[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70022-70027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33481]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[TN 183-1-9824a; FRL-6204-4]
Approval and Promulgation of State Plans For Designated
Facilities and Pollutants: Tennessee
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Sections 111(d)/129 State Plan for
Nashville/Davidson County submitted by the State of Tennessee, through
the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on
December 24, 1996, for implementing and enforcing the Emissions
Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing Municipal Waste Combustors
(MWCs) with capacity to combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal
solid waste (MSW). See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb. EPA is also
approving the Section 111(d) State Plan for Nashville/Davidson County
submitted on December 24, 1996, for implementing and enforcing the EG
applicable to existing MSW landfills. See 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on February 16, 1999 without
further notice, unless EPA receives significant, material, and adverse
comment by January 19, 1999. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will
publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal
Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: You should address comments on this action to Steven M.
Scofield at the EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Copies of documents related to this action are available for the
public to review during normal business hours at the locations below.
If you would like to review these documents, please make an appointment
with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
Reference file TN 183-1-9824a. The Region 4 office may have additional
documents not available at the other locations.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Steven M. Scofield, 404/
562-9034.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Air
Pollution Control, 9th Floor L & C Annex, 401 Church Street, Nashville,
Tennessee 37243-1531. 615/532-0554
[[Page 70023]]
Bureau of Environmental Health Services, Metropolitan Health
Department, Nashville and Davidson County, 311--23rd Avenue, North,
Nashville, Tennessee 37203. 615/340-5653
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Davis at 404/562-9127 or Steven
M. Scofield at 404/562-9034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
MWCs
I. Background
On December 19, 1995, pursuant to sections 111 and 129 of the Clean
Air Act (Act), EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS)
applicable to new MWCs and EG applicable to existing MWCs. The NSPS and
EG are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Eb and Cb, respectively.
See 60 FR 65387. Subparts Cb and Eb regulate the following: particulate
matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen,
carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans.
On April 8, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit vacated subparts Cb and Eb as they apply
to MWC units with capacity to combust less than or equal to 250 tons
per day of MSW (small MWCs), consistent with their opinion in Davis
County Solid Waste Management and Recovery District v. EPA, 101 F.3d
1395 (D.C. Cir. 1996), as amended, 108 F.3d 1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997). As a
result, subparts Eb and Cb apply only to MWC units with individual
capacity to combust more than 250 tons per day of MSW (large MWC
units).
Under section 129 of the Act, emission guidelines are not federally
enforceable. Section 129(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit to
EPA for approval State Plans that implement and enforce the emission
guidelines. State Plans must be at least as protective as the emission
guidelines, and become federally enforceable upon approval by EPA. The
procedures for adoption and submittal of State Plans are codified in 40
CFR part 60, subpart B. EPA originally promulgated the subpart B
provisions on November 17, 1975. EPA amended subpart B on December 19,
1995, to allow the subparts developed under section 129 to include
specifications that supersede the general provisions in subpart B
regarding the schedule for submittal of State Plans, the stringency of
the emission limitations, and the compliance schedules. See 60 FR
65414.
This action approves the State Plan submitted by the State of
Tennessee for the Nashville and Davidson County Metropolitan Health
Department (MHD) to implement and enforce subpart Cb, as it applies to
large MWC units only.
II. Discussion
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation submitted
correspondence on May 21, 1997, certifying there are no MWCs under the
direct jurisdiction of the State of Tennessee. The State submitted to
EPA on December 24, 1996, the following in their 111(d)/129 State Plan
for implementing and enforcing the emission guidelines for existing
MWCs under their direct jurisdiction in the State of Tennessee: Legal
Authority; Enforceable Mechanism; Inventory of MWC Plants/Units; MWC
Emission Inventory; Emission Limits; Compliance Schedule; Testing,
Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements; Demonstration
That the Public Had Adequate Notice and Opportunity to Submit Written
Comments; Submittal of Progress Reports to EPA; and applicable
Tennessee statutes, Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County
Government statutes, and MHD agency regulations. The State submitted
its plan before the Court of Appeals vacated subpart Cb as it applies
to small MWC units. Thus, the MHD plan covers both large and small MWC
units. As a result of the Davis decision and subsequent vacatur order,
there are no emission guidelines promulgated under sections 111 and 129
that apply to small MWC units. Accordingly, EPA's review and approval
of the MHD plan for MWCs addresses only those parts of the MHD plan
which affect large MWC units. Small units are not subject to the
requirements of the federal rule and not part of this approval. Until
EPA again promulgates emission guidelines for small MWC units, EPA has
no authority under section 129(b)(2) of the Act to review and approve
State Plans applying state rules to small MWC units.
