46940 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Notices 

385.214). Anyone filing a motion to 

intervene or protest must serve a copy 

of that document on the Applicant. 

Notice is hereby given that the 

deadline for filing protests with regard 

to the applicant’s request for blanket 

authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of 

future issuances of securities and 

assumptions of liability is August 5, 

2013. 

The Commission encourages 

electronic submission of protests and 

interventions in lieu of paper, using the 

FERC Online links at http:// 

www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic 

service, persons with Internet access 

who will eFile a document and/or be 

listed as a contact for an intervenor 

must create and validate an 

eRegistration account using the 

eRegistration link. Select the eFiling 

link to log on and submit the 

intervention or protests. 

Persons unable to file electronically 

should submit an original and 5 copies 

of the intervention or protest to the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426. 

The filings in the above-referenced 

proceeding(s) are accessible in the 

Commission’s eLibrary system by 

clicking on the appropriate link in the 

above list. They are also available for 

review in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room in Washington, DC. 

There is an eSubscription link on the 

Web site that enables subscribers to 

receive email notification when a 

document is added to a subscribed 

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC 

Online service, please email 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. or call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18660 Filed 8–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9010–4] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental 

Impact Statements 

Filed 07/22/2013 Through 07/26/2013 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

Notice 

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that EPA make public its 

comments on EISs issued by other 

Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters 

on EISs are available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/ 

eisdata.html. 

EIS No. 20130226, Final EIS, USN, FL, 

Naval Air Station Key West Airfield 

Operations Review Period Ends: 09/ 

03/2013, Contact: Greg Timoney 904– 

542–6866. 

EIS No. 20130227, Draft EIS, NASA, CA, 

Proposed Demolition and 

Environmental Cleanup Activities at 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory, 

Comment Period Ends: 09/16/2013, 

Contact: Allen Elliott 256–544–0662. 

EIS No. 20130228, Final EIS, USACE, 

CO, Chatfield Reservoir Storage 

Reallocation, Review Period Ends: 09/ 

03/2013, Contact: Gwyn M. Jarrett 

402–995–2717. 

EIS No. 20130229, Final EIS, FAA, AK, 

Runway Safety Area Improvements 

Kodiak Airport, Review Period Ends: 

09/03/2013, Contact: Leslie Grey 907– 

271–5453. 

EIS No. 20130230, Draft EIS, NPS, NJ, 

Gateway National Recreation Area 

General Management Plan, Comment 

Period Ends: 10/02/2013 Contact: 

Suzanne McCarthy 718–354–4663. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20130134, Draft EIS, FERC, CA, 

Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project 

and Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project 

for Hydropower License, Comment 

Period Ends: 08/22/2013, Contact: 

Alan Mitchnick 202–502–6074. 

Revision to FR Notice Published 05/ 

24/2013; Extending Comment Period 

from 07/23/2013 to 08/22/2013. 

Dated: July 30, 2013. 

Cliff Rader, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18697 Filed 8–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0028; FRL–9843–1] 

RIN 2050–AE81 

Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Management System: Identification 

and Listing of Special Wastes; 

Disposal of Coal Combustion 

Residuals From Electric Utilities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of data availability 

(NODA) and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) 

invites comment on additional 

information obtained in conjunction 

with the proposed rule: Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Management System: 

Identification and Listing of Special 

Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion 

Residuals From Electric Utilities that 

was published in the Federal Register 

on June 21, 2010. This information is 

categorized as: additional data to 

supplement the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis and risk assessment, 

information on large scale fill, and data 

on the surface impoundment structural 

integrity assessments. EPA is also 

seeking comment on two issues 

associated with the requirements for 

coal combustion residual management 

units. The Agency is not reopening any 

other aspect of the proposal or 

underlying support documents, and will 

consider comments on any issues other 

than those raised in the NODA to be late 

comments and not part of the 

rulemaking record. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

September 3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2012–0028, by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

(2) Email: Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (email) to rcradocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0028. In 

contrast to EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s email system is not an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If you 

send an email comment directly to the 

Docket without going through EPA’s 

electronic public docket, EPA’s email 

system automatically captures your 

email address. Email addresses that are 

automatically captured by EPA’s email 

system are included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

(3) Fax: Comments may be faxed to 

202–566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0028. 

(4) Mail: Send two copies of your 

comments to Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Management System: 

Identification and Listing of Special 

Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion 

Residuals From Electric Utilities: Notice 

of Data Availability and Request for 

Comment, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Notices 46941 

1EPA issued a NODA on October 12, 2011 (76 FR 

63252) that announced and invited comment on 

other additional information that may be relevant 

to the development of a final rule that was obtained 

by EPA after the close of the public comment period 

on the proposed rule. 2The cited risk assessment, ‘‘Draft: Human and 

Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion 

Wastes,’’ April 2010 (EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640– 

0002), and RIA, ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for 

EPA’s Proposed RCRA Regulation Of Coal 

Combustion Residues (CCR) Generated by the 

Electric Utility Industry, ‘‘April 2010 (EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2009–0640–0003) are available in the docket 

for the 2010 proposed rule. 

DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0028. 

