FR 2024-26650

General Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has introduced a new rule focused on managing commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units (CISWI). Specifically, this rule targets incinerators built on or before June 4, 2010, that have not been modified since August 7, 2013. It is designed to apply to states that have not developed their own plans approved by the EPA to regulate emissions from these units. By implementing federal guidelines, the rule aims to reduce the emissions of pollutants such as lead, mercury, and sulfur dioxide. The rule also revises testing, monitoring, and record-keeping procedures while considering specific exceptions for small, remote incinerators in Alaska.

Significant Issues and Concerns

A major concern with this rule is its complexity, which could make it challenging for non-experts to comprehend fully. The document relies heavily on technical language and numerous acronyms, which could be confusing without a comprehensive glossary or list of definitions. This complexity extends to understanding the specific responsibilities and authority divisions between federal, state, and local bodies, which are not clearly delineated.

Moreover, the process for transferring authority to state or local governments is intricate and might confuse stakeholders. A simplification of these processes, possibly using visual aids like a flowchart, could aid in understanding.

In addition, there is limited transparency in the document regarding how compliance costs for affected facilities, particularly smaller entities, are calculated. A more detailed explanation or breakdown of these costs would foster transparency and trust.

The exemption for small, remote incinerators in Alaska appears to be justified by a legislative act, but the document lacks a detailed explanation of the reasons behind this exemption, which could lead to misunderstandings or perceptions of unfairness.

Impact on the Public

Broadly speaking, the public may benefit from the rule through improved air quality and reduced exposure to harmful pollutants like mercury and lead. The implementation of stricter emission standards could lead to cleaner air, which positively affects public health and the environment.

However, the complexity and technicality of the rule might limit public engagement, as understanding the full implications would require technical expertise. This may lead to a perception that the public cannot meaningfully participate in discussions or decision-making processes related to this rule.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

The rule will likely have a positive impact on communities by reducing air pollution and its associated health risks. However, stakeholders such as facility operators might face significant burdens. These include managing increased compliance costs, navigating complex regulatory requirements, and the need for potentially costly upgrades to equipment and operations.

Small entities in particular might face challenges due to limited financial and technical resources to comply with the stringent requirements. Furthermore, the exemption for small, remote incinerators in Alaska might create perceived disparities among stakeholders, especially those not granted similar exemptions.

In conclusion, while the new rule presents an opportunity for positive environmental impacts, its complexity and the burdens it places on regulated entities call for careful consideration and possible simplification to ensure that all stakeholders can understand and effectively comply with its requirements.

The Federal Register document involves several financial references related to the Federal plan for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units. These references provide insights into the costs associated with compliance and the standards involved.

The document estimates $13,300,000 per year for the total annual recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities complying with the existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators Emission Guidelines (CISWI EG). This figure includes $12,300,000 as annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. Specifically, the new rule's implementation will incur $3,700,000 per year in costs, including $3,200,000 in annual operation and maintenance expenses.

A significant financial implication mentioned is the criteria for the reconstruction of an incineration unit. If reconstruction begins on or after a specific date, the cumulative construction cost over the unit's life must surpass 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the unit, not including land. This provision ensures that comprehensive changes significantly overhaul existing systems rather than partial modifications to avoid compliance.

The text also mentions costs associated with obtaining certain technical standards. For example, standards from ANSI/ASME and ASTM are available at $80 and $90 respectively. These costs, while relatively modest, indicate additional expenses that facilities might incur to comply with the document's technical requirements.

Regarding issues, the document suggests it does not contain an unfunded mandate exceeding $100 million as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). However, the complexities involved in small entities' compliance might pose challenges if they are not clearly communicated and justified, especially if they do not directly tie to these financial figures.

Lastly, the text requires better transparency in cost estimation and further detailed justifications, particularly for exemptions like those for small, remote incinerators in Alaska. Clear explanations and thorough breakdowns of financial burdens are crucial for understanding compliance's economic impact on affected facilities, especially small entities. Providing a broader context around these figures would enhance stakeholders' ability to plan and allocate resources effectively.