<<Exit

Texas Register Preamble


It is not necessary to add a TCAA citation to the standard permit in response to these comments. In the STATUTORY AUTHORITY portion of the preamble, the commission cites to the appropriate sections of the TCAA as its authority for adopting this standard permit. The commission is adding language to this section, consistent with TCAA, §382.05195(g) and 30 TAC Chapters 39 and 50, that each individual authorization under a standard permit is not subject to public notice and comment or opportunity for contested case hearing.

Comment

Allied commented that the new air standard permit should continue to provide an authorization for Type IX landfill sites and landfill gas beneficial use facilities.

Response

The commission has not changed the rule in response to these comments. Type IX facilities do not conduct operations authorized by this standard permit. Type IX facilities are landfill gas to energy projects that require separate commission authorization for air emissions. The commission has an electric generating facility standard permit available for use by these types of facilities.

Comment

Allied recommended that the reference to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW be removed from §330.985(d)(2)(A) because the proposed rule refers to certain prohibited types of incineration and it is unclear whether the reference to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW is intended to define "incineration" or "landfill gas emissions."

Response

The commission has not changed the rule in response to these comments. The reference to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW is applicable to the term "landfill gas emissions." This reference is necessary to describe that certain emissions from incineration are not being excluded from authorization under this standard permit.

Comment

HSC commented that the commission should add Chapter 111, Control of Air Pollution from Particulate Matter, to the list of regulations that MSW transfer stations must meet.

Response

The commission has not changed the rule in response to these comments. The addition is unnecessary because Chapter 111 applies to any facility generating PM.

Comment

HSC expressed concern that the commission lacked specific information on the characteristics and quantity of emissions from transfer stations and suggested hiring a consultant. HSC specifically expressed concern about potential sources of nuisance odors.

Response

The commission has considered information submitted by stakeholders on transfer stations not located at MSW landfills. That information was sufficient for the commission to conduct its evaluation. The commission analyzed compounds for nuisance conditions, as well as for protection of public health and welfare. Specifically, the commission has reviewed three odorous compounds from Table 2.4.1, "Default Concentration for Landfill Gas Constituents," in the EPA guidance document AP-42 Fifth edition, "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources." The compounds evaluated were dimethyl sulfate, ethyl mercaptan, and methyl mercaptan, which are common odor-producing compounds, and the commission determined that the standard permit is protective of public health and welfare.

Comment

Allied and WMTX commented that the commission should remove the setback requirement for stand-alone transfer stations. The commenters stated that modeling based on fugitive emissions similar to landfills is overly conservative, assuming that the volume of waste at a small landfill and a transfer station is comparable. The magnitude of waste at a small landfill is much greater. Allied provided additional data for modeling input. TxSWANA agreed that the modeling was overly conservative. TxSWANA sought clarification as the whether a "receptor" is an off-property receptor. Allied commented that transfer stations be included in the definition of "receptor" as a facility to which setback distances would apply.

Response

The commission has evaluated additional information from stakeholders regarding operational characteristics and limitations of transfer stations. Based on the evaluation, the commission is removing the setback requirements for stand-alone transfer stations storing 1,000 tons or more of waste overnight provided the facility is covered by a building with forced vertical ventilation. The information provided to the commission indicates that such a structure is an accepted industry standard and is in common use. The additional evaluation also indicated that smaller stations (those storing less than 1,000 tons) will not require the setback. Setback requirements apply to off-property receptors.

Comment

HSC also commented that the authorization period for air emissions from landfills should be shorter than ten years based on the constant rate of expansion of landfills.

Response

The commission has not changed the rule in response to these comments. Air emissions are evaluated for a ten-year period for a landfill based on its estimated waste acceptance rate representations, and anticipated growth. Modification or expansion of the landfill or any new facility located at the landfill beyond that anticipated during that ten-year period will require reevaluation under both the MSW permit and the air standard permit.

Comment

Allied and TxSWANA commented that the new Subchapter U should be modified to extend authorization to a landfill operation that would constitute a new major source or modification. They commented that landfill emissions occur 24 hours per day, and the industry requires a predictable and protective landfill permitting option. They stated that there is no legal impediment to such an extension. TxSWANA suggested that the commission create a separate authorizing mechanism for landfills that are major sources and that streamlining the authorization of major source landfills will help leverage beneficial gas-to-energy projects. HSC also supported the use of the NSR methods currently in Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification, to authorize major modifications resulting from landfill gas projects.

