Overview
Title
Partial Approval, Partial Disapproval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency; Control of Emissions From Existing Large Municipal Waste Combustors
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA said "yes" and "no" to some new rules that Spokane wanted for controlling pollution from big trash burners. They liked some parts but didn't like how the rules forgot to include rules for two other kinds of trash burners.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized a rule that partially approves and partially disapproves a State Plan submitted by the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency. The plan aims to set emission limits for large municipal waste combustors in Spokane County, Washington. While it meets guidelines for existing large waste combustors, the plan does not include requirements for fluidized bed combustors and air curtain incinerators, leading to partial disapproval. This rule, under the Clean Air Act, has an effective date of January 27, 2025.
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to partially approve and partially disapprove a July 18, 2022, Clean Air Act (CAA) State Plan submitted by the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) to establish emission limits for existing large municipal waste combustors (MWC) and to provide for the implementation and enforcement of these limits. SRCAA submitted this State Plan to fulfill its requirements under the CAA in response to the EPA's May 10, 2006, promulgation of Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large MWC Constructed on or before September 20, 1994 (Emission Guidelines). The EPA is partially approving the State Plan because it meets the requirements of the Emission Guidelines for existing large MWC known to operate in Spokane County, Washington. The EPA is partially disapproving the State Plan because it omits requirements for fluidized bed combustors and air curtain incinerators, which are required elements of a State Plan. This action is being taken under the CAA.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) addresses a rule concerning emissions limits for large municipal waste combustors in Spokane County, Washington. This rule partially approves and partially disapproves the State Plan submitted by the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). The plan is praised for meeting guidelines for large waste combustors; however, it falls short by not including necessary requirements for fluidized bed combustors and air curtain incinerators.
General Summary
The EPA has evaluated a State Plan from SRCAA that aims to regulate emissions from large municipal waste combustors. The EPA's action results in partial approval because the Plan appropriately addresses existing guidelines for these facilities. However, the omission of specific regulations for fluidized bed combustors and air curtain incinerators necessitated a partial disapproval. This mixed ruling signifies the complex nature of regulatory compliance under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Significant Issues
A major concern with the document is its partial disapproval of the State Plan, primarily due to the non-inclusion of critical requirements. The document does not elaborate on why these omissions were not addressed before the Plan's submission. Furthermore, there is no discussion of the financial implications arising from this partial disapproval, particularly considering the Federal Plan’s requirements still in place for the omitted components. The complexity of the language and legal references might be challenging for those unfamiliar with environmental regulatory jargon, potentially leading to misunderstandings of the rule's implications.
Public Impact
The effective date for this rule is January 27, 2025, meaning the coverage begins around that time. For the general public, especially residents of Spokane County, this rule means there will be stricter controls on emissions from waste combustors, potentially leading to better air quality. However, since specific components of waste disposal regulation are not covered under the State Plan due to the partial disapproval, some residents might still be exposed to the effects of emissions that are not fully regulated at a state level.
Impact on Stakeholders
For stakeholders, this ruling has several implications. Environmental groups might view the partial approval as progress toward better air quality standards while being concerned about the lack of comprehensive regulation. Industries operating waste combustors may face regulatory uncertainty as they navigate both state and federal requirements. The lack of a requirement to perform an Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis raises questions for communities concerned with justice implications related to environmental health, as these communities may not fully understand the potential impacts on them without an EJ analysis. Additionally, small entities are expected, according to the document, not to face significant economic impacts, but the lack of detailed findings leaves room for uncertainty. Therefore, communication improvements and clearer guidelines from the EPA could provide necessary assurance and directions for these stakeholders.
Overall, this document highlights both the progress in strengthening pollution controls and the challenges of integrating comprehensive plans that satisfy federal guidelines. It serves as a reminder of the complexity involved in environmental regulation, especially the importance of thorough planning and consideration of all affected components.
Issues
• The document partially approves and partially disapproves the State Plan due to the omission of requirements for fluidized bed combustors and air curtain incinerators, but does not thoroughly explain why these omissions were not addressed prior to submission.
• There is no discussion of potential financial implications, if any, resulting from the partial disapproval and reliance on Federal Plan requirements for fluidized bed combustors and air curtain incinerators.
• The language used in discussing regulatory texts and statutory references may be difficult for a general audience to fully understand without specialized knowledge in environmental regulations.
• The document states that the EPA did not perform an Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis, noting it is not required, but does not provide reasons for why such an analysis was not considered necessary given potential implications for communities with EJ concerns.
• The analysis of potential impact on small entities or small governments as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not provide detailed findings, merely stating there is no significant impact without supporting evidence.
• There is no assessment of how the plan's partial disapproval might impact the achievement of overall emissions reduction goals in Spokane County.
• Communication and clarity could be improved regarding the process for addressing the omissions in the State Plan and how corrections might be made, if necessary.