional requirements for the
proposed rule are limited to a slight increase in the reporting
frequency of some reports and the development of a SSM plan. This
increase in requirements leads to an increase in annual costs to each
affected landfill of only $1,700 (1998 dollars), an increase of less
than 0.001 percent of the tipping fees taken in by a landfill of
average size nationally. Hence, the estimated impacts to small
communities, organizations, and firms from the proposed rule should be
insignificant. For more information on the economic impacts of the
proposed rule, refer to the economic impact analysis in the docket.
Although the proposed rule for MSW landfills will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on
small entities. To that end, we have evaluated the operational
practices, collection systems and control systems required by 40 CFR
part 60, subparts Cc and WWW, for co-control environmental benefits.
Since the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW,
adequately address the emissions of HAP while controlling landfill gas,
we are using these same requirements with only a slight increase in
reporting activity/frequency for this rulemaking. In addition to the
reduction effort, we have performed a number of outreach activities to
interact with small entities during the development of the proposed
rule. We have held formal stakeholder meetings. We have presented rule
related information at national conferences sponsored by the trade
organizations for these entities, and we requested the establishment of
an electronic link between the International City/County Management
Association website and our rule development website. Through the
efforts discussed above, small entities have been engaged in the
development of the proposed rule. We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome
comments or issues related to such impacts.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared
for the proposed rule by EPA (ICR No. 1938.01) and submitted to OMB for
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. A
copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Office of
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at [email protected] or by calling
(202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA (ICR
Tracking No. 1938.01)''. Include the ICR number in any correspondence.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after November 7, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it by December 7, 2000. The
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information
[[Page 66683]]
collection requirements contained in the proposed rule.
The information would be used by the EPA to ensure that the
requirements for the proposed rule are implemented properly and are
complied with on a continuous basis. Records and reports are necessary
to enable EPA to identify MSW landfills that may not be in compliance
with this standard. Based on reported information, EPA would decide
which landfills should be inspected and what records or processes
should be inspected. The records that owners or operators of MSW
landfills maintain would indicate to EPA whether personnel are
operating and maintaining control equipment properly.
The proposed rule is projected to affect approximately 1,309 MSW
landfills in the first year. The estimated average annual burden for
industry for the first 3 years after promulgation of the proposed rule
would be 39,276 person-hours annually. There will be $13,128 of
operation and maintenance costs associated with monitoring or
recordkeeping during the first 3 years. The estimated average annual
burden, over the first 3 years, for the implementing agency would be
21,105 hours with a cost of $843,150 (including travel expenses) per
year.
Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113), all Federal
agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in
their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA requires Federal agencies such as EPA to provide Congress,
through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when an agency
does not use available and applicable VCS.
The proposed rule references 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW--Standards
of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Since there are no
new standard requirements in the proposed rule, and there are no new
technical standard requirements resulting from specifying subpart WWW
in this proposal, EPA is not proposing/adopting any VCS in the proposed
rule.
The EPA takes comment on proposed compliance demonstration
requirements in the proposed rule and specifically invites the public
to identify potentially-applicable VCS. Commenters should also explain
why the proposed rule should adopt these VCS in lieu of EPA's
standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used
to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40
CFR part 63, appendix A was used).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations.
Dated: October 31, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons cited in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63
of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is proposed to be amended by adding a new subpart AAAA
to read as follows:
Subpart AAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.1930 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.1935 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.1940 What parts of my facility does this subpart cover?
63.1945 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
63.1950 When am I no longer required to comply with this subpart?
Standards
63.1955 What requirements must I meet?
General and Continuing Compliance Requirements
63.1960 How is compliance determined?
63.1965 What is a deviation?
63.1970 Are there any deviations that are not considered out of
compliance?
63.1975 How do I calculate the 3-hour block average used to
demonstrate compliance?
Notifications, Reports and Records
63.1980 What records and reports must I keep and submit?
Other Requirements and Information
63.1985 Who enforces this subpart?
63.1990 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables
Table 1 of subpart AAAA--Part 63 General Provisions
Applicable Paragraphs
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.1930 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing and new municipal solid waste
(MSW) landfills. This subpart requires all landfills to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or WWW. This subpart also
requires landfills to meet the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)
requirements of the general provisions of this part and provides that
compliance with the operating conditions are demonstrated by parameter
monitoring results that are within the specified ranges. It also
includes additional reporting requirements.
