[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 110 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14070]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 9, 1994]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-4894-8]

 

Pennsylvania: Final Determination of Adequacy of the 
Commonwealth's Municipal Solid Waste Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (Region III).

ACTION: Notice of final determination of full program adequacy for the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's application.

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

SUMMARY: Section 4005(c)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, requires states to develop and implement 
permit programs to ensure that municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) 
which may receive hazardous household waste or small quantity generator 
waste will comply with the revised Federal MSWLF Criteria (40 CFR part 
258). RCRA section 4005(c)(1)(C) requires the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) to determine whether states have adequate ``permit'' 
programs for MSWLFs, but does not mandate issuance of a rule for such 
determinations. EPA has drafted and is in the process of proposing a 
State/Tribal Implementation Rule (STIR) that will provide procedures by 
which EPA will approve, or partially approve, state/tribal landfill 
permit programs. The Agency intends to approve adequate state/tribal 
MSWLF permit programs as applications are submitted. Thus, these 
approvals are not dependent on final promulgation of the STIR. Prior to 
promulgation of the STIR, adequacy determinations will be made based on 
the statutory authorities and requirements. In addition, states/tribes 
may use the draft STIR as an aid in interpreting these requirements. 
The Agency believes that early approvals have an important benefit. 
Approved state/tribal permit programs provide interaction between the 
state/tribe and the owner/operator regarding site-specific permit 
conditions. Only those owners/operators located in state/tribal areas 
with approved permit programs can use the site-specific flexibility 
provided by 40 CFR part 258 to the extent the state/tribal permit 
program allows such flexibility. EPA notes that regardless of the 
approval status of a state/tribe and the permit status of any facility, 
the federal landfill criteria will apply to all permitted and 
unpermitted MSWLF facilities.
    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) applied for a 
determination of adequacy under section 4005 of RCRA. EPA has reviewed 
Pennsylvania's MSWLF permit program application and proposed a 
determination on November 4, 1993, that Pennsylvania's MSWLF permit 
program is adequate to ensure compliance with the revised MSWLF 
Criteria. EPA is today issuing a final determination that the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's program is adequate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The determination of adequacy for the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania shall be effective June 9, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: USEPA Region III, 841 Chestnut 
Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Attn: Mr. Andrew Uricheck, 
mailcode (3HW53), telephone (215) 597-7936.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated revised Criteria for MSWLFs (40 
CFR part 258). Subtitle D of RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and 
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), requires states to develop 
permitting programs that incorporate the Federal Criteria under 40 CFR 
part 258. Subtitle D also requires in section 4005 that EPA determine 
the adequacy of state municipal solid waste landfill permit programs to 
ensure that facilities comply with the revised Federal Criteria. To 
fulfill this requirement, the Agency has drafted and is in the process 
of proposing a State/Tribal Implementation Rule (STIR). The rule will 
specify the requirements which state/tribal programs must satisfy to be 
determined adequate.
    EPA intends to approve state/tribal MSWLF permit programs prior to 
the promulgation of STIR. EPA interprets the requirements for states or 
tribes to develop ``adequate'' programs for permits or other forms of 
prior approval, as imposing several minimum requirements. First, each 
state/tribe must have enforceable standards for new and existing MSWLFs 
that are technically comparable to EPA's revised MSWLF criteria. Next, 
the state/tribe must have the authority to issue a permit or other 
notice of prior approval to all new and existing MSWLFs in its 
jurisdiction. The state/tribe also must provide for public 
participation in permit issuance and enforcement as required in section 
7004(b) of RCRA. Finally, EPA believes that the state/tribe must show 
that it has sufficient compliance monitoring and enforcement 
authorities to take specific action against any owner or operator that 
fails to comply with an approved MSWLF program.
    EPA Regions will determine whether state/tribal programs are 
``adequate'' based on the criteria outlined above.

B. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    On July 23, 1993, Pennsylvania submitted an application for 
adequacy determination for its MSWLF permit program. On November 4, 
1993, EPA published a tentative determination of adequacy for all 
portions of Pennsylvania's program. Further background on the tentative 
determination of adequacy appears at 58, FR 58862-58864, November 4, 
1993.
    A public comment period began on November 4, 1993, and ended on 
December 22, 1993. In this notice of tentative determination, EPA 
announced that a public hearing would be held on December 22, 1993, in 
Harrisburg, PA. A public hearing was held on December 22, 1993. No one 
requested the opportunity to speak or offered public comments at the 
public hearing.
    In the Commonwealth's final application for adequacy determination, 
Pennsylvania proposed non-regulatory revisions to those portions of 
their existing program which did not fully meet the Federal 
requirements in EPA's 40 CFR part 258. EPA tentatively determined in 
the November 4, 1993 Federal Register that once minor changes as 
described below were made, Pennsylvania's MSW landfill permitting 
program would ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 258. PADER has made 
the changes specified in the November 4, 1993 Federal Register, and as 
listed below.

Subpart A--General

    The current Pennsylvania requirements fully comply with: 40 CFR 
258.1 (hereinafter referred to as PSec. 258.--), Purpose, Scope, and 
Applicability; Sec. 258.2, Definitions; and Sec. 258.3, Consideration 
of other Federal laws.

Subpart B--Location Restrictions

    1. The current Pennsylvania requirements fully comply with: 
Sec. 258.11, Floodplains; Sec. 258.12, Wetlands; and Sec. 258.15, 
Unstable areas.
    2. Airport Safety (Sec. 258.10) and Seismic Impact Zone 
(Sec. 258.14) siting restrictions are addressed by Pennsylvania's 
revision of their permit application forms requiring permittees to 
comply with the notification requirements of Sec. 258.10 (PADER Form D) 
and to consider seismic impacts in their design as stated in 
Sec. 258.14 (PADER Form 24).
    3. Fault Areas (Sec. 258.13)--Pennsylvania has provided a 
certification from the Pennsylvania Geologic Survey which states that 
there are no Holocene Faults in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and 
therefore this requirement is not applicable. EPA concurs with this 
position.
    4. Closure of Existing MSWLF Units (Sec. 258.16)--Section 258.16 
will not be adopted by Pennsylvania, since Pennsylvania has certified 
that no currently operating landfills are sited in areas impacting 
airport safety (Sec. 258.10), floodplains (Sec. 258.11), or unstable 
areas (Sec. 258.15), as defined in these sections.

Subpart C--Operating Criteria

    1. The current Pennsylvania requirements fully comply with: 
Sec. 258.20, Hazardous Waste Exclusion; Sec. 258.21, Daily Cover; 
Sec. 258.22, Disease Vector Control; Sec. 258.24, Air Criteria; 
Sec. 258.25, Access Requirements; Sec. 258.26, Run-on/Run-off; 
Sec. 258.27, Surface Water; and Sec. 258.29, Record Keeping.
    2. Explosive Gas Control (Sec. 258.23)--Pennsylvania's program 
meets these requirements through Pennsylvania Code, title 25, chapter 
273, section 292 (273.292), which requires regular passive venting and 
monitoring of facility structures. If critical levels of methane gas 
are reached in facility structures or at the facility boundary, the 
owner/operator is required to conduct active venting on the landfill 
system. In the event of an emergency situation, Pennsylvania requires 
the owner/operator to immediately implement their previously prepared 
and approved contingency plan (see 25 Pa. Code section 273.303).
    3. Liquids Restrictions (Sec. 258.28)--Pennsylvania revised permit 
application Form 25 to prohibit the recirculation of leachate except at 
those landfills that have a composite liner.

Subpart D--Landfill Design

    1. In accordance with Sec. 258.40(a)(1) and (c), Pennsylvania has 
demonstrated that their alternate liner system, consisting of a double 
synthetic liner/double leachate collection system design (25 Pa. Code 
sections 273.251--273.258), ensures compliance with the requirements of 
this section. Pennsylvania has made this demonstration through 
mathematical modeling, using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill 
Performance (HELP) and Multimedia Exposure Assessment (MULTIMED) 
Models. Pennsylvania's modeling shows that this liner system meets the 
Sec. 258.40 performance standard under worst-case assumptions anywhere 
in the Commonwealth. Pennsylvania-specific data were used as input 
parameters to the models when available and appropriate. In addition, 
worst-case conditions were assumed for other parameters where data from 
Pennsylvania were not applicable or available.
    Pennsylvania's existing regulations also allow an option of using 
two feet of natural (clay) material for the secondary (lower) liner, in 
place of a second synthetic liner. Additional PADER modeling 
documentation did not fully demonstrate that this option would meet the 
Sec. 258.40 performance standard under worst-case assumptions 
throughout the Commonwealth. Therefore, PADER has revised their MSW 
permit application forms relating to liner design (Form 24) to require 
any applicant proposing this option to provide a demonstration that the 
liner system meets the performance standards of 40 CFR 258.40 on a 
case-by-case, site-specific basis, through the use of mathematical 
modeling.

