FR 2021-03983

The document details a proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding Wisconsin's request to withdraw a previous declaration that stated it had no Large Municipal Waste Combustors (LMWCs). Now, Wisconsin acknowledges having one LMWC unit operating and wants the federal plan to cover this unit instead of creating a new state-specific plan. The EPA agrees with this approach, as it would be disproportionate in terms of time and resource commitments to require the state to develop a plan for a single unit.

General Summary

This proposed rule factually addresses Wisconsin's updated situation concerning LMWCs. Wisconsin had previously declared no such units under its jurisdiction, but with the operation of a single unit, the state must realign with federal regulations. Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources prefers to use the federal standard for this lone unit, a decision the EPA supports due to the impracticality of crafting a new state plan for just one existing source.

This rule is a pragmatic solution for Wisconsin, allowing for the continued application of federal standards to the state's single LMWC. The approach avoids unnecessary administrative and financial burdens that could arise from developing a whole state plan for a single entity.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several notable issues and concerns arise from the document. For one, the document does not specify the potential costs associated with implementing the federal plan for Wisconsin's single LMWC. Understanding these costs would help assess whether they are justified by the benefits. Additionally, the document fails to clarify the consequences for Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources if the existing LMWC were to close or if another were to open. This absence of future planning insight could complicate the state's regulatory landscape down the line.

The technical language in the document may present a challenge for those without a background in environmental law or regulations, making it difficult for the public to engage meaningfully with the content. This complexity might limit the ability of the wider audience to fully grasp or assess the rule's implications.

Moreover, there is an implicit concern regarding the resources devoted by the EPA to process Wisconsin’s withdrawal request. If maintaining the federal plan incurs similar efforts as developing a state plan might have, it could represent an inefficient use of governmental resources.

Finally, the document does not address potential environmental impacts of maintaining the federal plan. Public transparency would benefit from an understanding of any environmental consequences, whether positive or negative, stemming from this decision.

Public and Stakeholder Impact

Broadly, this document underscores a regulatory adjustment primarily affecting Wisconsin, but with implications that might interest stakeholders in other states. The decision ensures continued regulation and monitoring of Wisconsin's single LMWC, aligning with environmental safeguards typically overseen by state plans.

For specific stakeholders, particularly those involved with environmental protection, this rule could be positive as it maintains stringent federal oversight over LMWC operations without the administrative burden of a new state plan. Conversely, stakeholders involved in running the LMWC might face uncertainties regarding operational requirements under the federal plan, along with potential unexplored costs.

In conclusion, while this rule is tailored to Wisconsin's unique situation, it raises broader considerations about regulatory efficiency and stakeholder engagement in environmental oversight. The document is a bureaucratic measure intending to streamline regulation but invites evaluation of cost-benefit analyses, clarity in communication, and long-term contingencies for stakeholders.