Sec. 63.1935 Am I subject to this subpart?
Yes, if you own or operate a MSW landfill that is a major source,
is co-located with a major source, or is an area source that meets the
design capacity and control criteria specified in the 40 CFR Part 60
new source
[[Page 66684]]
performance standards (NSPS), you must collect and control landfill gas
according to the requirements specified in the NSPS. In addition, each
area source subject to this subpart is required to obtain a title V
permit. Finally, most of the requirements of this subpart will not take
effect until your landfill emits equal to or greater than 50 Mg/yr NMOC
and has a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and
2.5 million m3.
Sec. 63.1940 What parts of my facility does this subpart cover?
(a) The affected source for this subpart is each new or existing
MSW landfill that has accepted waste at anytime since November 8, 1987,
or has additional design capacity available for future waste
deposition.
(b) An affected source is a new source if you commenced
construction or reconstruction after November 7, 2000. An affected
source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as defined in
Sec. 63.2.
(c) An affected source is existing if it is not new.
Sec. 63.1945 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If your landfill is a new affected source, you must comply with
this subpart by [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] or at the time you
begin operating, whichever occurs last.
(b) If your landfill is an existing affected source, you must
comply with the standards by [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE].
Sec. 63.1950 When am I no longer required to comply with this subpart?
You are no longer required to comply with the requirements of this
subpart when you are no longer required to apply controls as specified
in Sec. 60.752(b)(2)(v) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, or the Federal
plan or EPA-approved and effective State plan or Tribal plan that
implements 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, whichever is applicable.
Standards
Sec. 63.1955 What requirements must I meet?
(a) You must fulfill one of the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or
(2) of this section, whichever is applicable:
(1) Comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW.
(2) Comply with the requirements of the Federal plan or EPA-
approved and effective State plan or Tribal plan that implements 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cc.
(b) If you are required by Sec. 60.752(b)(2) of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, the Federal plan, EPA approved State or Tribal plan, to
install a collection and control system, you must comply with the
general provisions specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
General and Continuing Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.1960 How is compliance determined?
Compliance is determined in the same way it is determined for 40
CFR part 60, subpart WWW, including performance testing, monitoring of
the collection system, and continuous parameter monitoring. In
addition, continuous parameter monitoring data, collected under
Sec. 60.756(b)(1), (c)(1), and (d), of 40 CFR part 60, are used to
demonstrate compliance with the operating conditions for control
systems. If a deviation occurs, you have failed to meet the control
device operating conditions described in this subpart and have deviated
from the requirements of this subpart. Finally, you must develop and
implement a written SSM plan according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3). A copy of the SSM plan must be maintained on site.
Failure to write, implement, or maintain a copy of the SSM plan is a
deviation from the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 63.1965 What is a deviation?
(a) A deviation occurs when the control device operating parameter
boundaries described in 40 CFR 60.758(c)(1) are exceeded.
(b) A deviation occurs when 1 hour or more of the hours during the
3-hour block averaging period does not constitute a valid hour of data
due to insufficient monitoring data. An hour of monitoring data are
insufficient if measured values are unavailable for more than one 15-
minute period within the hour.
(c) A deviation occurs when a SSM plan is not developed,
implemented, or maintained on site.
Sec. 63.1970 Are there any deviations that are not considered out of
compliance?
Yes, consistent with 40 CFR 60.755(e), Secs. 63.6(e) and
63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with
the SSM plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations that
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are
violations, according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
Sec. 63.1975 How do I calculate the 3-hour block average used to
demonstrate compliance?
Averages are calculated in the same way as they are calculated in
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, except that the data collected during the
events listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section are
not to be included in any average computed under this subpart:
(a) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments.
(b) Startups.
(c) Shutdowns.
(d) Malfunctions.
Notifications, Records, and Reports
Sec. 63.1980 What records and reports must I keep and submit?
(a) Keep records and reports as specified in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, or in the Federal plan, EPA-approved State plan or Tribal
plan that implements 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, whichever is
applicable with one exception. You must submit the annual report
described in 40 CFR 60.757(f) every 6 months.