Subpart E--Ground-Water Monitoring and Corrective Action

    1. The current Pennsylvania requirements fully comply with: 
Sec. 258.50, Applicability; Sec. 258.51, Ground-water monitoring 
systems; and Sec. 258.57, Selection of Remedy.
    2. Ground-Water Sampling and Analysis Requirements (Sec. 258.53), 
Detection Monitoring Program (Sec. 258.54) and Assessment Monitoring 
Program (Sec. 258.55)--Through the use of existing authorities and 
appropriate permit conditions, Pennsylvania will require Appendix I 
sampling of leachate collected in the detection zone of the liner 
system. Based on the results of that testing, Pennsylvania will require 
the owner/operator to include any detected parameters exceeding the 
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in the routine ground-water sampling 
and analysis program (25 Pa. Code section 273.284). If appendix I MCL's 
are exceeded in the sampling wells, sampling for all appendix II 
parameters will be required. If ground-water degradation has been 
detected in accordance with 25 Pa. Code section 273.286, Pennsylvania 
will require that a ground-water assessment plan be prepared and 
implemented. With these mechanisms in place, through the revisions of 
PADER Forms 8, 19, 50, and 51, Pennsylvania's program ensures 
compliance with the requirements of these sections.
    3. Assessment of Corrective Measures (Sec. 258.56) and Selection of 
Remedy (Sec. 258.57)--Pennsylvania's program will ensure compliance 
with these sections through Pennsylvania's abatement plan requirements 
(25 Pa. Code section 273.287). In the event that an abatement plan must 
be prepared and implemented by an owner/operator, Pennsylvania requires 
that the permit be modified. The permit modification process includes 
public involvement.
    4. Implementation of the Corrective Action Program (Sec. 258.58)--
Pennsylvania ensures compliance with the requirements of this section 
through both 25 Pa. Code section 273.287 and the Clean Streams Law, 
which prohibits pollution of any waters in the Commonwealth.

Subpart F--Closure and Post-Closure Care

    1. Closure Criteria (Sec. 258.60)--Pennsylvania requires, through a 
revised Form 24, flexible membrane final covers. However, Pennsylvania 
may approve a clay cap in situations where the use of a flexible 
membrane cover may be impracticable. In addition, Pennsylvania requires 
the use of a drainage layer to further limit infiltration by diverting 
rainfall from the cap, thus further ensuring that the final cover 
system meets the EPA performance criteria. Pennsylvania, through Form 
24, requires that the final cover be in place within six months of the 
last receipt of waste. Time extensions for construction of the final 
cover can be granted by Pennsylvania where weather conditions prohibit 
proper cover construction, or where it is technically impractical to 
construct a final cover within six months.
    2. Post-Closure Care Requirements (Sec. 258.61)--Although 
Pennsylvania's regulations do not specifically state that post-closure 
must occur for 30 years, Pennsylvania requires that post-closure 
continue until leachate generation ends and gas collection is no longer 
necessary (25 Pa. Code sections 271.314, 271.341 and 271.342). In 
addition, Pennsylvania requires that bonds needed for financial 
assurance be calculated for a minimum period of thirty (30) years. With 
these requirements in place, EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's 
program ensures compliance with the requirements of this section.

Subtitle G--Financial Assurance

    1. The current Pennsylvania requirements fully comply with: 
Sec. 258.70, Applicability; and Sec. 258.74, Allowable Mechanisms.
    2. Financial Assurance for Post-Closure Care (Sec. 258.72) and 
Financial Assurance for Corrective Action (Sec. 258.73)--Pennsylvania 
considers a facility to be active until final closure is reached. At 
the time of final closure, the owner/operator must have a bond that is 
based upon the total estimated cost to Pennsylvania for completing 
final closure. Through the above mechanisms, EPA believes that 
Pennsylvania's program will ensure compliance with these sections.

