Legal Implementing Mechanisms Sample Clauses

Legal Implementing Mechanisms. As a pilot-scale experiment to determine if electronic reporting is viable, NASA proposes that extensive regulatory relief from multiple multi-media regulations is unnecessary. NASA proposes that the legal implementing mechanism will be EPA regulatory relief from the “written” reporting requirements specified in 40 CFR §270.11. This legal mechanism will be drafted after submittal of the Final Project Agreement. In addition, NASA proposes that this “written” reporting requirement be waived for all reporting requirements as a WSTF-specific, “global”, test case regulatory exemption. This will provide NASA with the ability to prepare and submit reports electronically to multiple NMED Bureaus for several different environmental media. This multiple Bureau reporting would only be submitted after consultation with each Bureau Chief, and after NMED incorporates the EPA regulatory relief into the State regulatory framework. In addition, NASA proposes that modifications to existing permits, discharge plans, or other compliance documentation can be completed to allow the electronic reporting of multi-media compliance information. NASA also proposes that the Class I permit modification regulation of 40 CFR §270.42 can be modified without extensive rule-making. This regulatory flexibility can be incorporated with a policy statement stating that the language “or other means” implies the ability to submit electronically. As an experimental, pilot-scale project, this will provide the necessary flexibility to test the Class I permit modification submittal procedures. Specific regulatory relief will not be required from NMED. The current requirements of in-place permits, discharge plans, and other compliance documentation can be sufficiently modified by Bureau-initiated changes, mutual agreements regarding procedural requirements, or specific permit modifications to incorporate electronic reporting. NASA will negotiate and initiate these changes with NMED Bureau personnel after completion and acceptance of the Final Project Agreement. NASA has submitted copies of all compliance documentation, including hazardous waste permits, discharge plans, solid waste post-closure care plans, HSWA modules, Consent Order requirements, air permits, and other relevant documentation, to both EPA and NMED for review of specific regulatory requirements. These documents indicate that most regulatory flexibility for the start-up of this Agreement and Project can be initiated through NMED using ...

Legal Implementing Mechanisms. To implement this Project, the parties intend to take the following steps: 1. EPA expects to propose for public comment and promulgate a site-specific rule amending 40 CFR 258.28 for Xxxx Arundel County’s Millersville Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility. This site-specific rule will describe the project requirements and any other aspects of the rulemaking. It is expected that the site-specific rule will provide for Withdrawal or Termination and a Post-Project Compliance Period consistent with Section VII, and will address the Transfer procedures included in Section X. The standards and reporting requirements set forth in Section II (and any attachments to this FPA) will be implemented in this site-specific rulemaking. 2. The State of Maryland under its relevant authority expects to modify any permits necessary to implement this FPA. The monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements will be implemented in a Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit (FESOP). The FESOP will identify whether the County intends to install a passive or an active system to combust the collected landfill gas. 3. Except as provided in any rule(s), compliance order(s), permit provisions or other implementing mechanisms that may be adopted to implement the Project, the parties do not intend that this FPA will modify or otherwise alter the applicability of existing or future laws or regulations to the County’s Facility 4. By signing this FPA, EPA, the County, and the MDE acknowledge and agree that they have the respective authorities and discretion to enter into this FPA and to implement the provisions of this project, to the extent appropriate.

Legal Implementing Mechanisms. The Department is seeking to avoid site-specific rule making or individual federal agreements by applying for Statewide Project XL status. Once the Department obtains Project XL status for the Gold Track Program, it will need to amend specific regulations in the affected media areas through the rulemaking process to authorize it to grant flexibility from the existing regulations. The Department is in the process of drafting rule revisions, and will consult with USEPA as the drafting progresses. USEPA may need to revise its regulations and take regulatory action to approve revisions to the state’s authorized or delegated programs, consistent with applicable law. With significant legal authority in place, the Department intends to negotiate covenants with the Gold Track participants, which will describe in detail the flexibility offered by the Department and the commitments to be made by the participants. Since the covenants are not legal enforceable instruments, the Department expects to modify the applicable permits issued to participants in accordance with its legal authority. The modified permits and regulations will be effective and enforceable under law.