(b) You must also keep records and reports as specified in the
general provisions of 40 CFR part 60 and this part as shown in Table 1
of this subpart. Applicable records in the general provisions include
items such as SSM plans and the SSM reports.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.1985 Who enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA,
or a delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or tribal
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State,
local, or tribal agency, then that agency as well as the U.S. EPA has
the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the
applicable EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated
to a State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are
retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the State,
local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are as follows. Approval of alternatives to the
standards in Sec. 63.1955. Where these standards reference another
subpart, the cited provisions will be delegated according to the
delegation provisions of the referenced subpart.
[[Page 66685]]
Sec. 63.1990 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR
part 60, subparts A, Cc, and WWW; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG, and
subpart A of this part, and this section as follows:
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit), or work practice standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit,
operating limit, or visible emission limit.
EPA-approved State plan means a State plan that EPA has approved
based on the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B, to implement
and enforce 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc. An approved State plan becomes
effective on the date specified in the notice published in the Federal
Register announcing EPA's approval.
Federal plan means the EPA plan to implement 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cc, for existing municipal solid waste landfills located in
States and Indian country where State plans or Tribal plans are not
currently in effect. On the effective date of an EPA-approved State or
Tribal plan, the Federal plan no longer applies. The Federal plan is
found at 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG.
Modification means as increase in the permitted volume design
capacity of the landfill by either horizontal or vertical expansion
based on its permitted design capacity as of May 30, 1991. Modification
does not occur until the owner or operator commences construction on
the horizontal or vertical expansion.
Municipal solid waste landfill means an entire disposal facility in
a contiguous geographical space where household waste is placed in or
on land. A municipal solid waste landfill may also receive other types
of RCRA Subtitle D wastes (see Sec. 257.2 of this chapter) such as
commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small
quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste. Portions of a
municipal solid waste landfill may be separated by access roads. A
municipal solid waste landfill may be publicly or privately owned. A
municipal solid waste landfill may be a new municipal solid waste
landfill, an existing municipal solid waste landfill, or a lateral
expansion.
Tribal plan means a plan submitted by a tribal authority pursuant
to 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50, and 81 to implement and enforce 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cc.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.
Table 1 of Subpart AAAA--Part 63 General Provisions Applicable Paragraphs
[As stated in Sec. 63.1955(b), you must comply with the General Provisions requirements according to the
following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 63 citation Description Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a) except (a)(7)................. Applicability: general Affected sources are already subject to
applicability of NESHAP in the provisions of paragraphs (a)(10)-
this part. (12) of this section through the same
provisions under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart A.
63.1(b)............................... Applicability determination Affected sources are already subject to
for stationary sources. the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of
this section through the same
provisions under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart A.
63.1(e)............................... Applicability of permit ........................................
program before a relevant
standard has been set under
this part.
63.2.................................. Definitions................... ........................................
63.4.................................. Prohibited activities and Affected sources are already subject to
circumvention. the provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section through the same provisions
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart A.
63.5(b)............................... Requirements for existing, Affected sources are already subject to
newly constructed, and the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of
reconstructed sources. this section through the same
provisions under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart A.
63.6(e)............................... Operation and maintenance Affected sources are already subject to
requirements, SSM provisions. the provisions of paragraph (e)(2) of
this section through the same
provisions under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart A.
63.6(f)............................... Compliance with nonopacity Affected sources are already subject to
emission standards. the provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) and
(2)(i) of this section through the same
provisions under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart A.
63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v).................... General recordkeeping ........................................
requirements.
63.10(d)(5)........................... If actions taken during a SSM ........................................
are consistent with the
procedures in the SSM plan,
this information shall be
included in a semiannual SSM
report. Any time an action
taken during a SSM is not
consistent with the SSM plan,
the source shall report
actions taken within 2
working days after commencing
such actions, followed by a
letter 7 days after the event.
[[Page 66686]]
63.12(a).............................. These provisions do not ........................................
preclude the State from
adopting and enforcing any
standard, limitation, etc.,
requiring permits, or
requiring emissions
reductions in excess of those
specified.
63.15................................. Availability of information ........................................
and confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 00-28415 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P