(5) Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies 

of your comments to the Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Management System: 

Identification and Listing of Special 

Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion 

Residuals From Electric Utilities: Notice 

of Data Availability and Request for 

Comment Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012– 

0028. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012– 

0028. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available on-line at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI), or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this notice. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Management System: Identification and 

Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of 

Coal Combustion Residuals From 

Electric Utilities: Notice of Data 

Availability and Request for Comment 

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket telephone number 

is (202) 566–0270. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Souders, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery (5304P), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0002, telephone 

(703) 308–8431, email address 

souders.steve@epa.gov. For more 

information on this rulemaking, please 

visit: www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/ 

industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ 

index.htm. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. How should I submit CBI to the 

agency? 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through www.regulations.gov or by 

email. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI only to the following 

address: RCRA CBI Document Control 

Officer, Office of Resource Conservation 

and Recovery (5305P), U.S. EPA, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0028. You may 

claim information that you submit to 

EPA as CBI by marking any part or all 

of that information as CBI (if you submit 

CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is CBI). Information so 

marked will not be disclosed, except in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

In addition to one complete version of 

the comment that includes any 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket and EPA’s electronic public 

docket. If you submit the copy that does 

not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and EPA’s 

electronic public docket without prior 

notice. If you have any questions about 

CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please contact: LaShan Haynes, Office of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

(5305P), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0002, 

telephone (703) 605–0516, email 

address haynes.lashan@epa.gov. 

II. What is the purpose of this NODA? 

With this NODA, EPA is reopening 

the comment period on the proposed 

rule: Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Management System: Identification and 

Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of 

Coal Combustion Residuals From 

Electric Utilities (75 FR 35127, June 21, 

2010), herein referred to as the 

‘‘proposed rule’’ for two limited 

purposes. The first is to obtain public 

comment on additional information that 

may be relevant to the development of 

a final Coal Combustion Residuals 

(CCR) rule under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

herein referred to as the ‘‘final rule.’’ 1

This includes new information and data 

we have received that could be used in 

potential updates and enhancements to 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) or 

risk assessment for the final rule.2 EPA 

is still in the process of evaluating this 

information and we cannot definitively 

state we have determined that it is 

appropriate to rely on this information 

in developing the final rule. In addition, 

it should not be assumed that the 

specific information identified in this 

NODA is the full sum of the information 

that will be considered or that will 

influence the Agency’s decisions in this 

rulemaking. However, EPA is reopening 

the comment period only for the limited 

purpose of allowing the public to 

comment on the validity and propriety 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46942 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Notices 

3The Agency’s ‘‘Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and 

Integrity of Information Disseminated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency ‘‘contains EPA’s 

policy and procedural guidance for ensuring and 

maximizing the quality of information that the 

Agency disseminates. They were developed in 

response to guidelines issued by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under Section 

515(a) of the Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 

106–554; H.R. 5658). The EPA Information Quality 

Guidelines are available at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

QUALITY/informationguidelines/documents/ 

EPA_InfoQualityGuidelines.pdf. 

4Specific evaluation criteria are outlined in the 

Agency’s document titled, ‘‘Data Quality 

Assessment: A Reviewer’s Guide ‘‘(EPA/240/B–06/ 

002, February 2006) provided at http:// 

www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g9r-final.pdf. 

5Available at: http://www.epa.gov/stpc/pdfs/ 

assess2.pdf. 

6U.S. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency: 

2010 Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Effluent Guidelines. OMB Control No. 

2040–0281. Approved May 20, 2010. 

of using these data and potential 

analyses in developing the final rule; 

this action will provide the public with 

a full and complete opportunity to 

comment on the information that EPA 

has identified to date as having the 

potential to weigh significantly in our 

decisions. If EPA determines that it is 

appropriate to rely on any of the 

information provided in today’s notice 

to support decisions and/or provisions 

in the final rulemaking, EPA will take 

the necessary steps to ensure the data is 

of sufficient quality before relying on it 

in deliberations on the final rule.3 EPA 

will use its Information Quality 

Guidelines, as appropriate, to evaluate 

any information used to support a final 

regulatory decision.4 In addition, EPA 

will also rely on the EPA Science Policy 

Council Assessment Factors Guidance 

to evaluate the quality and relevance of 

the scientific and technical 

information.5

The second purpose of this NODA is 

to solicit additional comment on two 

aspects of the proposed rule. The 

proposed technical requirements 

generated a significant number of 

technical comments and have presented 

some very complex issues. Based on the 

issues raised in public comments, EPA 

has identified two areas that warrant 

additional public comment; EPA is 

seeking additional comments on (1) the 

feasibility of complying with the 

Agency’s proposed time frames for 

closing surface impoundments in the 

subtitle D option; and (2) how the 

technical requirements (including the 

design and operating requirements for 

new CCR landfills) relate to CCR overfill 

units that have been constructed on top 

of closed surface impoundments or 

landfills, which commenters have 

claimed is a common (and expanding) 

practice. 