The approval of the MHD plan is based on finding that: (1) the MHD
provided adequate public notice of public hearings for the proposed
rulemaking which allows the MHD to implement and enforce the EG for
large MWCs, and (2) the MHD also demonstrated legal authority to adopt
emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to the
designated facilities; enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards
and compliance schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain information
necessary to determine compliance; require recordkeeping; conduct
inspections and tests; require the use of monitors; require emission
reports of owners and operators; and make emission data publicly
available.
In Appendix 1 of the plan, the MHD cites the following references
for the legal authority: State of Tennessee Codes Annotated 68-201-115,
``Local Pollution Control Programs,'' 10-7-503, ``Records Open to
Public Inspection-Exceptions,'' and 10-7-504, ``Inspection of
Records;'' Metropolitan Code of Laws, Article 10, ``Public Health and
Hospitals,'' Chapter 1, ``Public Health'' of the Charter of the
Metropolitan Government, Chapter 10.56, Air Pollution Control,''
Section 10.56.090, ``Board-Powers and Duties,'' Section 10.56.150,
``Nuisance Declared-Injunctive Relief,'' Section 10.56.290,
``Measurement and Reporting of Emissions,'' Section 2.36 ``Health
Department,'' and Section 2.36.130 ``Records and Proceedings-Public
Inspection Authorized When.'' These statutes and regulations are
approved as being at least as protective as the federal requirements
for existing large MWC units.
In Appendix 2 of the plan, the MHD cites all emission standards and
limitations for the major pollutant categories related to the
designated sites and facilities. These standards and limitations in the
MHD Pollution Control Division's Regulation No. 12, ``Regulation for
Control of Municipal Waste Combustors,'' are approved as being at least
as protective as the federal requirements contained in subpart Cb for
existing large MWC units.
The State submitted compliance schedules and legally enforceable
increments of progress for each large MWC under their direct
jurisdiction in the State of Tennessee. This portion of the plan has
been reviewed and approved as being at least as protective as federal
requirements for existing large MWC units.
The State submitted an emission inventory of all designated
pollutants for each large MWC under their direct jurisdiction in the
State of Tennessee. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and
approved as meeting the federal requirements for existing large MWC
units.
The MHD plan includes its legal authority to require owners and
operators of designated facilities to maintain records and report to
their agency the nature and amount of emissions and any other
information that may be necessary to enable their agency to judge the
compliance status of the facilities. The MHD also cites its legal
authority to provide for periodic inspection and testing and provisions
for making reports of MWC emissions data, correlated with emission
standards
[[Page 70024]]
that apply, available to the general public. The State submitted MHD's
Regulation No. 12 to support the requirements of monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance assurance. These MHD rules
have been reviewed and approved as being at least as protective as
federal requirements for existing large MWC units.
As stated on page 5 of the plan, the MHD will provide progress
reports of plan implementation updates to the EPA on an annual basis.
These progress reports will include the required items pursuant to 40
CFR 60, subpart B. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and
approved as meeting the federal requirement for State Plan reporting.
MSW Landfills
I. Background
Under section 111(d) of the Act, EPA has established procedures
whereby states submit plans to control certain existing sources of
``designated pollutants.'' Designated pollutants are defined as
pollutants for which a standard of performance for new sources applies
under section 111, but which are not ``criteria pollutants'' (i.e.,
pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are
set pursuant to sections 108 and 109 of the Act) or hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) regulated under section 112 of the Act. As required
by section 111(d) of the Act, EPA established a process at 40 CFR part
60, subpart B, which states must follow in adopting and submitting a
section 111(d) plan. Whenever EPA promulgates a NSPS that controls a
designated pollutant, EPA establishes EG in accordance with 40 CFR
60.22 which contain information pertinent to the control of the
designated pollutant from that NSPS source category (i.e., the
``designated facility'' as defined at 40 CFR 60.21(b)). Thus, a state,
local, or tribal agency's section 111(d) plan for a designated facility
must comply with the EG for that source category as well as 40 CFR part
60, subpart B.
On March 12, 1996, EPA published EG for existing MSW landfills at
40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc (40 CFR 60.30c through 60.36c) and NSPS for
new MSW landfills at 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.750 through
60.759). See 61 FR 9905-9944. The pollutants regulated by the NSPS and
EG are MSW landfill emissions, which contain a mixture of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), other organic compounds, methane, and HAPs.