Legal Implementing Mechanisms. To accommodate the requested flexibilities, and implement this XL project, the EPA will propose a rule for public comment. This rule will establish site-specific MACT II compliance date extensions, effective under certain circumstances, for the existing smelters at the Georgia-Pacific Big Island plant and the gasification system or conventional recovery boiler system; as well as a site-specific definition for the term “start-up” applicable to the gasification system. VADEQ intends to incorporate the federal MACT II rule, including the site-specific provisions, into the State regulations and thus be granted delegation of this program from the EPA, per the April 20, 1998 delegation agreement. Additionally, to accommodate the requested flexibilities and implement this XL project, VADEQ intends to propose and issue a permit to construct and operate a new chemical recovery system at Georgia-Pacific’s Big Island facility. Finally, VADEQ expects to: (1) modify the steam utilization requirements in the current permit for the mini-Mill, and (2) undertake an approval process, separate from the permit for the new chemical recovery system, to allow for the limited duration Kraft liquor trial. Nothing in this Final Project Agreement has the effect of relieving Georgia-Pacific of its existing duty to comply with all permit and/or regulatory requirements which currently exist or which will be developed as a part of this XL project, except to the extent that they are specifically modified by the legal implementation mechanisms described in this Agreement. EPA and VADEQ reserve their right to enforce any applicable permit or regulatory requirements or standards during the XL project term. 1. Federal Compliance Date Flexibility The need for an extension of the MACT II compliance date (as described in Project Element 9) will depend on the occurrence of certain events and completion of certain actions: a. Georgia-Pacific will undertake the installation and operation of a prototype, black- liquor steam-reforming gasification system. EPA will provide a later compliance date for the MACT II applicable to the Georgia-Pacific Big Island facility if either of the following events takes place and Georgia-Pacific provides timely notification to the other stakeholders: i. Georgia-Pacific experiences an unavoidable delay that is likely to prevent the gasification system from achieving startup by the promulgated MACT II compliance date for existing sources (applicable to the existing sm...

Legal Implementing Mechanisms. The primary goal of this section is to describe key aspects of the legal implementing mechanism. This will help avoid significant unresolved issues from arising during development of the implementing mechanism by clearly stating the common understanding of the parties. The expectation is that the legal mechanism is being developed and drafted at the same time as the Agreement, so that confusion between documents and parties may be avoided in an efficient and cost-effective manner. In this section, you should list and describe the mechanisms that will be put into place, when that will occur, and under what conditions, (such as a need for data collection before a waiver is granted. Depending on the flexibility you are getting, you may need a legal implementing mechanism, such as a waiver or exemption from the existing regulations, a site- specific rule, a new permit, or a combination of these. If the legal implementing mechanism is proposed and finalized simultaneously with the Agreement, then details may be contained in the legal implementing mechanism itself and need not be repeated in the Agreement in their entirety. While this is not recommended, if the Agreement is finalized before the legal implementing mechanism, then more details may be necessary in the Agreement.

Legal Implementing Mechanisms. To accommodate the requested flexibilities, and implement this XL project, the EPA will propose a rule for public comment. This rule will establish site-specific MACT II compliance date extensions, effective under certain circumstances, for the existing smelters at the Georgia-Pacific Big Island plant and the gasification system or conventional recovery boiler system; as well as a site-specific definition for the term “start-up” applicable to the gasification system. VADEQ intends to incorporate the federal MACT II rule, including the site- specific provisions, into the State regulations and thus be granted delegation of this program from the EPA, per the April 20, 1998 delegation agreement. Additionally, to accommodate the requested flexibilities and implement this XL project, VADEQ intends to propose and issue a permit to construct and operate a new chemical recovery system at Georgia-Pacific’s Big Island facility. Finally, VADEQ expects to: (1) modify the steam utilization requirements in the current permit for the mini-Mill, and (2) undertake an approval process, separate from the permit for the new chemical recovery system, to allow for the limited duration Kraft liquor trial. Nothing in this Final Project Agreement has the effect of relieving Georgia- Pacific of its existing duty to comply with all permit and/or regulatory requirements which currently exist or which will be developed as a part of this XL project, except to the extent that they are specifically modified by the legal implementation mechanisms described in this Agreement. EPA and VADEQ reserve their right to enforce any applicable permit or regulatory requirements or standards during the XL project term.