EPA is not reopening the comment 

period on any other issue associated 

with its original proposal. This is not an 

opportunity for the public to 

supplement their comments on the 

proposed rule, or to raise issues that 

could have been raised during the 

original comment period. The only 

issues on which the Agency is soliciting 

comment relate to the information in the 

docket supporting this NODA, EPA– 

HQ–RCRA–2012–0028, or the Web sites 

listed below, the potential revisions to 

the risk assessment and RIA based on 

this information, or the other two issues 

specifically described in this NODA. 

Comments submitted on any issues 

other than those specifically identified 

in this NODA will be considered ‘‘late 

comments’’ on the proposed rule. EPA 

will not respond to such comments, and 

they will not be considered part of the 

rulemaking record. 

III. Where can the additional 

information identified in this NODA be 

found? 

All the information EPA is noticing 

today in this NODA can be found in the 

docket, EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0028 or 

is available from Web sites at internet 

addresses provided in this notice. There 

are three data sets for which hardcopy 

versions of the material cited is not 

included in the docket and we are 

instead providing internet addresses. 

These are: (1) The Structural Integrity 

Surface Impoundment Assessments at: 

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/ 

industrial.special/fossil/surveys2/ 

indexhtm; (2) the Questionnaire for the 

Steam Electric Power Generating 

Effluent Guidelines at: http:// 

water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/ 

steam-electric/questionnaire.cfm; and 

(3) the National Hydrography Dataset 

Plus (NHDPlus) at: http://www.horizonsystems.com/nhdplus/. 

IV. What data to supplement the RIA 

and risk assessment are being noticed? 

On June 7, 2013, EPA published a 

proposed rule revising technology-based 

effluent limitation guidelines and 

standards for the steam electric power 

generating point source category (ELG 

rule) (78 FR 34432). A principle source 

of information used in developing this 

proposal was the industry responses to 

a survey titled, The Questionnaire for 

the Steam Electric Power Generating 

Effluent Guidelines, distributed by EPA 

under the authority of section 308 of the 

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1318.6 EPA 

designed the industry survey to obtain 

technical information related to 

wastewater generation and treatment, 

and economic information such as costs 

of wastewater treatment technologies 

and financial characteristics of 

potentially affected companies. In June 

2010, EPA mailed the survey to 733 

plants. In general, plants were required 

to provide responses for the 2009 

calendar year. (The reader is referred to 

the preamble discussion in the proposed 

ELG rule for additional information on 

the questionnaire and the data collected 

(78 FR 34442–34445.)) The Agency is 

considering whether to rely on all of the 

responding data in developing a revised 

RIA, risk assessment or other analyses. 

A Microsoft Access version of the data, 

a PDF of the original questions and 

mailing list, and an EXCEL version of 

the data element dictionary are all 

available at: http://water.epa.gov/ 

scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/ 

questionnaire.cfm; this is the same 

information on which EPA solicited 

public comment in the proposed ELG 

rule. EPA also notes that the Agency 

will work to harmonize the use of these 

data, to the extent possible, in the 

development of this final rule. 

V. What additional data for the risk 

assessment are being noticed? 

EPA is soliciting comment on whether 

to consider the following additional 

information sources in developing a 

revised risk assessment in support of the 

final rule. The risk assessment prepared 

in support of the proposed rule titled, 

‘‘Draft: Human and Ecological Risk 

Assessment of Coal Combustion 

Wastes,’’ April 2010 (‘‘2010 Risk 

Assessment’’) is available in the docket 

to the proposed rule (EPA–HQ–RCRA– 

2009–0640–0002). Although EPA is 

singling out the information and data 

specifically listed below and in the 

docket for further public comment, it 

should not be assumed that this 

information/data is the full sum of the 

information/data that will be considered 

or that will influence the Agency’s 

decisions in this rulemaking. 

1. EPA is considering updating the 

surface water flow rates. The average 

annual flow rates provided in the 

National Hydrography Dataset Plus 

(NHDPlus) may be used to supplement 

or replace the Reach File Version 1.0 

(RF1) low flow (7Q10) data previously 

used to model surface water flow rates. 

These data can be found at: http:// 

www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/. 

2. Data from a report by the U.S. 

Census Bureau for the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service titled, ‘‘2006 National 

Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation.’’ This 

report characterizes the percentage of 

residents in urban and rural areas of 

each state who are fresh water fishers. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Notices 46943 

7The U.S. Census Bureau has defined urban and 

rural. EPA notes that according to this definition, 

‘‘urban fringe generally consists of contiguous 

territory having a density of at least 1,000 persons 

per square mile.’’ Thus, a population of 3,142 

persons within a 1-mile radius means a population 

density of 1,000 per square mile. 

8The Agency provided definitions for proven 

damage cases and potential damage cases in the 

2010 proposal (see 75 FR 35131.) As stated in the 

proposal, damage cases can be either a potential 

damage case or a proven damage case. 

Potential damage case means those cases with 

documented MCL exceedances that were measured 

in ground water beneath or close to the waste 

source. In these cases, while the association with 

CCRs has been established, the documented 

exceedances had not been demonstrated at a 

sufficient distance from the waste management unit 

to indicate that waste constituents had migrated to 

the extent that they could cause human health 

concerns. 