VOC emissions can contribute to ozone formation which can result in
adverse effects to human health and vegetation. The health effects of
HAPs include cancer, respiratory irritation, and damage to the nervous
system. Methane emissions contribute to global climate change and can
result in fires or explosions when they accumulate in structures on or
off the landfill site. To determine whether control is required,
nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs) are measured as a surrogate for
MSW landfill emissions. Thus, NMOC is considered the designated
pollutant. The designated facility which is subject to the EG is each
existing MSW landfill (as defined in 40 CFR 60.32c) for which
construction, reconstruction or modification was commenced before May
30, 1991.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.23(a), states were required to either: (1)
submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant to which the
EG applies; or (2) submit a negative declaration if there were no
designated facilities in the state within nine months after publication
of the EG (by December 12, 1996).
EPA has been involved in litigation over the requirements of the
MSW landfill EG and NSPS since the summer of 1996. On November 13,
1997, EPA issued a notice of proposed settlement in National Solid
Wastes Management Association v. Browner, et al. No. 96-1152 (D.C.
Cir), in accordance with section 113(g) of the Act. See 62 FR 60898. It
is important to note that the proposed settlement does not vacate or
void the existing MSW landfill EG or NSPS. Accordingly, the currently
promulgated MSW landfill EG was used as a basis by EPA for review of
section 111(d) plan submittals.
This action approves the section 111(d) plan submitted by the State
of Tennessee for the Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, MHD to
implement and enforce subpart Cc.
II. Discussion
The State submitted to EPA on December 24, 1996, the following in
their section 111(d) plan for implementing and enforcing the emission
guidelines for existing MSW landfills in Nashville and Davidson County,
Tennessee: Legal Authority; Enforceable Mechanism; Inventory of MSW
Landfills; MSW Landfill Emission Inventory; Emission Limits; Compliance
Schedule; Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements; Demonstration That the Public Had Adequate Notice and
Opportunity to Submit Written Comments; Submittal of Progress Reports
to EPA; and applicable Tennessee statutes, Metropolitan Nashville and
Davidson County Government statutes, and MHD agency regulations.
The approval of the MHD plan is based on finding that: (1) the MHD
provided adequate public notice of public hearings for the proposed
rulemaking which allows the MHD to implement and enforce the EG for MSW
landfills; and (2) the MHD also demonstrated legal authority to adopt
emission standards and compliance schedules applicable to the
designated facilities; enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards
and compliance schedules; seek injunctive relief; obtain information
necessary to determine compliance; require recordkeeping; conduct
inspections and tests; require the use of monitors; require emission
reports of owners and operators; and make emission data publicly
available.
In Appendix 1 of the plan, the MHD cites the following references
for the legal authority: State of Tennessee Codes Annotated 68-201-115,
``Local Pollution Control Programs,'' 10-7-503, ``Records Open to
Public Inspection-Exceptions,'' and 10-7-504, ``Inspection of
Records;'' Metropolitan Code of Laws, Article 10, ``Public Health and
Hospitals,'' Chapter 1, ``Public Health'' of the Charter of the
Metropolitan Government, Chapter 10.56, ``Air Pollution Control,''
Section 10.56.090, ``Board-Powers and Duties,'' Section 10.56.150,
``Nuisance Declared-Injunctive Relief,'' Section 10.56.290,
``Measurement and Reporting of Emissions,'' Section 2.36 ``Health
Department,'' and Section 2.36.130 ``Records and Proceedings-Public
Inspection Authorized When.'' These statutes and regulations are
approved as being at least as protective as the federal requirements
for existing MSW landfills.
In Appendix 2 of the plan, the MHD cites all emission standards and
limitations for the major pollutant categories related to the
designated sites and facilities. These standards and limitations in the
MHD Pollution Control Division's Regulation No. 16, ``Regulation for
Control of Municipal Waste Landfills,'' are approved as being at least
as protective as the federal requirements contained in subpart Cc for
existing MSW landfills.
The MHD adopted compliance schedules in Regulation No. 16 for each
existing MSW landfill to be in compliance within 12 months of the
effective date of their implementing regulation (November 12, 1996).
All other compliance times for affected MSW landfills in Regulation No.
