Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Notices 46947 

11Seymour, J. and Houlihan, M. F. (2011) 

Advances in Design of Landfills Over CCR Ponds 

and CCR Landfills, Proceedings of the e 2011 World 

of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference—May 9–12, 

2011,Denver, Colorado, http://www.flyash.info/. 

Schmitt, N. and Cole, M. (2013) Use of Bottom 

Ash in the Reinforced Zone of a Mechanically 

Stabilized Earth Wall for the Vertical Expansion of 

a Sluiced CCR Pond at the Trimble County 

Generating Station. Proceedings of the 2013 World 

of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference—April 22–25, 

2013, Lexington, KY http://www.flyash.info/. 

Houlihan, M.,Advances in Design of Landfills 

Over CCB Ponds and Landfills. 16 January 2013. 

North Carolina statute allowing landfills on top 

of surface impoundments. http://law.onecle.com/ 

north-carolina/130a-public-health/130a-295.4.html 

Docket item EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640–6877. 

Comment to the proposed rule from The Detroit 

Edison Company. 

has raised questions as to whether these 

types of units would be effectively 

regulated under our proposed technical 

requirements.11

All of the information collected to 

date leads the Agency to believe that 

technical issues unique to these units 

may warrant some modifications to the 

technical standards. At a minimum, this 

could include changes to the technical 

requirements to clarify how they apply 

to overfills (e.g., revisions to the 

definition of a ‘‘new unit;’’ clarifications 

as to how the liner requirements for the 

new landfill relate to the capping 

requirements for closed units). This 

could, however, also include 

substantive modifications to the 

technical standards and the 

development of a tailored set of 

requirements specific to this kind of 

disposal unit. Specifically, this could 

include substantive modifications to the 

location restrictions, design criteria, 

inspection requirements, groundwater 

monitoring, and closure. 

To aid in the development of final 

requirements, EPA is soliciting data or 

information that directly addresses 

existing engineering guidelines or 

practices, as well as any regulatory 

requirements (other than North 

Carolina’s) governing the siting, design, 

construction and long-term 

protectiveness of these units. In 

addition, the Agency is specifically 

requesting information or data that 

would allow EPA to address the 

following set of questions as they relate 

to CCR overfill units. 

• Are the location restrictions 

included in the proposed rule adequate 

to ensure protection of human health 

and the environment or should they be 

adjusted? For example, should the 

Agency consider prohibiting the 

construction of such overfills in certain 

locations or situations, such as over 

surface impoundments and landfills 

that were not closed in accordance with 

the closure criteria in the June 2010 

proposed rule? 

• Should the Agency allow for a CCR 

overfill unit to be constructed over a 

partially closed surface impoundment 

or landfill? If so, would the proposed 

technical requirements for new units 

(e.g., composite liners) be adequately 

protective? Are the ground water 

monitoring requirements that were 

proposed in the CCR proposal adequate 

or are there situations where they could 

they be inadequate? 

• Are there situations where 

implementing the proposed ground 

water monitoring requirements would 

create the potential to damage the 

integrity of the closed surface 

impoundment or landfill? In situations 

where an overfill is constructed 

partially over a closed landfill or surface 

impoundment, the proposed rule would 

require the placement of the 

groundwater monitoring wells at the 

waste boundary (i.e., at the boundary of 

the overfill). This placement, within the 

parameter of the closed unit, could 

possibly jeopardize the integrity of the 

closed unit (e.g., cause damage to the 

liner). Would this problem be 

adequately resolved by allowing the 

groundwater monitoring wells installed 

to monitor the ‘‘closed’’ landfill or 

surface impoundment to operate in lieu 

of separate groundwater monitoring 

wells at the overfill waste boundary? 

Should ground water monitoring be 

required for a longer period, since 

contamination could be released from 

the closed surface impoundment or 

landfill, as well as the overfill unit? 

• Should the Agency allow for a CCR 

overfill unit to not meet the liner and 

leachate collection requirements if the 

closed surface impoundment or landfill 

was equipped and continued to 

maintain a composite liner and leachate 

collection system as well as 

groundwater monitoring? Conversely, 

should the Agency require an overfill to 

have a double-liner leak detection 

system installed and forego groundwater 

monitoring until such time as a leak of 

the primary liner is detected? 

• Should overfills be subject to the 

same inspection requirements that EPA 

originally proposed for surface 

impoundments (see proposed section 

257.83, requiring weekly inspections by 

qualified personnel and annual 

inspections by an independent 

registered professional engineer). Would 

this adequately address any issues 

relating to the long-term structural 

integrity of these units and whether 

their inherent stability will be 

maintained through the active life of the 

unit as well as during post closure care. 

As an alternative, would it suffice to 

only require annual inspections of the 

overfill? Would it matter if the 

inspection requirement was paired with 

a revised certification in the locations 

restrictions section of the rule? How 

long should any inspection requirement 

continue under post-closure care? 

Dated: July 26, 2013. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18706 Filed 8–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9841–2] 

Adequacy Status of the HoustonGalveston-Brazoria, Texas Reasonable 

Further Progress and Attainment 

Demonstration Implementation Plan 

for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard; 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity Purposes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of adequacy. 

SUMMARY: EPA is notifying the public 

that it has found that the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, Texas 

(HGB) 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and 

Attainment Demonstration (AD) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, 

submitted on May 6, 2013 by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ), are adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. As a result of 

EPA’s finding, the HGB area must use 

these budgets for future conformity 

determinations. 

