[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 88 (Monday, May 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-11083]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 9, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-4882-6]

 

Public Meetings on Alternatives for Ground-Water Monitoring at 
Small Dry/Remote Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 
series of four public, one-day meetings on alternatives for ground-
water monitoring at small, dry/remote municipal solid waste landfills 
(MSWLFs). These meetings will offer an opportunity for interested 
parties to express their views and provide information on the issues 
and impacts associated with alternatives for ground-water monitoring at 
MSWLFs that qualify for the small landfill exemption under 40 CFR 
258.1(f). The Agency will use this information in preparing any further 
action on alternatives to ground-water monitoring for these affected 
landfills. These meetings will be held in Midland, Texas; Salt Lake 
City, Utah; Anchorage, Alaska; and Washington, DC, as discussed below. 
Interested parties may submit comments directly to the Agency without 
speaking or attending a meeting if they choose.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For information on meeting plans or to pre-register to present a 
statement at any of the meetings, please call the U.S. EPA Alternatives 
to Ground-Water Monitoring Hot Line at 800-230-3564. For technical 
information, contact Scott Ellinger, Municipal and Industrial Solid 
Waste Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 5306) 
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (202-260-1350). If you require 
sign language or voice language interpreting services, please call 800-
230-3564 through relay.
    A summary of the meetings and all written comments received by EPA 
on alternatives to ground-water monitoring will be placed in a public 
docket and made available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center 
(RIC), which is located in room M2616, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Please place the docket number F-94-AGAP-FFFFF on 
all documents submitted to the Agency. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. The public 
must make an appointment to view docket materials. Call 202-260-9327 
for an appointment. Copies cost $0.15 per page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated a Final Rule (40 CFR part 258) 
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWLFs) under Subtitle D of the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). See 56 FR 50978. The 
Final Rule set forth minimum federal criteria for MSWLFs, including 
location restrictions, facility design and operating criteria, ground-
water monitoring requirements, corrective action requirements, 
financial assurance requirements, and closure and post-closure care 
requirements. In addition, the Final Rule included an exemption for 
owner/operators of certain small MSWLF units from the design (Subpart 
D) and ground-water monitoring and corrective action (Subpart E) 
requirements of the criteria. See 40 CFR 258.1(f). To qualify for the 
exemption, the small landfill had to accept less than 20 tons per day 
(TPD), on an annual average basis, exhibit no evidence of ground-water 
contamination, and serve either:
    (1) A community that experiences an annual interruption of surface 
transportation of at least three consecutive months that prevents 
access to a regional waste management facility, or
    (2) A community that has no practical waste management alternative 
and the landfill is located in an area that receives less than or equal 
to 25 inches of precipitation annually.
    In adopting this limited exemption, the Agency maintained that it 
had complied with the statutory standard to protect human health and 
the environment, taking into account the practicable capabilities of 
small landfill owners and operators. See discussion in 56 FR 50911 
(October 9, 1991). In January, 1992, the Sierra Club and the Natural 
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a petition with the U.S. Court 
of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, for review of the Subtitle D 
criteria. The Sierra Club and NRDC alleged, among other things, that 
EPA exceeded its statutory authority when it exempted these small 
landfills from the ground-water monitoring requirements. On May 7, 
1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit issued its opinion (Sierra Club versus United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 992 F.2d 337 (D.C. Cir. 1993)), 
stating that under RCRA section 4010(c), the only factor EPA could 
consider in determining whether facilities must monitor their ground 
water was whether such monitoring was ``necessary to detect 
contamination'', not whether such monitoring is ``practicable.'' Thus, 
the Court vacated the small community exemption as it pertains to 
ground-water monitoring. (The Court did not require EPA to remove the 
exemption for design requirements.)
    Accordingly, the Agency, as part of the October 1, 1993 final rule 
delaying the effective date of the MSWLF criteria (58 FR 51536, October 
1, 1993), rescinded the small landfill ground-water monitoring 
exemption. At the same time, however, to assure that owners and 
operators of such small MSWLFs had adequate time to decide whether to 
continue to operate under the Court's ruling, and to prepare 
financially for the added costs if they decided to continue to operate, 
EPA delayed the effective date of the MSWLF criteria for these 
facilities for two years.
    This additional two years provides the time for EPA to determine if 
there were practical and affordable alternative monitoring systems/
approaches which were adequate to detect contamination. The U.S. Court 
of Appeals, in its decision, did not preclude the possibility that EPA 
could establish separate ground-water monitoring standards for these 
small, dry/remote landfills that take into account size, location, and 
climate, as long as these separate requirements ensured that an owner/
operator could detect ground-water contamination. The Agency, 
therefore, solicited comments on alternative ground-water monitoring 
requirements in the publication of the proposed rule to extend the 
effective date of the MSWLF criteria (56 FR 40568, July 28, 1993). 
Today's announcement of public meetings provides interested parties 
with an additional opportunity to provide the Agency with information 
regarding alternative ground-water monitoring requirements.