Response

The commission staff is currently investigating the legal aspects and effects on the state implementation plan of permitting major sources or projects which trigger PSD and NA reviews under standard permits. Current commission rules in §116.610(b), Applicability, subject major PSD and NA sources to case-by-case review under §116.610. This section is not open for amendment in this rulemaking, therefore, it is not possible to implement Allied's requested changes to this standard permit because this proposal had not been initially proposed by the commission and was not available for public comment. Standard permit users should be aware that if permitting of PSD/NA sources under standard permits is authorized in a future rulemaking, MSW landfills that are also Title V sources will not qualify for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills General Operating Permit.

§330.987. Certification Requirements.

Comment

HCPHES commented that the certification requirements of §330.987(a) should be extended to Type IV landfills because these landfills should also meet the requirements of the standard permit.

Response

The commission has not changed the rule in response to these comments. Type IV landfills are not permitted to accept putrescible household waste; they accept construction and demolition materials only, which are not expected to result in NMOC emission rates that would require these sites to install a landfill gas collection system.

Comment

TxSWANA sought clarification that the provisions of §330.987 can be used to incorporate independently claimed PBRs and other standard permits into a Subchapter U authorization.

Response

The standard permit requires all independently claimed PBRs and standard permits outside of the Subchapter U authorization to be incorporated at the next certification renewal, amendment, or modification of this Subchapter U authorization as long as the changes authorized by the PBRs or standard permits do not cause the site to become ineligible for the standard permit. The PBR and standard permit emissions will be incorporated by adding their emissions to the current Subchapter U authorization. The new total emissions would then be required to meet all the conditions of this standard permit. Once incorporated into the Subchapter U authorization, the PBR and/or standard permit will be voided.

Comment

Allied, WMTX, and TxSWANA commented that the commission should provide the option in §330.987(d) to authorize air emissions from a landfill for the life of the landfill in parallel with the solid waste authorization if the landfill operator can submit information sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the standard permit over that period of time. Allied commented that this authorization will provide certainty to communities that rely on landfills for their waste disposal. They noted that the standard permit is structured to allow the growth of landfill operations with the incorporation of additional facilities.

Response

The commission has not changed the rule in response to these comments. TCAA, §382.055 requires that preconstruction permits be reviewed every ten years. The ten-year term of this standard permit is consistent with air permit renewal schedules throughout Chapter 116. The landfill owner or operator has the option to submit information for a period longer than ten years at the original certification that indicates the landfill will not trigger federal requirements, or for the entire life of the landfill. While the certification will expire after ten years, the owner or operator may renew the certification for an additional ten years by submitting a notice that the landfill conditions are consistent with information submitted at the original certification. No additional fees or technical data will be required. The notice will not only renew the certification but will attest that the conditions relating to the triggering of federal review have not changed.

When submitting landfill information covering a longer period than the ten years, if the landfill would require a GCCS under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW some time after the initial ten years, it will be necessary for the owner or operator to submit the GCCS design plan for approval with the initial certification. A landfill that triggers the 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW GCCS requirement during the initial ten-year certification would also be required to submit the design plan with the initial certification.

Comment

Allied requested guidance or clarification regarding the nature of supporting information required by §330.987(d) to demonstrate "the basis and quantification of emission estimates" and what would be considered sufficient to demonstrate compliance.

Response

The commission expects the landfill owners and operators to use EPA technical reports, generally accepted engineering calculations and emission factors, the latest emission factors published by the EPA Guidance Document AP-42 along with any other EPA sanctioned modeling programs, including, but not limited to, LandGEM, ISC3, SCREEN3, etc., for determining emission estimates, and demonstrating compliance with the conditions of the subchapter. The commission is also developing guidance for ancillary facilities at landfill sites to provide typical emission factor information. No changes were made in response to these comments.

Comment

Allied requested that the commission add a provision to §330.987 allowing executive director review of certifications. The commenter requested language as currently used in §116.611(b) providing that construction can begin anytime after written notification from the executive director or 45 days after the executive director receives the certification, whichever occurs first.

Response

The certification requirement is intended to expedite landfill air emission authorization by eliminating the need for executive director review. The landfill owner or operator is ultimately responsible for compliance with all rules and regulations. Using the certification process, the 45-day period for executive director response does not apply. No changes were made in response to these comments.

Comment

Allied, NTWMD, TDS, and RMR supported the rule language in §330.987 that would require certification under the new standard permit within 180 days for modified facilities only and pointed out the inconsistency with the preamble which states that all landfills must re-certify within 180 days. They urged that unmodified landfills be allowed continued use of their existing authorizations until expiration. Certification would require reevaluation or an audit of their entire landfill operations. Allied further commented that the certification under Chapter 330 for existing landfills that have not been modified is burdensome, costly, and provides no additional benefit to human health or the environment.

Response

The commission has deleted the 180-day certification requirement from §330.987 and will rely on the effective date of this standard permit in §330.981 to establish a date by which modified landfills that do not continue to meet the requirements of §116.621 must be certified. Certification will also apply to landfills that require additional authorization for their support activities. The authorization of unmodified landfills will remain in effect until normal expiration. The commission has made the necessary change in the preamble.

Comment

Allied recommended changes to §330.987(e)(2) and (3) that would reference "initial construction of an MSW landfill" and submission of certifications by "the landfill owner operator" within 60 days of changes. The commenter also submitted recommended language for §330.987(f)(2)(A) that refers to "within one year of constructing new facilities or modifications" instead of the proposed "annually." For subsection (e)(2)(B), the commenter recommended language referring to "constructing new facilities or modification" instead of the proposed "changes." The commenter also suggested adding the clarification "greater than or equal to" when referring to 25 tons of any criteria pollutant in NA areas.

Response

The commission has changed the rule in response to these comments. The suggested language changes add greater precision to the rule language.

Comment

TxSWANA requested confirmation that applicants will have the option of certifying landfills and emissions associated with landfill gas projects with the initial certification, regardless of whether federal requirements, including those listed in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW would be triggered initially or during the life of the permit.

Response

TxSWANA is correct.

Comment

TxSWANA requested clarification regarding the applicability of §330.987(e) and (f) to landfills that have submitted certification information covering a greater than ten-year period of time. TxSWANA understood that no new certification information would be required unless there was a change in the landfill causing a change in categories as specified in §330.983(5). TxSWANA also sought clarification that the construction of new cells and gas collection systems would not trigger a need for a new certification if these operations were set forth in the original certification.

Response

Construction of new cells and gas collection systems does not constitute a modification as defined in §330.983(7). Additionally, should a landfill submit certification of information covering more than ten years, and the landfill grows, causing a change in category, without any modifications as defined in §330.983(7), then no change in the certification would be required if all the requirements under the higher category were evaluated for compliance at the time of the original certification.

Comment

Allied noted that the preamble, but not the rule, indicates that a gas control system design plan should be submitted if the landfill owner submits information covering a period longer than ten years. Allied stated that it is not possible to know how to design a system at initial certification if the system is not yet required. The commenter stated that submission of plans according to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW is sufficient and reasonable.

Response

The commission disagrees with the commenter. Based on projected growth of the landfill, available land, and established emission rates, the commission determined that it is possible to submit a reasonable design of a gas control system that would meet future needs.

The commission determined that the LandGEM landfill air emission model and the equations in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW can be used to predict when a GCCS is required and what the expected emissions will be. This should allow a design to be made. It would be necessary to submit the GCCS design plan only if the owner or operator of the site proposes to submit information for a period longer than ten years and 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW triggers the requirement to install a GCCS during the period submitted.

§330.989. General Requirements.

Comment

HCPHES agreed with proposed language in §330.989(b).

Response

The comments are acknowledged. No changes were made in response to these comments.

§330.991. Technical and Operational Requirements for all Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Sites.

Comment

HCPHES agreed with proposed language in §330.991.

Response

The comments are acknowledged. No changes were made in response to these comments.

Comment

Allied commented that the applicability of Subpart WWW should be clarified in §330.991(a)(12)(A) by adding the phrase "as applicable" to indicate that the entirety of Subpart WWW may not apply to each flare.

Response

The commission agrees with Allied's comment and has added the language in §330.991(a)(12)(A).

Comment

TxSWANA requested that the commission clarify the restriction on the application of leachate and whether the 100,000-gallon limit in §330.991(a)(6)(F) applies to leachate application in bioreactors provided it is not surface application.

Response

The commission has removed the authorization for bioreactors from Chapter 330 due to concerns regarding design, operation, and conformance with the federal RCRA, Subtitle D program.

Comment

Allied commented that PM emissions for waste solidification/stabilization should apply at the property line consistent with the PM property line requirement in §330.991(d)(1).

Response

The commission has changed §330.991(a)(3)(B) in response to these comments so that both visible emission standards refer only to site-generated emissions.

Comment

TxSWANA requested clarification of the application of dust control to landfill cells versus the total excavated area. The rule language in §330.991(d)(3) appears to apply to all excavated areas while the preamble refers only to cells.

Response

The commission agrees with the comment and has added preamble language stating that all excavated areas are subject to dust control provisions.

Comment

Cont'd...

Next Page Previous Page