DATES: These budgets are effective 

August 19, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

essential information in this notice will 

be available at EPA’s conformity Web 

site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. 

You may also contact Mr. Jeffrey Riley, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733, telephone (214) 

665–8542, Email address: 

Riley.Jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refers to EPA. The word 

‘‘budget(s)’’ refers to the mobile source 

emissions budget for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and the mobile 

source emissions budget for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46948 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Notices 

On May 6, 2013, TCEQ submitted as 

a SIP revision updated MVEBs for the 

HGB area. The MVEBs updated the 

March 2010 HGB 1997 8-hour ozone 

RFP and AD SIP revisions to replace the 

on-road mobile source emissions 

inventories for NOX and VOCs based on 

EPA’s MOBILE model with those based 

on EPA’s MOVES model. This submittal 

established MVEBs for the HGB area for 

the years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 and 

2018. The MVEB is the amount of 

emissions allowed in the state 

implementation plan for on-road motor 

vehicles; it establishes an emissions 

ceiling for the regional transportation 

network. The MVEBs are provided in 

Tables 1 and 2: 

TABLE 1—HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA 1997 8-HOUR OZONE REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS NOX AND VOC 

MVEBS

Pollutant 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018 

NOX .............................................................................................................................. 261.95 234.92 171.63 130.00 120.99 

VOC ............................................................................................................................. 102.50 93.56 71.56 59.76 57.02 

TABLE 2—HOUSTON-GALVESTONBRAZORIA 1997 8-HOUR OZONE

ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION NOX

AND VOC MVEBS

[Summer season tons per day] 

Pollutant 2018 

NOX .............................................. 103.34 

VOC .............................................. 50.13 

On May 14, 2013, EPA posted the 

availability of the HGB area MVEBs on 

EPA’s Web site for the purpose of 

soliciting public comments, as part of 

the adequacy process. The comment 

period closed on June 13, 2013, and we 

received no comments. 

Today’s notice is simply an 

announcement of a finding that EPA has 

already made. EPA Region 6 sent a letter 

to TCEQ on July 17, 2013, finding that 

the MVEBs in the HGB 1997 8-hour 

ozone RFP and AD SIPs, submitted on 

May 6, 2013 are adequate and must be 

used for transportation conformity 

determinations in the HGB area. This 

finding has also been announced on 

EPA’s conformity Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/adequacy.htm. 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. 

EPA’s conformity rule, 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 93, 

requires that transportation plans, 

programs and projects conform to state 

air quality implementation plans and 

establishes the criteria and procedures 

for determining whether or not they do 

so. Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards. 

The criteria by which EPA determines 

whether a SIP’s MVEB is adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes are 

outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We 

have also described the process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, final 

rulemaking entitled, ‘‘Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments for the 

New 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments: Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Changes’’ 

(69 FR 40004). Please note that an 

adequacy review is separate from EPA’s 

completeness review, and it should not 

be used to prejudge EPA’s ultimate 

approval of the HGB 1997 8-hour ozone 

RFP and AD SIP revision submittals. 

Even if EPA finds the budgets adequate, 

the HGB RFP and AD SIP revision 

submittals could later be disapproved. 

Within 24 months from the effective 

date of this notice, the HGB-area 

transportation partners, such as the 

Houston-Galveston Area Council, will 

need to demonstrate conformity to the 

new MVEBs if the demonstration has 

not already been made, pursuant to 40 

CFR 93.104(e). See 73 FR 4419 (January 

24, 2008). 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 19, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18545 Filed 8–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9841–5] 

Proposed Agreement Regarding Site 

Costs and Covenants Not To Sue for 

American Lead and Zinc Mill Site, 

Ouray County, Colorado 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice; request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

122(i) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response Compensation, 

and Liability Act of 1980, as amended 

(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), 

notice is hereby given of the proposed 

administrative settlement agreement 

(Settlement Agreement) under section 

122(h) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h) 

between the EPA and The Blue Tee 

Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 

the ‘‘the Settling Party’’). The Settlement 

Agreement provides for Settling Party’s 

payment of certain response costs 

incurred at the American Lead and Zinc 

Mill Superfund Site near Ouray, 

Colorado. 

The Settling Party will pay within 30 

days after the effective date of this 

Settlement Agreement ($1,630,764), 

plus an additional sum for interest on 

that amount calculated from April 1, 

2012 through the date of payment. 

In accordance with Section 122(i) of 

CERCLA, this notice is being published 

to inform the public of the proposed 

Settlement Agreement and of the 

opportunity to comment. For thirty (30) 

days following the date of publication of 

this notice, EPA will receive written 

comments relating to the proposed 

Settlement Agreement. EPA will 

consider all comments received and 

may modify or withdraw its consent to 

the settlement if comments received 

disclose facts or considerations that 

indicate that the proposed settlement is 

inappropriate, improper or inadequate. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent 

Michael Rudy, Senior Enforcement 

Specialist (Mail Code ENF–RC), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6332 

or via electric mail at 

rudy.mike@epa.gov and should 

reference the American Lead and Zinc 

Mill Site, the EPA Docket No. CERCLA– 

08–2013–0004. The Agency’s response 

to any comments, the proposed 

agreement and additional background 

information relating to the agreement is 

available for public inspection at the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES