[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 168 (Friday, August 28, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53516-53566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16872]



[[Page 53515]]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 168

August 28, 2020

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 257





Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal 
Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; A Holistic Approach to 
Closure Part A: Deadline To Initiate Closure; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 168 / Friday, August 28, 2020 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 53516]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 257

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172 and EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0524; FRL-10013-20-OLEM]
RIN 2050-AH10


Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal 
Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; A Holistic Approach to 
Closure Part A: Deadline To Initiate Closure

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 17, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or 
the Agency) promulgated national minimum criteria for existing and new 
coal combustion residuals (CCR) landfills and existing and new CCR 
surface impoundments. On August 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in the case of Utility Solid Waste 
Activities Group v. EPA, 901 F.3d 414 (per curiam) (USWAG). This rule 
finalizes regulations, proposed on December 2, 2019, to implement the 
court's vacatur of the 2015 provisions. The court vacated provisions 
that allowed unlined impoundments to continue receiving coal ash unless 
they leak, and classified ``clay-lined'' impoundments as lined, thereby 
allowing such units to operate indefinitely. In addition, EPA is 
establishing a revised date by which unlined surface impoundments must 
cease receiving waste and initiate closure, following its 
reconsideration of those dates in light of the USWAG decision. Lastly, 
EPA is finalizing amendments proposed on August 14, 2019, to the 
requirements for the annual groundwater monitoring and corrective 
action report and the requirements for the publicly accessible CCR 
internet sites.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established two dockets for this action under Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172 and EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0524. All documents 
in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this final 
rule, contact Kirsten Hillyer, Materials Recovery and Waste Management 
Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, MC: 5304P, Washington, 
DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 347-0369; email address: 
[email protected]. For more information on this rulemaking, 
please visit https://www.epa.gov/coalash.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
    C. Costs and Benefits
II. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What action is the Agency taking?
    C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
III. Background
    A. The ``2015 CCR Rule''
    B. The 2018 USWAG Decision
    C. The July 30, 2018 Final Rule and the 2019 Waterkeeper 
Decision
    D. Public Participation With Respect to the August 2019 and 
December 2019 Proposed Rules
IV. Statutory Authority
V. What final action is EPA taking on the December 2, 2019 proposal?
    A. Revisions to Sec.  257.71 To Implement the 2018 USWAG 
Decision
    B. Revisions to Sec.  257.101 as a Result of EPA's 
Reconsideration
     1. EPA's Reconsideration of the October 31, 2020 Deadline
     2. Approaches To Identify Alternative Capacity
     3. Establishing the Revised Deadline for Affected Units To 
Cease Receipt of Waste
    C. Revisions to the Alternative Closure Standards (Sec.  
257.103)
     1. Short Term Alternative To Cease Receipt of Waste Deadline 
(Sec.  257.103(e))
     2. Issues Applicable to Both Sec.  257.103(f)(1) and (f)(2)
     3. Requirements for Development of Alternative Capacity 
Infeasible (Sec.  257.103(f)(1))
     4. Requirements for Permanent Cessation of Coal-Fired Boiler(s) 
by a Date Certain (Sec.  257.103(f)(2))
     5. Procedures for Approval and Denial of Alternative Compliance 
Deadlines
     6. Conforming Amendments to Sec.  257.103(a), (b), (c) and (d)
VI. What final action is EPA taking on the August 14, 2019 proposal?
    A. Revisions to the Annual Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective 
Action Report Requirements
    B. Revisions to the Publicly Accessible CCR internet Site 
Requirements
VII. Rationale for 30-Day Effective Date
VIII. State CCR Programs
    A. Effect on This Final Rule on States With Approved CCR 
Programs
IX. Economic Impacts of This Action
    A. Introduction
    B. Affected Universe
    C. Costs and Cost Savings of the Final Rule
X. Statutory and Executive Order (E.O.) Reviews

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This rule takes final action on the proposed rule published on 
December 2, 2019 (84 FR 65941), as well as two issues included in the 
proposal issued on August 14, 2019 (84 FR 40353). This unit of the 
preamble summarizes public participation activities associated with 
both proposed rules. EPA is publishing this final rule to revise 
portions of the federal CCR regulations in title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 257 so that they accurately reflect the 
regulations as they now stand in light of the D.C. Circuit's 2018 
decision in USWAG, which vacated portions of EPA's 2015 final rule 
promulgating national minimum criteria for existing and new CCR 
landfills and existing and new CCR surface impoundments. Specifically, 
the D.C. Circuit vacated (1) the provisions of the 2015 rule that 
permitted unlined impoundments to continue receiving coal ash unless 
they leak (see 40 CFR 257.101(a)); and (2) the provisions of the 2015 
rule that classified ``clay-lined'' impoundments as lined (see 40 CFR 
257.71(a)(1)(i)).
    In addition, this final rule addresses the October 31, 2020 
deadline in Sec. Sec.  257.101(a) and (b)(1)(i), by which CCR surface 
impoundments must cease receipt of waste; in a separate case, these 
regulatory provisions were remanded back to EPA by the D.C. Circuit for 
further reconsideration in light of USWAG. See Waterkeeper Alliance 
Inc. v. EPA, No. 18-1289 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
    Lastly, EPA is finalizing amendments to the regulations in order to 
address certain issues concerning publicly accessible internet sites, 
and groundwater monitoring and corrective action annual reports that 
have arisen since the April 17, 2015 publication of the CCR rule. These 
amendments were proposed in a separate August 14, 2019 proposal. 84 FR 
40353.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    In this action, EPA is finalizing five amendments to the part 257 
regulations. First, EPA is finalizing a change to the classification of 
compacted-soil lined or

[[Page 53517]]

``clay-lined'' surface impoundments from ``lined'' to ``unlined'' under 
Sec.  257.71(a)(1)(i). This merely reflects the vacatur ordered in the 
USWAG decision.
    Second, EPA is finalizing revisions to the initiation of closure 
deadlines for unlined CCR surface impoundments, and for units that 
failed the aquifer location restriction, found in Sec. Sec.  257.101(a) 
and (b)(1). These revisions address the USWAG decisions with respect to 
all unlined and ``clay-lined'' impoundments, as well as revisions to 
the provisions that were remanded to the Agency for further 
reconsideration by the court in the Waterkeeper case. Specifically, EPA 
is finalizing a new deadline of April 11, 2021, for CCR units to cease 
receipt of waste and initiate closure because the unit either (1) is an 
unlined or formerly ``clay-lined'' CCR surface impoundment (Sec.  
257.101(a)) or (2) failed the aquifer location standard (Sec.  
257.101(b)(1)).
    Third, EPA is finalizing revisions to the alternative closure 
provisions, Sec.  257.103. These revisions will grant facilities 
additional time to develop alternative capacity to manage their 
wastestreams (both CCR and/or non-CCR), to achieve cease receipt of 
waste and initiate closure of their CCR surface impoundments. Table 1 
below summarizes the deadlines finalized in this action.
    Lastly, EPA is finalizing two of the proposed amendments from the 
August 2019 rule: The addition of an executive summary to the annual 
groundwater monitoring and corrective action reports; and the amended 
requirements to the publicly accessible CCR internet sites.

 Table 1--New Cease Receipt of Waste and Completion of Closure Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Regulatory citations for CCR surface
              impoundments                        Deadline date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New cease receipt of waste deadline for  No later than April 11, 2021.
 unlined and formerly ``clay-lined''
 surface impoundments (Sec.
 257.101(a)(1)).
New cease receipt of waste deadline for  No later than April 11, 2021.
 surface impoundments that failed the
 minimum depth to aquifer location
 standard (Sec.   257.101(b)(1)(i)).
New site-specific alternative to         No later than October 15, 2023
 initiation of closure due to lack of     (maximum of 5 years after
 capacity (Sec.   257.103(f)(1)).         USWAG decision mandate date).
                                         For eligible unlined CCR
                                          surface impoundment: No later
                                          than October 15, 2024.
New site-specific alternative to         Completion of Closure:
 initiation of closure due to permanent   No later than October
 cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by   17, 2023 for surface
 a date certain (Sec.   257.103(f)(2)).   impoundments 40 acres or
                                          smaller.
                                          No later than October
                                          17, 2028 for surface
                                          impoundments larger than 40
                                          acres.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Costs and Benefits

    Several developments have changed the estimated costs of the CCR 
program since the publication of the final rule in 2015. First, 
reporting data show that the affected universe of surface impoundments 
is composed of more unlined units and more leaking surface impoundments 
than were modeled in the 2015 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). The 
affected universe of impoundments is therefore incurring higher closure 
costs sooner, which increases the overall cost of the program. Second, 
the D.C. Circuit vacated provisions of the rule that allowed certain 
classes of surface impoundments to continue operating until they 
leaked. This decision forces these units to close sooner than they were 
modeled to close in the 2015 RIA. This also increases the overall cost 
of the CCR program. This cost increase is estimated and shown in the 
RIA. This increase in costs is attributable solely to the existing 
provisions of the 2015 CCR rule. Overall, the provisions of this final 
rule decrease costs by extending certain existing compliance deadlines. 
The final rule is therefore considered a cost savings rule. This action 
is expected to result in an estimated annualized net cost savings of 
$26.1 million per year when discounting at 7 percent. It is also 
expected to have a modest impact on a subset of the benefits monetized 
in the RIA accompanying the 2015 CCR Rule. Further information on the 
economic effects of this action can be found in unit IX of this 
preamble and the RIA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ US EPA. ``Regulatory Impact Analysis, Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from 
Electric Utilities; A Holistic Approach to Closure Part A: Deadline 
to Initiate Closure''. July 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This final rule applies to all CCR generated by electric utilities 
and independent power producers that fall within the North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 221112 and may affect the 
following entities: Electric utility facilities and independent power 
producers that fall under the NAICS code 221112. This discussion is not 
intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 
regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This 
discussion lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could 
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
described here could also be regulated. To determine whether your 
entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria found in Sec.  257.50 of title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is revising certain provisions of the CCR regulations at 40 CFR 
part 257 in response to the decisions issued by the D.C. Circuit on 
August 21, 2018, in Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. EPA 901 
F.3d 414 (D.C. Cir.), and on March 13, 2019, in Waterkeeper Alliance 
Inc. v. EPA, No. 18-1289 (D.C. Cir.). In addition, the Agency is also 
finalizing two of the proposed amendments from the August 14, 2019 
rulemaking that are not related to the USWAG and Waterkeeper decisions.
    This final rule addresses the USWAG decision's vacatur of the 
provisions in the 2015 rule that permitted unlined impoundments to 
continue receiving waste unless they leak, 40 CFR 257.101(a), and that 
classified ``clay-lined'' impoundments as lined, thereby allowing such 
units to operate, 40 CFR 257.71(a)(1)(i). The USWAG decision also 
vacated the exemption from the

[[Page 53518]]

2015 rule for inactive surface impoundments at inactive power plants, 
also known as legacy units, which will be addressed in a subsequent 
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.
    This final rule also addresses the date by which unlined CCR 
surface impoundments and CCR units that failed the aquifer location 
standard must cease receiving waste and initiate closure, which the 
D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA on March 13, 2019 in the Waterkeeper case.
    EPA is finalizing amendments to the alternative closure provisions, 
40 CFR 257.103. EPA is amending the existing provisions (40 CFR 
257.103(a) and (b)) to only apply to CCR landfills. EPA is establishing 
new alternative closure provisions, 40 CFR 257.103(f)(1) and (f)(2), 
for which a facility must submit a demonstration to EPA for approval to 
continue operating a CCR surface impoundment. These new alternative 
closure provisions do not amend the implementation schedules of 
groundwater monitoring and corrective action, as they remain unchanged. 
The new alternative closure provisions will grant facilities additional 
time to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure.
    EPA is finalizing amendments to the regulations from the August 
2019 proposal, addressing certain issues raised by stakeholders. EPA is 
amending the annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report 
to include an executive summary. Additionally, EPA is finalizing 
amendments to the publicly accessible CCR internet sites requirements 
to ensure that they are truly accessible by the public.
    EPA intends that the provisions of this rule be severable. In the 
event that any individual provision or part of this rule is 
invalidated, EPA intends that this would not render the entire rule 
invalid, and that any individual provisions that can continue to 
operate will be left in place.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    These regulations are established under the authority of sections 
1008(a), 2002(a), 4004, and 4005(a) and (d) of the Solid Waste Disposal 
Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
of 1976 (RCRA), the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 
(HSWA), and the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) 
Act of 2016, 42 U.S.C. 6907(a), 6912(a), 6944, and 6945(a) and (d).

D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?

    This action is expected to result in an estimated annualized net 
cost savings of $26.1 million per year when discounting at 7 percent or 
an estimated annualized net cost savings of $16.7 million per year when 
discounting at 3 percent. It is also expected to have a modest impact 
on a subset of the benefits monetized in the RIA accompanying the 2015 
CCR Rule. Further information on the economic effects of this action 
can be found in unit IX of this preamble.

III. Background

A. The ``2015 CCR Rule''

    On April 17, 2015, EPA finalized national minimum criteria for the 
disposal of CCR as a solid waste under Subtitle D of RCRA. 80 FR 21302. 
The Agency refers to the April 17, 2015 rule as the ``2015 CCR Rule'' 
in this preamble. CCR are generated from the combustion of coal by 
electric utilities and independent power producers for the generation 
of electricity. CCR include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue 
gas desulfurization materials and are commonly referred to as coal ash. 
The CCR regulations are codified in subpart D of part 257 of title 40 
of the CFR.
    The 2015 CCR Rule regulated existing and new CCR landfills and 
existing and new CCR surface impoundments, as well as all lateral 
expansions of these CCR units. The federal national minimum criteria 
consist of location restrictions (siting limitations), design and 
operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action 
requirements, and closure and post-closure care requirements. In 
addition, the 2015 CCR Rule put in place recordkeeping, notification, 
and internet posting provisions that require owners and operators of 
CCR units to maintain a publicly accessible internet site of rule 
compliance information. The 2015 CCR Rule does not regulate CCR that 
are beneficially used. It established a definition of ``beneficial use 
of CCR'' to distinguish between beneficial use and disposal.
    Of particular relevance to this action, the 2015 CCR Rule required 
that any existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that causes 
groundwater concentrations to exceed a groundwater protection standard 
must stop receiving waste (CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams) within six 
months of making such exceedance determination. This would also trigger 
the requirement to initiate either unit retrofit or closure 
activities.\2\ See Sec.  257.101(a)(1) at 80 FR 21490 (April 17, 2015). 
In the 2015 CCR Rule, the term ``unlined'' CCR surface impoundment 
included any unit not constructed with one of the following types of 
liners: (1) A composite liner; (2) an alternative composite liner; or 
(3) a liner consisting of a minimum of two feet of compacted soil with 
a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 x 10-7 
centimeters per second. Lined CCR surface impoundments (as defined in 
the CCR regulations) that impact groundwater above the specified 
groundwater protection standard are not required to close and could 
continue to operate while corrective action is performed, and the 
source of the leak is addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Certain units may be eligible for the alternative closure 
procedures specified in Sec.  257.103, which would change the date 
by which the unit must stop receiving waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2015 CCR Rule was challenged by several parties, including a 
coalition of regulated entities and a coalition of environmental 
organizations (``Environmental Petitioners''). See USWAG v. EPA, 901 
F.3d 414 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The Environmental Petitioners raised two 
challenges \3\ that are relevant to this final rule. First, they 
challenged the provision that allowed existing, unlined CCR surface 
impoundments to continue to operate until they cause groundwater 
contamination. See Sec.  257.101(a)(1) at 80 FR 21490 (April 17, 2015). 
They contended that EPA failed to show how continued operation of 
unlined impoundments met RCRA's baseline requirement that any solid 
waste disposal site pose ``no reasonable probability of adverse effects 
on health or the environment.'' See 42 U.S.C. 6944(a). The 
Environmental Petitioners also challenged the provisions that allowed 
impoundments lined with two feet of clay (i.e., compacted soil) to 
continue operating even when they leak, requiring only that they 
remediate the resulting contamination. The petitioners pointed to 
record evidence that ``clay-lined'' units are likely to leak and 
contended that EPA's approach ``authorizes an endless cycle of spills 
and clean-ups'' in violation of RCRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Environmental Petitioners also challenged the provisions 
exempting inactive surface impoundments at inactive power plants 
from regulation. The Court ruled for the Petitioners on these 
claims, vacating these provisions and remanding to EPA. However, in 
contrast to the other provisions addressed in this rule, additional 
rulemaking is necessary to effectuate the Court's order, as the 
Court's vacatur alone did not subject these units to regulation. 
This aspect of the decision will be addressed in a subsequent 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The 2018 USWAG Decision

    The D.C. Circuit issued the USWAG decision on August 21, 2018. The 
Court

[[Page 53519]]

upheld most of the 2015 CCR Rule but ruled for the Environmental 
Petitioners on the two claims discussed in unit III.A of this preamble. 
The Court held that EPA acted ``arbitrarily and capriciously and 
contrary to RCRA'' in failing to require the closure of unlined surface 
impoundments and in classifying so-called ``clay-lined'' impoundments 
as lined, based on the record supporting the rule. 901 F.3d at 431-432. 
The Court ordered that ``the Final Rule be vacated and remanded with 
respect to the provisions that permit unlined impoundments to continue 
receiving coal ash unless they leak, Sec.  257.101(a), [and] classify 
`clay-lined' impoundments as lined, see 40 CFR 257.71(a)(1)(i).'' Id. 
The Court issued the mandate for this decision on October 15, 2018. 
Therefore, part of this final rulemaking action updates the regulations 
to reflect the provisions that the Court vacated.

C. The July 30, 2018 Final Rule and the 2019 Waterkeeper Decision

    EPA issued a final rule on July 30, 2018, amending several parts of 
the CCR federal regulations (83 FR 36435). First, the rule extended the 
deadlines for two categories of CCR surface impoundments to cease 
receipt of waste and to initiate closure when closing for cause: (1) 
Unlined CCR surface impoundments with an exceedance of a groundwater 
protection standard for any constituent listed on Appendix IV to part 
257; \4\ and (2) CCR surface impoundments that failed to meet the 
location criteria in Sec.  257.60(a) (requiring either a minimum of 
five feet between the unit base and the uppermost aquifer or a 
demonstration that there will not be an intermittent, recurring, or 
sustained hydraulic connection between any portion of the base of the 
unit and the uppermost aquifer). These deadlines were extended until 
October 31, 2020, and were codified in Sec.  257.101(a)(1) and 
(b)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A groundwater protection standard (GWPS) is established 
using the methods specified in Sec.  257.95(h). For constituents 
with a maximum contaminant level (MCL), the GWPS is the MCL for that 
constituent. For the constituents that do not have an established 
MCL, the GWPS is the health-based level EPA established in the July 
30, 2018 rule. If the background level is higher than the MCL or the 
health-based level, then background should be used as the GWPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the rule established alternative risk-based groundwater 
protection standards for the four constituents without a maximum 
contaminant level (MCL) that are listed on Appendix IV to part 257. The 
four constituents are cobalt, lead, lithium, and molybdenum, and the 
alternative standards were codified in Sec.  257.95(h)(2).
    Third, the rule established procedures allowing for the suspension 
of groundwater monitoring requirements, provided that it can be 
demonstrated that there is no potential for migration of any CCR 
constituent listed in Appendices III and IV of part 257 from the CCR 
unit to the uppermost aquifer during the active life of the unit and 
the post-closure care period. See Sec.  257.90(g).
    Finally, the rule amended the federal CCR regulations to allow a 
Participating State Director (or EPA where EPA is the permitting 
authority) to issue certifications in lieu of requiring a certification 
from a Professional Engineer. The 2015 CCR Rule required technical 
demonstrations, when made by the owner or operator, to be certified by 
a qualified Professional Engineer in order to provide verification of 
the facility's technical judgments and to otherwise ensure that the 
provisions of the rule were properly applied. In 2015, states were 
unable to apply to EPA for approval to operate a permit program to 
implement the CCR rule. The situation changed with the passage of the 
Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act in 2016, 
which offers the opportunity for state oversight under an approved 
permit program. The 2018 amendments to the certification requirements 
reflect the new authority provided by the WIIN Act.
    The July 2018 final rule was challenged by Waterkeeper Alliance, 
who also requested an expedited review of the October 31, 2020, 
deadline. See Waterkeeper Alliance Inc, et al v. EPA, No. 18-1289 (D.C. 
Cir. 2018) (Waterkeeper decision). On March 13, 2019, the Court granted 
EPA's request to remand the July 2018 rule, ``to allow the agency to 
reconsider that rule in light of th[e] court's decision in [USWAG].'' 
The December 2, 2019 proposed rule reflected EPA's reconsideration of 
one of the remanded issues contained in the July 2018 rule: 
Reconsideration of the current deadline of October 31, 2020, for 
unlined surface impoundments to cease receiving waste. 84 FR 65944. The 
Agency also stated in the December 2, 2019, proposal that EPA would 
address its reconsideration of other aspects (e.g., the adopted 
alternative risk-based groundwater protection standards for cobalt, 
lead, lithium, and molybdenum) of the July 2018 rule in subsequent 
rulemaking actions. Id.

D. Public Participation With Respect to the August 2019 and December 
2019 Proposed Rules

    This rule takes final action on the proposed rule published on 
December 2, 2019 (84 FR 65941), as well as two issues included in the 
proposal issued on August 14, 2019 (84 FR 40353). This unit of the 
preamble summarizes public participation activities associated with 
both proposed rules.
    EPA conducted two public hearings to provide the public with the 
opportunity to present views or information concerning the August 14, 
2019 proposal. The first was an in-person public hearing in Arlington, 
Virginia on October 2, 2019. A total of 41 people provided oral 
testimony at the hearing; a transcript of the hearing proceedings is 
available in the proposed rule docket.\5\ The second was held on 
October 10, 2019 as a virtual public hearing using an internet-based 
software platform. The platform allowed hearing participants to provide 
oral testimony using a microphone and speakers connected to their 
computers or using a phone. It provided the ability for any person to 
listen to the public hearing via their computer. A total of 52 people 
provided oral testimony during the virtual hearing and another 147 
people participated by listening. The transcript for the virtual public 
hearing is available in the proposed rule docket.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See docket items EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0524-0046 through -0050.
    \6\ See docket items EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0524-0333 through -0335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency received approximately 130,000 comments, of which nearly 
300 were unique, from members of the public on the August 2019 proposed 
rule. Commenters included individual electric utilities and independent 
power producers, national trade associations, state agencies, public 
interest and environmental groups, and entities involved with the 
beneficial use of CCR. All public comment letters submitted in response 
to the proposal can be found in the proposed rule docket, Docket ID 
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0524. For those elements included in the August 14, 
2019 proposed rule that EPA is finalizing in this action (see unit V of 
this preamble), EPA's responses to public comments are either addressed 
in this preamble or the response to comment document available in the 
docket to this final rule.
    EPA also conducted one public hearing to provide the public with 
the opportunity to present views or information concerning the December 
2, 2019 proposed rule. On January 7, 2020, the Agency conducted a 
virtual public

[[Page 53520]]

hearing using an internet-based software platform that allowed hearing 
participants to provide oral testimony using a microphone and speakers 
connected to their computers or using a phone. This platform also 
provided an opportunity for any person to listen to the public hearing 
via their computer. A total of 37 people provided oral testimony during 
the virtual hearing and over 40 other people participated by listening. 
The transcript for the virtual public hearing is available in the 
proposed rule docket.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See docket items EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0041 and 0042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency received over 67,200 comments, of which nearly 150 were 
unique, comments from members of the public on the December 2019 
proposed rule. Commenters included individual electric utilities and 
independent power producers, national trade associations, state 
agencies, and public interest and environmental groups. All public 
comment letters submitted in response to the proposal can be found in 
the proposed rule docket, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172. EPA's 
responses to comments on the proposed rule are either addressed in this 
preamble or the response to comment document available in the docket to 
this final rule.

IV. Statutory Authority

    RCRA section 1008(a) authorizes EPA to publish ``suggested 
guidelines for solid waste management.'' 42 U.S.C. 6907(a). RCRA 
defines solid waste management as ``the systematic administration of 
activities which provide for the collection, source separation, 
storage, transportation, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal 
of solid waste.'' 42 U.S.C. 6903(28).
    Pursuant to section 1008(a)(3), the guidelines are to include the 
minimum criteria to be used by the states to define the solid waste 
management practices that constitute the open dumping of solid waste or 
hazardous waste and are prohibited as ``open dumping'' under section 
4005. Only those requirements promulgated under the authority of 
section 1008(a)(3) are enforceable under section 7002 of RCRA.
    RCRA section 4004(a) generally requires EPA to promulgate 
regulations containing criteria for determining which facilities shall 
be classified as sanitary landfills (and therefore not ``open dumps''). 
The statute directs that, ``at a minimum, the criteria are to ensure 
that units are classified as sanitary landfills only if there is no 
reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment 
from disposal of solid wastes at such facility.'' 42 U.S.C. 6944(a).
    RCRA section 4005(a), entitled ``Closing or upgrading of existing 
open dumps,'' generally establishes the key implementation and 
enforcement provisions applicable to EPA regulations issued under 
sections 1008(a) and 4004(a). Specifically, this section prohibits any 
solid waste management practices or disposal of solid waste that does 
not comply with EPA regulations issued under RCRA section 1008(a) and 
4004(a). 42 U.S.C. 6944(a). See also 42 U.S.C. 6903(14) (definition of 
``open dump''). This prohibition takes effect ``upon promulgation'' of 
any rules issued under section 1008(a)(3) and is enforceable through a 
citizen suit brought pursuant to section 7002. As a general matter, 
this means that facilities must be in compliance with any EPA rules 
issued under this section no later than the effective date of such 
rules, or be subject to a citizen suit for ``open dumping.'' See 42 
U.S.C. 6945. RCRA section 4005 also directs that open dumps, i.e., 
facilities out of compliance with EPA's criteria, must be ``closed or 
upgraded.'' Id.
    RCRA section 7004 lays out specific requirements relating to public 
participation in regulatory actions under RCRA. Subsection (b) provides 
that ``[p]ublic participation in the . . . implementation, and 
enforcement of any regulation under this chapter shall be provided for, 
encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator.'' 42 U.S.C. 6974(b).
    Comments on EPA Authority. Several commenters stated that RCRA 
section 4004(a) allows EPA to take into account non-risk 
considerations, citing EPA statements in the preamble to the 1991 final 
rule for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF).\8\ Specifically, 
these commenters cited to EPA statements that the term ``reasonable'' 
``has been read in other contexts to imply a balancing of competing 
factors,'' and that the ``use of the word `probability' in `no 
reasonable probability' implies the discretion to impose requirements 
that are less certain to eliminate a perceived health or environmental 
threat than standards that are `necessary to protect human health and 
the environment,' thus allowing for the consideration of other factors 
such as cost.'' (quoting 56 FR 50978, 50983 (October 9, 1991)). A 
number of other commenters, however, stated that EPA lacked the 
authority to consider costs in establishing any regulation under RCRA 
section 4004(a), citing EPA's prior statements in the 2015 CCR Rule and 
to the recent D.C. Circuit opinion in USWAG v. EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 56 FR 50978 (October 9, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees that RCRA section 4004(a) allows EPA to take into 
account non-risk considerations. The commenters have misunderstood the 
discussion in the MSWLF preambles. The cited statements reflect EPA's 
interpretation of the combined authority under both RCRA sections 
4010(c) and 4004(a), rather than an interpretation of section 4004(a) 
standing alone. 56 FR 50983-50984. As EPA has previously explained, the 
Agency cannot rely on section 4010(c) to issue regulations applicable 
to CCR facilities. See 80 FR 21333-21334 (April 17, 2015).
    By contrast, EPA has consistently interpreted the mandate in 
section 4004(a), standing alone, not to authorize consideration of 
costs or any other factor unrelated to the protection of human health 
and the environment. EPA did not consider costs in establishing the 
original part 257 regulations, noting in the 1979 preamble that ``[t]he 
Act does not call for a balancing of the costs of disposal against the 
``value'' of ground-water resources.'' 44 FR 53447 (September 13, 
1979). Similarly, EPA explained in the 2015 CCR Rule ``that Congress 
did not authorize the consideration of costs in establishing minimum 
national standards under RCRA section 4004(a).'' 80 FR 21406. See also, 
80 FR 21363, 21432; 83 FR 11597 (March 15, 2018). As several commenters 
noted, the D.C. Circuit upheld this interpretation, concluding that 
``[u]nder any reasonable reading of RCRA there is no textual commitment 
of authority to the EPA to consider costs in the open dump standards.'' 
901 F.3d at 448-449 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, EPA has not 
considered cost in developing any provision of this final rule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Although EPA did not consider costs in developing this rule, 
if the Agency had considered costs, the final rule would not have 
been different. Based on the estimates developed for the RIA, this 
rule is expected to largely result in cost savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter stated that EPA lacks the statutory authority to 
impose a mandatory closure requirement for non-CCR wastestreams, 
arguing that imposing deadlines under the CCR Rule for wastestreams 
that are subject to different deadlines under the ELG rule runs afoul 
of RCRA section 1006(a)--the anti-duplication provision. The commenter 
argued that the proposal to ban or greatly restrict the receipt of the 
wastewater at unlined surface impoundments is a duplicative and 
inconsistent--and thus prohibited--additional regulatory layer on top 
of the existing NPDES requirements applicable to those same 
impoundments.