Proven damage case means those cases with (i) 

documented exceedances of primary maximum 

contaminant levels (MCLs) or other health-based 

standards measured in ground water at sufficient 

distance from the waste management unit to 

indicate that hazardous constituents have migrated 

to the extent that they could cause human health 

concerns, and/or (ii) where a scientific study 

provides documented evidence of another type of 

damage to human health or the environment (e.g., 

ecological damage), and/or (iii) where there has 

been an administrative ruling or court decision with 

an explicit finding of specific damage to human 

health or the environment. In cases of coContinued 

EPA is considering applying the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service statistics for 

urban and rural areas from each state to 

current census population counts to 

estimate the total number of residents 

near each coal plant who are anglers.7

This document is available at: http:// 

wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/ 

NationalSurvey/ 

nat_survey2006_final.pdf, as well as in 

the docket supporting this NODA. 

3. The EPA is considering using a 

mathematical procedure to model the 

interception of groundwater plumes by 

surface water bodies that may exist 

between a waste management unit and 

a down-gradient drinking water well. 

EPA is requesting comment on the 

validity of this procedure. Theoretical 

details of the procedure are provided in 

the document titled, ‘‘Plume 

Interception by a Stream and 

Contaminant Concentrations at Receptor 

Wells Located Downgradient from the 

Stream’’ that can be found in the docket 

supporting this NODA. 

4. On October 12, 2011, EPA issued a 

NODA (76 FR 26086) seeking 

comments, among other things, on the 

CCR leaching data (Leaching 

Environmental Assessment Framework, 

or LEAF data) developed by EPA’s 

Office of Research and Development 

and Vanderbilt University). Based on 

the comments received and additional 

review, the EPA is considering updating 

the LEAF data; new pre-processing 

algorithms were developed to make the 

best use of the LEAF data by EPA’s 

Composite Model with Transformation 

Products (EPACMTP). EPA is providing 

further documentation related to the 

changes in the document titled, 

’’Algorithms to Pre-Process Leaching 

Data to Generate Source Terms for 

Modeling Landfill Leachate Migration in 

Ground Water’’ that can be found in the 

docket supporting this NODA. 

5. EPA obtained additional fish bioconcentration factors (BCFs) and other 

chemical-specific data from literature 

for hazardous constituents. The 

chemical-specific data to be used as 

inputs for modeling are available in a 

file titled, ‘‘Chemical Specific Data’’ that 

can be found in the docket supporting 

this NODA. EPA is only requesting 

comment on whether the revised BCFs 

should be considered in the final risk 

assessment in support of the final rule. 

6. EPA created a list linking the 

location of each coal plant with the 

closest receiving water body for 

evaluating surface water risks as well as 

human health risks. Each plant is 

identified by the corresponding Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) ID 

and each receiving water body is 

identified by the corresponding 

Common ID (COMID). These data are 

provided in the EXCEL spreadsheet 

titled, ‘‘List of Coal Plant and Closest 

Receiving Water’’ that can be found in 

the docket supporting this NODA. We 

are soliciting comment regarding 

corrections or amendments to these 

data. 

VI. What information on large scale fill 

is being noticed? 

In the proposed rule, the Agency 

proposed to define the placement of 

CCRs in sand and gravel pits, quarries, 

and other large scale fill operations as 

land disposal, rather than beneficial use. 

75 FR 35163. The preamble to the 

proposal discussed situations where 

large quantities of CCRs had been used 

as encapsulated general fill and the 

Agency stated that it considered that 

practice to be waste management. The 

preamble further stated that, ‘‘The 

amount of material placed can 

significantly impact whether placement 

of unencapsulated CCRs cause 

environmental risks. There are great 

differences between the amount of 

material disposed of in a landfill and in 

a beneficial use setting. For example, a 

stabilized fly ash base course for 

roadway construction may be on the 

order of 6 to 12 inches thick under the 

road where it is used—these features 

differ considerably from the landfill and 

sand and gravel pit situations where 

hundreds of thousands to millions of 

tons of CCRs are disposed of and for 

which damage cases are documented.’’ 

Id at 35164. However, EPA did not 

propose a definition of the activities that 

would constitute large scale fill, nor 

propose a size criterion, but ‘‘solicit[ed] 

comments on appropriate criteria to 

distinguish between legitimate 

beneficial uses and inappropriate 

operations.’’ Id at 35163. 

In response, many commenters stated 

that EPA should have developed a size 

criterion to define large scale fill 

operations. The State of North Carolina 

suggested 5,000 cubic yards as a size 

criterion, but did not provide a basis for 

this. Other commenters did not suggest 

a specific definition or offer specific size 

limitations. In developing the CCR final 

rule and in defining large scale fill 

operations, EPA is considering whether 

to adopt an approach that relies on 

developing criteria or whether to 

develop a definition, either through 

guidance or an interpretive rule in the 

preamble, or through regulatory text that 

identifies the types of activities or 

factors the Agency will consider . 