12 comply with the compliance timelines of the EG. This portion of the
plan has been reviewed and approved as being at
[[Page 70025]]
least as protective as federal requirements for existing MSW landfills.
The State submitted an emission inventory of all designated
pollutants for each MSW landfill in Nashville and Davidson County,
Tennessee. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and approved as
meeting the federal requirements for existing MSW landfills.
The MHD plan includes its legal authority to require owners and
operators of designated facilities to maintain records and report to
their agency the nature and amount of emissions and any other
information that may be necessary to enable their agency to judge the
compliance status of the facilities. The MHD also cites its legal
authority to provide for periodic inspection and testing and provisions
for making reports of MSW landfill emissions data, correlated with
emission standards that apply, available to the general public. The
State submitted MHD's Regulation No. 16 to support the requirements of
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance assurance. These
MHD rules have been reviewed and approved as being at least as
protective as federal requirements for existing MSW landfills.
As stated on page 2 of the plan, the MHD will provide progress
reports of plan implementation updates to the EPA on an annual basis.
These progress reports will include the required items pursuant to 40
CFR 60, subpart B. This portion of the plan has been reviewed and
approved as meeting the federal requirement for plan reporting.
Consequently, EPA finds that the MHD plan meets all of the
requirements applicable to such plans in 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and
Cc. The MHD did not, however, submit evidence of authority to regulate
existing MSW landfills in Indian Country. Therefore, EPA is not
approving this plan as it relates to those sources.
Final Action
EPA is approving the Sections 111(d)/129 State Plan for Nashville/
Davidson County submitted by the State of Tennessee for implementing
and enforcing the EG applicable to existing MWCs with capacity to
combust more than 250 tons per day of MSW. EPA is also approving the
Section 111(d) State Plan for Nashville/Davidson County for
implementing and enforcing the EG applicable to existing MSW landfills,
except for those existing MSW landfills located in Indian Country. MSW
landfills located in other Tennessee counties will be addressed in
separate rulemaking. As provided by 40 CFR 60.28(c), any revisions to
the State plan or associated regulations will not be considered part of
the applicable plan until submitted by the State in accordance with 40
CFR 60.28(a) or (b), as applicable, and until approved by EPA in
accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
February 16, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives
relevant adverse comments by January 19, 1999.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Only parties interested in
commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received,
the public is advised that this rule will be effective on February 16,
1999 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns,
copies of written communications from the governments, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875
do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
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, the Agency 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 the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects 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. If EPA complies by
consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget, 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 and
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies
on matters that
[[Page 70026]]
significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 16, 1999. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Municipal waste
combustors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 30, 1998.
Winston A. Smith,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Part 62 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is
amended as follows:
PART 62--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
Subpart RR--Tennessee
2. Subpart RR is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.10626 and a new
undesignated center heading to read as follows: Plan for the Control of
Designated Pollutants From Existing Facilities (Section 111(d) Plan).
Sec. 62.10626 Identification of plan.
(a) Identification of plan. Tennessee Designated Facility Plan
(Section 111(d) plan).
(b) The plan was officially submitted as follows:
(1) Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee's
Implementation Plan For Municipal Waste Combustors, submitted on
December 24, 1996, by the State of Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation.
(2) Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee's Plan For
Implementing the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Emission Guidelines,
submitted on December 24, 1996, by the State of Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation.
(c) Designated facilities. The plan applies to existing facilities
in the following categories of sources:
(1) Existing municipal waste combustors.
(2) Existing municipal solid waste landfills.
3. Subpart RR is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.10627 and a new
undesignated center heading to read as follows:
Metals, Acid Gases, Organic Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
From Existing Municipal Waste Combustors With the Capacity To
combust Greater Than 250 Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid Waste
Sec. 62.10627 Identification of sources.
The plan applies to existing facilities with a municipal waste
combustor (MWC) unit capacity greater than 250 tons per day of
municipal solid waste (MSW) at the following MWC sites:
(a) Nashville Thermal Transfer Corporation, Nashville, Tennessee.
4. Subpart RR is amended by adding a new Sec. 62.10628 and a new
undesignated center heading to read as follows:
[[Page 70027]]
Landfill Gas Emissions From Existing Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills
Sec. 62.10628 Identification of sources.
The plan applies to existing municipal solid waste landfills for
which construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced
before May 30, 1991, that accepted waste at any time since November 8,
1987, or that have additional capacity available for future waste
deposition, as described in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc.
[FR Doc. 98-33481 Filed 12-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