[[Page 53521]]

According to the commenter, under the proposed ELG regulations, up to 
10 percent of bottom ash transport water piping and equipment volume 
can be discharged per day until December 31, 2023. Companies subject to 
the ELG requirements will need to permit, design, and construct a 
recycling system for the bottom ash sluice waters, a new CCR or non-CCR 
wastewater pond, or convert to dry handling--essentially the same 
solutions that must be pursued for compliance under the CCR rules. Yet 
the deadlines for doing so do not align.
    The commenter provided a specific example to demonstrate his 
concern: One of the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) plants is 
currently sluicing fly ash to a surface impoundment that is subject to 
the CCR rule. Because that impoundment meets the CCR siting criteria 
and has monitored no statistically significant increases above 
background concentrations for any of the CCR parameters, that plant has 
anticipated continuing to operate the impoundment through no later than 
December 31, 2023, consistent with the ELG regulations. The proposed 
CCR rule, with its August 31, 2020, deadline to discontinue sluicing of 
fly ash to surface impoundments, effectively eliminates up to three 
years that OVEC had anticipated using to engineer, design, procure, 
construct and begin operation of the new infrastructure needed to 
comply with the ELG rule. The CCR rule and the ELG rule must be aligned 
so that the timeline for discontinuing placement of CCR into a fly ash 
surface impoundment is consistent with the timeline that that source 
has for completing dry fly ash conversion under the final ELG rules 
applicable to this wastestream.
    RCRA section 1006(a) does not bar EPA from imposing requirements 
under one of the listed statutes and RCRA on the same units and waste 
streams, unless those requirements are inconsistent with a requirement 
in one of the statutes. 42 U.S.C. 6906(a). This is clear from the 
second sentence, which provides that ``such integration shall be 
effected only to the extent that it can be done in a manner consistent 
with the goals and policies expressed in this chapter and in the other 
acts referred to in this subsection.'' Id. Numerous courts have upheld 
this interpretation. See, Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas & 
Electric Co., 874 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir., 2017) (``RCRA's anti-
duplication provision does not bar RCRA's application unless that 
application contradicts a specific mandate imposed under the CWA (or 
another statute listed in RCRA section 1006(a))''); Goldfarb v. Mayor 
and City Council of Baltimore, 791 F.3d 500 510 (4th Cir. 2015) (The 
CWA must require something fundamentally at odds with what RCRA would 
otherwise require to be ``inconsistent'' under 1006(a)); Edison 
Electric Institute v. EPA, 996 F.2d 326, 337 (D.C. Cir.1993) (rejecting 
``generalized claim'' that EPA action was barred under section 1006(a) 
because it interfered with ``the primary purpose'' of the Atomic Energy 
Act); U.S. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 341 F.Supp.2d 215, 
236 (W.D. N.Y. 2004) (approving EPA action as ``not inconsistent'' 
under RCRA where CERCLA's heightened standard would not be met by 
release of hazardous substance). The commenter has identified no 
requirement in the Clean Water Act that is inconsistent with EPA's 
proposal.
    Instead, the commenter argues that the deadlines under the two 
rules are inconsistent and wholly duplicative. EPA disagrees with both 
claims. First, the deadlines for the two rules are in fact consistent. 
To support its claim, the commenter focused exclusively on the proposed 
date of August 2020, by which facilities must cease receipt of waste 
into the unit. But EPA also proposed to establish a process by which a 
facility that needs to continue receiving waste into the unit can do 
so, by demonstrating that it was not feasible to meet the deadline. See 
Sec.  257.103(f). Under that proposal, a facility can continue to 
operate a unit until 2023 if it can demonstrate that that amount of 
time is necessary to complete its construction of alternative capacity.
    Neither are the ELG and CCR proposals duplicative. The CCR 
requirements are designed to protect groundwater, while the ELG 
requirements are designed to protect surface waters.
    Finally, one commenter stated their belief that EPA was required to 
have consulted with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the 
Endangered Species Act as part of developing this final rule.
    EPA disagrees with the suggestion that consultation was required as 
part of developing this rule. Under the existing regulations, all CCR 
units must comply with 40 CFR 257.3-2. 40 CFR 257.52(b). That 
regulation, which was developed after consultation with FWS, requires 
facilities not to cause or contribute to the taking of any endangered 
or threatened species of plant or wildlife, and not to result in the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This 
obligation is not modified or affected in any way by this final rule. 
The commenter has presented no facts that convince EPA that re-
initiation is warranted by this rule.

V. What final action is EPA taking on the December 2, 2019 proposal?

A. Revisions to Sec.  257.71 To Implement the 2018 USWAG Decision

    As discussed in unit III.B of this preamble, the D.C. Circuit found 
in USWAG that the rulemaking record did not support the conclusion that 
the 2015 CCR Rule would adequately address the adverse effects posed by 
clay-lined (or compacted soil-lined) CCR surface impoundments. 
Therefore, the Court vacated the provision that treated ``clay-lined'' 
surface impoundments differently than unlined impoundments, with the 
result that such impoundments are now required to be either retrofitted 
or closed.\10\ The affected provision was codified in Sec.  
257.71(a)(1)(i), which stated that a unit with a liner consisting of a 
minimum of two feet of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of 
no more than 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second was considered 
to be lined. In the December 2, 2019 proposed rule, EPA proposed to 
remove Sec.  257.71(a)(1)(i) from the CFR. 84 FR 65944. The Agency also 
proposed two conforming revisions to Sec.  257.71(a)(3) that were 
necessary to properly implement the removal of Sec.  257.71(a)(1)(i). 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ On March 3, 2020, the Agency proposed to allow a limited 
number of facilities to continue using alternate liners (i.e., liner 
systems that would otherwise be considered to be unlined systems 
under the CCR regulations) at existing CCR surface impoundments if 
the facility can demonstrate to EPA or a Participating State 
Director that the unit would not adversely affect groundwater, human 
health, or the environment. 85 FR 12456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, EPA is finalizing these proposed changes to Sec.  
257.71(a)(1) and (a)(3). Specifically, the Agency is removing Sec.  
257.71(a)(1)(i) from the CFR to reflect its vacatur as a result of the 
2018 USWAG decision. In addition, EPA is revising Sec.  257.71(a)(3) by 
removing two cross-references to Sec.  257.71(a)(1)(i) that are no 
longer appropriate given that paragraph (a)(1)(i) has been removed. See 
revised Sec.  257.71(a)(3)(i) and (ii).

B. Revisions to Sec.  257.101 as a Result of EPA's Reconsideration

    When the 2015 CCR Rule was finalized, Sec.  257.101 required 
certain existing CCR surface impoundments to close.\11\ This included: 
(1) Unlined CCR

[[Page 53522]]

surface impoundments whose groundwater monitoring shows an exceedance 
of a groundwater protection standard (Sec.  257.101(a)(1)); (2) CCR 
surface impoundments that do not comply with one or more of the 
location (siting) criteria (Sec.  257.101(b)(1)); and (3) CCR surface 
impoundments that are not designed and operated to achieve minimum 
factors of safety, which are a component of the structural integrity 
criteria (Sec.  257.101(b)(2)). In each of these situations, the 2015 
CCR Rule specified that the owner or operator of the CCR unit must 
cease placing CCR and non-CCR wastestreams into the unit and initiate 
closure activities (or retrofit the unit under certain circumstances) 
within a certain period of time after making the relevant 
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Section 257.101 also requires certain existing CCR 
landfills and new CCR surface impoundments to close. However, those 
provisions are not discussed in this preamble section because those 
CCR units were not affected by the 2018 USWAG decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The D.C. Circuit found in the USWAG decision that EPA acted 
``arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to RCRA'' in failing to 
require the closure of all unlined CCR surface impoundments and ordered 
that ``the Final Rule be vacated and remanded with respect to the 
provisions that permit unlined impoundments to continue receiving coal 
ash unless they leak.'' See 901 F.3d at 449. This court-vacated 
provision is codified in Sec.  257.101(a). The USWAG decision did not 
affect the codified deadlines to cease receipt of waste and initiate 
closure. These deadlines remained for existing CCR surface impoundments 
that do not comply with one or more of the location criteria under 
Sec.  257.101(b)(1), as well as for those impoundments that are not 
designed and operated to achieve minimum factors of safety under Sec.  
257.101(b)(2).
    The Agency explained in the December 2, 2019 proposed rule that EPA 
interprets the USWAG decision as only partially vacating Sec.  
257.101(a). Specifically, the Agency explained that only the following 
phrase in Sec.  257.101(a)(1) was vacated by the Court: ``if at any 
time after October 19, 2015, an owner or operator of an existing 
unlined CCR surface impoundment determines in any sampling event that 
the concentrations of one or more constituents listed in Appendix IV of 
this part are detected at statistically significant levels above the 
groundwater protection standard established under Sec.  257.95(h) for 
such CCR unit''. 84 FR 65944-45. The proposal discussed that a vacatur 
of the entire provision under Sec.  257.101(a) would remove the 
requirement for unlined CCR surface impoundments to close, which would 
be inconsistent with the holding that it was arbitrary and capricious 
for EPA not to have required unlined CCR surface impoundments to close. 
In response to the December 2, 2019 proposed rule, EPA received no 
comments opposing the Agency's interpretation of the effect of the 
USWAG decision on Sec.  257.101(a). Therefore, and as EPA discussed in 
the proposed rule, the vacatur of this phrase from Sec.  257.101(a)(1) 
results in a requirement that owners and operators must cease placement 
of both CCR and non-CCR wastestreams into unlined CCR surface 
impoundments and initiate the closure of such units no later than 
October 31, 2020. This requirement also applied to both impoundments 
that were formally considered to be ``clay-lined,'' and unlined 
impoundments that are inactive.
    The October 31, 2020 deadline was established in a final rule 
published on July 30, 2018 (83 FR 36435). The December 2, 2019 proposal 
discussed that the July 30, 2018 final rule had not yet been challenged 
when the court issued its USWAG decision on August 21, 2018. As 
discussed in the proposed rule, the Waterkeeper Alliance subsequently 
challenged the July 30, 2018 final rule and requested expedited review 
of the October 31, 2020 deadline. In response, EPA requested a remand 
of the July 30, 2018 final rule, which the court granted on March 13, 
2019 ``to allow the agency to reconsider that rule in light of this 
court's decision in [USWAG].''
1. EPA's Reconsideration of the October 31, 2020 Deadline
    The December 2, 2019 proposed rule reflects EPA's reconsideration 
of the deadline of October 31, 2020 for unlined CCR surface 
impoundments to cease receiving CCR and non-CCR wastestreams and 
initiate closure or retrofit activities.\12\ As explained in the 
proposed rule, the USWAG decision faulted EPA for failing to fully 
estimate the risks associated with the continued operation (and 
potential leakage) of unlined impoundments and for failing to address 
the risks from allowing these units to continue to operate until they 
leak. The court held that RCRA requires the Agency to determine that 
such risks would be acceptable under the Sec.  4004(a) standard in 
order to authorize the continued operation of such units. In the 
absence of such an assessment, the court vacated the provision that 
allowed for the continued operation of unlined impoundments. 901 F.3d 
at 430. For the reasons discussed in the proposed rule, the Agency was 
unable to develop a nationwide risk assessment of continued operation 
of these unlined CCR surface impoundments. 84 FR 65945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As stated in the proposed rule, EPA will address its 
reconsideration of other aspects of the July 30, 2018, final rule in 
subsequent rulemaking actions. 84 FR 65944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA further explained in the December 2, 2019 proposal that many 
utilities could not immediately cease the placement of CCR and non-CCR 
wastestreams into their surface impoundments without causing 
potentially significant disruptions to plant operations, and thus the 
provision of electricity to their customers. This is because there is 
no additional capacity to manage these wastes elsewhere. To support 
this conclusion, EPA pointed to the information laid out in several 
industry filings to the Waterkeeper court. The Waterkeeper court also 
recognized this, declining to vacate the July 2018 Rule partly because 
``EPA and the intervenors have shown that the consequences of vacatur 
would be disruptive.'' No. 18-1289, Order at 1.
    To address these competing considerations in a manner consistent 
with the statute and the D.C. Circuit's decisions, EPA proposed to 
require that facilities cease placement of all wastes (both CCR and 
non-CCR) into impoundments as soon as technically feasible. 84 FR 
65945. The proposal explained that such a requirement would meet the 
RCRA Sec.  4004(a) standard because it requires the facility to do what 
is possible in the shortest achievable time. Similar to the concept 
behind a force majeure provision, EPA cannot impose protective measures 
under this provision that are not technically feasible for any facility 
to implement. See USWAG at 448; Hughey v. JMS Development Corp, 78 F.3d 
1523 (11th Cir. 1996); Cherry-Burrell Corp v. United States, 367 F.2d 
669 (8th Cir. 1966). The proposal further concluded that requiring 
facilities to expedite the initiation of closure of unlined CCR surface 
impoundments is consistent with the court's finding that further 
evidence is needed to permit such units to continue to operate. See 
USWAG, 901 F.3d at 429-430. The proposal explained that EPA lacked the 
evidence to support the continued operation of such units on a national 
level and it did not anticipate being able to develop such information 
in the near-term.
2. Approaches To Identify Alternative Capacity
    EPA proposed to determine technical feasibility based on the steps 
that owners and operators need to take to obtain alternative disposal 
capacity. Six approaches, and the timeframes needed to implement them, 
were evaluated. 84 FR 65945-51. The evaluation relied principally on 
information contained in

[[Page 53523]]

the declarations submitted with the Waterkeeper briefs, as well as CCR 
rule compliance information posted on facilities' publicly accessible 
CCR internet sites (e.g., written retrofit plans required by Sec.  
257.102(k)(2)). The proposed rule discussed each technology approach 
and the Agency's analysis of the average time needed to implement it. 
This included the entire process to obtain alternative capacity, from 
the start of the project to its completion, including the general 
project phases of planning and design, procurement, permitting, and 
construction, commissioning. Using the average timeframe for each of 
the six approaches was intended to capture some of the variability due 
to site-specific circumstances and to provide for an accurate national 
benchmark. The six technology approaches presented in the proposed rule 
and the estimated average time necessary to develop each technology 
approach are shown in Table 2.

           Table 2--Summary of Proposed Technology Approaches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Alternative capacity technology           Average time (months)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion to dry handling................  36.
Non-CCR wastewater basin..................  21.
Wastewater treatment facility.............  16 to 21.
New CCR surface impoundment...............  27.
Retrofit of a CCR surface impoundment.....  31.5 (large unit retrofits).
                                            4 to 12 (small unit
                                             retrofits).
Multiple technology system................  21 to 36.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Specific Comments on Individual Alternative Capacity Technologies 
and Average Time Estimates
    This preamble unit summarizes the data and information considered 
for each of the six technology approaches in the proposed rule; the 
comments received in response to the use of these data and information; 
and the Agency's response to comments on these approaches. Several 
commenters submitted actual project timeframes for completed or ongoing 
efforts to obtain alternative capacity. The Agency evaluated each 
submission according to the procedures described in this unit of the 
preamble. In most cases, this project information was used in the final 
rule alternative capacity analysis.
    In general, EPA considered submissions that described completed 
projects or portions of completed projects to be the most persuasive 
and reliable. These submissions reflect projects that were in fact 
completed within the reported timeframe and therefore provided some 
guarantee that other facilities can replicate those timeframes. As 
these projects were initiated before the USWAG decision, it is likely 
that they do not represent expedited timeframes. EPA therefore 
considered them to be outer bounds of the amount of time necessary to 
complete these projects.
    The second most reliable category of information came from 
submissions in which the commenter provided a detailed narrative 
description and project schedule, explaining all phases of the project. 
Submissions that fell into this category generally provided sufficient 
information to allow the Agency to determine whether the estimated 
timeframes were reasonable and consistent with those timeframes 
presented in submissions from commenters describing completed projects. 
In some cases, EPA discounted some portions of the estimated time where 
it appeared that the amount of time substantially exceeded the time 
presented in other submissions or were based on factors unique to that 
site that are unlikely to be relevant to other facilities nationwide. 
EPA calculated these adjustments by examining the project schedule and 
determining whether the task in question overlapped with other tasks. 
If the discounted task did not overlap with other activities, the 
Agency reduced the project schedule by the length of time of the task. 
However, when the task in question partially overlapped with another 
activity, EPA only reduced the time duration by the amount that did not 
overlap with a non-discounted task. EPA also reduced some portions of 
estimates if, based on other submissions, EPA determined that the 
commenter had assumed that a phase of a project was sequential when in 
fact it could be completed at the same time as another phase of the 
project. In this final rule, EPA used the information from both of 
these categories of submissions to calculate the deadline to cease 
receipt of waste.
    EPA did not use provided information when a project timeline did 
not include all phases of the project, or when the project timeline was 
presented with insufficient detail to evaluate it. EPA also excluded 
estimates that appeared to be outliers when compared to other 
estimates. As EPA explained in the proposal, outliers should not extend 
the deadline for all facilities to cease receipt of waste, because such 
action would not be consistent with ensuring that this transition 
occurs as quickly as technically feasible. Rather, such situations are 
more appropriately accounted for and addressed, if necessary, under the 
alternative closure process in Sec.  257.103.
    Conversion to dry handling. The first technology approach EPA 
considered in the proposed rule was conversion to dry handling of CCR. 
Some facilities use wet sluicing (e.g., water) to convey CCR from the 
boiler to a CCR surface impoundment. In the context of this rulemaking, 
a conversion from wet sluicing to another means of CCR ash conveyance 
(e.g., mechanical) would allow the facility to cease use of the unlined 
CCR surface impoundment once the conversion is complete (assuming, in 
this example, that no other wastestreams are also directed to the 
unlined impoundment). EPA proposed that the average amount of time 
needed to implement the conversion to dry handling is 36 months, 
although the proposed rule presented information that times ranged from 
36 to 48 months. 84 FR 65946. The Agency also recognized that some 
facilities may need new capacity to dispose of the CCR after a 
conversion to dry handling is complete, such as a CCR landfill. EPA 
stated that it did not have information on the time needed to construct 
a new landfill and therefore the time needed to obtain such capacity 
was not included in the proposed 36-month timeframe. The proposed rule 
solicited information on whether landfills are being constructed for 
alternative capacity in conjunction with dry handling system 
conversions and, if so, the timeframes to put in place such capacity. 
84 FR 65947.
    In response, several commenters stated that CCR landfills are 
constructed as part of the conversion to dry handling and that the time 
required to construct and permit these landfills is significant. These 
commenters argued, therefore, that EPA should include the time required 
to obtain capacity for a CCR landfill in its calculation of the time it 
takes a facility to convert to dry handling. These commenters provided 
information on seven examples from Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and 
South Carolina showing that the process from initial application to 
operational permit issuance of a CCR landfill had taken approximately 
three to five years. The commenters further explained that construction 
of three of these new CCR landfills was done as part of the process of 
converting to dry handling. However, none of the landfill construction 
information provided by the commenters included integrated project 
schedules showing both the construction of the landfill and the dry ash 
handling conversion, which could proceed simultaneously.

[[Page 53524]]

    The Agency disagrees that the final rule approach should include 
the time to construct a CCR landfill in its calculation of the time it 
takes a facility to convert to dry handling. After further 
consideration, EPA views a combined dry ash handling conversion and new 
CCR landfill construction project to be more analogous to a multiple 
technology system, which is discussed in the ``Multiple technology 
system'' section of this preamble. In this instance, the multiple 
technology system would consist of a dry handling conversion project 
and a separate disposal capacity project. The Agency is taking this 
position in the final rule because some dry handling conversion 
projects do not involve the need to obtain disposal capacity for dry 
CCR, while other conversions do. EPA also notes that it did not receive 
any integrated project schedules showing the construction of the 
landfill and the dry ash handling conversion.
    EPA also received new project information regarding conversions to 
dry handling of CCR from Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC (Cleco) and DTE 
Energy.\13\ The information provided by each is briefly summarized 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See docket items EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0085 and 0094, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cleco submitted detailed project information and projections for 
dry ash conversion projects at two different Cleco plants in Louisiana. 
The first was for the installation of a submerged flight conveyor for 
bottom ash removal at its Dolet Hills Power Plant (Dolet Hills). A 
submerged flight conveyor is a type of mechanical ash handling system 
that collects bottom ash that has fallen from the bottom of the boiler 
into a water-filled trough.\14\ Currently at Dolet Hills, bottom ash is 
wet sluiced to one of two 33-acre unlined CCR surface impoundments. The 
commenter stated that prior to the USWAG decision, these bottom ash 
impoundments were not subject to closure for cause. The commenter's 
project timeline shows that it will take approximately 44.5 months to 
complete the bottom ash handling conversion. Cleco's comments do not 
indicate where the bottom ash will be managed after the conversion, but 
EPA notes that Cleco currently operates a CCR landfill at Dolet Hills 
for the disposal of fly ash and scrubber sludge. The commenter's 
conversion project timeline includes approximately nine months for the 
task of ``joint owner & board approval'' and another five months for a 
budgetary study. The commenter explains that the coal-fired boiler at 
Dolet Hills is jointly owned and this time is needed to engage in 
substantial discussions with and reach concurrence with the joint 
owners. The commenter further stated that the time allotted for 
discussions and decision-making with joint owners is based on its 
experience in reaching consensus with joint owners on the EPA air 
rulemaking titled the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards rule.\15\ The 
commenter's project timeline also included three months to seek an 
alternative liner determination pursuant to a proposed process under 
consideration by the Agency in a separate rulemaking.\16\ However, this 
17 months (3 + 5 + 9 months) reflected in Cleco's timeline only 
partially overlaps with the planning and initial design phase of the 
project, which increased the amount of time estimated to complete the 
total project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For additional information on bottom ash handling systems, 
see USEPA, 2019. ``Supplemental Technical Development Document for 
Proposed Revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source 
Category''. EPA-821-R-19-009 (November).
    \15\ 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012).
    \16\ 85 FR 12456 (March 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second bottom ash dry conversion project described by Cleco was 
for the installation of a submerged grind conveyor, another type of 
mechanical ash handling system, for bottom ash removal at its 
Rodemacher Power Plant. Currently, bottom ash is wet sluiced to a 43-
acre unlined CCR surface impoundment. The commenter stated that prior 
to the USWAG decision, the bottom ash impoundment was not subject to 
closure for cause. The commenter's project timeline shows that it will 
take approximately 45 months to complete the bottom ash handling 
conversion. Cleco's comments do not indicate where the bottom ash will 
be managed after the conversion nor if disposal capacity is needed for 
generated bottom ash. Similar to the timeline for Dolet Hills, Cleco's 
conversion project timeline includes approximately 17 months for 
obtaining joint owner and board approval, conducting the budgetary 
study, and seeking an alternative liner demonstration.
    After evaluating the new information provided by Cleco, EPA is 
using this information in its final rule calculation of the amount of 
time needed to convert to dry handling because this commenter provided 
a detailed narrative description and project schedule explaining all 
phases of the project that allowed EPA to evaluate the reasonableness 
of the estimate. However, after reviewing the commenter's project 
schedule, the Agency is adjusting the dry handling conversion 
timeframes used in the capacity analysis for the reasons discussed 
below. As discussed earlier, this commenter explains that the project 
schedule includes approximately nine months for the task of joint owner 
and board approval, five months for a budgetary study, and three months 
to seek an alternative liner determination (a total of 17 months). 
However, these actions would only partially overlap with the planning 
and initial design phase of the project. As EPA explained elsewhere in 
this preamble, the goal of the Agency's alternative capacity analysis 
is to identify capacity that can be obtained in the shortest feasible 
time. A schedule based on a protracted lengthy decision-making process 
is not consistent with this goal. Moreover, the length of time it takes 
to make a decision is within the facility's (or multiple co-owner's) 
control and can be expedited as necessary. For similar reasons EPA is 
not accounting for time taken for the facility to seek a variance under 
the proposed alternative liner determination provisions. Developing the 
materials for that process is largely within the facility's control and 
can therefore be undertaken simultaneously with other measures. 
Therefore, EPA is eliminating the time to seek an alternative liner 
determination (three months) and additionally reducing by eight months 
the upfront 14 months allocated for joint owner and board approval and 
the budgetary study. This action would retain six months for the 
planning and initial design phase of the project, which is the same 
amount of time identified for this phase at proposal. Thus, for 
purposes of the final rule alternative capacity analysis EPA will use 
an adjusted estimate of 33.5 months (44.5 minus 11 months) to complete 
the dry conversion at the Dolet Hills facility and an adjusted estimate 
of 34 months (45 minus 11 months) to complete the dry conversion at the 
Rodemacher facility. In addition, the Agency is using the Cleco data 
points in lieu of the information considered in the proposed rule 
because it is a more comprehensive analysis of a dry ash handling 
conversion project. Table 3 in unit V.B.3.a of this preamble shows the 
information used in the final rule alternative capacity analysis for 
this technology approach.
    DTE Energy submitted comments describing an ongoing dry fly ash 
handling conversion project of four boilers at its Monroe Power Plant 
(Monroe) in Michigan. The commenter states that one CCR surface

[[Page 53525]]

impoundment currently receives wet sluiced fly ash and that prior to 
the USWAG decision, this 331-acre impoundment was not subject to 
closure for cause. The commenter's narrative description of the 
timeline estimates that the dry fly ash conversion project will take at 
least 57 months until the dry ash handling systems are operational and 
wet sluicing of ash can end. Monroe currently operates a CCR landfill. 
The commenter explained that the conversion construction schedule has 
been designed to coincide with already scheduled periodic unit outages 
and has been coordinated with the Midwest Independent System Operator 
so as to maintain grid stability and electrical reliability.\17\ The 
commenter stated that for plants such as Monroe that have multiple 
generating units, outages for those units are seldom concurrent. 
Therefore, the commenter explained that the schedule for the dry ash 
handling conversions are coordinated into a series of sequential 
generating unit outages that adds to the required time to install and 
start up the systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) defines an 
Independent System Operator as an independent, federally regulated 
entity established to coordinate regional transmission in a non-
discriminatory manner and ensure the safety and reliability of the 
electric system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments submitted by DTE Energy, EPA is not 
using its project information in the final rule calculation of the 
amount of time needed to convert all four of its boilers to dry fly ash 
handling. DTE Energy explained in its comments that two of its boiler 
units currently have a dual ash handling system that allows fly ash 
generated from these boilers to be handled dry or wet. The commenter 
further explained that a portion of the fly ash generated from these 
two boilers is transported dry (e.g., collected fly ash is conveyed to 
storage silos using air pressure) and sold for beneficial use, while 
the remaining portion of fly ash not sold for beneficial use is wet 
sluiced to its unlined CCR surface impoundment. The commenter further 
explained that fly ash generated by the other two boilers is currently 
wet sluiced to the same impoundment. As explained earlier, the project 
timeline to convert all four boilers to dry handling is estimated to 
take 57 months; however, the commenter does not explain why closure of 
the unlined surface impoundment could not be initiated sooner than 57 
months given that two boilers are already currently configured to dry 
handle fly ash. Nor is the project timeline sufficiently detailed for 
the Agency to discern whether alternative capacity could be obtained 
sooner than projected.
    Non-CCR wastestream basins. The second technology approach for 
alternative capacity proposed by the Agency was construction of a new 
wastewater basin for non-CCR wastestreams. A new wastewater basin could 
be needed in a situation where one or more non-CCR wastestreams are 
managed in an existing unlined CCR surface impoundment subject to 
closure. EPA proposed that the average amount of time needed to 
construct a new basin for non-CCR wastestreams was 21 months, but also 
explained that available data showed that permitting of the unit can 
greatly impact the amount of time needed to complete the new capacity. 
The data in the proposal showed new capacity could be obtained in a 
range of 18 to 41 months. EPA further explained that when removing the 
variable permitting component from consideration, the average time to 
plan and design, procure, and construct and commission the new basin 
was 21 months. 84 FR 65947.
    In response to the proposed rule, several commenters stated that 
obtaining permits is a necessary component of the process to construct 
a non-CCR wastestream basin and provided examples of the types of 
permits, licenses or approvals that may be needed. These commenters 
argued that EPA must include some time for obtaining permits for this 
alternative capacity method. The Agency also received new project 
information from several entities regarding construction of a new 
wastewater basin for non-CCR wastestreams. However, these projects were 
done as part of a larger multiple technology system effort. These 
multiple technology system projects included the construction of non-
CCR wastewater basins or storage in conjunction with either dry ash 
handling conversions or development of other alternative capacity at 
the New Madrid Power Plant, Thomas Hill Energy Center, Salt River 
Project, and the Boswell Energy Center. Those project descriptions are 
not included in the capacity analysis for non-CCR wastestream basins, 
but are discussed in the ``Multiple technology systems'' section of 
this preamble. The Agency did not receive any new project information 
from commenters documenting the time needed to construct a new non-CCR 
wastewater basin when such project was not part of a multiple 
technology system.
    After considering comments, EPA is adjusting the approach used in 
the proposed rule to determine the time needed to obtain alternative 
capacity with a non-CCR wastewater basin. Several commenters were 
critical of the proposed approach because it removed permitting 
timeframes considerations from the estimation. The Agency agrees with 
commenters that obtaining a permit (e.g., the time needed to modify a 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit) is a necessary 
component to putting in place a new non-CCR wastewater capacity. EPA 
re-evaluated the project schedule associated with the high-end estimate 
of 41 months considered in the proposed rule. This review determined 
that the design and permitting phase of the project--18 months of the 
project duration--includes environmental reviews required under the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As noted in the submission, 
the NEPA review process ``can take up to a year or longer depending on 
the level of review'' required. The Agency also reviewed other 
documents associated with the NEPA review for this non-CCR wastewater 
basin and found that the process well exceeded a year to complete.\18\ 
But because the majority of facilities are not subject to NEPA, EPA 
considers this situation to be an outlier that is more appropriately 
accounted for and, if necessary, addressed under the alternative 
closure process in Sec.  257.103. Because the NEPA review process 
overlaps with other project tasks, such as detailed engineering design 
and preparing permit applications, EPA adjusted the estimate to remove 
12 of the 18 months associated with the NEPA review process, rather 
than deleting the entire 18 months. The resulting six-month time frame 
is consistent with the estimate provided by other facilities for the 
engineering design phase. Therefore, for purposes of the final rule 
alternative capacity analysis EPA will use an adjusted estimate of 29 
months (41 minus 12 months) to complete the construction of the non-CCR 
wastewater basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 83 FR 54162 (October 26, 2018). ``Shawnee Fossil Plant Coal 
Combustion Residual Management; Issuance of Record of Decision.'' 
The draft Environmental Impact Statement was released on June 8, 
2017, and the final Record of Decision was published on October 26, 
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is using the estimate to construct a new non-CCR wastewater 
basin provided by Southern Company in the final rule alternative 
capacity analysis. This information was considered in the proposed rule 
and describes a project estimated to take 18 months. Table 3 in unit 
V.B.3.a of this preamble shows the information used in the final rule 
alternative capacity analysis for this approach.

[[Page 53526]]

    Wastewater treatment facility. The third technology approach 
considered by EPA at proposal was to build a new wastewater treatment 
facility (or system) for CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams. A wastewater 
treatment system can take different forms, as explained in the proposed 
rule. For example, a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system 
is a system where chemicals are added to the wastewater to alter the 
physical state of dissolved and suspended solids to facilitate settling 
and removal of solids. Other systems, such as settling ponds, are 
designed to remove particulates from wastewater by means of gravity. 
EPA proposed that the average amount of time needed to construct a 
wastewater treatment system is 16 to 21 months based on information 
obtained for a related rulemaking for the Steam Electric Power 
Generating Effluent Guidelines and Standards (Steam Electric ELG). The 
Agency also presented an example of a concrete treatment tank system 
being considered by an electricity producer that estimated the time to 
obtain alternative capacity to be 27 months. 84 FR 65948.
    In response to the proposed rule, several commenters stated that 
information available in the rulemaking docket estimates significantly 
longer timeframes to obtain capacity with a wastewater treatment system 
than EPA's proposed time. These commenters pointed to information in 
the docket from Arizona Public Service stating that it will require 
approximately 27 months to complete construction of the wastewater 
treatment facility.\19\ The commenters also identified new information 
contained in a comment by Southern Company in the Steam Electric 
rulemaking docket, stating that a complex wastewater treatment project 
at a plant with over 50 wastestreams can take up to 52 months to 
implement.\20\ The commenters further stated that EPA's proposal fails 
to consider the time needed to obtain or modify National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which is a crucial aspect 
of the process of constructing and implementing a wastewater treatment 
facility. Therefore, these commenters argued that the Agency should 
include the time required to obtain or modify NPDES permits in its 
calculation of the time it takes to implement a wastewater treatment 
facility as a method of alternative capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See docket item EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0008.
    \20\ See docket item EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-8457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency also received new project information from several 
entities regarding construction of a new wastewater treatment facility. 
However, these projects were done as part of a larger multiple 
technology system effort. These multiple technology system projects 
included the construction of wastewater treatment capacity in 
conjunction with either dry ash handling conversions or other 
alternative capacity additions at the New Madrid Power Plant, Thomas 
Hill Energy Center, and the Leland Olds Station. Those projects are not 
included in the wastewater treatment system analysis and are discussed 
in the ``Multiple technology systems'' section of this preamble.
    As discussed earlier for the approach for non-CCR waste basins, the 
Agency agrees with commenters that obtaining or modifying a NPDES 
permit is a necessary component to establishing new capacity with a 
wastewater treatment facility. To better capture the range of times 
needed to obtain or modify a NPDES permit, the final rule is 
supplementing the Steam Electric ELG information used at proposal with 
the project information from Arizona Public Service, which shows 
alternative capacity will be in place within approximately 26 
months.\21\ In addition, the Steam Electric ELG timeframes were 
presented as ranging from 16 to 21 months in the proposed rule. For 
reasons discussed in unit V.B.3 of this preamble, the Agency is 
representing this information as a mean of the range (i.e., 18.5 
months) so as to not overrepresent this information relative to other 
data. However, EPA is not including in the alternative capacity 
calculation the information characterized as a ``complex wastewater 
treatment project at a plant with over 50 wastestreams'' that can take 
up to 52 months to implement (these comments were also submitted as 
comments in response to a separate Steam Electric ELG proposed rule). 
This information is not being included in the calculation because the 
Agency was unable to determine whether this project at an unspecified 
facility involved unique or unusually complex site-specific 
circumstances that would be better addressed through the alternative 
closure provisions discussed in unit V.C of this preamble. Table 3 in 
unit V.B.3.a of this preamble shows the information used in the final 
rule alternative capacity analysis for this technology approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA re-examined the APS schedule to complete construction 
of the wastewater treatment facility and determined that the project 
would take 26 months versus the 27 months presented in the proposed 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New CCR surface impoundment. The fourth technology approach 
considered by EPA at proposal was to build a new CCR surface 
impoundment to replace the impoundment subject to closure for cause. 
Such a unit could be used for CCR alone or could also be used to manage 
non-CCR wastestreams. EPA proposed that the average length of time 
needed to build a new CCR surface impoundment is 27 months. 84 FR 
65949. As explained in the proposed rule, this average time was 
developed from available information submitted by three facilities--
Xcel Energy, Arizona Public Service, and Southern Company.\22\ The 
proposed 27-month average was comprised of six months for planning and 
design, six months for permitting (though the preamble presented a 
range of six to 18 months and acknowledged that the permitting phase 
can take longer than this range), 14 months for material procurement 
and construction, and one month for capacity commissioning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See docket items EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0007, 0008, and 
0011, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the proposed rule, several commenters stated that 
EPA must fully consider the additional time required to apply for and 
obtain the necessary permits when estimating the timeframe for 
constructing a new CCR surface impoundment. These commenters argued 
that EPA inappropriately selected the low end of the range needed for 
permitting (i.e., six months), despite the record showing that it is 
not a rare occurrence when more time is needed for permitting. These 
commenters stated that the timeframes must also account for the time 
needed to install a groundwater monitoring system for the new 
impoundment given that the federal CCR regulations require that the new 
impoundment must be in compliance with groundwater monitoring 
requirements prior to initial receipt of CCR. These CCR requirements 
include, for example, installing the groundwater monitoring system and 
developing a groundwater sampling and analysis program.
    EPA also received new project information regarding the 
construction of new CCR surface impoundments from a number of 
companies, including Xcel Energy (Xcel), Great River Energy (Great 
River), and CPS Energy.\23\ The information provided by each is briefly 
summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See docket items EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0067, 0076, and 
0070, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Xcel submitted detailed project information for a new CCR surface 
impoundment that is currently under

[[Page 53527]]

construction to replace an existing 18-acre CCR surface impoundment. 
That impoundment is used for the temporary storage of bottom ash prior 
to its excavation and beneficial use or disposal elsewhere. The 
commenter explained that the existing impoundment at the Sherburne 
County Generating Plant (Sherburne) in Minnesota is currently 
considered unlined pursuant to the CCR regulations and that the unit 
was not subject to closure for cause until the 2018 USWAG decision. At 
proposal, EPA relied on information provided by Xcel in an earlier 
submission specific to this new CCR surface impoundment. Xcel stated in 
its comments that even with the benefit of work completed prior to the 
USWAG decision, it does not anticipate that alternative capacity (the 
new impoundment) will be available until mid-October 2020. The 
commenter explained that EPA's time estimate at proposal for the new 
Sherburne impoundment did not include already completed essential tasks 
related to the new impoundment, including an assessment of options for 
alternative capacity, and preliminary design, permitting and project 
planning. Xcel further explained that the actual timeline since project 
initiation in January 2014 to completion in October 2020 would not be 
consistent with the standard in the proposed rule to obtain alternative 
capacity ``as soon as technically feasible,'' because there has not 
been a continuous and sustained effort to obtain the alternative 
capacity. Therefore, Xcel reconstructed the activities completed prior 
to the USWAG decision and developed a hypothetical project schedule 
reflecting a project start date of October 15, 2018 (i.e., the USWAG 
mandate). The commenter stated that expedited durations were used where 
feasible and provided examples. The commenter further stated that 
constructing the new CCR surface impoundment would take a minimum of 34 
months, which would equate to mid-August 2021 under this hypothetical 
schedule. Xcel's comments included a narrative description explaining 
all phases of the entire project and a detailed project schedule, both 
for the actual and hypothetical cases.
    Great River submitted detailed project information for a new CCR 
surface impoundment at its Coal Creek Station in North Dakota. The 
commenter stated that the new 66-acre impoundment will replace two 
existing CCR surface impoundments that receive fly ash, bottom ash, and 
flue gas desulfurization materials. The existing impoundments are 
approximately 75 and 100 acres in size, according to the closure plans 
posted on the plant's CCR compliance website. The commenter also 
explained that the two existing surface impoundments were considered 
lined units pursuant to the CCR regulations prior to the 2018 USWAG 
decision. The commenter further stated that Coal Creek Station 
initiated efforts to obtain alternative disposal capacity immediately 
following the USWAG decision and that constructing the new CCR surface 
impoundment will take approximately 59.5 months. However, the commenter 
explained that the future location of the new CCR surface impoundment 
is currently occupied by two existing, state-regulated non-CCR surface 
impoundments. The commenter further explained that the proposed plan is 
for the two non-CCR surface impoundments to be combined into one CCR 
surface impoundment, and to expedite availability, construction efforts 
will focus on conversion of only one non-CCR surface impoundment at a 
time. Great River's comments included a detailed project schedule and a 
technical memorandum from its engineering consultant explaining the 
steps of the project in detail from start to finish.
    CPS Energy submitted information for a new two-acre CCR surface 
impoundment at its Calaveras Power Station in Texas. The commenter 
stated that the new impoundment will replace two existing CCR surface 
impoundments that receive CCR sludge from the air pollution control 
equipment. The existing impoundments are each approximately 1.5 acres 
in size, according to the closure plan posted on the plant's publicly 
accessible CCR internet site. CPS Energy stated in its comments that 
constructing the new CCR surface impoundment will take approximately 30 
months. While the commenter provided summary information on the amount 
of time needed to construct the new unit, neither a detailed narrative 
description nor a detailed project schedule explaining all phases of 
the project was submitted with the comments.
    After evaluating the comments that provided new information, EPA is 
including the 34-month timeframe for the Xcel project in its final rule 
calculation of the amount of time needed to put in place new CCR 
surface impoundment capacity. This commenter provided a detailed 
narrative description and project schedule explaining all phases of the 
project that allowed EPA to evaluate the reasonableness of the 
estimates. EPA is not including, however, the summary information for 
the new impoundment planned at Coal Creek Station because of the unique 
real estate challenges at the site. As discussed earlier in this 
section, construction of the new impoundment cannot commence until one 
of the former non-CCR surface impoundments is dewatered and cleaned 
out. According to the commenter's project schedule, these tasks are 
anticipated to consume at least one of the three construction seasons 
dedicated to the construction of the new impoundment. Given that the 
facility is located in North Dakota, an area of the country that has 
shorter construction seasons, the decision to build the new impoundment 
at a site occupied by two state-regulated non-CCR surface impoundments 
affects the project duration by at least one year. While the Agency 
recognizes that some facilities have legitimate real estate constraints 
and limitations, EPA considers these situations to be outliers and more 
appropriately accounted for and addressed, if necessary, under the 
alternative closure provisions under Sec.  257.103 (see section V.C of 
this preamble).
    The Agency is also not including the summary information provided 
by CPS Energy in the final rule calculation because the commenter did 
not provide sufficient detail on its planned alternative capacity 
project to allow the Agency to evaluate whether the project could have 
been concluded more quickly.
    EPA is using the 28-month estimate to construct a new seven-acre 
impoundment provided by Arizona Public Service (APS FCPP) for the Four 
Corners Power Plant in New Mexico in the final rule alternative 
capacity analysis. The APS FCPP information was considered in the 
proposed rule and describes the project schedule from start to 
completion. EPA has included in its calculations the time required to 
obtain necessary permits and to install a groundwater monitoring system 
for the new impoundment. The data used in the final rule alternative 
capacity analysis represent the amount of time to obtain capacity from 
start to completion, including these permitting and regulatory project 
elements. Table 3 in unit V.B.3.a of this preamble shows the 
information used in the final rule alternative capacity analysis for 
this technology approach.
    Retrofit of a CCR surface impoundment. The fifth technology 
approach considered by EPA at proposal was to retrofit a CCR surface 
impoundment to meet the requirements specified in the CCR regulations 
for a new impoundment. Such a unit could

[[Page 53528]]

be used for both CCR and non-CCR wastestreams. EPA proposed that the 
time to retrofit a large surface impoundment (approximately 50 acres) 
was 31.5 months. 84 FR 65950. The 31.5-month timeframe was based on 
information provided by Vistra Energy for the Martin Lake Power Plant 
(Martin Lake) in Texas.\24\ While the Martin Lake timeline pertains to 
a larger retrofit project of four surface impoundments, EPA used it to 
determine the time needed to retrofit a single impoundment. The Agency 
also proposed that a small CCR surface impoundment could be retrofitted 
in four to 12 months. The small impoundment time estimate was based on 
information extracted from rule information posted on publicly 
accessible CCR internet sites for three facilities (i.e., written 
retrofit plans required by Sec.  257.102(k)(2)), including Keystone 
Generating Station, Weston Generating Station, and Mount Storm Power 
Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See docket item EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the proposed rule, several commenters stated that it 
was not appropriate for EPA to discount the need for sequential 
retrofitting of impoundments at the Martin Lake facility and use 31.5 
months as the average time to retrofit. Given that Vistra Energy's 
submission makes clear that retrofitting must occur sequentially in 
order for the plant to continue operating and generating electricity 
during the retrofit work, the commenters argued that the final rule 
should consider the full time to retrofit its impoundments. These 
commenters also objected to the proposed rule averaging methodology 
stating that EPA both overrepresented the impoundment retrofit 
technology approach (i.e., three of the ten data points used to 
calculate the proposed 22.5-month average time to obtain alternative 
disposal capacity were derived from impoundment retrofit information), 
and inappropriately skewed the retrofit time average to small units. 
The commenters further contended that approximately 68 percent of CCR 
surface impoundments are larger than 10 acres and more weight should be 
given to the actual timeframes experienced by facilities in 
retrofitting these larger impoundments. These commenters also argued 
that the timeframes must account for situations where the waste 
boundary of the unit changes during the retrofit to provide the time 
needed to install a groundwater monitoring system for the retrofitted 
impoundment, given that the federal CCR regulations require that the 
impoundment must be in compliance with groundwater monitoring 
requirements prior to initial receipt of CCR.
    The Agency disagrees with commenters that it was inappropriate to 
discount the need for sequential retrofitting of Martin Lake's four 
impoundments and instead used the time to retrofit a single 
impoundment. The Agency is using the Martin Lake information to 
determine the time to retrofit a single impoundment. The Martin Lake 
circumstances are unique in that the facility plans to retrofit four 
impoundments, and each retrofit must occur sequentially because the 
facility requires a minimum of three impoundments to be operating at 
any one time in order for the plant to operate. To use the Martin Lake 
information, the Agency adjusted the total retrofit time so that it is 
on the same scale as other facilities (i.e., construction times 
normalized for a single impoundment retrofit). The proposed rule 
estimated it would take Martin Lake 31.5 months to retrofit a single 
impoundment.\25\ EPA continues to believe that the 31.5-month estimate 
is appropriate and is using this data point in its final rule 
alternative capacity analysis to determine the time needed to retrofit 
of a CCR surface impoundment. Finally, the Agency intends for unique 
circumstances like Martin Lake to be addressed through the alternative 
closure provisions of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See docket item EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0005. EPA subtracted 
off 27 months for the retrofit of the remaining three impoundments 
and the six months for contingencies built into the schedule to 
obtain 31.5 months to retrofit a single impoundment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also received new project information regarding the amount of 
time needed to retrofit a CCR surface impoundment in comments from 
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative (AEPCO). AEPCO submitted project 
information for a surface impoundment retrofit project at its Apache 
Generating Station in Arizona. The commenter stated that this plant has 
four CCR ash impoundments, which also manage non-CCR wastestreams, and 
a scrubber sludge impoundment subject to the CCR regulations. The 
commenter explained that it will need to retrofit one of the ash 
impoundments and the scrubber sludge impoundment before it can cease 
placement of CCR in the units at the plant. The existing ash and 
scrubber sludge impoundments are approximately 33 acres and 42 acres in 
size, respectively, according to the closure plans posted on the 
facility's publicly accessible CCR internet site.\26\ The commenter 
noted that these existing surface impoundments were not subject to 
closure for cause under the CCR regulations prior to the 2018 USWAG 
decision. The commenter further explained that after conducting 
preliminary design work for evaluating potential alternative capacity, 
AEPCO decided to retrofit the existing impoundments, which involves 
removal of approximately 900,000 cubic yards of solids from the 
existing impoundments. The commenter estimated that it will take 
approximately 47 months to complete the retrofit of the scrubber sludge 
impoundment and 55 months to retrofit one ash impoundment; however, 
both impoundment retrofits, which will be conducted concurrently, must 
be completed before the facility can cease using the existing 
impoundments. AEPCO must first obtain Board approval of an initial 
scoping of the project and initiate project financing activities. The 
commenter explained that many electric cooperatives finance large 
projects through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities 
Service (RUS) because RUS can offer low-interest federal loans. RUS 
funding can require an environmental review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act before funds will be released by RUS to the 
cooperative. The commenter's project schedule included approximately 16 
months for obtaining internal approval of the project, initiating RUS 
financing, and completing preliminary design work. AEPCO's comments 
included a narrative description explaining all phases of the project 
and a detailed project schedule, including an estimate of the impact of 
pursuing RUS funding for these retrofits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ ``Closure Plan--Revision No. 1, Apache Generating Station, 
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Cochise County, Arizona'', 
October 13, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After evaluating AEPCO's comments, EPA is incorporating the 
impoundment retrofit projects at Apache Generating Station into the 
final rule alternative capacity analysis. However, the Agency is 
adjusting the project timeframes used in the capacity analysis for this 
facility for reasons discussed below. As discussed earlier, this 
commenter explained that the project schedule includes 16 months for 
Board approval activities and initiating a process to obtain lower-cost 
financing through the RUS program. The environmental review process 
required by RUS can be a lengthy process--longer than a year in some 
cases--as noted by this and other