C. Public Comments

    EPA Region III received the following written public comments on 
its tentative determination of full program adequacy approval of the 
Pennsylvania MSW landfill permitting program.
    One commenter urged EPA to reconsider its approach in approving the 
Pennsylvania liner system on a state-wide worst case approach, 
believing that the 40 CFR part 258 regulations do not allow such an 
option, but only provide for a site-specific variation to the 
prescribed composite liner. This same writer also stated that the 
double geomembrane liner design proposed by the State of Florida was 
found to fail ``reasonable'' worst case assumptions statewide, in an 
independent review by a landfill design consultant.
    The Agency believes that the flexibility afforded to an approved 
state to approve an alternate liner design, as long as that design 
meets the design performance standard, allows the application of a 
statewide alternate design, again as long as it can be demonstrated 
that the standards are met on a statewide basis. There are at least 
four statements in the October 9, 1991 Preamble to the 40 CFR part 258 
regulations supporting the position that it was EPA's intent to allow a 
statewide option. The Agency also has discussed this at technical 
training seminars (based on the 40 CFR part 258 Technical Manual) held 
in 1992 for the EPA regional staffs and the state agencies, the 
discussion of which addressed alternatives to landfill designs in 
approved states, including the adoption of a design standard that meets 
the performance standard in all locations in a state.
    We do not consider comments on the assumptions contained in the 
State of Florida's demonstration applicable to Pennsylvania, since we 
are requiring a Pennsylvania-specific demonstration of compliance to 
EPA's performance standard. We also note that this commenter stated 
that ``(the Florida consultant) is not familiar with the assumptions 
used by the State of Pennsylvania . . .''.
    Another commenter requested that PADER be required to hold a public 
hearing for each new landfill permitted, and be required to respond to 
public comments, rather than be allowed the option of doing so based on 
public interest. PADER has authority to hold a public hearing on every 
new landfill permitted in the Commonwealth, and in recent years, has 
held a public meeting or hearing on all new landfills. PADER's 
regulations provide for public notice and require PADER to evaluate all 
comments received and address applicable comments prior to a permit 
decision. Comments can also be submitted to PADER at any time during 
the operation of the facility. In regard to a related concern that any 
proposed corrective action measures be discussed at a public meeting, 
PADER also assured EPA that any such action would be considered a 
``major permit modification'', and thus subject to PADER's public 
participation requirements.
    This same commenter noted that EPA requested additional modeling 
and leachate data and narrative information concerning PADER's 
documentation of their liner system alternative, and stated that EPA 
should not approve the Pennsylvania liner system until this information 
was received. EPA agrees with this comment, and delayed issuing this 
Final Determination until this data was submitted and reviewed. This 
new documentation provided additional support to PADER's position that 
their double synthetic liner system meets EPA's 40 CFR part 258 
performance standards anywhere in Pennsylvania. It did not fully 
demonstrate that the option of using a clay liner as the second 
(secondary) liner of PADER's double liner requirement could meet the 
standard anywhere in the state. Therefore, PADER will require any 
permittee proposing to choose this option to demonstrate that the EPA 
performance standards are maintained on the site-specific basis.
    This writer opposed the recirculation of any leachate. EPA 
disagrees with this comment, as 40 CFR 258.28(a)(2) clearly authorizes 
the recirculation of leachate under certain circumstances. He also 
suggested that PADER require tests for ``all chemicals regulated by the 
EPA''. PADER has agreed to a groundwater monitoring program that EPA 
believes is adequate to cover all the chemicals listed in appendices I 
and II, the limits of the groundwater sampling required under 40 CFR 
part 258.
    This commenter also asked that seismic impact concerns should be 
considered at all locations in the Commonwealth. PADER has clarified 
their statement and intent to revise permit application forms to insure 
that all permit applicants in Pennsylvania will be required to address 
seismic concerns.
    Two commenters stated that Pennsylvania should be required to adopt 
a minimum 30 year post-closure care period for all post-closure care 
requirements, not just for their (existing) bonding requirements. EPA 
believes that PADER's existing requirement that post-closure care 
continue until leachate generation ends and gas collection is no longer 
necessary fully satisfies EPA's concern that care continue until the 
landfill wastes are stabilized. The PADER regulations require the bond 
to be maintained for at least 10 years after the facility reaches final 
closure, which is defined as the date that no further maintenance is 
needed at the site. We note that 40 CFR 258.61(b) allows an approved 
state to decrease (or increase) the length of the post-closure care 
period based on landfill specific concerns.
    One commenter raised the issue of whether or not Pennsylvania 
ground-water samples would be filtered or not filtered. 40 CFR 258.53 
states that ground-water samples shall not be field filtered prior to 
laboratory analysis. This commenter expressed the opinion that double 
samples, one unfiltered, and one filtered, would be preferable. PADER, 
in fact, requires that groundwater samples be both filtered and 
unfiltered prior to analysis.
    This commenter expressed the opinion that municipal incinerator ash 
should not be accepted at MSW landfills in Pennsylvania. EPA's position 
on Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC) ash was that it was excluded from 
regulation as a hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C. The Supreme 
Court decision on May 2, 1994, however, ruled that MWC ash is not 
excluded from Subtitle C hazardous waste rules, meaning that if a 
specific combustor's ash fails the EPA prescribed tests and is 
determined hazardous, then that ash would not be allowed in a MSW 
landfill. PADER considers ash as a special handling waste, requiring 
additional handling and/or analysis considerations. In light of the 
recent Court ruling, and assuming no new Federal legislation to preempt 
it, PADER would require any MWC ash failing the Toxicity Characteristic 
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests to be handled in accordance with 
hazardous waste program requirements.
    A commenter expressed concern that allowing PADER an option to 
approve, on a site-specific basis, a clay final cap on steep slopes 
(because of PADER's significant past experience that clay caps on steep 