In the proposed rule, the Agency 

recognized that the amount of waste 

alone did not result in situations that 

replicated landfills. For example: ‘‘The 

amount of material placed can 

significantly impact whether placement 

of unencapsulated CCRs causes 

environmental risks. There are great 

differences between the amount of 

material disposed of in a landfill and in 

beneficial use settings. For example, a 

stabilized fly ash base course for 

roadway construction may be on the 

order of 6 to 12 inches thick under the 

road where it is used—these features 

differ considerably from the landfill and 

sand and gravel pit situations where 

hundreds of thousands to millions of 

tons of CCRs are disposed of and for 

which damage cases are documented.’’ 

Id at 35164. Thus, EPA may exclude 

roadway construction from the 

definition of ‘‘CCR Landfill’’ or set a 

minimum depth reflective of CCR 

landfills and the damage cases 

associated with fill operations. 

Whatever approach is chosen, EPA is 

aware of three different types of data 

sets that could provide information 

relevant to developing appropriate 

criteria or to otherwise defining what 

constitutes large scale fill. EPA is 

soliciting comment on the adequacy of 

these data, and whether EPA should 

consider them for the purpose of 

creating criteria or a definition. 

Specifically: 

• The first data set involves the size 

of the structural fills that have resulted 

in damage cases.8 Size information on 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46944 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Notices 

management of CCRs with other industrial waste 

types, CCRs must be clearly implicated in the 

reported damage. 

all seven sites was not in the docket to 

the proposed rule, but has been added 

to the docket for this NODA (See the 

document titled, ‘‘Structural Fills That 

Have Resulted in Damage Cases’’). 

• The second possible source of 

information that could be used is the 

distribution of landfill sizes, derived 

either from EPA’s Office of Water’s 

questionnaire—which, as mentioned 

earlier, is part of the docket supporting 

this NODA—or from the landfill size 

distribution used in the proposed rule. 

The landfill size data set may provide 

relevant information that could be used 

to develop size criteria for 

distinguishing between large scale fill 

operations and sham disposal, as 

discussed in the proposed rule. See 75 

FR 35155 

• The third potential data set is the 

document titled, ‘‘North Carolina 

Documented Cases of Structural Fills 

Using Coal Ash as of January 2010’’.This 

data set does not discuss damage cases 

but presents a size distribution for large 

scale fills that have been constructed in 

North Carolina. 

These data have been placed in the 

docket supporting this NODA. 

VII. What data on surface 

impoundment structural integrity 

assessments are being noticed? 

On October 13, 2010, EPA described 

and solicited comment (See 76 FR 

63252) on information that had been 

obtained from EPA’s effort to assess the 

structural integrity of surface 

impoundments. At that time, EPA had 

completed the assessments and the final 

reports for 53 units. Since that time, 

EPA has continued this assessment 

effort and has posted on its Web site 

(see: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/ 

nonhaz/industrial.special/fossil/ 

surveys2/indexhtm) draft and final 

reports for a total of 522 units and 209 

facilities. 

The Agency solicits comments on all 

this information, including the 

assessments that were noticed on 

October 13, 2010, as to the extent to 

which both the CCR surface 

impoundment survey responses and 

assessment materials on the structural 

integrity of these impoundments should 

be factored into EPA’s final rule. 

IX. Request for Additional Public 

Comment on Two Technical Issues 

Related to Surface Impoundment/ 

Landfill Closure and Requirements for 

Overfills. 

EPA received comments in two 

general areas relating to its proposed 

rule for CCR management units: (1) The 

feasibility of complying with the 

Agency’s proposed time frames for 

closing surface impoundments in the 

subtitle D option; and (2) how these 

requirements (as well as the 

construction and operation 

requirements) relate to the construction 

of new CCR overfill units on top of 

closed surface impoundments or 

landfills. These specific requirements 

present some of the most complex and 

difficult technical issues and are reopening the comment period for these 

two issues only. EPA notes however that 

comments submitted on any other 

aspect of the proposed technical 

requirements for CCR management units 

other than those specifically discussed 

below will be considered late comments 

that are not part of the rulemaking 

record, and the Agency will not respond 

to them. 

A. Closure Time Frames 

Under the subtitle D option, EPA 

proposed to establish time frames for 

closing waste disposal units. EPA 

proposed that closure activities must 

commence no later than 30 days 

following the known final receipt of 

CCRs. The proposed rule also provided 

that the 30-day deadline to commence 

closure activities could be extended to 

one year after the most recent receipt of 

CCRs if the CCR waste disposal unit had 

remaining capacity and there was a 

reasonable likelihood that the CCR 

waste disposal unit will receive 

additional CCRs. In addition, EPA 

proposed that an owner and operator 

complete closure activities within 180 

days following the start of closure 

activities. Thus, the maximum amount 

of time a facility would have to initiate 

and complete closure of a disposal unit 

was seven months. 

EPA received numerous comments 

from both states and individual electric 

utility facilities raising concerns that 

these time frames would essentially be 

‘‘impossible to meet’’ for surface 

impoundments located in certain 

geographic and climatic conditions, as 

well as for the larger units. With respect 

to the time frames to complete closure, 

commenters raised concerns that 

dewatering of very large surface 

impoundments (e.g., 100 acres or more) 

can take several years under certain 

climatic and weather conditions. 