[[Page 53529]]

commenters.\27\ These commenters further explained that borrowers must 
wait for the conclusion of RUS's environmental review before taking any 
action on projects that could have an environmental impact or otherwise 
limit or affect the USDA's final decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See docket items EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0086 and -0102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As EPA explained elsewhere in this preamble, the goal of the 
Agency's alternative capacity analysis is to identify capacity that can 
be obtained in the shortest feasible time. A schedule based on a 
lengthy decision-making and administrative process is not consistent 
with this goal, especially when other faster financing options are 
available and within the facility's control. The length of time it 
takes to make a decision is also within the facility's control and can 
be expedited as necessary. Therefore, EPA evaluated the timeline to 
determine the extent that the lengthy decision-making and financing 
approach impacted the project's schedule. As a result, the Agency is 
reducing the initial 16-month decision-making and financing activities 
by nine months. This adjustment would retain seven months for the 
planning and initial design phase of the project that would occur 
within the initial 16-month period. The seven-month period is the same 
amount of time identified for this project phase at proposal. 
Therefore, for purposes of the final rule alternative capacity analysis 
EPA will use an adjusted estimate of 38 months (47 minus nine months) 
to complete the retrofit of the scrubber sludge impoundment and 46 
months (55 minus nine months) to retrofit one ash impoundment. Finally, 
given that the retrofits of the scrubber sludge and ash impoundments 
were concurrent activities (i.e., the retrofit construction began at 
the same time), EPA views this as one retrofit project and is including 
the longer retrofit estimate of 46 months in its alternative capacity 
analysis because the impoundment retrofits would be completed within 
this 46-month period.
    As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA also received comments 
that the proposed alternative capacity technology approaches are 
missing key components of the project planning process (e.g., the time 
needed to obtain required permits). These commenters stated that EPA 
must account for any missing components when determining the time 
needed to obtain alternative capacity. EPA re-evaluated the information 
available in the three retrofit reports for small impoundment retrofits 
that supported the proposed rule. Weston Generating Station (Weston) 
located in Wisconsin operates two sets of bottom ash dewatering and 
settlement basins (each set is approximately three acres in size). The 
two sets are operated in parallel thus allowing one set of basins to be 
taken offline while the second set remains in use. Thus, only one set 
of basins must be in operation in order for the plant to operate. The 
schedule provided in its retrofit plan includes time estimates for all 
project components, including the phases of planning and design, 
procurement, permitting, construction, and capacity commissioning.\28\ 
This report shows that it will take approximately 12 months to complete 
the retrofit of the first series of dewatering and settlement basins 
and an additional three months to complete the retrofit construction of 
the second series of basins. Weston posted a construction certification 
at the end of November 2017 documenting the completion of the retrofit 
project \29\ confirming that the actual time needed to complete the 
retrofit project was consistent with the project schedule considered by 
EPA in the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA continues to believe that 12 
months accurately reflects the amount of time the commenter needs to 
retrofit a single surface impoundment and is including this data point 
in the final rule alternative capacity analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See docket item EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0004.
    \29\ ``Construction Certification for the Weston Units 3 & 4 Ash 
Basins Liner Retrofit, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Weston 
Generating Station, Rothschild, Wisconsin'', November 29, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the surface impoundment retrofits at Keystone Generating 
Station in Pennsylvania and Mount Storm Power Station in West Virginia, 
EPA's re-evaluation found that the retrofit reports for both plants 
lack information on the phases of planning and design, procurement and 
permitting. The Agency was unable to obtain additional information for 
these retrofit projects. As a result, EPA is no longer considering 
these retrofit reports as part of the final rule alternative capacity 
analysis.
    Finally, as a result of including new retrofit information from 
commenters and of the Agency's re-evaluation of information used in the 
proposed rule, two thirds of the data used in final rule alternative 
capacity analysis for the impoundment retrofit method is associated 
with impoundments greater than ten acres. EPA believes this addresses 
the comment that the retrofit alternative capacity analysis was 
overrepresented by information from small units under ten acres in 
size. Table 3 in unit V.B.3.a of this preamble shows the information 
used in the final rule alternative capacity analysis for this 
technology approach.
    Multiple technology system. The final technology approach 
considered in the proposed rule was utilizing a combination of 
technologies that together could provide alternative capacity. An 
example is a utility that decides to end wet sluicing of bottom ash to 
a CCR surface impoundment by making modifications to the boiler so that 
the bottom ash can be handled dry, thereby allowing its unlined CCR 
surface impoundment to be closed or retrofitted. If, in this example, 
the existing unlined impoundment was also used to manage non-CCR 
wastestreams, then the utility would also need to obtain alternative 
capacity for its non-CCR wastestreams (e.g., a wastewater treatment 
system). Thus, the combination of a dry ash handling system and 
wastewater treatment system is an example of a multiple technology 
system.
    EPA proposed that the average amount of time needed to obtain 
alternative capacity with a multiple technology system was 21 to 36 
months, although the Agency generally lacked detailed information on 
the engineering, design and permitting phases of the underlying 
projects. In the proposed rule, EPA estimated the time needed for the 
engineering and design phase and assumed that permitting occurs 
concurrently with other project steps. The Agency also acknowledged in 
the proposed rule that the time needed to construct a multiple 
technology system is highly dependent on the alternative capacity 
approaches selected and that more time may be needed for planning and 
design because these systems can be more complex. 84 FR 65950.
    In response to the proposed rule, several commenters stated that 
permitting considerations were omitted from the proposed timelines 
because permitting was assumed to occur concurrently with other project 
steps, such as construction. These commenters further stated that this 
assumption is not supported by the information in the record which 
demonstrates that permitting is a necessary and key component of the 
process of developing alternative capacity and that construction work 
rarely can proceed until all the necessary permits are obtained. 
Therefore, they argued that the final rule should include some time for 
obtaining permits. Commenters also stated that the proposed rule 
approach does not contemplate multiple technology systems when they 
must be

[[Page 53530]]

implemented sequentially. An example presented was for a facility that 
implements a dry ash handling conversion; once the large-volume sluice 
flows are removed from the impoundment, the facility begins a partial 
retrofit within that impoundment footprint for other non-CCR 
wastestreams. The commenters explained that this could be the case when 
the facility has real estate constraints that prevent construction from 
beginning until after the sluice flows are removed. Impoundment closure 
could not begin until after the partial retrofit is completed and the 
non-CCR wastestreams relocated. Other commenters stated that schedules 
based on completed projects, such as those of Duke Energy, did not 
provide enough details to understand whether the facility acted as 
expeditiously as possible or whether tasks were conducted sequentially 
or with some overlap.
    EPA also received project information from several entities 
regarding multiple technology systems, including from Associated 
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AECI), Minnesota Power, American Electric 
Power (AEP), Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power 
District (Salt River Project), and Basin Electric Power Cooperative 
(Basin Electric).\30\ The information provided by each is briefly 
summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See docket items EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0087, 0075, 0077, 
0079, and 0069, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AECI submitted project timelines and related information for its 
two CCR-generating facilities in Missouri: New Madrid Power Plant (New 
Madrid) and Thomas Hill Energy Center (Thomas Hill). The commenter 
described ongoing efforts at both facilities to put in place new 
alternative capacity using multiple technology systems. The commenter 
further explained that both facilities are subject to the CCR rules and 
the Steam Electric ELG rules. The project timelines provided include 
six projects required to comply with the CCR and Steam Electric ELG 
rules. The commenter stated that the proposed rule does not account for 
several integral steps in the process of obtaining alternative 
capacity. For example, they contend that EPA's proposal did not fully 
consider the interactive relationship between multiple technology 
systems that require iterative engineering design and construction 
sequencing to accommodate complex system development and functionality, 
such as a new wastewater treatment facility that will discharge into a 
non-CCR surface impoundment. The commenter also stated that the 
proposal did not fully consider the commissioning and start-up testing 
phase for multiple technology systems. The commenter's experience is 
that more complex systems with multiple and varying water streams will 
take more time to allow for start-up of equipment before becoming fully 
operational. For example, elements such as seasonality, varying plant 
operating conditions, periodic activities (e.g., boiler washes), and 
inconsistent flow rates require extensive post-construction operational 
configuring and calibration of pumps, treatment dosing, and effluent 
monitoring. In addition, initial design activities, such as feasibility 
studies and alternatives analyses, are more complex for multiple 
technology systems, which they argued are not properly accounted for in 
the proposed rule. The commenter stated that the capacity timelines 
must account for the inherent complexities with multiple technology 
systems due to the iterative nature of the process.
    Of the six projects AECI described, four are underway at the New 
Madrid facility, including two separate conversions to dry handling (a 
dry light ash handling conversion and a dry boiler slag handling 
conversion); construction of a non-CCR wastestream basin for coal pile 
runoff and process water; and construction of a new water treatment 
facility for other wastestreams. According to information provided by 
the commenter, the dry light ash handling conversion was initiated in 
April 2015 and is expected to be completed by February 2021, a duration 
of approximately 71 months. The dry boiler slag handing conversion, 
which includes conversions for two boilers, also began in April 2015 
and is estimated to be completed by August 2023, a duration of 
approximately 102 months.
    The final two projects at the New Madrid facility were initiated in 
October 2018 following the USWAG decision. According to information 
provided by the commenter, they are planned for completion in November 
2021, a duration of approximately 37.5 months. The two projects at the 
Thomas Hill facility include plans to construct a wastewater treatment 
facility and non-CCR wastestream basins. The specific projects include 
constructing a concrete dewatering tank to handle boiler slag 
wastewaters, a new coal pile runoff pond, and other process water 
ponds. According to information provided by the commenter, these 
projects would take approximately 37.5 months to complete.
    Minnesota Power also submitted project timelines and related 
information for its Boswell Energy Center (Boswell) in Minnesota 
describing ongoing efforts to put in place new alternative capacity 
using multiple technology systems. The commenter stated that it has two 
CCR surface impoundments that are subject to closure for cause. The 
first impoundment receives bottom ash and non-CCR wastestreams and the 
second impoundment receives flue gas desulfurization (FGD) materials, 
as well as bottom ash dredge materials from the first impoundment. The 
commenter stated that a multiple technology system for alternative 
capacity is being pursued at Boswell that will convert the bottom ash 
handling systems for two boilers to dry systems and install an FGD 
dewatering system on one of the boiler systems. In addition, a new 
wastewater storage unit will be constructed for non-CCR wastestreams. 
The commenter stated that completion of these projects will allow CCR 
to be managed at its on-site CCR landfill, allowing for the closure of 
the two CCR surface impoundments. The project timelines submitted by 
the commenter show that both dry handling conversions will be completed 
early in 2023, with one conversion taking 40 months to complete and the 
other one 52 months. The construction of the non-CCR storage unit is 
planned to be finished in 34 months.
    The commenter stated that the proposed rule timelines were 
deficient in that they did not adequately address the role and extent 
to which existing economic regulation requires coordinated decision-
making for electric utility investments. These regulations include 
requirements for review and approval of investments to comply with 
state and federal environmental requirements, which would apply to the 
dry handling conversions being implemented. The commenter explained its 
requirements under the Minnesota statute and argued that the proposal 
would create an environmental regulatory approach that contradicts the 
economic regulatory approach under which Minnesota Power must make its 
decisions. The commenter also stated that the proposal did not allow 
adequate time for state permitting for dry conversion or solid waste 
management, which, they contended, can be the longest and most 
uncertain part of the entire dry conversion process. The commenter 
explained that construction of conversion activities cannot commence 
until the permits for those changes are issued by the appropriate state 
or federal regulatory agency. A dry handling conversion will require a 
major Title V Permit amendment, due to

[[Page 53531]]

increased air emissions that will result from the conversion from wet 
to dry. The commenter also stated that it is projected to take between 
nine and 21.5 months to receive final permits, and the commenter 
provided a letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
indicating that this is a reasonable estimate for its conversion 
project.
    AEP also submitted project planning information regarding 
timeframes to convert to dry bottom ash and fly ash handling and to 
develop alternative disposal capacity for non-CCR wastewater streams. 
AEP explained its methodology for performing engineering design, 
planning and construction of all construction projects, but that it has 
not previously converted any of its facilities to a dry bottom ash 
handling system, nor has it developed alternative storage or treatment 
options for non-CCR wastewater streams. The commenter presented a 
typical timeline for obtaining such alternative capacity that indicates 
that it could take 62 months to complete a new non-CCR wastestream 
basin and 51 months to complete the dry ash handling conversion. These 
timeframes appear to be based on a scenario where the non-CCR 
wastestream basin would be constructed on top of a closing CCR surface 
impoundment. The commenter notes on its timeline that the impoundment 
would be closed in phases, so that new alternative disposal capacity 
can be built in the existing footprint of the impoundment.
    Salt River Project also submitted detailed project information for 
a new CCR surface impoundment and non-CCR wastewater impoundment to 
replace an existing 330-acre CCR surface impoundment used primarily for 
the disposal of flue gas desulfurization materials and other non-CCR 
wastestreams. The commenter stated that the existing impoundment at the 
Coronado Generating Station in Arizona is currently considered unlined 
under the CCR regulations and that the unit was not subject to closure 
for cause until the 2018 USWAG decision. The commenter stated that it 
immediately began a preliminary analysis of compliance options under 
the CCR rule after the USWAG decision and began to evaluate options for 
developing alternative disposal capacity. The commenter further 
explained that the facility plans to obtain alternative capacity using 
a collection of modular surface impoundments for CCR and non-CCR 
wastestreams having an aggregate surface area of approximately 100 
acres. Salt River Project stated that it selected a staged pond 
construction project approach, which will establish initial alternative 
capacity for both CCR and non-CCR wastestreams in separate impoundments 
and allow additional ponds to be constructed as needed in the future. 
Salt River Project stated it will take approximately 55 months to 
replace the existing unlined impoundment with the new CCR and non-CCR 
impoundments. Salt River Project's comments included a narrative 
description explaining all phases of the entire project and a detailed 
project schedule.
    Basin Electric submitted information for a multiple technology 
system involving dry bottom ash conversion and construction of a 
process water treatment system at its Leland Olds Station in North 
Dakota. The commenter stated that the project took approximately 40 
months from start to completion, beginning in January 2016 and ending 
in the spring of 2019. While the commenter provided summary information 
on the amount of time needed to construct the new unit, neither a 
detailed narrative description nor a detailed project schedule 
explaining all phases of the project were submitted with the comments.
    After evaluating the comments that provided new project 
information, EPA is including the information from Thomas Hill, Boswell 
Energy Center, Salt River Project, and Leland Olds, as well as an 
average time derived from the Duke Energy data described in the 
proposed rule (the Duke Energy data are discussed further in the next 
paragraph), in its final rule alternative capacity calculation for 
multiple technology systems. The Agency is not including the 
information for the New Madrid facility in the final rule calculation. 
The New Madrid information shows that the engineering design and 
procurement phases last approximately three years for each boiler's dry 
handling conversion (the timeline calls for two boilers to be converted 
sequentially). The commenter did not provide sufficient details for EPA 
to understand why these timeframes are substantially longer than other 
dry handling conversions. As a result, the Agency attributes these 
longer timelines to unique or unusually complex site-specific 
circumstances that would be better addressed through the alternative 
closure provisions discussed in unit V.C of this preamble.
    EPA is also not including the new information provided by AEP in 
its final rule alternative capacity calculation for multiple technology 
systems. As discussed in its comments, the commenter's estimate of 62 
months to obtain alternative capacity is governed by the amount of time 
to construct a non-CCR wastestream basin, which in turn cannot be 
constructed until real estate becomes available by closing part of a 
CCR surface impoundment. While the Agency recognizes that some 
facilities may be constrained by available real estate, the commenter 
did not provide any design information or site-specific circumstances 
supporting this construction approach. EPA has not received information 
from the utility sector stating that it will be commonplace and 
necessary to build new alternative capacity on top of existing disposal 
units that first need to be closed. For these reasons, the Agency is 
not using this new information in the final capacity calculation.
    The Agency included information submitted by Duke Energy regarding 
various multiple technology system projects that have been completed at 
nine Duke Energy plants in Indiana, Kentucky and North Carolina at 
proposal. The projects varied at each facility, but they generally 
involved converting to dry ash handling and construction of non-CCR 
wastestream basins and/or wastewater treatment facilities. While the 
submission includes detailed information on the time needed to complete 
the construction and capacity commissioning phases of the project, less 
information is available on the project phases prior to construction, 
such as planning and design, procurement, and permitting. However, 
because the data reflect completed projects, EPA considers the data are 
sufficiently reliable to include in its estimate. The commenter 
provides the total time for all project phases to develop alternative 
capacity at these nine facilities, which ranged from 30 to 42 months, 
including the time to obtain necessary permits. However, the commenter 
did not provide specific timeframes for each of the nine facilities, 
and because the projects were initiated before the USWAG decision, they 
may not represent expedited timeframes. Even though these timeframes 
are considered to be the outer bounds of the time necessary to complete 
these projects, the Agency considers these timeframes persuasive 
because they provide some guarantee that other facilities can replicate 
them. Consequently, the Agency is using the average time of the range--
36 months--that it took Duke Energy to obtain alternative capacity. 
Nevertheless, because the timeframe for Duke Energy represents nine 
facilities, EPA considers this to represent nine data points. When 
taken with the data from the four other facilities discussed above, EPA 
has 13

[[Page 53532]]

data points to factor into its final alternative capacity calculation.
    Regarding commenters stating that the capacity timelines must 
account for the inherent complexities with multiple technology systems, 
and the permitting of such systems, the Agency believes this issue is 
addressed in the final rule by incorporating actual timelines from four 
additional multiple technology system projects. Table 3 in unit V.B.3.a 
of this preamble shows the information used in the final rule 
alternative capacity analysis for this technology approach.
(b) Response to Comments on Other Types of Technology Approaches That 
Commenters Believe EPA Should Have Considered
    Several commenters stated the proposed rule should have addressed 
additional options for obtaining alternative capacity. For each of 
these approaches, the commenters argued that alternative capacity could 
be obtained faster as compared to EPA's proposed timeframes. First, 
commenters stated that the proposed rule should have considered staged 
construction. The comments described ``staged construction'' as quickly 
building some capacity initially followed by the building of additional 
capacity that will be needed for the long term. A second approach 
identified by commenters was described as preventing the commingling of 
stormwater with non-CCR wastestreams which can allow the faster 
development of alternative capacity. The commenters explained that the 
quantities of non-CCR wastestreams are magnified because low volume 
non-CCR wastestreams generated at the facility are allowed to commingle 
with stormwater. Third, commenters stated that the installation of 
temporary tanks to manage non-CCR wastes should have been considered in 
the proposal. The commenters claimed that an approach using temporary 
tanks would allow the facility to avoid siting-related delays typically 
associated with in-ground options such as wastewater treatment plants 
and impoundments. One of these commenters was a vendor of mobile 
wastewater treatment systems, which can support the dewatering of CCR 
surface impoundments and the treatment of non-CCR wastestreams. The 
commenter stated that such mobile treatment systems are commercially 
proven at full-scale, including at utilities, available on demand, and 
can be put in place in less time than any of EPA's proposed technology 
approaches.
    EPA disagrees with commenters that ``staged construction'' should 
be considered as an additional alternative capacity approach on par 
with the six technology approaches considered. The Agency does not view 
staged construction as a separate, standalone technology comparable to 
the existing categories, but instead as a technique that could be 
employed to expedite a project when feasible. The commenter neither 
described how the Agency could incorporate staged construction as a 
separate technology into the final rule alternative capacity analysis, 
nor identified any source of data or information that could be used. 
While the commenter identified an example where staged construction was 
used, EPA notes that there are several other examples where this 
technique is incorporated in projects supporting the final rule 
alternative capacity analysis. This suggests that the final rule 
approach already includes elements of staged construction in the 
analyses when it was feasible, so it does not merit consideration as a 
separate approach. In one example, a utility pursuing construction of a 
new CCR surface impoundment selected a ``staged pond construction 
project approach, with the first few ponds being constructed for 
initial commissioning and remaining ponds constructed as needed for 
future use.'' \31\ Another example involved the retrofit of a set of 
dewatering and settlement basins subsequently followed by the retrofit 
of a second set of basins.\32\ In this example, the facility was able 
to cease use of the unlined impoundments after the first set of basins 
were retrofitted, which was the time used in the final rule capacity 
analysis. A final example of staged construction considered by EPA was 
a facility planning to build a new CCR surface impoundment in a 
location currently occupied by two existing, state-regulated non-CCR 
surface impoundments.\33\ The commenter explained that the plan is for 
the two non-CCR surface impoundments to be combined into one CCR 
surface impoundment, but to expedite availability, construction efforts 
will focus on conversion of only one non-CCR surface impoundment at a 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See docket item EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0079.
    \32\ See docket item EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0004.
    \33\ See docket item EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with commenters that preventing the commingling of 
stormwater with non-CCR wastestreams would have had a material effect 
on the timeframes to obtain alternative capacity. The Agency reviewed 
the CCR surface impoundment projects included in the final rule 
alternative capacity analysis and available information indicates that 
stormwater is not commingled with other wastes. Therefore, the design 
and size of the new impoundments were not impacted by commingling of 
stormwater.
    The Agency agrees with commenters that temporary tanks could serve 
as alternative capacity to manage non-CCR wastestreams for either 
storage or treatment. EPA also agrees that such storage or treatment 
capacity may likely be implemented on a faster timeframe at some 
facilities. However, EPA does not have detailed project information 
covering the entire process of obtaining alternative capacity through 
this method. For some project phases, such as planning and design, EPA 
would expect the timeframes to obtain capacity through temporary tanks 
to be comparable to the technology approaches considered in the final 
rule. For other project phases, such as procurement and construction, 
the timeframes to secure alternative capacity may be shorter. Without 
such detailed information, EPA cannot include the suggested approach in 
its analysis. Under the alternative closure procedures discussed in 
unit V.C.3.a of this preamble, the Agency is requiring owners to 
evaluate the viability of obtaining temporary storage or treatment 
capacity while other permanent capacity is developed.
3. Establishing the Revised Deadline for Affected Units To Cease 
Receipt of Waste
    For all unlined CCR surface impoundments, EPA proposed to revise 
the deadline to cease receipt of waste under Sec.  257.101(a)(1) from 
October 31, 2020, to August 31, 2020, based on the Agency's analysis of 
the average time needed to obtain alternative disposal capacity. 84 FR 
65951. This preamble section explains how EPA calculated the average 
length of time needed to obtain alternative disposal capacity, how the 
Agency determined the deadline, key changes that EPA is making in 
response to comments submitted on the proposed rule, and our responses 
to many of the comments received. A full response to comments is 
provided in the response to comments document available in the docket 
to this rulemaking.
(a) Average Length of Time Needed To Obtain Alternative Disposal 
Capacity
    EPA proposed that the average length of time needed to obtain 
alternative disposal capacity for an unlined CCR surface impoundment 
was 22.5 months. 84 FR 65951 (December 2, 2019). The

[[Page 53533]]

Agency calculated this average time by summing the ten estimates for 
the six technology approaches shown in Table 2 of this preamble and 
dividing by the number of estimates shown in Table 2. The proposal 
stated that 22.5 months, although an average, would appear to provide 
enough time for a substantial proportion of facilities to put in place 
alternative disposal capacity. In addition, EPA explained that 22.5 
months would be a sufficient amount of time to retrofit all but the 
largest surface impoundments, and smaller surface impoundments with 
unique design situations. Id. The proposal stated that these outliers 
should not be the basis to extend the time for all facilities beyond 
22.5 months because such action would not be consistent with ensuring 
that the development of alternative disposal capacity occurs as quickly 
as technically feasible; outliers can be accommodated by the proposed 
alternative closure provisions.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The alternative closure provisions are discussed in section 
V.C of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule also discussed why the Agency chose to rely on a 
single average time (i.e., the average of the average times associated 
with the six technology approaches) to establish a single new deadline 
to cease receipt of waste. First, the proposal stated that 22.5 months 
would provide sufficient (but not excessive) time for a substantial 
proportion of facilities, under a variety of approaches. Second, the 
proposal explained that some facilities will need less than the average 
amount of time to obtain the alternative capacity and some will need 
more. Each of the averages summarized in Table 2 reflects ranges of 
estimated times to develop alternative capacity, which can vary 
depending on site conditions and the specific facility operations. The 
Agency explained in the proposal that to reliably determine which 
facilities need less time, EPA would need to make individual facility-
specific determinations and that trying to craft individualized time 
frames could ultimately result in longer delays in the initiation of 
closure for a greater number of facilities than would potentially be 
caused by reliance on an overall average that most facilities can meet.
    Recognizing that a single deadline is necessarily less precise and 
that some facilities may in fact be able to construct alternative 
capacity more quickly than EPA's proposed deadline, the Agency also 
solicited comment on an alternative approach under which the deadline 
would vary according to the technology adopted. For example, a facility 
that chose to install a non-CCR wastewater basin would have a different 
deadline than a facility that constructed a new wastewater treatment 
facility. 84 FR 65951. In this scenario, the timeframes for each 
approach could be based on the averages presented in Table 2 of this 
preamble. The proposal discussed EPA's concern that this option could 
be challenging to implement and to track compliance. In addition, EPA 
expressed concern that this approach may not result in measurably 
shorter time frames for most facilities, given the range of time 
estimates, and could lead to a greater number of variance requests 
under the alternative closure provisions. The proposal sought comment 
on this approach, including, for example, whether this more complicated 
regulatory approach would result in measurably shorter time frames for 
most facilities.
    Several commenters stated that the Agency's methodology used to 
calculate the 22.5-month time frame is flawed. These commenters argued 
that EPA did not calculate a true average of the data points used in 
the proposal (see Table 2 of this preamble) because the Agency used 
more than one data point for a single method when calculating the 
average, which had the effect of overrepresenting that method in the 
calculated average.\35\ In doing so, the commenters explained that EPA 
has skewed the data by overrepresenting certain technology approaches 
compared to other approaches with fewer data points, and stated that 
EPA did not provide a rationale for giving more weight to certain 
technologies. Accordingly, these commenters urged the Agency to 
recalculate the average time needed to obtain alternative capacity so 
that alternative capacity technologies are equally represented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ For example, the ``wastewater treatment facility'', 
``retrofit of a CCR surface impoundment'', and ``multiple technology 
system'' technology approaches include two, three and two data 
points, respectively, while the remaining three approaches each 
include one data point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA agrees that the proposed methodology to calculate the average 
time needed to obtain alternative capacity overrepresented certain 
technology approaches over others (e.g., the retrofit of a CCR surface 
impoundment was overrepresented relative to constructing a new CCR 
surface impoundment). In the final rule, each technology approach is 
represented by a single average, which is calculated as the arithmetic 
mean of the individual data points for the specific technology. Thus, 
the final rule methodology ensures that none of the six technologies is 
overrepresented compared to another technology.
    As discussed in unit V.B.2.a of this preamble, several commenters 
stated that the estimated timeframes to obtain alternative capacity 
overlooked key project components that must be completed in order to 
construct and bring online each of the proposed alternative capacity 
approaches. As an example, these commenters explained that the proposed 
time estimates fail to account for the time that is actually needed by 
regulatory agencies to complete permit reviews and obtain the necessary 
permits required for construction of alternative capacity. These 
commenters further explained that the proposed time estimates fail to 
factor in the additional time needed to accommodate site-specific 
circumstances such as plant size, the number of boilers at the plant, 
location of the plant, and the number and volume of wastestreams 
affected by the conversion.
    The Agency also agrees with commenters stating that certain project 
components (e.g., time to obtain a permit) were missing from the 
calculations for some technology approaches in the proposed rule. In 
response to this comment, EPA's final rule calculation relies on 
information that covers the entire process of obtaining alternative 
capacity, from the start of the project to its completion, including 
the general project phases of planning and design, procurement, 
permitting, and construction and capacity commissioning. For those data 
used in the proposed rule that were missing a project component, the 
Agency removed them from the final rule calculation if the missing 
information could not be located. An example of where the Agency 
removed a data source from the final rule calculation is the surface 
impoundment retrofits at Keystone Generating Station in Pennsylvania. 
As discussed in the ``Retrofit of a CCR surface impoundment'' section 
of the preamble, EPA's re-evaluation of the retrofit report considered 
at proposal contained missing components of the project planning 
process. Because the Agency was unable to obtain additional information 
for this retrofit project, it was not used as part of the final rule 
alternative capacity analysis. Individual data handling decisions are 
discussed further in unit V.B.2.a of this preamble.
    For each of the technology approaches evaluated, Table 3 summarizes 
the individual time estimates to obtain such capacity, as well as 
average timeframe for each technology. As discussed earlier in unit 
V.B.2.a of this preamble, the Agency supplemented the data set used in 
the proposed rule with

[[Page 53534]]

additional project timeframes submitted by commenters. These new 
timeframes were not simply incorporated into the alternative capacity 
analysis. Instead, each submission was examined thoroughly, and, in 
some cases, portions of the estimated time were reduced where EPA 
determined that those portions were not appropriate for the analysis.