slopes are more stable than flexible membranes) would encourage 
landfill operators to create steeper than normal slopes, to take 
advantage of any possible economic savings. They feared that steeper 
slopes would lead to even higher landfills, thereby creating a 
potential for increased runoff problems and visual pollution. EPA does 
not agree. First, depending on site-specific conditions, a synthetic 
cover is not always more expensive. Secondly, the final elevation and 
side slope geometry of a landfill is set during the permitting process 
based on stability and drainage design considerations, rather than 
final cover material.
    One commenter maintained that it was premature to approve the 
Pennsylvania program before the publication of the final State/Tribal 
Implementation Rule (STIR). EPA disagrees with this statement, in that 
the Agency is not utilizing the draft STIR as a regulation which binds 
either the Agency or the states. Instead, EPA is using the draft STIR 
as guidance for evaluating state permit programs, and maintains its 
discretion to approve state permit programs utilizing the draft STIR 
and/or other criteria which assure compliance with 40 CFR part 258. In 
addition, the public has the opportunity to comment on the criteria 
used by EPA to assure the adequacy of state MSWLF permit programs with 
each tentative determination published in the Federal Register. The 
Agency discusses these criteria in each tentative determination 
published, including Pennsylvania's tentative determination. To date, 
tentative and/or final determinations have been issued for at least 38 
states.
    A commenter expressed concern that PADER has not yet established a 
wellhead protection program under Section 1428 of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, and the possible negative impact of approval of their MSWLF 
permitting program without this program in place. States are not 
required to have a wellhead protection program in place in order to 
receive approval of the MSWLF permitting program. PADER is currently 
developing regulations for a wellhead protection program, in 
cooperation with EPA.
    One commenter requested EPA to direct PADER to develop additional 
discretionary siting criteria to accompany the 40 CFR part 258 
criteria, with the intent that the State take a more direct role in the 
siting of landfills. EPA is satisfied that the existing PADER 
regulations, with minor changes as described in the Pennsylvania 
Tentative Determination and this Final Determination, are adequate to 
ensure compliance with 40 CFR part 258, and we have no authority to 
direct PADER to adopt additional requirements.
    This same commenter questioned the Commonwealth's consideration of 
seismic impacts in their review process. As stated previously, PADER 
agreed to revise their permit application forms to require all permit 
applicants to consider seismic impacts on location and design 
decisions.
    A commenter also questioned if PADER had the resources and 
expertise to make the determinations required under 40 CFR part 258, 
and to take timely enforcement action. EPA believes that since the 
PADER staff is one of the largest and most experienced MSW landfill 
staffs among Region III states, having been involved with permitting 
decisions on over 50 landfills since 1988, that they are fully capable 
of making such determinations. The commenter also questioned PADER's 
reliance on information and data provided mainly by permit applicants. 
PADER reviews and evaluates all information received as part of the 
permit application. In addition, their regulations allow them 
considerable flexibility to require any additional information they 
feel is necessary to make their decisions.
    A commenter stated that PADER did not have adequate hazardous waste 
screening requirements, and provided detailed suggestions on screening, 
tracking, and the financing of a hazardous waste program. These 
suggestions exceed the 40 CFR part 258 requirements, and are beyond 
EPA's authority to require them. PADER's regulations require all 
facilities to have a Commonwealth-approved waste analysis and 
acceptance plan. As part of the waste acceptance plan and site 
operational plan, the operator must identify how incoming waste are to 
be inspected to make sure no regulated quantities of hazardous waste 
are accepted at the facility. PADER requires that a waste screening 
plan be implemented at all facilities. The waste analysis and 
acceptance plan approved at the facilities addresses the standards for 
accepting residual (non-hazardous) waste.
    This same commenter requested that PADER be directed to conduct 
research on ash treatment options. This is beyond the requirements of 
40 CFR part 258. The commenter further suggested that MSW wastes be 
disposed of in dedicated landfill areas to facilitate possible future 
landfill reclamation. This is also not required by 40 CFR part 258. 
PADER has taken significant steps to prevent landfill disposal of 
recyclables, batteries, and yard waste. They also require facilities to 
keep records on where and when waste is disposed so reclamation may be 
easier in the future.
    A commenter criticized Pennsylvania's implementation of financial 
assurance requirements under the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities 
Act, and requested that EPA withhold final program approval until the 
Commonwealth prepares an approved plan for correcting their current 
procedures. The MSW requirements in Pennsylvania, including the 
financial assurance requirements, are administered by PADER through the 
Solid Waste Management Act, the Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and 
Waste Reduction Act, and the municipal waste regulations, rather than 
the Municipal Authorities Act. PADER's authority requires the permit 
applicant to have the appropriate bonding and insurance requirements in 
place prior to the issuance of a permit. EPA is satisfied that PADER's 
existing authorities and procedures fulfill the requirements of 40 CFR 
part 258, subpart G.
    A commenter suggested that the addition of a requirement to add a 
bentonite mat underneath the secondary liner would significantly 
improve liner performance, and that EPA should therefore require this 
statewide. EPA disagrees. It could not be required unless determined to 
be needed to meet either a site-specific performance standard, or a 
statewide alternate liner requirement. While this has not been 
demonstrated to be needed for PADER's double synthetic liner system, it 
is an option for permittees to evaluate in performance modeling.
    Two commenters objected to routine sampling of Appendix II 
parameters in leachate collected from the leachate detection system, on 
the grounds that it is excessive (costly) and goes beyond the intent of 
the groundwater monitoring screening process in 40 CFR 258. PADER 
agreed that the detection zone leachate system will only be routinely 
monitored for the Appendix I parameters. Appendix II analysis is 
required only in monitoring wells, and only if and when Appendix I 
criteria are exceeded in those wells.