Concerns were also raised that the time 

frames for both initiating and 

completing closure failed to account for 

the time needed to obtain any state 

permits or regulatory approvals that 

might be needed to conduct certain 

closure activities, and that these time 

frames were incompatible in light of 

normal operating practices. EPA’s 

original proposal was modeled on the 

closure requirements applicable to 

municipal solid waste landfills and the 

interim status requirements for 

hazardous waste surface 

impoundments. As discussed in more 

detail below, the commenters have 

convinced EPA that it did not 

adequately account for the complexities 

inherent in electric generating facility 

operations, and the different 

characteristics of CCR surface 

impoundments in its original proposal. 

Consequently, EPA is evaluating several 

different options to address these 

concerns. 

1. Time Frame for Initiating Closure 

To address concerns about ‘‘inactive’’ 

or abandoned units, EPA proposed to 

require that facilities initiate closure 

within 30 days of either (1) the ‘‘known 

final receipt’’ of waste or (2) no later 

than one year after the most recent 

receipt of waste (i.e., if the unit has not 

received waste for a year, the owner or 

operator must initiate closure). EPA is 

aware of several examples of routine 

and legitimate circumstances in which 

disposal units would not receive CCRs 

for longer than one year, even though 

the facility intends to continue to use 

the unit. Although EPA is singling out 

the information specifically listed below 

and in the docket for further public 

comment, it should not be assumed that 

this information is the full sum of the 

information received in comments that 

will be considered or that will influence 

the Agency’s decisions in this 

rulemaking. Specifically: 

• The surface impoundment 

structural integrity assessment report 

titled ‘‘Assessment of Dam Safety Coal 

Combustion Surface Impoundments 

(Task 3) Final Report, Allegheny Energy, 

R. Paul Smith Station, Williamsport, 

Maryland’’ provides an example of a 

power plant that alternates the use of 

surface impoundments in order to make 

the most of existing capacity on-site 

(i.e., CCRs are removed and re-used/ 

disposed elsewhere). This facility 

alternates between two surface 

impoundments, only one of which is 

operational at a time. Once one 

impoundment has reached capacity, the 

facility dewaters the unit, and begins to 

send CCRs to the second impoundment. 

Once the unit is dewatered, the CCRs 

are excavated and disposed in an 

adjacent landfill. The time to fill these 

units has varied over the years as 

demand has fluctuated, but a typical 

time to fill a unit with CCRs is two 

years, perhaps longer, during which the 

other unit is ‘‘idle,’’ in that it does not 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Notices 46945 

9The information available to the Agency 

indicates that this issue is unique to surface 

impoundments. EPA is therefore not reopening for 

public comment the closure time frames for CCR 

landfills. 

‘‘receive CCRs,’’ but it remains 

operational. 

• The surface impoundment 

structural integrity assessment report 

titled ‘‘Coal Combustion Waste 

Impoundment Task 3—Dam Assessment 

Report, John E. Amos Plant (Site 26), 

Bottom Ash Dam, American Electric 

Power, St. Albans, West Virginia’’ 

provides another example of a facility 

that alternates between two surface 

impoundments, only one of which is 

operational at a time. According to this 

report, the active and inactive status 

alters between the two impoundments 

every one or two years. 

• The information request response 

from Xcel Energy titled ‘‘Response to 

Request for Information Relating to 

Surface Impoundments Under 104(e) of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9604(e)’’ contains another 

example of a facility that alternates use 

of two surface impoundments, only one 

of these impoundments is typically 

active and used at any one time. Xcel 

Energy’s Valmont Station in Boulder, 

Colorado practice is to clean out and 

switch the active pond every year. This 

report, and the two reports discussed 

above, can be found in the docket 

supporting this NODA. 

Similarly, some electric generating 

units may be placed into long-term 

reserve status or temporarily idled in 

response to low demand. As a result, 

associated surface impoundments may 

not be used for extended periods, but 

need to be available when the electric 

generating units are restarted. In 

addition, facilities that use other fuels 

than coal may not use the associated 

coal ash disposal units for extended 

periods. 

EPA agrees that there can be 

legitimate operational reasons for 

facilities to maintain waste disposal 

units even though there may be 

extended periods where CCRs are not 

placed in the unit. Consequently, EPA is 

soliciting comment on possible 

approaches to address these issues, 

including all aspects of the alternatives 

discussed below. 

One approach under consideration 

could be to establish a rebuttable 

presumption that if the unit has not 

received waste within a particular time 

frame, the disposal unit would be 

considered inactive and unit closure 

must begin within a specified time. For 

example, the rule could establish a 

presumption that facilities must initiate 

closure within 18 months to two years 

from the last receipt of waste, unless the 

facility could document certain 

findings. These findings could include, 

but are not limited to, any of the 

following situations: (1) A written 

demonstration by the owner or operator 

documenting that a CCR waste disposal 

unit is dedicated to a temporarily idled 

electric generating unit and that there is 

a reasonable likelihood that CCRs will 

be disposed in the waste disposal unit 

after the electric generating unit 

resumes operation; (2) a written 

demonstration by the owner or operator 

documenting that a CCR waste disposal 

unit is dedicated to an electric 

generating unit designed to burn coal 

and another fuel(s) (e.g., natural gas) 

and the reason that the waste disposal 

unit has not received CCRs within a 

particular time frame is that a non-coal 

fuel is being burned by the electric 

generating unit and showing that there 

is a reasonable likelihood that CCRs will 

be disposed in the waste disposal unit 

after the electric generating unit 

resumes burning coal; or (3) a written 

demonstration by the owner or operator 

documenting that normal plant 

operations include periods during 

which the CCR waste disposal unit does 

not receive CCRs and that there is a 

reasonable likelihood that CCR waste 

disposal operations will resume in the 

future. The facility would need to 

substantiate those findings, which 

would include the reason why the 

owner or operator believes ‘‘that there is 

a reasonable likelihood that CCRs will 

be disposed in the waste disposal unit’’ 