    Table 3--Summary of Data Used in Final Rule Alternative Capacity
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Data used in final
  Alternative capacity technology       rule analysis         Average
                                          (months)           (months)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion to dry handling........  33.5, 34............            33.8
Non-CCR wastestream basin.........  18, 29..............            23.5
Wastewater treatment facility.....  18.5, 26............            22.3
New CCR surface impoundment.......  28, 34..............            31.0
Retrofit of a CCR surface           12, 31.5, 46........            29.8
 impoundment.
Multiple technology system........  36, 36, 36, 36, 36,             39.1
                                     36, 36, 36, 36,
                                     37.5, 40, 52, 55.
                                   -------------------------------------
    Average.......................  ....................            29.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Deadline To Cease Receipt of Waste for Unlined CCR Surface 
Impoundments
    EPA proposed to revise the deadline for unlined CCR surface 
impoundments under Sec.  257.101(a)(1) from October 31, 2020, to August 
31, 2020. 84 FR 65951. The proposed rule explained that this revised 
deadline would apply to both CCR and non-CCR wastestreams. The proposal 
also explained that the August 31, 2020 deadline was derived by adding 
22.5 months (i.e., the average length of time needed to obtain 
alternative disposal capacity) to October 15, 2018, which is the date 
of the issuance of the court's mandate for the USWAG decision. The 
proposal explained that the language of the USWAG decision was clear 
that all units that do not have a composite liner or alternative 
composite liner (see Sec.  257.71(a)(1)(ii) and (iii)) will be required 
to cease receiving waste and close. The proposal further explained 
EPA's belief that owners and operators of unlined CCR surface 
impoundments would have started preparing to close such units upon 
issuance of the mandate on October 15, 2018.
    Many commenters criticized EPA's proposal to rely on the date of 
the USWAG mandate as the starting point to calculate the deadline for 
initiating closure. These commenters argued that the USWAG decision did 
not set a new deadline or other requirements regarding the mandatory 
closure of CCR surface impoundments. Rather, the USWAG court vacated 
the mandatory closure provisions in Sec.  257.101(a) that allowed 
unlined surface impoundments to continue to operate even when they are 
not leaking, and the relevant provisions in Sec.  257.71(a)(1) for 
``clay-lined'' impoundments, based on the rulemaking record before the 
court at the time of ruling, which was August 21, 2018. These 
commenters also noted that the court did not prohibit the Agency from 
developing future regulations that might allow some unlined and ``clay-
lined'' impoundments to continue to operate if EPA determines that 
those impoundments do not pose a risk to human health and environment, 
but left open this issue for EPA to address in future rulemakings in 
response to the court's remand of the case.
    Another commenter argued that EPA has issued no formal guidance on 
the impact of the USWAG vacatur or how EPA intends to address the court 
decision. This commenter stated that the commenter was hesitant to make 
significant investments involving advanced engineering design, state 
permitting, and equipment procurement before receiving further guidance 
on whether and to what extent its ``clay-lined'' impoundments would be 
affected. This commenter further stated that regulatory uncertainty 
still persists due to ongoing EPA rulemakings and, as a result, the 
commenter argued that it was not provided adequate notice required 
under administrative law that its ``clay-lined'' impoundments would be 
re-classified as ``unlined'' until EPA issued the December 2, 2019 
proposed rule. Therefore, the commenter contended that the date of the 
USWAG decision is not appropriate. Another commenter further argued 
that ``any effort by the Agency to impose a closure deadline with a 
start date tied to issuance date of the USWAG mandate would have the 
effect of imposing a retroactive legislative regulation that is 
impermissible under the RCRA statutory scheme.''
    Other commenters stated that EPA's proposal to use the date of the 
USWAG mandate (i.e., October 15, 2018) represents an unlawful deadline 
extension. With one exception, these commenters argued that the 
proposed USWAG starting point provides owners and operators of unlined 
CCR surface impoundments with additional time to begin closing 
impoundments that they would have otherwise been prepared to close 
consistent with the requirements of the 2015 CCR Rule.\36\ These 
commenters stated that the one exception would be for CCR surface 
impoundments that did not face closure deadlines but will now have to 
close following the USWAG decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The 2015 CCR Rule required owners and operators of an 
existing unlined CCR surface impoundment to cease placing CCR and 
non-CCR wastestreams into such CCR surface impoundment and either 
retrofit or close the CCR unit within six months of making a 
determination that the concentrations of one or more constituents 
listed in Appendix IV to this part are detected at statistically 
significant levels above the groundwater protection standard 
established under Sec.  257.95(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters also stated that the proposed deadline of August 31, 
2020 represents an unjustified extension of the 2015 CCR Rule 
requirements for CCR surface impoundments that leak or fail the aquifer 
location restriction, which were the minimum standard necessary to 
ensure no reasonable probability of adverse effect on human health and 
the environment for these types of CCR units. The commenters further 
explained that neither the current proposal nor the July 30, 2018 final 
rule \37\ provide any evidence showing that a later deadline (than the 
deadlines finalized in the 2015 CCR Rule) meets RCRA's protectiveness 
standard. The commenters also argued that the proposed deadline is 
inconsistent with the USWAG decision. The commenters stated that the 
current

[[Page 53535]]

proposal and the July 30, 2018 final rule are based on impermissible 
considerations of cost and ignore evidence of widespread contamination 
caused by leaking impoundments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 83 FR 36435. In this final rule EPA extended the deadline 
to October 31, 2020 by which facilities must cease the placement of 
waste in CCR units closing for cause in the situations where the 
facility has detected a statistically significant increase above a 
groundwater protection standard and where the impoundment is unable 
to comply with the aquifer location restriction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, these commenters criticized the proposal for failing to 
actually require facilities to close as soon as feasible. According to 
these commenters, because it would establish a single deadline, the 
proposal would effectively grant additional time to units that could in 
fact close more quickly. The commenters explained that an industry 
average violates RCRA's protectiveness standard by basing regulatory 
requirements on what is convenient or most affordable for facilities, 
rather than the most expeditious schedule that is technically feasible. 
The commenters also stated that the rulemaking record was lacking in 
that the proposal did not include a determination about whether the 
projects reflected in the industry submissions supporting the 
alternative capacity analyses are representative of conditions at CCR 
impoundments across the country, whether the projects were completed 
expeditiously, or whether the facilities picked among the various 
options based on the need for timely compliance with the CCR rule or on 
the relative costs of the options.
    Finally, many of these commenters stated that the CCR Part A 
proposed rule failed to meet the RCRA 4004(a) protectiveness standard 
because EPA failed to consider the risks associated with new 
groundwater monitoring data, violations of location standards, 
extensions of the operating life of unlined surface impoundments and 
known compliance issues with groundwater monitoring, annual inspection 
and liner requirements.
    Other commenters suggested that deadlines be extended a specific 
amount of time following the publication of the final rule or to 
specific dates. These commenters recommended that the proposed deadline 
to cease receipt of waste be pushed back by six months to February 
2021. This deadline would provide facilities the time needed to 
understand their obligations and comply with the new regulations, the 
commenters argued.
    The commenters have misunderstood the basis for EPA's proposal. EPA 
proposed to start the clock on October 15, 2018 because on that date, 
all unlined surface impoundments, including those that are ``clay-
lined,'' were required to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure 
no later than October 31, 2020. In other words, EPA's proposal merely 
reflected the state of the law as it existed on that date.
    The court ordered that ``the final rule be vacated and remanded 
with respect to the provisions that permit unlined impoundments to 
continue receiving coal ash unless they leak.'' 901 F.3d at 431-432. As 
explained in the proposal, EPA interprets the court as having vacated 
only the following phrase in Sec.  257.101(a)(1): ``if at any time 
after October 19, 2015, an owner or operator of an existing unlined CCR 
surface impoundment determines in any sampling event that the 
concentrations of one or more constituents listed in Appendix IV of 
this part are detected at statistically significant levels above the 
groundwater protection standard established under Sec.  257.95(h) for 
such CCR unit . . . .'' The court further ordered that ``the Final Rule 
be vacated and remanded with respect to the provisions that . . . 
classify ``clay-lined'' impoundments as lined, see 40 CFR 
257.71(a)(1)(i) . . . .'' Id. Once the mandate issued on October 15, 
2018, the vacatur became effective, and with the deletion of those 
phrases the regulation in fact required all unlined and ``clay-lined'' 
CCR surface impoundments to cease receipt of waste no later than 
October 31, 2020. It is for this reason that EPA believes facilities 
began to plan for closure on that date--a belief confirmed by several 
commenters who acknowledged that they began planning to close their 
impoundments as of this date.
    For the same reason, EPA disagrees that any facility lacked notice 
that ``clay-lined'' units would be required to close. And while it is 
true that the court did not preclude EPA from developing a record to 
support a new rule, any such future actions would be purely 
speculative. EPA does not believe that it would be reasonable for 
facilities to have relied on the mere potential that EPA might adopt 
some other requirement in the future.
    EPA also disagrees that its proposal to rely on the date of the 
court's mandate would constitute a retroactive application of law. For 
a regulation to be retroactive, it must change the prior legal status 
or consequences of past behavior. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 
511 U.S. 244, 269, n.4 (1994) (A rule ``is not made retroactive merely 
because it draws upon antecedent facts for its operation.''). Treasure 
State Resource Industry Ass'n v. E.P.A., 805 F.3d 300, 305 (D.C. Cir. 
2015). By contrast, here EPA has merely relied on a past fact to 
support future requirements.
    As a result, the Agency is finalizing an amended version of the 
approach presented in the proposed rule to determine the deadline for 
unlined CCR surface impoundments to cease receipt of waste. 
Specifically, the deadline to cease receipt of waste in the final rule 
is based on adding the average time to obtain alternative capacity to 
October 15, 2018, which is the date of the issuance of the court's 
mandate for the USWAG decision. As discussed in unit V.B.3.a of this 
preamble, EPA determined the average time to obtain alternative 
capacity to be 29.9 months (or 29 months, 27 days). Adding 29.9 months 
to October 15, 2018, results in a deadline to cease receipt of waste 
and to initiate closure of April 11, 2021, which is the new deadline 
being codified in Sec.  257.101(a)(1). This deadline applies to all 
unlined CCR surface impoundments, including ``clay-lined'' 
impoundments. Note that this deadline also applies to any unlined 
inactive CCR surface impoundments, pursuant to Sec.  257.100(a), which 
provides that all requirements applicable to existing impoundments 
apply also to inactive impoundments. An inactive unit is one that has 
ceased receipt of CCR. Section 257.53. Although these units have 
already ceased receipt of CCR, some facilities continue to use the unit 
to manage other non-CCR wastes. Irrespective of whether the unit 
continues to receive non-CCR waste or has ceased receipt of all waste, 
they must now initiate closure by the new deadline.
    EPA acknowledges that it was unable to conduct a new risk 
assessment to support this rulemaking in the timeframe that was 
available. Nevertheless, this rule is consistent with the decisions 
from the D.C. Circuit. As explained previously, EPA considers that 
requiring facilities to cease receipt of waste as soon as is 
technically feasible necessarily meets the RCRA 4004(a) standard, as 
EPA cannot impose more stringent requirements than those that can be 
successfully implemented by at least some entities.
    Moreover, although the D.C. Circuit determined that EPA lacked the 
record to authorize the unlimited operation of unlined CCR surface 
impoundments--and consequently mandated their closure--neither the 
USWAG nor the Waterkeeper decision addressed the timing of such actions 
or what kind of process would be appropriate or necessary. Rather, both 
the relevant portion of the 2015 CCR rule and the July 18, 2018 rule 
were remanded back to EPA to allow the Agency to determine the further 
actions necessary to be consistent with the decision. As part of this 
rulemaking, EPA is mandating the closure of all unlined impoundments, 
which is fully consistent with the holding in USWAG

[[Page 53536]]

that the closure of these units is warranted based on the record before 
the Agency. This rule merely creates an orderly process for ensuring 
that this occurs.
    EPA further disagrees that the use of an average effectively based 
the requirements on what is convenient or that the Agency failed to 
evaluate whether the industry estimates represented expeditious time 
frames. As discussed previously, EPA expressly recognized that in many 
cases the schedules presented did not reflect an expedited timeline and 
therefore considered those time frames to reflect the upper bound of 
the amount of time necessary to complete construction. EPA also 
discounted estimates that were inconsistent with timeframes presented 
in submissions from commenters describing completed projects, or were 
based on factors unique to that site that are unlikely to be relevant 
to other facilities nationwide. EPA also reduced some portions of 
estimates to account for overlapping tasks.
    EPA also disagrees that the final deadline fails to account for 
representative conditions across the country. Approximately 85 percent 
of CCR facilities are located in three geographic regions of the U.S.: 
The Midwest (41 percent), the Southeast (34 percent), and the Southwest 
(10 percent). The facilities represented in the final rule alternative 
capacity analysis include multiple facilities in each of these three 
geographic regions. The final rule analysis includes facilities located 
in regions with shorter construction seasons due to frigid winters 
(Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota), as well as regions with the 
generally mild winters with longer construction seasons (New Mexico, 
Arizona, Texas). The analysis also includes facilities located in 
semiarid regions that receive 10 to 20 inches of rain per year (New 
Mexico and Arizona), as well as subtropical regions that annually 
receive 40 to 60 inches of precipitation (North Carolina, Kentucky, 
Louisiana). As a consequence, the data on which EPA relied to develop 
the final deadline included data from construction projects located in 
a wide range of geographic and climactic conditions. The Agency also 
believes the final rule deadline is representative regarding 
impoundment size, using surface area acreage of the unit as the 
surrogate of size. The facilities represented in the final rule 
alternative capacity analysis include a wide range of unit sizes, 
including units ranging from less than 10 acres to over 100 acres. As a 
whole EPA considers these to be representative of the range of 
conditions at CCR surface impoundments across the country.
    EPA acknowledges that one approach would have been to calculate a 
timeframe based on a single technology method to developing alternative 
capacity--e.g., selecting a single ``best'' or fastest approach, such 
as converting to dry handling or constructing a wastewater treatment 
plant. However, EPA disagrees that this would be appropriate; there are 
many technical reasons that a facility might select one approach over 
another that have nothing to do with cost or convenience. For example, 
the facility might not have sufficient available real estate to 
construct the alternative capacity, and so might need to retrofit their 
existing surface impoundment so that they can continue to use a single 
unit to manage all of their wastes.\38\ Similarly, if a facility is 
trying to comply with multiple EPA regulations or moving away from the 
commingling of CCR and non-CCR wastestreams, adopting a multiple 
technology approach may ultimately result in faster compliance overall, 
even if individual components could theoretically be adopted sooner. 
Another example could be a facility that sluices bottom ash (or fly 
ash) to a zero-discharge unlined impoundment where construction of a 
wastewater treatment facility would not be a viable disposal 
substitute. In addition, EPA currently lacks the technical record to 
determine that mandating the single fastest technology for constructing 
alternative capacity can effectively be implemented by all facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See docket item EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0005 for an example 
of real estate constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA agrees that facilities that can cease receipt of waste more 
quickly than April 11, 2021 must do so. To address the concern that the 
new deadline would improperly grant more time to facilities that could 
close more quickly, EPA has revised the regulation to require that 
facilities close their unlined impoundments ``as soon as technically 
feasible, but no later than April 11, 2021.'' See Sec.  257.101(a)(1).
    EPA further disagrees that the approach in this rule fails to 
adequately address the risks. As explained in the proposal, EPA lacked 
the data to develop a revised nationwide risk assessment to support 
this rulemaking. Although the commenters are correct that facilities 
have posted substantial amounts of groundwater monitoring data, as EPA 
explained, this information could not be easily or readily incorporated 
into a nationwide risk assessment. EPA estimates that it could have 
taken as long as one year to develop a revised risk assessment even 
assuming the Agency could obtain the necessary data. This would have 
further extended this rulemaking process, which EPA had originally 
hoped to complete in nine months. A delay in the rulemaking would 
effectively grant facilities additional time to continue operating 
these units. Ultimately, the approach that the Agency has taken will 
result in the initiation of closure--with all the risk reduction that 
entails--much sooner.
    In addition, EPA considers that the approach taken in this rule 
effectively addresses the risk from these facilities. EPA is requiring 
facilities to close as soon as it is technically feasible to do so. The 
final rule defines technical feasibility to mean ``possible to do in a 
way that would likely be successful.'' As EPA has explained, this 
standard effectively addresses the risk because it is not possible to 
impose more protective measures than those that can actually be 
implemented.
    As further measures to address the risk from continued operation of 
these units, the Agency is requiring all surface impoundments that seek 
additional time to be in compliance with all applicable requirements in 
40 CFR part 257, subpart D. And for those facilities seeking an 
extension under Sec.  257.103(f)(2) the owner or operator must develop 
a risk mitigation plan for that surface impoundment. If EPA determines 
that further measures are needed to address the risk during its review 
of the Sec.  257.103(f)(2) extension request, EPA will require those 
measures as a condition of its approval. These provisions are discussed 
in more detail in subsequent Units of this preamble.
    Finally, EPA believes that the revised deadline of April 11, 2021 
to cease placing waste into the impoundment provides facilities with 
adequate time to understand and comply with their obligations under the 
final rule.
(c) Deadline To Cease Receipt of Waste for CCR Surface Impoundments 
That Failed the Aquifer Location Restriction
    The proposed rule explained that the October 31, 2020 cease receipt 
of waste date applied not only to the unlined leaking CCR surface 
impoundments subject to Sec.  257.101(a), but also to the units that 
failed the minimum depth to aquifer location restriction standard 
subject to Sec.  257.101(b)(1)(i). 84 FR 65951 (December 2, 2019). 
Therefore, EPA proposed that the deadline to cease receipt of CCR and 
non-CCR wastestreams for these CCR units also be amended to August 31, 
2020.

[[Page 53537]]

    This proposed rule discussed that the new date was selected based 
on the same rationale explained for unlined CCR surface impoundments. 
The proposal stated that these units are similarly situated in that 
these facilities need additional time to develop alternative capacity 
to transition away from their surface impoundments. As previously 
discussed, based on the data received from stakeholders, EPA calculated 
that the average amount of time to take the necessary steps to cease 
placement of waste into a surface impoundment was approximately 22.5 
months. In addition, based on the data on facilities' publicly 
accessible CCR internet site regarding compliance with the location 
restriction standards, the majority of the units that failed the 
aquifer location restriction are also unlined and must close under 
Sec.  257.101(a). The proposed rule explained that it is therefore 
logical to establish the same deadline to cease receipt of waste for 
units that failed the minimum depth to aquifer location restriction 
standard. The proposal also stated EPA's belief that it is technically 
infeasible for a majority of these units to be able to cease receipt of 
waste prior to August 31, 2020 due to the lack of alternative 
capacities. EPA further raised the concern that requiring the immediate 
initiation of closure could disrupt operations at the power plants. 
Therefore, EPA proposed the date of August 31, 2020 for the deadline to 
cease placement of waste for Sec.  257.101(b)(1)(i) to replace the date 
of October 31, 2020, which was established in the July 30, 2018 Final 
Rule.
    This final rule uses the same approach as for unlined and ``clay-
lined'' units to establish the cease receipt of waste date to April 11, 
2021 for CCR surface impoundments that failed to meet the aquifer 
location restriction.
(d) Revisions to the Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action 
Requirements in Sec.  257.91(d) and Sec.  257.95(g)(5)
    The CCR regulations require each CCR unit to have its own 
groundwater monitoring system, unless the owner or operator chooses to 
install a multiunit groundwater monitoring system. If a multiunit 
groundwater monitoring system is installed, the CCR regulations state 
that the system must be based on the consideration of several factors 
that are specified in Sec.  257.91(d)(1). Furthermore, the regulations 
currently provide under Sec.  257.91(d)(2) that if a multiunit 
groundwater monitoring system includes at least one unlined CCR surface 
impoundment, and the concentrations of one or more constituents listed 
in Appendix IV to this part are detected at statistically significant 
levels above the groundwater protection standard for the multiunit 
system, then all unlined CCR surface impoundments comprising the 
multiunit groundwater monitoring system are subject to the requirements 
under Sec.  257.101(a) to retrofit or close. In addition, under the 
assessment monitoring provisions in Sec.  257.95(g), owners and 
operators of all CCR units are required to take certain actions when 
one or more constituents listed in Appendix IV of part 257 are detected 
at statistically significant levels above the groundwater protection 
standard. Section 257.95(g)(5) specifies that existing unlined CCR 
surface impoundments are subject to the closure requirements under 
Sec.  257.101(a) if an assessment of corrective measures is required 
under Sec.  257.96. Another requirement of Sec.  257.95(g) is that the 
owner and operator must also prepare a notification stating that an 
assessment of corrective measures has been initiated.
    In the December 2, 2019 rule, the Agency proposed to delete the 
multiunit system requirements under Sec.  257.91(d)(2) because the 
provision is no longer relevant, as all unlined CCR surface 
impoundments are required to retrofit or close. 84 FR 65952. EPA 
received no comments on this proposed action and the Agency is 
therefore removing and reserving Sec.  257.91(d)(2) in this action. EPA 
is also revising Sec.  257.95(g)(5) to remove the requirement 
specifying that existing unlined CCR surface impoundments are subject 
to the closure requirements under Sec.  257.101(a) if an assessment of 
corrective measures is required under Sec.  257.96. The Agency is 
finalizing this revision because it is redundant to the requirement 
codified in Sec.  257.101(a) for unlined CCR surface impoundments, 
which requires all unlined impoundments to close or retrofit. However, 
the Agency is retaining the other requirement of Sec.  257.95(g)(5) 
that specifies an owner or operator must prepare a notification stating 
that an assessment of corrective measures has been initiated.

C. Revisions to the Alternative Closure Standards (Sec.  257.103)

    In the December 2, 2019 proposal, EPA proposed three new 
alternative closure provisions. As explained in the proposal, these 
provisions were intended to create procedures by which a CCR surface 
impoundment could obtain additional time to cease the receipt of waste 
and initiate closure. The original provisions in the 2015 rule, Sec.  
257.103(a) and (b), only allow the continued placement of CCR; both 
exclude the placement of non-CCR wastestreams. EPA proposed to allow a 
facility to temporarily continue to manage both the CCR and non-CCR 
wastestreams currently being managed in the CCR surface impoundment. 
EPA proposed three new alternative closure standards: (1) A short term 
alternative to initiation of closure (Sec.  257.103(e)), (2) a site-
specific alternative to initiation of closure due to lack of capacity 
(Sec.  257.103(f)(1)), and (3) a site-specific alternative to 
initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired 
boiler(s) by a date certain (Sec.  257.103(f)(2)). As explained in the 
proposal, most of these provisions rely on determinations of how 
quickly it is feasible for the facility to cease receipt of waste, 
rather than a determination that continued operation will result in 
acceptable levels of risk. The exception is that the extension under 
Sec.  257.103(f)(2) is based on a qualitative risk-risk tradeoff (the 
increased risk of continuing to operate the unit is offset by the 
decreased risk of the expedited closure) and a site-specific risk 
mitigation plan. For all of these, EPA believed it was important to 
require facilities to submit demonstrations to EPA for approval. This 
was a significant change from the existing provisions which are self-
implementing. Finally, EPA proposed conforming changes to have the 
existing alternative closure provisions in the 2015 rule, Sec.  
257.103(a) and (b), only apply to landfills. The new provisions at 
Sec.  257.103(f) would then apply only to CCR surface impoundments.
1. Short Term Alternative Deadline To Cease Receipt of Waste (Sec.  
257.103(e))
    In the December 2, 2019 proposal, EPA proposed a self-implementing 
short term alternative to the cease receipt of waste deadline. This 
alternative was designed for those facilities that need only a little 
more time to complete development of an alternative capacity 
technology. EPA proposed that facilities demonstrate and certify that 
additional time is needed for it to be technically feasible to cease 
receipt of waste and initiate closure. The provision would have allowed 
for no more than a three-month extension from the deadlines in Sec.  
257.101(a) and (b)(1)(i). The proposal was an acknowledgement that 
events can occur which are completely out of the facility's control, 
such as extreme weather or a delay in material fabrication. In essence, 
this would have been a limited ``force majeure'' provision. EPA 
proposed requirements of the certification mirroring those in

[[Page 53538]]

the current requirements of Sec.  257.103(a). 84 FR 65953. EPA proposed 
that the owner or operator would have to certify the following: (1) No 
alternative disposal capacity is available on or off-site (an increase 
in costs or inconvenience is not sufficient support); (2) the owner or 
operator has made and continues to make efforts to obtain additional 
capacity; and (3) the owner or operator is (and must remain) in 
compliance with all other requirements of part 257. EPA proposed that a 
brief narrative of each component of the certification would be 
required to explain why a three-month extension is necessary. EPA 
proposed that the certification to be placed in the facility's 
operating record, placed on the facility's publicly accessible CCR 
internet site, and submitted to EPA as a notification of the facility's 
intent to comply with the alternative deadline under this provision.
    EPA received several comments from environmental groups stating 
concerns that EPA's proposal failed to establish strict criteria that 
would actually ensure that this extension would only be used in true 
``force majeure'' situations. They additionally commented that the 
demonstration requirements failed to meet the protectiveness standard 
of RCRA Sec.  4004(a) because it allowed facilities to consider costs 
or practicable capability.
    Industry groups provided comments that supported this proposal on 
the grounds that events do happen that are out of the facility's 
control, such as extreme weather, that have a high impact on their 
construction schedule. They supported this provision being self-
implementing. A few industry groups did comment that the short-term 
alternative and the site-specific longer alternatives should not be 
mutually exclusive options. They further commented that because the 
proposed deadline to cease receipt of waste fell in the middle of 
construction season it was unlikely for facilities to be able to 
accurately gauge if they could complete development in three months or 
if they would need longer depending on the severity of the event.
    After evaluating the comments, EPA is not finalizing this 
provision. As discussed in unit V.B.3, EPA has recalculated the 
deadline by which facilities must cease receipt of waste based on data 
received in comments; the new deadline is April 11, 2021. As a 
consequence, EPA considers that this proposal is no longer necessary. 
In part, the proposal was intended to account for the short interval 
between the proposed deadline to cease receipt of waste (August 31, 
2020) and the expected promulgation of the final rule (July 2020). Such 
an interval would be too short for a facility to accommodate unforeseen 
events that impact the construction schedule. This is no longer the 
case with the revised deadline. Facilities will have several months 
between promulgation of the final rule and the date by which they must 
cease receiving waste, and thus should be able to accommodate the 
circumstances that would have been addressed by the three-month 
extension. As a further consideration, because the final deadline was 
calculated with more data than was available for the proposal, EPA has 
greater confidence that most facilities will be able to meet the 
deadline.
    EPA is reserving paragraph (e) of Sec.  257.103, where the short-
term extension was proposed, rather than renumbering the proposed 
regulation to avoid confusion.
2. Issues Applicable to Both Sec.  257.103(f)(1) and (f)(2)
(a) Scope of Waste That May Continue To Be Managed in the Surface 
Impoundment
    In the December 2, 2019 proposal EPA proposed to allow facilities 
under the new alternative closure provisions to obtain approval to 
continue to place CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams. The existing 
alternative closure provisions Sec.  257.103(a) and (b) only allow the 
continued disposal of CCR. EPA sought comment on whether the proposed 
site-specific alternative closure provisions should only apply to non-
CCR wastestreams. Under such an approach, facilities could continue to 
dispose of CCR pursuant to the existing provisions Sec.  257.103(a) and 
(b). As explained in the proposal, in the record before the Agency many 
facilities highlighted that not having capacity for non-CCR 
wastestreams is a critical issue that places the operation of the 
facility at risk. Evidence suggests that the average time to develop 
alternative capacity for non-CCR wastestreams is often the primary 
driver of determining a technically feasible timeframe for being able 
to initiate the closure of surface impoundments that comingle CCR and 
non-CCR wastestreams.
    EPA received several comments from industry groups stating that 
they believe the existing alternative closure provisions, Sec.  
257.103(a) and (b), do not prohibit the continued placement of non-CCR 
wastestreams. Some commented that facilities should be able to continue 
to use the existing provisions for continued CCR disposal, and only be 
required to submit applications under the new provisions if they lack 
capacity for both CCR and non-CCR wastestreams or for non-CCR 
wastestreams. They claimed that it was burdensome to submit the 
demonstrations and they believe the self-implementing extensions are 
sufficient for CCR wastestreams.
    EPA received comments from environmental groups stating that non-
CCR wastestreams may be subject to hazardous waste regulations when not 
co-disposed with CCR in surface impoundments. They argued that owners 
and operators must determine whether the non-CCR wastestreams are 
listed wastes or whether they exhibit any of the characteristics of a 
hazardous waste. They further stated that the December 2019 proposed 
rule did not identify what constitutes a non-CCR wastestream nor any 
requirements to evaluate different non-CCR wastestreams to determine 
whether they contain listed hazardous wastes or display hazardous waste 
characteristics. Lastly, they stated EPA must evaluate the full nature 
and extent of the risk before allowing disposal of non-CCR wastestreams 
without adequate safeguards.
    After reviewing the public comments, EPA is maintaining its 
proposed approach that the new site-specific alternative closure 
provisions will, upon successful demonstration, allow certain CCR 
surface impoundments to receive CCR wastestreams, or non-CCR 
wastestreams, or a combination of both. No commenter provided any 
information rebutting the Agency's conclusion that the need to find 
alternative capacity for non-CCR wastestream is often the most critical 
factor in determining the amount of time needed to initiate closure of 
the unit.
    Moreover, if the new provisions applied exclusively to non-CCR 
wastestreams there would be two sets of regulatory requirements with 
different criteria applicable to the same surface impoundment. This 
would create unnecessary complications in implementing and enforcing 
the provisions. Nor does it make sense for the more stringent 
requirements in the new provisions to apply exclusively to the non-CCR 
wastestreams when the vast majority of hazardous constituents are found 
in the CCR wastestream. EPA understands the concerns that the 
demonstrations require a new effort by the facilities. However, these 
considerations are offset by the benefits that come with the enhanced 
regulatory oversight of the new provisions and having all wastestreams 
managed in the