D. Decision

    Taking into consideration the public comments received as a result 
of our tentative determination, and revisions made to the PADER program 
as a result thereof, I conclude that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's 
application for adequacy determination meets all of the statutory and 
regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Accordingly, Pennsylvania 
is granted a determination of adequacy for all portions of its 
municipal solid waste permit program.
    Section 4005(a) of RCRA provides that citizens may use the citizen 
suit provisions of section 7002 of RCRA to enforce the Federal MSWLF 
criteria in 40 CFR part 258 independent of any State/Tribal enforcement 
program. As explained in the preamble to the final MSWLF criteria, EPA 
expects that any owner or operator complying with provisions in a 
state/tribal program approved by EPA should be considered to be in 
compliance with the Federal Criteria. See 56 FR 50978, 50995 (October 
9, 1991).
    Today's action takes effect on the date of publication. EPA 
believes it has good cause under section 553(d) of the Administrative 
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C 553(d), to put this action into effect less than 
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. All of the 
requirements and obligations in Pennsylvania's program are currently in 
effect as a matter of Commonwealth law. EPA's action today does not 
impose any new requirements with which the regulated community must 
begin to comply, nor do these requirements become enforceable by EPA as 
federal law. Consequently, EPA does not find it necessary to give 
notice prior to making its approval effective.

Compliance With Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this notice from 
the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify 
that this approval will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. It does not impose any new 
burdens on small entities. This notice, therefore, does not require a 
regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of sections 
2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended; 
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a)(c).

    Dated: June 1, 1994.
Peter H. Kostmayer,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-14070 Filed 6-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P