(which would also need to be certified 

by an independent registered 

professional engineer and/or the waste 

disposal unit owner or operator), and 

would be required to notify the state 

regulatory authority that those findings 

have been placed in the operating 

record and publicly posted to the 

internet. 

The approach discussed above does 

not include a time limit on how long a 

CCR waste disposal unit could remain 

idle from the perspective of the unit 

receiving CCRs. That is, an owner or 

operator could maintain a waste 

disposal unit for many years with the 

expectation of one day resuming CCR 

disposal operations in the unit. EPA 

does have concerns about extending the 

deadline to initiate closure activities 

using such an approach because, due to 

the self-implementing nature of the 

regulations, it is possible that the owner 

or operator could unilaterally decide to 

extend closure activities longer than 

necessary or that would be protective. 

Another approach that EPA is 

considering is to put a limit on how 

long an owner or operator can maintain 

a waste disposal unit without placing 

CCRs in the unit. For example, the rule 

could establish the rebuttable 

presumption approach discussed above, 

but also include a limit on how much 

time can pass without CCRs being 

placed in the waste disposal unit before 

the CCR waste disposal unit must begin 

closure (e.g., five years). EPA solicits 

comment on the feasibility and 

propriety of this approach. Commenters 

who believe the flexibility provided by 

the rebuttable presumption approach is 

appropriate are encouraged to include 

examples documenting the need for 

such flexibility. 

2. Time Frames to Complete Closure 

Information that the Agency has 

received or independently collected 

since the close of the comment period 

confirms the commenters’ claims that 

the time frames originally proposed to 

complete closure of surface 

impoundments will be practicably 

infeasible for the largest 

impoundments.9 EPA acknowledges 

that it will need to establish different 

deadlines, at least for these larger units. 

However, any ultimate time frame that 

EPA provides that would be practicable 

for the largest units will be far too long 

to justify the time frames for closure of 

smaller impoundments. EPA is 

examining available closure-related 

information for CCR surface 

impoundments to determine whether 

there are consistent time frames or other 

factors that EPA could adopt as part of 

the regulations. Although EPA is 

singling out the information specifically 

listed below and in the docket for 

further public comment, it should not 

be assumed that this information is the 

full sum of the information received in 

comments that will be considered or 

that will influence the Agency’s 

decisions in this rulemaking. 

Specifically: 

• The surface impoundment 

structural integrity assessment report 

titled ‘‘Coal Combustion Waste 

Impoundment Dam Assessment Report, 

Martins Creek Steam Electric Station, 

PPL Generation, Bangor, Pennsylvania’’ 

contains closure-related information for 

the facility’s Ash Basin No. 4. This 37- 

acre surface impoundment no longer 

receives CCRs and is being formally 

closed. The closure plan indicates that 

the dewatering and cap installation 

process will take approximately three 

years to complete. 

• The proposed plan to close the two 

surface impoundments at Santee 

Cooper’s Grainger Generating Station as 

provided in a letter (with attachments) 

from Santee Cooper to the South 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46946 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 149 / Friday, August 2, 2013 / Notices 

10This tiered approach is presented in docket 

items EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640–6424 and EPA– 

HQ–RCRA–2009–0640–6832. 

Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control dated March 18, 

2013. Under the proposed option, it is 

estimated that closure of the 

impoundments (one unit has a surface 

area of 42 acres and the second unit has 

a surface area of 39 acres) could be 

accomplished during a three-year 

period. 

• A paper presented at the 2013 

World of Coal Ash Conference titled 

‘‘Challenges of Closing Large Fly Ash 

Ponds,’’ which discusses the 

engineering, regulatory and 

constructability challenges of closing a 

300 acre surface impoundment over a 

projected four-year period. This report, 

and the two reports discussed above, 

can be found in the docket supporting 

this NODA. 