[[Page 53539]]

disposal unit under a single set of regulatory requirements.
    EPA disagrees that the proposed rule should have defined non-CCR 
wastestreams. The regulations already define CCR; therefore, a non-CCR 
wastestream is any other waste managed in the impoundment. See 40 CFR 
257.53 and 261.4(b)(4). EPA agrees that some non-CCR wastestreams are 
not Bevill-exempt (e.g., wastes that are not covered by Sec.  
261.4(b)(4)) and consequently they remain subject to all requirements 
applicable to solid waste, and if they meet the criteria, the 
requirements applicable to hazardous waste. This includes the 
requirement to determine whether the waste is hazardous based on either 
the generator's knowledge or testing. If the waste is hazardous it must 
be managed according to the requirements of RCRA subtitle C; when going 
to an impoundment, the impoundment must meet subtitle C requirements. 
Mixtures of hazardous waste and Bevill exempt wastes are not exempt 
unless the only hazardous constituents in the mixture are those that 
are found in the Bevill exempt waste. In addition, mixing a hazardous 
waste with a Bevill exempt waste may be considered treatment in some 
circumstances, which would itself require a permit. However, EPA has no 
data to indicate that non-CCR wastestreams are characteristically 
hazardous. Given the existing requirements that currently apply to 
these wastestreams, EPA disagrees that additional requirements are 
needed or should have been proposed. Finally, EPA explains below, in 
unit V.2.d, the reasons that these revisions rely primarily on 
feasibility rather than risk considerations.
(b) Units Potentially Eligible for Alternative Closure Timeframes
    In the December 2, 2019 proposal, EPA discussed several options as 
to the CCR surface impoundments that would be eligible for the new 
alternative closure provisions. EPA proposed to allow all CCR surface 
impoundments to be eligible to submit demonstrations for the new 
alternative closure provisions. This included surface impoundments that 
failed one or more location restrictions other than the depth to 
aquifer location restriction. EPA recognized that these units were not 
included in the July 2018 final rule that established the October 31, 
2020 deadline to cease receipt of waste, and consequently their 
deadline to cease receipt of waste was April 2019. However, EPA 
proposed to include them in this new approach to create a consistent 
regulatory system. 84 FR 65,953. EPA also sought comment on whether the 
proposed site-specific alternatives to initiation of closure provisions 
should only apply to the CCR surface impoundments forced into closure 
by the USWAG decision (now defined as ``eligible unlined CCR surface 
impoundments''--i.e., units that were certified as ``clay-lined'' or 
units that are unlined but not leaking, compliant with all location 
standards and compliant with structural stability).
    Several utility companies provided comments that surface 
impoundments closing due to Sec.  257.101(b)(1)(ii) should be able to 
apply for the new alternatives. They further stated that those who had 
filed a notification of intent to close pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
257.103(a) or (b) should be grandfathered into the new alternatives. 
Environmental groups stated that this group of units should not be 
eligible for the new alternative closure provisions because they should 
have initiated closure in April 2019 and because it would violate the 
RCRA 4004(a) protectiveness standard.
    Industry groups commented that the alternative closure provisions 
should not be limited to the eligible unlined CCR surface impoundments. 
They elaborated that lack of capacity for CCR and/or non-CCR 
wastestreams is not limited to the facilities recently forced into 
closure but most facilities. By contrast, environmental groups stated 
that many facilities have been on notice that they would be required to 
close and should have prepared for that in advance, and so EPA should 
not grant them even further time. However, even these commenters 
acknowledged that the surface impoundments that are unlined, not 
leaking, and passed all location restrictions were forced into closure 
unexpectedly, and so may need additional time to initiate closure.
    Consistent with the proposal, under the final rule all CCR surface 
impoundments will be subject to the new provisions in Sec.  257.103. 
EPA continues to believe there is value in subjecting CCR surface 
impoundments to a common regulatory system. A common regulatory system 
for CCR surface impoundments requiring the use of Sec.  257.103 will 
move these units to initiate closure as quickly as possible and 
decrease any confusion to the public. The new alternative closure 
provisions will grant facilities no more than the specific amount of 
time required for them to cease receipt of waste as fast as technically 
feasible. EPA cannot compel facilities to do the impossible; therefore, 
these new provisions will ensure facilities cease receipt of waste as 
fast as technically feasible.
    EPA agrees that the eligible unlined CCR surface impoundments 
should be eligible to apply for the new alternative closure provisions. 
The owners and operators of these units had no expectation that they 
would need to close these units in the near future and so would not 
have begun planning for such an event. They may, therefore, need more 
time to construct the alternative capacity necessary to allow them to 
cease receipt of waste.
    However, EPA no longer believes that all surface impoundments 
should be eligible to apply for all of the new alternative closure 
provisions. Consequently, the final rule provides that only CCR surface 
impoundments closing pursuant to Sec.  257.101(a) and Sec.  
257.101(b)(1)(i) may apply for the new alternative closure provisions 
under Sec.  257.103(f)(1) and (f)(2) for CCR and/or non-CCR 
wastestreams. As previously stated, the surface impoundments that 
failed a non-aquifer location restriction or multiple location 
restrictions were triggered into closure under Sec.  257.101(b)(1)(ii) 
and were to initiate closure in April 2019. The only exception would be 
for the facilities that posted a notification of intent to close 
pursuant to Sec.  257.103(a) or (b) based on a lack of capacity for 
only CCR, as those provisions only authorized continued receipt of CCR. 
EPA agrees with commenters that no one has presented a factual basis 
for allowing these units to commence or resume the receipt of wastes 
(i.e., non-CCR wastestreams) two years after they were required to have 
ceased. This stands in direct contrast to the units subject to the 
October 31, 2020 deadline, which currently are authorized to continue 
receiving both CCR and non-CCR wastestreams. Moreover, the purpose of 
this rulemaking was to reconsider the closure deadlines in the July 
2018 final rule in light of the decision in USWAG. What matters in this 
context is how, if at all, EPA should revise the regulatory status quo 
based on the direction from the D.C. Circuit. The closure deadlines for 
impoundments closing in accordance with Sec.  257.101(b)(1)(ii) were 
not affected by either the USWAG decision or the July 2018 rule. EPA 
does not intend in this rulemaking to revisit closure provisions that 
were unaffected by either of these things, contrary to the commenter 
who contended that EPA was relying on the decision and its 
reconsideration to provide a clean slate to recalculate all deadlines.
    Therefore, this final rule allows CCR surface impoundments closing 
due to Sec.  257.101(b)(1)(ii) that have posted a notification pursuant 
to Sec.  257.103(a) or (b) to apply to be transitioned to the

[[Page 53540]]

new alternative closure provisions under Sec.  257.103(f)(1) and (f)(2) 
for CCR wastestreams only.
(c) Transition for Surface Impoundments Operating Under Sec.  
257.103(a) and (b)
    In the December 2, 2019 proposal, EPA sought comment on how to 
transition the facilities that have posted notifications pursuant to 
Sec.  257.103(a) or (b) due to forced closure under Sec.  
257.101(b)(1)(ii) to the new alternative closure provisions. Several 
utility companies commented that these facilities should be 
grandfathered into the new provisions without submitting demonstrations 
to EPA for approval. These commenters additionally stated that these 
units should be allowed to continue to operate for the amount of time 
authorized under the existing regulations, which potentially authorize 
continued operation for as long as 5 years from the notification date. 
They further stated that the demonstration requirements would add 
unnecessary burden to the facilities currently closing pursuant to 
Sec.  257.103(a) and (b).
    EPA acknowledges the concern that the demonstrations will add 
burden to the facilities currently operating under Sec.  257.103(a) and 
(b). However, the commenters have not provided a compelling rationale 
for creating two distinct regulatory frameworks for units that are 
essentially identical. There is substantial value in creating a 
consistent regulatory framework for all CCR surface impoundments 
requiring more time to cease receiving waste. As part of that 
framework, EPA has concluded that closer regulatory oversight is 
necessary to ensure that facilities initiate closure as soon as 
technically feasible. EPA has come to this decision based on an 
evaluation of the current status of compliance of the facilities 
operating under the self-implementing provisions of Sec.  257.103(a) 
and (b). For example, notifications and progress reports on facilities' 
publicly accessible CCR internet sites do not contain all of the 
information required under Sec.  257.103(a), (b), and (c). Some of 
these documents do not include the method by which the facility is 
obtaining alternative capacity, the date by which alternative capacity 
will be obtained, or a clear demonstration that no other disposal 
capacity is available on or off-site.\39\ Based on this record, it is 
clear that these provisions require the closer regulatory oversight 
that comes with requiring prior EPA approval. Consequently, EPA will 
not grandfather in the facilities that have filed notifications and 
will require all facilities to submit demonstrations to EPA for 
approval under the new site-specific alternative closure provisions in 
order to continue operating that surface impoundment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Compiled reports from the facilities utilizing the 
alternative closure provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any facility that currently has posted on its publicly accessible 
CCR internet site a notification to close a CCR surface impoundment 
pursuant to Sec.  257.103(a) or (b) must submit a demonstration for EPA 
approval that meets the requirements under Sec.  257.103(f)(1) or 
(f)(2) in order to continue operating that unit. Therefore, if a 
facility has a notification posted and is currently operating under 
Sec.  257.103(a) or (b) due to closure under Sec.  257.101(b)(1)(ii) 
and does not submit a demonstration to EPA by November 30, 2020, then 
the facility must cease the receipt of waste into the unit no later 
than April 11, 2021 and initiate closure.
(d) Consistency With Statutory Standard and USWAG
    EPA received comments from environmental groups that the December 
2, 2019 proposal with the addition of the new alternative closure 
provision is inconsistent with the statutory standard and the USWAG 
decision. These commenters stated that the alternative closure 
provisions allowed unlined CCR surface impoundments to continue to 
operate when the USWAG decision mandated that these units present a 
risk to human health and the environment and must close. Additionally, 
they stated that the new alternative closure provisions do not address 
the risks posed by the continued operation of the surface impoundment, 
and that as a consequence, the proposed demonstration requirements fail 
to meet the RCRA protectiveness standard.
    EPA disagrees with commenters that these provisions fail to meet 
the statutory standard as interpreted by the court in USWAG. It is true 
that EPA was unable to conduct a nationwide risk assessment to document 
that all facilities that obtain an extension under one of the 
alternative closure provisions will meet the statutory standard; 
however, both subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2) include conditions designed 
to address the risks. Both provisions require facilities to 
affirmatively demonstrate that they are in compliance with all the 
requirements of part 257, and therefore meet the baseline level of 
acceptable risk. In addition, as explained in more detail below, 
subsection (f)(2) requires the submission of a risk mitigation plan as 
part as a condition of obtaining the extension.
    Moreover, with regard to the extensions pursuant to Sec.  
257.103(f)(1), as explained in the proposal, EPA considers that 
requiring facilities to cease receipt of waste as quickly as is 
feasible necessarily meets the standard in RCRA 4004(a) as it is not 
possible under this provision to require more stringent--or more 
protective--measures than can be implemented by at least some 
facilities. EPA has ensured that the statutory standard has been met by 
requiring facilities to affirmatively demonstrate to EPA the 
infeasibility of ceasing receipt of waste by April 11, 2021 and by 
requiring prior EPA approval of any requested extension, allowing EPA 
to ensure that units stop receipt of waste as soon as feasible.
    EPA also considers that the provisions authorizing extensions 
pursuant to Sec.  257.103(f)(2) meet the statutory standard. Although 
facilities are not required to demonstrate that they will cease receipt 
of waste as soon as feasible under this section, they will be required 
to expedite the closure of the surface impoundment. Not only will this 
reduce the risks over the long term, the deadlines will ensure that 
continued operation of the unit will be limited. Moreover, as discussed 
at greater length in unit V.C.4, EPA is requiring submission of a risk 
mitigation plan to address any increased risk from continued operation 
of the surface impoundment, which EPA will review as part of 
determining whether to grant the extension. If additional measures to 
mitigate the risk are necessary to ensure that the statutory standard 
is met, EPA will require those as a condition of granting the 
extension.
3. Requirements for Development of Alternative Capacity Infeasible 
(Sec.  257.103(f)(1))
    In the December 2, 2019 proposal, EPA proposed that a facility can 
obtain a site-specific deadline to cease receipt of waste by submitting 
a demonstration that development of alternative capacity for CCR and/or 
non-CCR wastestreams cannot be completed prior to November 30, 2020 
(the end date of the short term alternative) to EPA or the 
Participating State Director for approval. The owner or operator would 
be required to demonstrate that it is not technically feasible to 
complete the development/installation of alternative capacity prior to 
the deadline to cease receipt of waste. In this demonstration, the 
facility would need to present in detail the specifics of the process 
they are undertaking to develop alternative capacities for the 
necessary CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams to support the claim that 
additional time is necessary.

[[Page 53541]]

(a) Criteria and Documentation
    In order to obtain the Sec.  257.103(f)(1) extension, EPA proposed 
the owner or operator must meet and maintain the criteria listed in the 
provision. EPA proposed to require that the demonstration for each 
surface impoundment document or provide evidence for all of the 
following: (1) That there is no alternative capacity available on or 
off-site; (2) That CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams must continue to be 
managed in the CCR surface impoundment due to the technical 
infeasibility of obtaining alternative capacity prior to the deadline 
to cease receipt of waste; as part of this demonstration the facility 
was required to include an analysis of the adverse impact to plant 
operations if the CCR surface impoundment in question were to no longer 
be available for use; (3) a detailed workplan on obtaining alternative 
capacity for CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams; and (4) a narrative of 
how the owner or operator will continue to maintain compliance with all 
other aspects of the CCR rule (including ongoing groundwater monitoring 
and corrective action requirements). Additionally, EPA proposed that 
this showing must be made for each wastestream that would continue to 
be managed in the unit and the owner or operator would be required to 
cease receipt of each wastestream when alternative capacity for each 
wastestream becomes available. Finally, EPA proposed the time to 
develop the alternative capacity could not extend beyond October 15, 
2023, and that the owner or operator must remain in compliance with all 
the applicable requirements of this subpart.
    No alternative capacity on or off-site. The first criterion EPA 
proposed is generally the same that is required in Sec.  
257.103(a)(1)(i). The owner or operator must demonstrate the lack of 
alternative capacity available on or off-site to manage the waste. EPA 
also proposed that an increase in costs or inconvenience would not be 
sufficient to support qualification under this section.
    EPA received no comments opposing the inclusion of this requirement 
in the final rule. One commenter, who believed that costs should not be 
considered as part of this determination, raised the concern that the 
regulatory text would not preclude consideration of cost as part of 
this determination. EPA disagrees that the regulatory text is ambiguous 
on this point. EPA proposed to include the same provisions currently 
found at Sec.  257.103(a) and (b); these provisions were challenged on 
the grounds that the regulation precluded the consideration of costs in 
making this exact showing. See USWAG, 901 F.3d at 448-449. Therefore, 
EPA considers the regulatory text to be clear on this point and is 
finalizing the proposed requirement without revision.
    Documentation requirements of no alternative capacity on or off-
site. EPA proposed to require facilities to provide documentation that 
no alternative capacity exists on or off-site of the facility that 
could be used to manage their waste as part of their submission.
    EPA received comments from utilities requesting clarification on 
the acceptable measures for determining lack of off-site alternative 
disposal capacity. For example, the comments contended that if the 
facility sluices CCR to their surface impoundment, their off-site 
disposal options are significantly limited. However, the disposal 
options greatly increase for dry handled CCR and the off-site capacity 
evaluation could then be more extensive. EPA received comments from 
environmental groups stating that EPA should require the facility to 
demonstrate the lack of alternative capacity for each wastestream. Some 
commenters also raised concern that some of the proposed regulatory 
text could be construed to permit a facility to continue disposing CCR 
into surface impoundments, even when there is alternative capacity of 
CCR, due to the lack of alternative disposal capacity for the non-CCR 
wastestreams. Specifically they pointed to changes to the introductory 
language of Sec.  257.103 that they believed would allow owners or 
operators of CCR units that are subject to closure to continue 
receiving CCR in those units even if alternative disposal capacity for 
CCR is available, as long as they demonstrate that they lack 
alternative disposal capacity for non-CCR wastestreams.
    EPA agrees that the disposal options for sluiced or wet handled CCR 
are greatly limited compared to the options available for dry handled 
CCR. However as discussed below there are disposal options even for 
sluiced or wet handled CCR, and consistent with the proposal the final 
rule requires owners or operators to document that no options other 
than the CCR surface impoundment are available on or off-site to manage 
these wastes.
    EPA also agrees that the owner or operator needs to document the 
lack of alternative capacity both on and off-site for each wastestream 
they wish to continue placing into the CCR surface impoundment after 
the April 11, 2021 deadline. As these commenters pointed out, the 
justification for continuing to use an unlined or leaking unit based on 
a lack of capacity for one waste does not extend to any other waste for 
which there is capacity. It was for this reason that EPA proposed to 
require documentation of the lack of capacity both on and off-site for 
each individual wastestream, and that the facility cease receipt of any 
waste for which capacity becomes available. Accordingly, the final rule 
requires owners and operators to cease using the CCR surface 
impoundment as soon as feasible, to document the lack of both on and 
off-site capacity for each individual wastestream, and expressly 
requires that as capacity for an individual wastestream becomes 
available, owners or operators are required to use that capacity, which 
will slowly decrease the amount of waste being disposed in the unit. 
EPA has also revised the introductory text at Sec.  257.103 to be 
consistent with these provisions. Specifically, the text now states 
that the facility may continue only to receive the wastes specified in 
either paragraph (a), (b), (f)(1), or (f)(2) in the unit provided the 
owner or operator meets all of the requirements contained in the 
respective paragraph.
    For sluiced CCR and non-CCR wastestreams, EPA expects the owner or 
operator to evaluate the viability of other wet temporary storage, such 
as tanks, to use in lieu of the CCR surface impoundment while permanent 
capacity is developed. Some of these wastestreams can be very large, 
and therefore tanks may not be a viable or realistic option to handle 
such volumes; however, tanks could be a viable option for small volume 
wastestreams. For dry CCR, EPA expects the owner or operator to 
evaluate the option of transporting the CCR to landfills. The owner or 
operator must provide documentation of this evaluation of on and off-
site capacity for each wastestream. Additionally, the owner or operator 
must cease receipt of each wastestream when alternative capacity for 
each wastestream becomes available. This documentation requirement has 
been incorporated into the requirements of section one of the workplan. 
The other requirements for the workplan are discussed later in this 
preamble. This documentation requirement is at Sec.  
257.103(f)(1)(iv)(A).
    Consistent with the proposal, the costs or the inconvenience of 
existing capacity will not be considered as part of determining whether 
the facility qualifies for this alternative. As discussed in unit IV, 
EPA lacks the authority to include such considerations in this 
regulation. See USWAG, 901 F.3d at 448-449.

[[Page 53542]]

    Need to continue using the CCR surface impoundment. EPA proposed 
that the owner or operator must demonstrate that CCR and/or non-CCR 
wastestreams must continue to be managed in the CCR surface impoundment 
due to the technical infeasibility of alternative capacity being 
available sooner than November 30, 2020.
    EPA received one comment about the inclusion of this requirement, 
on the grounds that the word feasibility could be construed to permit 
the consideration of cost. According to the commenter, one dictionary 
defines the word feasibility to mean ``not possible to do easily or 
conveniently; impracticable,'' and criticized EPA for failing to 
include a regulatory definition of feasibility. As an initial matter, 
EPA notes that other dictionaries define feasible to mean ``capable of 
being done or carried out'' (Merriam website (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feasible)) and ``possible to do and likely to be 
successful'' (Cambridge English Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/feasible)). EPA also 
disagrees that the proposed rule was unclear on whether cost could be 
considered as part of this determination. EPA proposed explicit 
language that clearly stated that costs were not relevant. 
Nevertheless, to avoid any potential ambiguity EPA will include 
regulatory definitions of technically feasible and technically 
infeasible. Specifically, the final rule defines technically feasible 
to mean ``possible to do in a way that would likely be successful,'' 
and technically infeasible to mean ``not possible to do in a way that 
would likely be successful.'' These definitions clearly exclude those 
circumstances in which a facility could have completed construction but 
chose not to do so in order to save money, while capturing the full 
range of force majeure situations in which circumstances beyond a 
facility's control cause delays. For example, this definition would 
allow a facility to obtain an extension in response to delays in 
obtaining a permit as a result of State furloughs or resulting from the 
COVID-19 public health emergency. However, it would not allow a 
facility to obtain an extension where the delays were caused by 
mismanagement or could be overcome by the expenditure of additional 
resources; for example, where the facility delayed ordering 
geomembrane, and as a consequence it arrived too close to the end of 
the construction season.
    EPA received no other substantive comments raising concern about 
the inclusion of this criterion. Therefore, EPA is finalizing this 
requirement with one minor revision to the regulatory text. As 
discussed in unit V.B.3, the deadline to cease receipt of waste is now 
April 11, 2021, so the deadline in Sec.  257.103(f)(1)(ii) will be 
updated accordingly.
    Documentation requirements of need to continue using the CCR 
surface impoundment. This line of evidence must include an analysis of 
the adverse impact to plant operations if the CCR surface impoundment 
in question were to no longer be available for use.
    EPA received comments stating that EPA failed to identify any 
evidence that the lack of capacity alternative closure provision is 
necessary. They stated that EPA claimed that the 2015 CCR Rule would 
cause potentially significant disruptions to plant operations and thus 
the provision of electricity to customers; however, EPA failed to 
identify any evidence of such risks or identify a single power plant in 
the country that would be at risk of shutdown if its non-CCR 
wastestreams could no longer be disposed of in the CCR surface 
impoundments.
    Other commenters stated that the inclusion of an analysis of the 
adverse impact to plant operations if the CCR surface impoundment in 
question were to no longer be available for use is a very important 
factor in the evaluation of a facility's extension request. They stated 
that the rulemaking record makes clear that their ability to continue 
providing power to the public could be impacted if facilities are 
unable to use these surface impoundments (for CCR and/or non-CCR waste 
management) before they have time to develop alternative disposal 
capacity.
    EPA disagrees that there is no evidence that power plants could be 
affected if they were forced to prematurely stop using their CCR 
surface impoundments before alternative capacity is available. The 
rulemaking record contains submissions from numerous utilities 
documenting the potential effects of such premature closures. Moreover, 
EPA proposed to require facilities to include an analysis of the 
adverse impact to plant operations if the CCR surface impoundment in 
question were to no longer be available for use. Therefore, each 
individual demonstration would include the evidence of the adverse 
impact to each plant's operations, which is the exact evidence the 
commenters assert is lacking. EPA continues to believe that an analysis 
of the adverse impact to plant operations if the CCR surface 
impoundment were to no longer be available for use is directly relevant 
to the question of whether the facility actually needs to continue 
using the unit. As a consequence, EPA is retaining this requirement in 
the final rule without revision.
    This documentation requirement has been incorporated into section 
one of the workplan. The other requirements for the workplan are 
discussed later in this preamble. This documentation requirement is 
represented in Sec.  257.103(f)(1)(iv)(A).
    Compliance certification and documentation requirements. In the 
proposal, EPA discussed compliance in three separate places in the 
regulatory text but only one section in the preamble. In the regulatory 
text EPA required a certificate of compliance, a narrative compliance 
strategy and that the owner or operator remain in compliance with the 
applicable requirements of subpart D of part 257 at all times. 
Furthermore, the proposed fourth line of evidence of the Sec.  
257.103(f)(1) demonstration reiterated the requirement for a narrative 
compliance strategy for the CCR surface impoundment. The preamble laid 
out some specific information that EPA believed was critical to 
determine if the facility was in compliance. EPA proposed that the 
compliance strategy must discuss the most recent groundwater monitoring 
data results, the statistical analyses conducted to obtain the results, 
and the next steps for the groundwater monitoring. EPA also proposed 
that if the unit has exceeded any of the Appendix IV groundwater 
protection standards, the owner or operator must provide a copy of any 
assessment of corrective measures conducted to date. The current 
regulations require facilities to conduct an assessment of corrective 
measures followed by selection of a remedy as soon as is feasible, and 
thus do not permit waiting to implement a remedy until initiation of 
closure of the unit. As such, if the facility is in the process of 
remedy selection, a thorough discussion of the evaluation of possible 
remedies for corrective action must be included in the compliance 
strategy. The proposal also stated that the facility's publicly 
accessible CCR internet site must be completely up-to-date and contain 
all the necessary postings.
    Several commenters agreed that compliance with the CCR rule should 
be a prerequisite to obtain approval for an alternative closure 
deadline. Others disagreed stating that being in compliance with the 
CCR rule should not be a prerequisite. EPA continues to believe that 
compliance should be a prerequisite.