Legal Implementing Mechanisms. The Commonwealth of Virginia intends to propose and issue a permit to construct and operate a chemical recovery system for the Georgia-Pacific mill located in Big Island, Virginia. This permit will be issued under the authority of 9 VAC 5-80-10 of the State Air Pollution Control Board Regulations for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Legal Implementing Mechanisms. The legal implementing mechanism for this XL project will be a site-specific rule which will provide a conditional exclusion from the definition of a solid waste for the wastewater treatment sludge generated in IBM’s West Complex, pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20. This temporary conditional exclusion will be set forth in 40 CFR 261.4(a) (“Materials which are not solid wastes.”). The exclusion is “temporary” because this XL project will only be in place for five years after the effective date of the final rule allowing for the implementation of the XL project. The conditions for this site-specific exclusion reflect the fact that this is a pilot project designed to test the regulatory flexibility being provided. These conditions (discussed more fully in Sections 3.8, 5.1 and 5.3) include: • The periodic monitoring of constituent concentrations to ensure that the sludge being recycled remains consistent with the sludge evaluated in developing this XL project. • Various management standards such as “no land placement of the sludge,” “protection against wind dispersal,” “protection against precipitation runoff,” and “no speculative accumulation.” These standards are intended to ensure that the sludge is actually recycled rather than inadvertently released to the environment, and bolster the argument the sludge is being managed as a valued commodity rather than a waste- like material. • Tracking, to ensure that the sludge is recycled. • Data collection and reporting. Inherent to this pilot project is the need to gather sufficient data to assess the success of the pilot project. Such data will include the monitoring of constituent concentrations in the sludge, the volume of sludge recycled, and an accounting of the reduction in analogous raw materials used or the increase in cement production resulting from the recycling of the sludge. In addition, data will be collected to enable EPA to begin the process of evaluating whether the regulatory flexibility should be expanded to the national level and how such flexibility should be designed to both ensure protection of human health and the environment while encouraging the environmentally sound recycling of this waste stream. Before the regulatory flexibility can be expanded nationally, however, additional data that are beyond the scope of this project must be considered. The data from this project should prove useful in identifying the additional data that will be necessary. The effect the proposed recycling would have on ...

Legal Implementing Mechanisms. To implement this Project, the parties intend to take the following steps: 1. EPA will propose for public comment and promulgate a site-specific rule amending 40 CFR 258.28 (Liquid Restrictions) for Yolo County’s facility. This site-specific rule will describe the project requirements and any other aspects of the rulemaking. It is expected that the site-specific rule will provide for Withdrawal or Termination and a Post-Project Compliance Period consistent with Section XI, and will address the Transfer procedures included in Section IX. The standards and reporting requirements set forth in Section III (and any attachments to this FPA) will be implemented in this site-specific rulemaking. 2. The State under its relevant authority expects to promulgate the appropriate rule changes, permit modifications, etc. to implement this FPA needed by Yolo County for this project. Except as provided in any rule(s), compliance order(s), permit provisions or other implementing mechanisms that may be adopted to implement the Project, the parties do not intend that this FPA will modify or otherwise alter the applicability of existing or future laws or regulations to Yolo County’s facility. 3. The Yolo-Xxxxxx Air Quality Management District under its relevant authority expects to modify any permits necessary to implement this FPA. 4. Except as provided in any rule(s), compliance order(s), permit provisions or other implementing mechanisms that may be adopted to implement the Project, the parties do not intend that this FPA will modify or otherwise alter the applicability of existing or future laws or regulations to Yolo County’s Solid Waste Management Facility. 5. By signing this FPA, EPA, Yolo County, the State of California and its local authorities acknowledge and agree that they have the respective authorities and discretion to enter into this FPA and to implement the provisions of this project, to the extent appropriate.

Legal Implementing Mechanisms. The legal implementing mechanism for this XL Project will be a site-specific rule which will provide a site-specific exemption of the wastewater treatment sludge produced from IBM’s copper metallization process from 40 CFR 261.31. The exemption will be listed in 40 CFR 261.4(b) (i.e., “Solid wastes which are not hazardous wastes”). The Agency considered a modification to the F006 listing description in the table in 40 CFR 261.31(a), adding the copper metallization process at the IBM Vermont facility to the list of plating operations that are not intended to be subject to the listing. However, because the exemption will have a number of conditions that the IBM facility must follow to ensure that this XL project is protective of human health and the environment throughout the term of the project and to provide the information and data the Agency will use to consider whether the regulatory exemption should be incorporated into the national program, the Agency prefers placing the exemption language in 40 CFR 261.4(b). Regardless of where EPA chooses to place the exemption language in the regulations (261.31(a) or 261.4(b)), the legal effect of the exemption will be the same. EPA expects that should the exemption of the copper metallization process from the F006 listing be incorporated into the national program, EPA would then modify the listing description in 40 CFR 261.31(a). IBM cannot benefit from this exemption until VTDEC promulgates a conforming state site-specific rule.