EPA is also considering a variety of 

approaches for revising its overall 

regulatory structure. One approach 

could be to establish categories of time 

frames that distinguish between 

impoundments based on a variety of 

factors. At a minimum, this could 

include the size of the impoundment, as 

well as the final volume of material 

(both CCR and liquid) contained in the 

unit at the time of closure. For example, 

some commenters proposed a tiered 

approach for landfills and surface 

impoundments that grouped units into 

four categories: (1) Units smaller than 20 

acres, would be subject to a one year 

deadline to complete closure; (2) units 

between 20 and 50 acres would be 

subject to a two year deadline to 

complete closure; (3) units between 50 

and 75 acres would be subject to a three 

year deadline to complete closure; and 

(4) units greater than 75 acres would be 

subject to a ‘‘site specific’’ deadline to 

complete closure.10

While the commenters’ tiered 

approach has appeal, the precise basis 

for the commenters’ distinctions and the 

time frames is not clear; at a minimum, 

factors other than size, such as climate, 

geography, and waste disposal unit 

configuration would also appear to be 

relevant, and any time frames should 

account for those other factors. EPA 

solicits comment on ways to establish 

categories of time frames that take into 

consideration the various factors 

affecting the amount of time needed to 

properly close a surface impoundment, 

and encourages commenters who are 

interested in supporting such a tiered 

approach, to provide the rationale and 

data to support any suggested categories 

of time frames. In addition, the Agency 

believes that the concept of having a 

‘‘site-specific’’ deadline may not be 

practicable, unless EPA were to 

establish a ‘‘variance’’ process as part of 

the rule. Under such a variance 

approach, the rule would establish a 

specific deadline (e.g., closure must be 

completed no later than five years from 

the date closure activities are initiated), 

but would also allow facilities to 

petition EPA for a site-specific rule to 

establish an alternate deadline. This is 

because, as discussed at length in the 

proposal, under any subtitle D 

approach, EPA cannot rely on the 

existence of a state permitting authority 

to implement the RCRA subtitle D 

requirements (since EPA cannot require 

that states regulate, including issuing 

permits under RCRA 4004(a)). (75 FR 

35193–94) 

Another approach, similar to the 

approach EPA is considering with 

respect to the time frames for initiating 

closure, would be to establish time 

frames with a rebuttable presumption. 

For example, the rule could establish a 

presumption that facilities must 

complete closure within a specified 

time frame, such as, five years, unless 

the facility could document certain 

findings, such as the owner or operating 

providing a written demonstration that 

closure activities (e.g., eliminating free 

liquids from the surface impoundment, 

stabilizing the remaining CCR wastes to 

support the final cover, constructing the 

final cover system) are not feasible to 

complete within the specified time 

frame. The facility would need to 

document those findings (which, 

consistent with the proposal, would also 

need to be certified by an independent 

registered professional engineer), and 

would be required to notify the state 

regulatory authority that the plan has 

been placed in the operating record and 

publicly posted to the Internet. 

EPA is soliciting comments on 

whether any of these potential 

approaches, a combination of them, or 

other approaches would effectively 

address the practical concerns raised by 

the commenters, in a way that could 

assure that the closure of CCR waste 

disposal units will protect human 

health and the environment. EPA is 

primarily interested in comments that 

include data or other documentation 

(e.g., specific closure plans). 

B. New CCR Overfills Constructed Over 

Closed CCR Surface Impoundments or 

Landfills 

One issue presented in public 

comments addressed how the Agency 

intends to regulate CCR landfills, also 

known as overfills, that are constructed 

over a closed CCR surface impoundment 

or landfill. An overfill is additional CCR 

disposal capacity located partially or 

entirely above a surface impoundment 

or landfill previously used for the 

disposal or storage of CCRs. Overfills 

can be defined as new, self-contained 

units that are distinct and separate from 

the unit upon which it is located. 

EPA is aware of only one state, North 

Carolina, that has specific regulatory 

requirements for the design and 

construction of overfills. In 2007, North 

Carolina enacted design requirements 

for CCR landfills, i.e., overfills 

constructed partially or entirely within 

areas that have been formerly used for 

the storage or disposal of CCRs. These 

management units are required to be 

constructed to ensure that the upper 

unit (i.e., overfill) does not leach into 

the lower unit (i.e., closed surface 

impoundment or landfill). By reducing 

infiltration, contaminants will not 

spread through to the lower unit and to 

the groundwater. North Carolina 

requires the installation of a doubleliner leak detection system consisting of 

three components. The upper two 

components consist of two separate 

flexible membrane liners with leak 

detection between the two liners. The 

third component consists of a minimum 

of two feet of soil underneath the 

bottom of the liners, with a maximum 

permeability of 1 x10–7 centimeters per 

second. Additionally, North Carolina 

requires the development of a response 

plan that describes the circumstances 

under which corrective action measure 

is to be taken at the overfill in the event 

of the detection of leaks in the leak 

detection system. 

In developing the proposed rule, EPA 

was not aware that CCRs were managed 

in this fashion (i.e., in overfills), and so 

we did not either evaluate this specific 

management scenario or propose 

technical requirements specifically 

tailored to this type of management 

unit. Under the proposed rule, these 

types of units would need to comply 

with both the requirements applicable 

to the closure of surface impoundments 

or landfills, and with all of the technical 

requirements applicable to new 

landfills. For example, this would 

include the location and design 

requirements applicable to new landfills 

(e.g., composite liners) as well as the 

operating requirements (e.g., 

groundwater monitoring). 

Since the close of the comment 

period, the Agency has learned that the 

practice of constructing overfills for the 

disposal of CCRs is conducted with 

some regularity. EPA has also obtained 

additional technical information, which 

is included in the docket supporting 

today’s NODA on how these units are 

typically designed and operated, which 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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