[[Page 53543]]

    Some commenters expressed concern that some facilities acting in 
good faith could be found non-compliant by EPA. Specifically, USWAG 
raised concerns that since the rule is self-implementing and some 
regulatory text lacks specificity and/or may be ambiguous, there could 
be differences in opinion on what constitutes compliance. Therefore, 
USWAG believes that differences in interpretation should be discussed 
during EPA's review process and any non-compliance issues be addressed 
as part of a facility's completion of its demonstration. Talen Energy 
echoed this sentiment stating that there should be a mechanism in place 
to assist facilities to come into compliance after the alternative 
closure extension was granted. Finally, USWAG commented that past non-
compliance that has been corrected should not penalize a facility in 
their demonstration process and that, therefore, the compliance status 
should be as of the date of the demonstration's submission. These 
comments are also addressed in unit V.C.5 since these comments discuss 
the process in which to resolve any possible questions of compliance.
    Some commenters stated that EPA has known that facilities are 
violating the groundwater monitoring requirements because the use of 
intrawell statistical analysis violates the plain language of the CCR 
rule and is therefore impermissible. They also raised other allegations 
of non-compliance such as violations of location restrictions, non-
compliant liner determinations, violations of annual inspection 
requirements and various groundwater monitoring requirements or 
associated posting requirements. The commenters went on to say that 
EPA's failure to evaluate existing non-compliance with the CCR rule 
increases the risk to health and the environment and that the Part A 
proposal does not effectively require owners and operators receiving 
extensions to comply fully with the CCR rule. Finally, some commenters 
stated that since the alternative closure extensions fail to address 
non-compliance, the extensions are arbitrary and capricious and fail to 
meet the RCRA protectiveness standard.
    EPA does not agree that intrawell statistical analysis is per se 
prohibited by the CCR regulations. The regulations at Sec.  257.93(f) 
and (g) establish the allowable statistical approaches and the 
performance standards that must be met. There are some circumstances in 
which intra-well comparison can meet these requirements. Additional 
information about these approaches may be found in the Unified 
Guidance, which EPA relied upon, as well as 40 CFR 258, in crafting 
these regulations (see 80 FR 21402). The Unified Guidance at page 1-4 
contains procedures for both the intrawell and interwell methods: 
``Groundwater detection monitoring involves either a comparison between 
different monitoring stations (i.e., downgradient compliance wells vs. 
upgradient wells) or a contrast between past and present data within a 
given station (i.e., intrawell comparisons).'' The Unified Guidance 
further identifies specific circumstances in which intrawell comparison 
may be the preferred method, for example; evidence of spatial variation 
should drive the selection of an intrawell statistical approach if 
observed among wells known to be uncontaminated (e.g., among a group of 
upgradient background locations) (page 5-6). The Unified Guidance says 
intrawell comparison can also be used when the groundwater flow 
gradient is uncertain or unstable (page 8-3). EPA has also found that 
unique hydrogeological conditions at some sites preclude meaningful 
interwell comparison--for example where the uppermost aquifer is 
spatially limited and is absent upgradient of the CCR unit. Therefore, 
simply using intrawell analysis does not mean a facility is out of 
compliance.
    However, if a facility is using intrawell analysis in an 
inappropriate scenario, the facility would be out of compliance with 
the CCR rule. For example, see the Unified Guidance at page 5-6: 
``Intrawell background measurements should be selected from the 
available historical samples at each compliance well and should include 
only those observations thought to be uncontaminated.''
    EPA continues to believe that requiring facilities to document 
compliance with the subpart D of part 257 requirements is an important 
part of the demonstration. Compliance with the rule provides some 
guarantee that the risks at the facility are properly managed and 
adequately mitigated. For example, if a facility has placed or 
constructed groundwater monitoring wells incorrectly it is quite 
possible that contamination could go undetected. By contrast, if a 
facility is properly pursuing corrective action remedies and their 
wells have been properly placed and constructed, EPA expects the 
overall risk at the facility will be appropriately managed. 
Consequently, this determination provides critical support for a 
decision to allow continued operation of the unlined impoundment. This 
means that EPA must be able to affirmatively conclude that the facility 
meets this criterion prior to authorizing any continued operation of 
the unlined impoundment. It also means that EPA cannot grant facilities 
additional time to cure any noncompliance. However, EPA's determination 
will be prospective only; accordingly, EPA is only interested in the 
state of a facility's current compliance rather than any instances of 
historic non-compliance.
    In response to commenters who requested that EPA provide greater 
specificity about what constitutes a complete submission, EPA has 
revised the proposal to identify specific documents that facilities 
must provide to demonstrate their current compliance with the 
requirements of part 257. These documents should already exist because 
they are required to have been developed under the existing 
regulations.
    First, EPA will review a facility's current compliance with the 
requirements governing groundwater monitoring systems. In order to 
conduct this review, the Agency will need copies of the following 
documents: (1) Map(s) of groundwater monitoring well locations (these 
maps should identify the CCR units as well); (2) Well construction 
diagrams and drilling logs for all groundwater monitoring wells; (3) 
Maps that characterize the direction of groundwater flow accounting for 
seasonal variation; (4) Constituent concentrations, summarized in table 
form, at each groundwater monitoring well monitored during each 
sampling event; and (5) Description of site hydrogeology including 
stratigraphic cross-sections.
    Second, EPA will also require and examine a facility's corrective 
action documentation, structural stability documents and other 
pertinent compliance information. A facility must submit the following 
documentation: The corrective measures assessment required at Sec.  
257.96, progress reports on remedy selection and design; the report of 
final remedy selection required at Sec.  257.97(a); the most recent 
structural stability assessment required at Sec.  257.73(d), and; the 
most recent safety factor assessment required at Sec.  257.73(e). EPA's 
intention to review these items was discussed in the proposed rule when 
discussing the types of information to be included in the facility's 
compliance strategy. See FR 84 65955-56. EPA will document the results 
of its review and that record will be available for public comment with 
the rest of the alternative closure demonstration materials, consistent 
with the procedures applicable to this review discussed in unit V.C.5.

[[Page 53544]]

    Therefore, based on comments, EPA has decided that the 
certification of compliance and the requirement to remain in compliance 
with the regulations are necessary in this final rule. This approach 
will prevent non-compliant unlined surface impoundments from operating 
for an extended period of time into the future. Requiring that only 
compliant surface impoundments can be approved for an alternative 
closure deadline provides additional support for EPA's conclusion that 
this final rule meeting the statutory standard.
    In light of the requirement to submit the specific compliance 
documentation noted above, EPA is not including the proposed compliance 
narrative that was proposed as the fourth line of evidence for a 
demonstration, in the final rule.
    The compliance certification and documentation requirements are 
represented in Sec.  257.103(f)(1)(iv)(B). The requirement to remain in 
compliance with RCRA subpart D is represented in Sec.  
257.103(f)(1)(viii).
    Workplan Criteria. EPA proposed owner or operators submit a 
detailed workplan explaining how alternative capacity is being 
developed and the amount of time required. EPA proposed to require the 
submission of a workplan that contains four elements: (1) A narrative 
discussion of the steps and process that remain necessary to complete 
development of alternative capacity for the wastestream(s); (2) a 
visual timeline depicting the remaining steps needed to obtain 
alternative capacity; (3) a discussion of the timeline and the 
processes that occur during each step; and (4) a discussion of the 
steps already taken to achieve alternative capacity, including what 
steps have been completed and what steps remain. EPA sought comment on 
whether the proposed elements of the workplan were sufficient or if 
more evidence was necessary in order for EPA to determine the correct 
amount of time the facility will need to obtain alternative capacity.
    EPA received several comments that the proposed workplan elements 
should provide EPA with ample information to issue a decision on the 
extension request. They further stated that the information would allow 
EPA to determine whether the demonstration represented the shortest 
technically feasible amount of time required for the facility to cease 
receipt of the waste and to complete the development of alternative 
disposal capacity.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that the elements proposed in the 
workplan provide the necessary information and are sufficient for its 
intended purpose. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the proposed workplan 
elements without revision from the proposal at Sec.  
257.103(f)(1)(iv)(A).
Workplan Documentation
    As previously mentioned, EPA proposed the workplan containing four 
sections. Below is a detailed discussion of what EPA proposed for each 
section to contain.
    Section One: The narrative discussion of the workplan was designed 
to explain precisely how alternative capacity will be developed, along 
with an explanation as to why that method was chosen. EPA has not 
required the owner or operator to choose any particular means of 
obtaining alternative capacity, such as building a new disposal unit, 
construction of a wastewater treatment facility, converting to dry 
handling, etc. However, EPA is requiring that the narrative describe 
each option that was considered, the timeframe under which each could 
be implemented, and why the facility selected the option that it did. 
The discussion must include an in-depth analysis of the site and any 
site-specific conditions that led to the decision to implement the 
selected alternative capacity. Inclusion of visuals such as a facility 
map, facility process flow diagram, the design of the new capacity, 
etc. would be beneficial to any discussion on the new capacity and of 
the facility as a whole. The narrative must also provide a detailed 
explanation and justification for the amount of time being requested 
and how it is the fastest feasible time to complete the development of 
the alternative capacity.
    Section Two: The second section of the workplan is a visual 
timeline, such as a Gantt chart, depicting the necessary steps required 
to obtain the alternative capacity discussed in the narrative. The 
visual timeline must clearly indicate how each phase and the steps 
within that phase interact with or are dependent on each other and the 
other phases. It must also include any possible overlap of the steps 
and phases that can be completed concurrently. This timeline must show 
the total time needed to obtain the alternative capacity and how long 
each phase and step is expected to take. Such phases must at a minimum 
include: Engineering and design, contractor selection, equipment 
fabrication and delivery, construction, and start up and 
implementation. Within each phase, the time to complete each step must 
also be broken out. For example, if the engineering and design phase is 
4 months, the following steps to complete the phase should be shown: 
Site selection and survey, design of the impoundment, process flow 
diagram edits, and piping design then the time each of those steps take 
should be represented on the timeline. This level of detail is expected 
for each phase and each step of each phase in obtaining the alternative 
capacity. The timeline also acts as a visual assistant to the third 
section of the work plan, a narrative of the timeline.
    Section Three: The third section for the workplan is a detailed 
narrative of the schedule and the timeline discussing all the necessary 
phases and steps in the workplan, in addition to the overall timeframe 
that will be required to obtain capacity and cease receipt of waste. 
This section of the workplan must discuss why the length of time for 
each phase and step is needed, including a discussion of the tasks that 
occur during the specific stage of obtaining alternative capacity. It 
must also discuss the tasks that occur during each of the steps within 
the phase. For example, rather than simply stating an individual step 
as ``order and fabrication of impoundment liner,'' this section is 
required to explain what material must be ordered, where the 
fabrication takes place, and how long it takes to fabricate and deliver 
the new liner material. The workplan must explain why each phase and 
step shown on the chart must happen in the order it is occurring and 
include a justification for the overall length of the phase. Other 
major discussion items required on the overall time of the schedule 
include anticipated worker schedule, and any anticipated areas for 
which the schedule could slip. The anticipated areas of delays could 
include items outside of the facility's control, such as severe weather 
events or delays in fabrication of materials. For example, if the 
facility is commonly impacted by hurricanes or flooding, the discussion 
should indicate what month(s) of the schedule that is most likely to 
disrupt. The schedule must also indicate the time limiting factors in 
completing the plan, such as having to take boilers off-line or if a 
certain step can only happen during a specific time of year. This 
overall discussion of the schedule assists EPA in understanding why the 
time requested is accurate.
    Section Four: The fourth section of the workplan contains a 
narrative of the steps the facility has already taken to initiate 
closure and develop alternative capacity for CCR and/or non-CCR 
wastestreams. This section must discuss all of the steps taken, 
starting from when the owner or operator initiated the design phase all 
the way up to the current steps occurring while the workplan is being 
drafted. In addition,

[[Page 53545]]

this discussion must indicate where the facility currently is on the 
timeline and the processes that are currently being undertaken at the 
facility to develop alternative capacity. This section of the workplan 
and the level of detail required is necessary for EPA to determine 
whether the submitted schedule for obtaining alternative capacity is 
accurate.
    Comments on workplan documentation requirements. EPA received 
several comments from utilities stating concerns that the level of 
detail proposed to be included in the workplan is unnecessary and in 
some areas excessive. Some utilities viewed the workplan as overly 
burdensome and some parts as unnecessary. Some commenters found the 
proposed narrative discussion of the workplan invasive of the utility's 
decision-making process. They further commented that EPA should respect 
the facility's business decisions and that this information could show 
that the facility is taking cost into consideration. The commenters 
stated that the discussion should focus on how the facility selected 
the most appropriate technically feasible alternative capacity for the 
site, even though it may not be theoretically the fastest feasible to 
implement. They stated that the work plan should only focus on the 
engineering and construction elements of obtaining alternative capacity 
rather than being concerned with reasons for why the capacity was 
selected. These commenters additionally stated that this type of 
discussion and many of the work plan elements would contain 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) related to why a particular 
approach for developing alternative capacity was selected and therefore 
requested the opportunity to be able designate and withhold the CBI 
from the posting on their publicly accessible CCR internet site.
    EPA disagrees with the comments that the workplan requirements are 
invasive of the utility's decision-making process and should only focus 
on engineering and construction. While the workplan should provide 
engineering and construction information to explain how long the 
alternative capacity will take to develop; it is equally important for 
EPA to understand why that method of alternative capacity was selected. 
EPA recognizes there are several factors that go into selecting the 
method for alternative capacity, and that the decision is not solely 
based on whether the method is theoretically the fastest feasible to 
implement. Many of those factors are based on what can be technically 
implemented based on site-specific conditions at the facility, and how 
the facility plans on maintaining compliance with various state and 
federal regulations. These are the factors the facility should focus on 
in their discussion. EPA understands that not every method of 
alternative capacity is a viable option for a given facility, but the 
facility will need to explain to EPA how and what site-specific factors 
affected the selection of the option chosen, or that led the facility 
to eliminate particular options from consideration. Accordingly, EPA 
continues to believe that these workplan elements are necessary in 
order to fully understand the effort to obtain alternative capacity and 
maintain compliance for the facility as a whole. EPA understands that 
some of the pieces of the workplan may be considered CBI. However, 
utilities must have a CBI free version of the workplan that they are 
able to post to their publicly accessible CCR internet site and to be 
put out for public comment. EPA has revised the regulations to specify 
that when a workplan contains some CBI, utilities must submit both the 
CBI-free version of the workplan and a full version of the workplan 
that contains the CBI. All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    For the reasons described above, EPA is finalizing the requirements 
on the workplan as described above with minor clarifying modifications. 
As previously discussed, EPA is incorporating the documentation 
requirements for the lack of alternative capacity on or off-site and 
the need to continue using the CCR surface impoundment into section one 
of the workplan. Thus, the first section of the workplan must include 
the discussion on the lack of alternative capacity on or off-site for 
each wastestream, the technical infeasibility of alternative capacity 
being available prior to April 11, 2021, as well as the narrative 
discussed above in section one (the discussion of how the alternative 
capacity will be developed and the discussion of how the capacity was 
selected).
    The other change that EPA is making from proposed to final is in 
section three, the narrative discussion of the timeline. EPA will not 
require the inclusion of anticipated areas of where the schedule could 
slip. EPA is not taking final action on this requirement because it is 
not critical information for EPA to evaluate and issue a determination 
on the demonstration.
    The workplan documentation requirements are at Sec.  
257.103(f)(1)(iv)(A).
    Maximum Time Allowed. EPA proposed that a maximum of 5 years from 
the USWAG mandate could be granted under this alternative closure 
provision; therefore, no extension would extend past October 15, 2023. 
EPA selected 5 years in the proposal since it is currently the time 
allowed under Sec.  257.103(a).
    EPA received comments that extensions should not be limited to 
October 15, 2023. Commenters stated that a maximum time is unnecessary 
because the facility is required to submit a workplan showing the time 
they need, and EPA should accept that as the time that is needed. 
Therefore, the commenters asserted, establishing a maximum amount of 
time sooner than a facility demonstrates is technically feasible 
requires the impossible. They claimed that the data used in the rule 
making record does not support limiting the extension to no later than 
October 15, 2023 and is two years shorter than the current deadline in 
Sec. Sec.  257.103(a) and (b) of October 31, 2025. Commenters stated 
that if EPA does establish a maximum amount of time, then EPA should 
establish the time that is currently allowed which is October 31, 2025.
    Environmental groups stated that the maximum amount of time, until 
October 15, 2023, is not protective of human health and the environment 
because it delays the closure of the CCR surface impoundments.
    EPA disagrees with these commenters. EPA believes there should be a 
maximum amount of time for the alternative closure provision, if only 
to ensure that facilities understand that operation of the unit may not 
continue indefinitely. With one exception, EPA believes that the 
proposed date of October 15, 2023 is a reasonable deadline for all 
facilities to achieve. EPA did not receive and does not have any 
evidence that facilities will require until October 2025 to complete 
development of alternative capacity. Accordingly, EPA does not believe 
facilities need the same five-year deadline in Sec.  257.103(a). 
Additionally, this deadline will encourage facilities to move 
expeditiously.
    EPA received several comments from industry stakeholders stating 
that the eligible unlined CCR surface impoundments triggered into 
closure due to the USWAG decision could need more time than other 
unlined surface impoundments to develop alternative

[[Page 53546]]

capacity. Data submitted by several owners and operators of eligible 
unlined CCR surface impoundments showed that the fastest they could 
cease receipt of all wastes extends into 2024.
    After reviewing these comments and the data submitted by utility 
companies, EPA agrees that it is possible that some eligible unlined 
CCR surface impoundments that were forced into closure unexpectedly by 
the USWAG decision could need additional time beyond October 15, 2023 
to complete the development of alternative capacity. Therefore, in this 
final rule EPA is providing that eligible unlined CCR surface 
impoundments can request an alternative compliance deadline no later 
than October 15, 2024. This does not mean that all eligible unlined CCR 
surface impoundments can continue to operate until October 15, 2024; 
each unit must still cease receipt of waste as soon as feasible, and 
may only have the amount of time they can demonstrate is genuinely 
necessary. A facility claiming to have an eligible unlined CCR surface 
impoundment and requesting time beyond October 15, 2023 must 
demonstrate that they were not forced into closure for any reason other 
than the USWAG decision. This maximum timeframe is represented in Sec.  
257.103(f)(1)(vi).
    Extensions of Alternative Compliance Deadlines. EPA proposed to 
allow a facility to request an extension to a deadline approved under 
the site-specific alternative under Sec.  257.103(f)(1). If at any 
point a facility becomes aware that they cannot meet the approved 
alternative deadline, they would need to notify EPA or the 
Participating State Director as soon as possible. Depending on the 
nature and severity of the event, additional time may be granted 
provided it would not extend past October 15, 2023. EPA proposed that 
the facility must submit updated demonstration materials to EPA or the 
Participating State Director with a detailed discussion of why an 
extension is necessary. The owner or operator must also discuss the 
measures taken to limit the additional amount of time needed. An 
explanation of any problems that caused this delay would be further 
discussed in the semi-annual progress report as described in the next 
section.
    EPA received no comments regarding this provision in the proposal. 
Therefore, EPA is finalizing this provision without substantive 
revision. EPA will not grant an extension longer than the maximum 
amount of time allowed either October 15, 2023 or October 15, 2024. 
This provision is represented in Sec.  257.103(f)(1)(vii).
(b) Semi-Annual Progress Report
    To provide transparency to the public, EPA proposed to require 
posting of semi-annual progress reports on the facility's publicly 
accessible CCR internet site. The proposed reports would contain two 
main sections: (1) Discussion on progress toward obtaining alternative 
capacity and (2) discussion of any planned operational changes at the 
facility. EPA believed that since these units could be operating and 
receiving waste for a few additional years, it would be important to 
keep EPA and the public aware of the facility's progress on obtaining 
alternative capacity and if facilities are on track to meet their new 
alternative compliance deadline. Currently in Sec.  257.103(c) there is 
the requirement for annual progress reports for the units that have 
certified for alternative deadlines under Sec.  257.103(a) and (b). EPA 
believed that for the site-specific alternative deadline, semi-annual 
rather than annual progress reports are more appropriate. The time 
allowed under this new alternative closure provision, will vary site to 
site and could be shorter than the deadline alternative granted for 
Sec.  257.103(a) and (b). Therefore, EPA proposed a new semi-annual 
progress report requirement for the units that successfully demonstrate 
and are approved for the site-specific alternative to cease receipt of 
waste deadline.
    EPA proposed for the semi-annual progress report to heavily rely on 
the workplan and the timeline submitted with the workplan. The first 
section of the report would discuss the progress the facility has made 
since the previous report or since approval of the alternative 
compliance deadline if it is the first report. It would be required to 
discuss the following: (1) The current stage of obtaining alternative 
capacity in reference to the timeline required in the workplan; (2) 
whether the owner or operator is on schedule for obtaining alternative 
capacity; (3) any problems encountered and a description of the actions 
taken to resolve the problems; and (4) the goals and major milestones 
to be achieved for the next 6 months.
    EPA proposed the second section of the progress reports would 
discuss any planned operational changes at the facility. It is possible 
while the facility is working to achieve alternative capacity, a 
decision is made to either permanently shut down the plant or switch to 
an alternate fuel source such as natural gas or biomass. Any such 
decisions or other changes that could impact the schedule or closure 
would be indicated in this section of the semi-annual progress report.
    EPA proposed that the semi-annual reports be completed and placed 
in the facility's operating record and posted on the facility's 
publicly accessible CCR internet site on April 1st and October 1st of 
each year until the alternative compliance deadline. The first report 
would be due on whichever posting deadline is soonest after approval of 
the alternative compliance deadline by EPA.
    EPA sought comment regarding whether a facility that is fully on 
schedule or ahead of schedule with their approved timeline and had no 
significant problems or changes in operational status, should be 
afforded a relaxation of the reporting requirements in the first two 
subsections of the first section. This would allow a report for a 
facility on schedule or ahead of schedule to be significantly more 
condensed than the full reporting requirements.
    EPA received comments from industry stating that facilities should 
be focusing on obtaining alternative capacity rather than completing 
progress reports. Furthermore, they support that if a facility is on or 
ahead of schedule for developing alternative capacity, they should be 
able to complete a condensed version of the semi-annual progress 
reports. Industry additionally commented that the progress reports 
should be annual for facilities with an alternative deadline longer 
than two years past the deadlines in Sec.  257.101(a) and (b). Industry 
groups additionally commented that they do not oppose the semi-annual 
submission dates of April 1 and October 1, with the first submission 
being due on whichever posting deadline is soonest after approval of 
the alternative compliance deadline. However, they did indicate that a 
facility should not have to complete a report until they have a minimum 
of six months of progress from approval to report.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that facilities should be focusing 
on obtaining alternative capacity. However, it is also important to 
update EPA or the Participating State Director on their progress for 
obtaining alternative capacity. EPA disagrees that the progress reports 
should be annual for the facilities with a longer alternative deadline. 
Facilities with a longer deadline have more progress to make and 
therefore may have a greater change of experiencing delays. Frequent 
progress reports are all the more useful in these circumstances. EPA 
further agrees that it is important that the first