B. Meeting Format, Dates, and Locations

    The Agency is inviting interested parties to provide factual 
information to assist the Agency in better understanding alternatives 
to ground-water monitoring. Interested parties (including 
representatives from State and local governments; landfill owners and 
operators; consultants, geologists, engineers, and others involved in 
waste management; and environmental and other public interest 
organizations) may attend the meetings, present a statement, and/or 
submit written information to the Agency. Speakers should register at 
least one week in advance of the meeting at which they wish to speak. 
Speakers should limit their oral statement to approximately five 
minutes. In addition, speakers may be asked to respond to questions 
from the EPA panel. Interested parties may submit written comments at 
the meeting without speaking, or directly to the public docket without 
attending the meeting (see information above). All written statements 
should be submitted in an original and two copies. Meeting attendees 
who do not wish to speak do not need to register in advance.
    Each meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will continue until 5 
p.m., (except for the Salt Lake City meeting which will begin at 9 
a.m.), with a break for lunch from 12 noon to 1 p.m. EPA will give its 
introductory remarks at the beginning of each meeting. Depending on the 
number of speakers, the meetings may adjourn earlier than 5 p.m. if all 
attendees who have registered to make a statement have completed their 
presentations earlier than 5 p.m. Speakers generally will be scheduled 
in the order of registration. Speakers may be asked to limit their 
statement to less than five minutes, depending on the number of 
speakers. If there is sufficient time available after all pre-
registered speakers have been scheduled, additional speakers who 
register at the meeting site will be able to present a statement.
    The schedule for the public meetings is listed below. Please note 
that meeting space is limited to a first-come, first-serve basis.

June 8, 1994--Salt Lake City, Utah: The Chapman Library, 577 South 900 
West, Meeting Room 1.
June 10, 1994--Anchorage, Alaska: Federal Building, 222 West 7th 
Avenue, Rooms 137 and 139.
June 14, 1994--Midland, Texas: The Permian Basin Regional Planning 
Commission Conference Room, 2910 LaForce Boulevard, Midland 
International Airport.
June 28, 1994--Washington, DC: The U.S. EPA Auditorium, Waterside Mall, 
401 ``M'' Street, Southwest.

C. Issues Associated with Alternatives to Ground-Water Monitoring

    Although EPA would like to learn of any issues that the Agency 
should address for future actions on alternatives to ground-water 
monitoring for MSWLFs, the Agency encourages interested parties to 
focus their comments and provide factual information regarding the 
following:
     What would it cost these small, dry/remote communities to 
comply with the full set of ground-water monitoring requirements as 
specified in 40 CFR part 258, Subpart E?
     The Agency is investigating the potential for using 
alternatives to conventional ground-water monitoring well systems that 
may be capable of detecting ground-water contamination, taking into 
account such factors as landfill size and location; leachate quantity 
and quality; and local climate hydrology, geology, and hydrogeology. 
Examples of such alternatives include: monitoring of the unsaturated 
(vadose) zone; surface geophysical techniques such as electrical 
resistivity and ground penetrating radar, and the sampling of seeps, 
springs, and nearby drinking water or agricultural supply wells. The 
Agency solicits ideas regarding potential alternatives and their costs 
and limitations, particularly with respect to implementation by small 
landfill owners and operators.
     Should no alternative ground-water monitoring techniques 
be appropriate for a small dry/remote landfill, and ground-water 
monitoring wells are required, in what ways can the Agency modify the 
ground-water monitoring regulations (e.g., monitoring parameters, 
schedules) to provide greater implementation flexibility?
     The ``no-migration'' demonstration currently available 
under 40 CFR 258.50(b) allows an approved State to suspend ground-water 
monitoring at a landfill if the owner/operator can demonstrate that 
there will be no potential for migration from the landfill to the 
uppermost aquifer during the active life and post-closure care of the 
landfill. The Agency seeks comment on whether owners/operators of these 
small landfills can collect the information needed in order to make 
this demonstration at their particular landfill.
     The Agency is considering preparation of additional 
guidance that would assist owners and operators of small dry/remote 
landfills in making no-migration demonstrations. The Agency solicits 
ideas for this guidance.

    Dated: April 15, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 94-11083 Filed 5-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M