[[Page 53547]]

report be properly timed so that the facility has progress to report.
    EPA received comments from environmental groups supporting the 
progress reports. They commented that there should be the additional 
requirement of certifying the facility is in compliance with all other 
aspects of the CCR rule in each progress report.
    EPA has decided that additional certifications of compliance would 
not provide any added benefit. The final rule already requires the 
facility to remain in compliance with all the requirements of this 
subpart as a condition of the extension, and expressly provides that 
failure to do so will result in automatic revocation of the extension. 
Moreover, as previously discussed, EPA is requiring a more in-depth 
compliance certification in the demonstration in order to obtain 
approval. Finally, under the existing regulations the facility is 
required to post several items throughout the year including the annual 
groundwater monitoring and corrective action report, notifications for 
changes in groundwater monitoring, and semiannual reports on selection 
of remedy. EPA considers that the combination of all these requirements 
is more than sufficient to ensure a facility remains in compliance 
without the need for a further certification.
    After reviewing the public comments EPA believes it is important to 
maintain public transparency and for facilities to focus on completing 
the development of alternative disposal capacity. Therefore, EPA is 
finalizing the requirement for progress reports to be completed on a 
semi-annual basis and to allow those facilities that are on or ahead of 
schedule to complete a condensed progress report. As such EPA is 
finalizing the semi-annual progress report requirements with only the 
revision that facilities on or ahead of schedule may complete a 
condensed and more streamlined progress report.
    Facilities on or ahead of schedule, in relation to their approved 
timeline, will need to complete only the first two subsections within 
the first section. Therefore, the first section of the reports will 
only need to contain: (1) The current stage of obtaining alternative 
capacity in reference to the timeline required in the workplan; (2) 
whether the owner or operator is on schedule for obtaining alternative 
capacity.
    All facilities must still complete the second section of the 
progress reports, discussing any planned operational changes of the 
facility. If there is nothing for the facility to report in this 
section, then the facility should simply state ``No planned operational 
changes''.
    The semi-annual progress reports are to be completed on April 30 
and October 31 of each year for the duration of the approved 
alternative initiation of closure deadline. EPA has selected these 
months because they correlate to when the facility was supposed to 
cease receipt of waste. Therefore, the facility should have at least 
six months of progress to report since applying for an alternative 
compliance deadline. The facility then has 30 days to place the report 
in their operating record and to their publicly accessible CCR internet 
site. The requirements for the semi-annual progress reports are shown 
in Sec.  257.103(f)(1)(x).
4. Requirements for Permanent Cessation of Coal-Fired Boiler(s) by a 
Date Certain (Sec.  257.103(f)(2))
    In the December 2, 2019 proposal EPA proposed to adopt a comparable 
version of Sec.  257.103(b). This proposed provision allows facilities 
permanently ceasing operation of coal-fired boiler(s) to continue to 
receive both CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams, upon a showing of a 
continued need to use the surface impoundment due to lack of capacity. 
Consistent with the existing provision Sec.  257.103(b), EPA proposed 
to provide that an increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing 
capacity would not support qualification under this section. A further 
requirement EPA proposed, that is not in Sec.  257.103(b), is a risk 
mitigation plan, in which the owner or operator would describe how the 
facility planned to mitigate any potential risks from the continued 
operation of the CCR surface impoundment. This proposal would have 
allowed the unit to continue receiving CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams, 
provided the facility completed closure of the unit by the dates 
specified: October 17, 2023 or October 17, 2028 for surface 
impoundments 40 acres and smaller or more than 40 acres, respectively. 
In contrast to the provision under Sec.  257.103(f)(1), the owner or 
operator does not need to develop alternative capacity because of the 
impending closure of the coal-fired boiler. Since the coal-fired boiler 
will shortly cease power generation, it would be illogical to require 
these facilities to construct new capacity to manage CCR and non-CCR 
wastestreams. Additionally, the groundwater monitoring and corrective 
action requirements remain in place. EPA proposed that facilities would 
need to submit a demonstration to EPA or the Participating State 
Director for approval. The majority of the proposed demonstration 
requirements are generally the same as are currently required under 
Sec.  257.103(b), including the annual progress report and other 
recordkeeping requirements. The demonstration and criteria are 
described below.
    EPA received comments requesting clarification on whether a 
facility could use the provision if they are converting their boilers 
to natural gas or a different fuel source. EPA believes facilities that 
are converting their boilers to natural gas or a different fuel source 
(non-coal) are eligible for the provision.
(a) Criteria and Documentation
    EPA proposed that in order to obtain the Sec.  257.103(f)(2) 
extension, the owner or operator needs to meet and maintain all of the 
following criteria: (1) That no alternative disposal capacity is 
available on or off-site, (2) the facility must submit a risk 
mitigation plan to show that potential risks to human health and the 
environment from the continued operation of the CCR surface impoundment 
have been adequately mitigated, (3) the facility is in compliance with 
all other requirements of this subpart and, (4) closure of the 
impoundment will be completed within the dates specified: October 17, 
2023 or October 17, 2028 for surface impoundments 40 acres or smaller 
or more than 40 acres, respectively. As discussed in more detail below, 
EPA is adopting the same criteria in the final rule without significant 
revision. Further discussion on each criterion is below.
    No alternative capacity on or off-site. The first line of evidence 
EPA proposed is the same that was required in Sec.  257.103(b) and 
Sec.  257.103(f)(1). The owner or operator must demonstrate the lack of 
alternative capacity available on or off-site.
    EPA received no substantive comments on the inclusion of this 
requirement. Therefore, EPA has included this provision in the final 
rule without revision.
    Documentation requirements of no alternative capacity on or off-
site. The first demonstration requirement is to show that the facility 
does not have any other disposal capacity available either on or off-
site. Consistent with the proposal, the fact that a potential 
alternative result in an increase in cost or inconvenience is not 
sufficient to meet this requirement. This requirement is the same as 
the requirement as described previously for the demonstration 
requirements in Sec.  257.103(f)(1). This documentation requirement is 
represented in Sec.  257.103(f)(2)(v)(A).
    Risk mitigation plan. The second line of evidence EPA proposed to 
include in

[[Page 53548]]

this demonstration was a risk mitigation plan. This proposed 
requirement was not previously required under Sec.  257.103(b). EPA 
added this requirement in the proposal to address the potential risks 
of continued operation of the CCR surface impoundment while the 
facility moves towards closure of their coal-fired boiler(s), to be 
consistent with the court's holding in USWAG that RCRA requires EPA to 
set minimum criteria for sanitary landfills that prevent harm to either 
human health or the environment. 42 U.S.C. 6944(a). 901 F.3d at 430.
    EPA received comments stating that the provision violates RCRA 
because it relies on owners and operators to submit a risk mitigation 
plan. They explained that this requirement violates the RCRA 
protectiveness standard because it acknowledges that there is risk 
present from the unit and RCRA is structured to prevent risk. 
Therefore, a risk mitigation plan admits that there is risk to human 
health and the environment and makes the unit an open dump.
    EPA disagrees with the suggestion that reliance on the submission 
of a risk mitigation plan violates RCRA. Contrary to the commenter's 
view, section 4004(a) does not require the elimination of all risk. 
Rather the provision expressly contemplates the potential for there to 
be some risk, requiring EPA to determine there ``is no reasonable 
probability of adverse effects.'' 42 U.S.C. 6944(a). Or in other words, 
EPA must determine that the facility's solid waste management present 
only reasonable risks, which EPA has long interpreted to be risks 
ranging from 1 x 10-4 and 1 x 10-6. Submission of 
the plan as part of the package for EPA approval will allow the agency 
to ensure that risks at the facility remain within these acceptable 
levels.
    Some groups commented that facilities should not be required to 
submit a risk mitigation plan for approval in their demonstration, 
especially for the surface impoundments closing due to the USWAG 
decision. They believe that eligible unlined CCR surface impoundments 
do not pose a potential risk to human health or the environment and 
should not be required to prepare a plan to mitigate potential risks 
that do not exist. They view this requirement as an unnecessary 
paperwork burden.
    EPA disagrees that the risk mitigation plan is unnecessary, even 
for units closing in response to the USWAG decision. Although it is 
true these units may not be currently leaking, that means only that 
they are not currently causing harm. But that does not mean that they 
do not pose any risk nor that continued operation of the unit 
necessarily meets the section 4004(a) standard. See, 901 F.3d at 427-
430. As the court noted, ``It is inadequate under RCRA for the EPA to 
conclude that a major category of impoundments that the Agency's own 
data show are prone to leak pose `no reasonable probability of adverse 
effects on health or the environment,' 42 U.S.C. 6944(a), simply 
because they do not already leak.'' Id. The risk mitigation plan will 
provide critical information to address the risks of continued 
operation of the unit, prior to the initiation of unit closure. This 
will provide a significant supplement to the Agency's qualitative 
assessment that the risks of continued operation will be outweighed by 
the risk mitigation from the expedited closure of the unit.
    For example, for units that are not leaking the facility could 
begin identification of remedial technologies that would potentially be 
appropriate based on site data, including groundwater chemistry, 
groundwater elevation and flow rates, and the presence of surface water 
features that would influence rate and direction of contamination 
movement in the event of a leak. Gathering this information and 
beginning an assessment of technology options if a leak should occur 
will expedite any corrective action that subsequently becomes 
necessary. The plan could also address any interim measures that the 
facility would take to remediate contamination or to achieve source 
control in the event of a leak, which was one issue that the court 
faulted EPA for failing to adequately consider. By expediting the 
cleanup, EPA will also ensure that facility addresses the risk during 
the expedited closure.
    EPA has concluded that the risk mitigation plan is a necessary 
requirement for this demonstration. Therefore, EPA is finalizing that 
facilities will be required to submit a risk mitigation plan as part of 
their demonstration.
    Risk mitigation plan documentation. EPA proposed that the risk 
mitigation plan explain actions the facility may take to mitigate any 
potential risks to human health or the environment from the CCR surface 
impoundment. EPA also sought comment on whether the owner or operator 
should be required to submit a more in-depth site-specific risk 
assessment of the CCR surface impoundment as part of their plan to 
mitigate the risk from continued operation of the unit.
    EPA received comments from industry groups that they view the 
information requested to be included in the plan redundant of 
information required in other reports and therefore find the risk 
mitigation plan as an unnecessary paperwork burden. They contend that 
all the information requested is already being compiled by the facility 
in other reports, so it is readily available on the publicly accessible 
CCR internet sites and additionally must demonstrate that the facility 
is in compliance with the other parts of the CCR rule. Therefore, the 
commenter finds this requirement redundant. These groups commented 
further stating that if EPA decides to finalize the risk mitigation 
plan, the suggested requirements for the risk mitigation plan are 
sufficient and a more in-depth risk analysis is not necessary.
    EPA also received comments from the National Ground Water 
Association on what should be included in the risk mitigation plan. 
They provided a list of 12 items that they viewed as important to 
include in the plan. EPA found that all of the suggested items from the 
National Ground Water Association were already included in the items 
proposed or in other reports required by the CCR rule.
    EPA disagrees that this plan is merely an unnecessary paperwork 
burden for the reasons discussed previously. Facilities in full 
compliance with all aspects of the regulations that have not initiated 
corrective action can still develop a plan that will expedite the 
implementation of corrective action, in the event it become necessary. 
EPA considers this to provide a substantial complement to the record 
supporting continued operation of the unit.
    In response to the comments, requesting greater specificity about 
what would constitute an adequate submission, the final rule requires 
that the risk mitigation plan include three pieces of information. 
First, a discussion of any physical or chemical measures a facility can 
take to limit any future releases to groundwater during operation. This 
might include stabilization of waste prior to disposition in the 
impoundment or adjusting the pH of the impoundment waters to minimize 
solubility of contaminants. This discussion should take into account 
the potential impacts of these measures on Appendix IV constituents.
    Second, a discussion of the surface impoundment's groundwater 
monitoring data and any found exceedances; the delineation of the plume 
(if necessary based on the groundwater monitoring data); identification 
of any nearby receptors

[[Page 53549]]

that might be exposed, to current or future groundwater contamination; 
and how such exposures could be promptly mitigated.
    And finally, a plan to expedite and maintain the containment of any 
contaminant plume that is either present or identified during continued 
operation of the unit. The purpose of this plan is to demonstrate that 
a plume can be fully contained and to define how this could be 
accomplished in the most accelerated timeframe feasible to prevent 
further spread and eliminate any potential for exposures. This plan 
will be based on relevant site data, which may include groundwater 
chemistry, the variability of local hydrogeology, groundwater elevation 
and flow rates, and the presence of any surface water features that 
would influence rate and direction of contamination movement. For 
example, based on the rate and direction of groundwater flow and 
potential for diffusion of the plume, this plan could identify the 
design and spacing of extraction wells necessary to prevent further 
downgradient migration of contaminated groundwater.
    If additional mitigation measures are necessary to ensure the 
statutory standard is met, EPA will require those as a condition of 
granting the extension. The risk mitigation plan documentation 
requirement is at Sec.  257.103(f)(2)(v)(B).
    Compliance certification and narrative. EPA proposed that the owner 
or operator must certify that it remains in compliance with all other 
requirements of this subpart including corrective action. EPA is 
finalizing the same compliance certification and documentation as that 
in Sec.  257.103(f)(1). The compliance documentation requirement is at 
Sec.  257.103(f)(2)(v)(C). The requirement to remain in compliance with 
subpart D is represented in Sec.  257.103(f)(2)(vi).
    Maximum time to complete closure. EPA proposed that the facility 
must complete closure of the CCR surface impoundment, and the coal-
fired boiler must cease operation no later than October 17, 2023 for 
surface impoundments 40 acres or smaller and October 17, 2028 for 
surface impoundments larger than 40 acres. These are the same deadlines 
as required in Sec.  257.103(b).
    EPA received comments from environmental groups stating that since 
EPA does not establish a set deadline for these units to cease receipt 
of waste and initiate closure the provision is unlawful. Some further 
elaborated that this provision would delay the initiation and 
completion of closure of these units for several years. These 
commenters further stated that developing alternative disposal capacity 
is not as complex as the proposed rule made it seem and believe that it 
is possible for facilities to obtain alternative capacity in a few 
weeks and therefore cease receipt of waste much earlier. The commenters 
additionally stated that EPA did not provide rationale for why this 
provision is protective of human health and the environment.
    Industry groups commented that this provision provides important 
environmental benefits by requiring closure far earlier than would be 
otherwise required. They agree that the expedited closure of these 
units addresses the USWAG court decision by addressing the potential 
risks from unlined CCR surface impoundments during closure. A few 
utility companies commented that the deadlines for closure should not 
depend on the size of the CCR surface impoundment. Rather all CCR 
surface impoundments should be eligible for the October 2028 deadline. 
They also explained that having the size distinction has no 
environmental benefit because it forces facilities to develop new 
disposal capacity. They acknowledged EPA's rationale that smaller 
surface impoundments are able to close faster but contended that 
smaller surface impoundments represent smaller risk. One utility 
company stated that the CCR surface impoundment may be less than 40 
acres, but the site has unique characteristics that makes closure more 
complex and the surface impoundment is of unusual shape causing the 
closure time to be just as long as a larger surface impoundment. 
Another utility company commented that if a facility had multiple 
surface impoundments under 40 acres, they should be able to aggregate 
the acreage of the surface impoundments to qualify for the later 
deadline of 2028. One other utility commented that the deadlines should 
be delayed a few years because the original deadlines were established 
in 2015 for Sec.  257.103(b), therefore there was more time to complete 
closure under the original provision. One other utility commented that 
it is possible that they may be directed to cease their coal fired 
boiler in 2023 or 2024 which would make the alternative closure 
provision unusable for them.
    Several commenters misunderstood EPA's proposal and commented that 
this provision significantly delays closure by allowing facilities to 
operate their CCR surface impoundments until 2028. The proposed 
regulation does not authorize continued operation until 2023 or 2028; 
rather it requires the completion of closure by those dates. These 
represent substantially more expedited time frames to complete closure 
of the unit, and in order to meet those timeframes facilities will need 
to stop receiving waste into the unit much sooner than those dates. In 
order to meet these timeframes, EPA expects that many facilities 
closing pursuant to this provision will need to cease receiving CCR and 
non-CCR wastestreams sooner than they would under the maximum amount of 
time in the site-specific alternative closure provision in Sec.  
257.103(f)(1). Consequently, the overall risk will be lower. As a 
consequence, EPA decided that it was not necessary to specify a 
particular deadline by which facilities must cease receiving waste into 
the unit. As a practical matter the length of time the unit can 
continue to operate will necessarily be limited by the amount of time 
needed to ensure that all closure activities are completed by the 
deadline. Instead the provision provides facilities with the 
flexibility to determine precisely when they will need to stop 
operation in order to achieve expedited closure deadlines.
    EPA is not modifying the proposed closure deadlines to allow the 
extended operation of units 40 acres and smaller. As explained in the 
proposed rule, EPA relied upon a risk-risk tradeoff to support this 
provision. Specifically, EPA acknowledged there could be greater risk 
in the short term because this provision allows a longer period for 
unlined impoundments to operate; however, over the long-term EPA 
estimated that the risks would be lower because the final closure of 
the unit will be expedited. Under the commenters' suggested approaches 
there is nothing against which to balance the risks from the extended 
operation of the unit. The commenters provided no data to support their 
contentions or on which EPA could rely to model the risks associated 
with allowing impoundments less than 40 acres to continue to operate 
for the amount of time they are proposing. EPA proposed multiple 
options for facilities to address the variety of circumstances 
presented by these kinds of sites. Not all of them will be appropriate 
for every site. This provision was designed to address a very specific 
set of circumstances in which a facility knows it will be closing by a 
date certain and as a consequence can expedite its closure of the unit. 
Finally, EPA disagrees that there would be no environmental benefit in 
the provision as structured. There is a significant environmental 
benefit in requiring the expedited closure of unlined surface 
impoundments, and in

[[Page 53550]]

requiring facilities to expedite corrective action. As the record from 
the 2015 rule and the results of the groundwater monitoring data from 
numerous facilities demonstrate, operation of these units presents 
significant risks.
    The commenters did not provide a compelling argument for changing 
the deadlines from the proposal. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the 
deadlines as proposed.
    Maximum Time Documentation. EPA did not receive substantive 
comments on the documentation necessary to demonstrate that the 
deadlines will be met. EPA is finalizing that in the demonstration 
submitted for approval the facility will need to specify and justify 
the date by which they intend to cease receipt of waste into the unit. 
If the amount of time the facility is seeking to operate the unit is 
disproportionate to the amount of time needed for closure of the unit, 
such that it appears unlikely the facility could meet the closure 
deadlines, EPA will deny the request. Additionally, facilities are 
required to amend their closure plan whenever there is a change in the 
operation of the CCR unit that would substantially affect the written 
closure plan or before or after closure actives have commenced as 
required by Sec.  257.102(b)(3). As such, a facility should update 
their closure plan when applying for this extension. The documentation 
requirements for meeting the time requirements are represented Sec.  
257.103(f)(2)(iv)(D)
(b) Annual Closure Progress Reports
    EPA proposed maintaining the annual progress report requirement 
that is currently required under Sec.  257.103(b). EPA proposed that 
the owner or operator must prepare an annual progress report 
documenting the continued lack of alternative capacity and the progress 
towards the closure of the CCR surface impoundment.
    EPA received no substantive comments concerning this requirement in 
the documentation for a site-specific alternative for cessation of 
coal-fired boiler(s).
    EPA concluded from the lack of comments, to finalize the 
requirement. Therefore, owners or operators must prepare and place an 
annual progress report documenting the continued lack of alternative 
capacity and the progress towards the closure of the CCR surface 
impoundment. This progress report must include any delays in the 
anticipated cease receipt of waste date and closure completion date 
that was submitted in the demonstration materials. This requirement is 
found in Sec.  257.103(f)(2)(x) of the regulation.
5. Procedures for Approval and Denial of Alternative Compliance 
Deadlines
    EPA proposed to require that the demonstrations for an alternative 
compliance deadline under Sec.  257.103(f)(1) (``development of 
alternative capacity infeasible'') or under Sec.  257.103(f)(2) 
(``permanent cessation of coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain'') be 
submitted to EPA or the Participating State Director for approval no 
later than two months prior to the facility's deadline to cease 
receiving waste. EPA believed that two months should normally provide 
sufficient time for EPA to evaluate the request and complete its review 
process. Although two months prior to the current deadline is the 
latest date to submit a request, EPA encouraged submissions at the 
earliest point at which the facility knows further time to complete its 
arrangements is needed.
    EPA proposed that upon receiving the demonstration for an 
alternative compliance deadline, EPA or the Participating State 
Director would evaluate the demonstration and could ask for additional 
information to complete its review and/or discuss the demonstration 
with the facility. Submission of a complete demonstration would toll 
the facility's deadline to cease receipt of waste until issuance of a 
final decision. This ensures that a facility that has submitted a 
package in good faith would not be penalized by any inadvertent 
administrative delays. However, EPA proposed that incomplete 
submissions would not toll the facility's deadline.
    EPA proposed that when the owner or operator submits the 
demonstration to EPA or the Participating State Director for approval, 
the owner or operator must prepare and place into the facility's 
operating record and on their publicly accessible CCR internet site a 
notification that the facility has applied for a site-specific 
alternative deadline to cease receipt of waste. EPA would then post a 
proposed decision to grant or deny the request in whole or in part on 
EPA's website for public notice and comment. EPA proposed that the 
public will have 15 days to comment on the proposed decision. If the 
demonstration is particularly complex, EPA would provide a longer 
comment period of 20 to 30 days. EPA proposed that it would evaluate 
the comments, amend its decision if appropriate, and post the final 
decision on the demonstrations on EPA's website. EPA proposed that the 
agency would finalize the decision on the alternative compliance 
deadline no later than 4 months after receiving a complete 
demonstration. If no substantive comments are received on a proposed 
decision, EPA proposed that it would become effective 5 days from the 
close of the comment period. Alternatively, EPA proposed that if a 
facility develops or identifies the necessary alternative capacity 
prior to approval from EPA, then the facility should notify EPA and 
withdraw their demonstration. Lastly, EPA proposed that the facility 
must post an approved or denied demonstration and the alternative 
compliance deadline decision on the facility's publicly accessible CCR 
internet site. EPA sought comment on whether a Participating State 
Director (i.e., a state director with an approved State CCR Permit 
Program) should also have the authority to grant approvals.
    EPA received numerous comments on the time frames in the proposed 
process. Some commenters stated that the proposed demonstration 
deadlines of May 15, 2020 for the cessation of boiler alternative and 
June 30, 2020 for the lack of alternative capacity are unreasonable. 
Specifically, these commenters were concerned that as a final rule will 
not be issued before May 2020 it will be impossible to comply with the 
May 15, 2020 deadline. They further stated that there should be an 
option for submitting the demonstrations for the cessation of boiler 
alternative later and not on a set date. A facility may not know they 
will be shutting down their coal fired boilers until later but will 
still be able to meet the compliance deadlines in the proposed 
provision for that alternative. They further stated that it will take 
facilities three months to successfully compile all the required 
elements for the demonstration. Therefore, the commenters believe that 
EPA needs to factor in this three-month timeframe prior to the deadline 
to submit the demonstrations to EPA (which was proposed to be two 
months prior to the deadline to cease receipt of waste). They 
additionally state that facilities should be able to switch between the 
two alternative deadline extensions. A facility should be able to 
submit an initial demonstration and receive approval for an extension 
under lack of capacity and then at a later date should be able to 
submit a demonstration and switch to a cessation of boiler extension if 
it is shutting down its coal-fired boilers and can achieve the 
deadlines. Additionally, it should be able to switch from a cessation 
of boiler extension to a lack of capacity demonstration if it is no 
longer going to be shutting down their boilers. These commenters also 
stated that the demonstration

[[Page 53551]]

submission deadlines should be flexible enough to allow facilities to 
transition between the extensions provided in Sec.  257.103(f)(1) and 
(f)(2).
    EPA also received comments on the tolling of the deadline to cease 
receipt of waste while the demonstration for an alternative deadline is 
under review. All commenters supported the proposal that tolling of the 
deadline only occurs after a demonstration is determined to be 
complete. However, some commenters requested that EPA revise the 
proposed regulatory text to clearly provide what will constitute a 
complete demonstration to avoid any misunderstandings. Several 
commenters raised concern that, as the proposed regulations were 
drafted, a facility could get a free four-month extension during the 
tolling of the deadline after a complete demonstration is received. 
According to these commenters, a facility could submit a complete 
demonstration despite having the ability to cease receipt of waste and 
continue to operate while it is being reviewed because the 
demonstration completion determination does not depend on showing 
infeasibility.
    Some commenters believe that the proposed review period is overly 
ambitious and requested that EPA clarify that after four months and no 
final determination is made, that the deadline continues to toll for 
the facility.
    EPA also received comments on issues relating to the situations in 
which an extension request is denied by EPA. Some commenters claimed 
that EPA did not discuss what would occur if a facility's request was 
denied. These commenters state that EPA needs to establish a uniform 
timeframe for those facilities whose complete demonstration request is 
denied by EPA to cease receipt of waste and initiate closure. They 
explained that as the deadline for this facility is tolling, it would 
be unreasonable for EPA to expect that the facility can immediately 
cease receipt of waste. They believe that this timeframe should not be 
less than six months as that was the timeframe originally established 
in the CCR rule.
    Industry groups supported the proposal that a Participating State 
Director should have the authority to grant extensions in an approved 
state program.
    Additionally, several groups commented that the public comment 
period on the demonstrations is too short for the public to be able to 
review, evaluate, and provide meaningful input on the decision. These 
commenters also raised concern that EPA fails to define what it 
considers a substantive versus non-substantive comment and makes no 
provision to consider comments received after this 15-day window. These 
commenters claimed that this short period fails to provide 30-day 
notice and does not give interested parties sufficient time to consider 
EPA's decision, or to collect and submit written data, views, or 
arguments, and therefore violates RCRA and the Administrative Procedure 
Act (APA).
    EPA is adopting procedures that largely track the procedures laid 
out in the proposed rule.
(a) Deadline for Submissions
    Demonstrations for an alternative compliance deadline under Sec.  
257.103(f)(1) (development of alternative capacity infeasible) must be 
submitted to EPA for approval no later than November 30, 2020. This 
deadline should provide EPA with sufficient time to review the 
submission and determine whether it is complete prior to the April 11, 
2021 deadline to cease receipt of waste. Moreover, this submission 
deadline is more than adequate for facilities to compile the necessary 
documentation, even assuming the commenters are correct that it would 
take three months to compile all the necessary documents. Although 
November 30, 2020 is the latest date to submit a request, EPA 
encourages submissions at the earliest point at which the facility 
knows further time to complete its arrangements is needed. This 
requirement is found at Sec.  257.103(f)(3)(i)(A).
    An owner or operator that seeks an extension to an approved 
alternative closure deadline must submit a new demonstration to EPA 
within fourteen days of determining that they no longer will meet the 
approved cease receipt of waste deadline. This requirement is found at 
Sec.  257.103(f)(3)(i)(B).
    Requests for additional time to operate a CCR surface impoundment 
under Sec.  257.103(f)(2) (``permanent cessation of coal-fired 
boiler(s) by a date certain'') must be submitted to EPA for approval no 
later than November 30, 2020. EPA has received numerous submissions 
from utilities stating that the decision to shut down a boiler is not 
reached quickly and can require approvals from (or at least 
coordination with) state regulatory officials, among others. EPA, 
therefore, expects that facilities know now (or will decide shortly) 
whether they will seek to rely upon these provisions. This requirement 
is found at Sec.  257.103(f)(3)(i)(C).
    EPA also received comments from Luminant Generating Company LLC 
(EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0098) requesting clarification on whether an 
owner or operator may apply to use both Sec.  257.103(f)(1) and (f)(2) 
at one site for different impoundments based on site-specific 
constraints. The commenter stated this would apply, for example, to a 
facility that has determined it will retire its coal-fired boilers by 
October 17, 2028, but has multiple small impoundments (40 acres or 
less) that would be retrofitted by October 15, 2023, under Sec.  
257.103(f)(1) and one large impoundment (larger than 40 acres) that 
would close by October 17, 2028, under Sec.  257.103(f)(2). If the 
smaller impoundments were subject to the closure deadlines provided 
under Sec.  257.103(f)(2) for cessation of coal fired boilers, the 
ponds would be required to close (not retrofit) by October 17, 2023. 
EPA agrees with the commenter and believes that this situation is 
possible. EPA will allow an owner or operator to apply for both 
alternative deadlines if they can demonstrate that it is necessary. 
This explanation must be incorporated into the narrative required at 
Sec.  257.103(f)(1)(iv)(A). The facility should submit the application 
for each alternative together as one application. EPA strongly 
discourages a facility to submit applications for both Sec.  
257.103(f)(1) and (f)(2) if they do not intend to use both provisions.
    The proposal did not clearly indicate whether a facility that had 
been approved under one extension provision could seek to subsequently 
obtain approval to operate under an alternative extension. EPA agrees 
that if the facility meets the criteria for either extension, there is 
no reason that they should be precluded from seeking to change the 
alternative under which they operate. The procedures for this are 
described in more detail below.
(b) EPA Review and Decision
    Upon receiving the demonstration for an alternative compliance 
deadline, EPA will evaluate the demonstration to determine whether it 
is complete. EPA may request additional, clarifying information to 
complete its review and/or discuss the demonstration with the facility. 
Submission of a demonstration will toll the facility's deadline to 
cease receipt of waste until issuance of one of the decisions described 
below. This ensures that a facility that has submitted a package in 
good faith is not penalized by any inadvertent administrative delays. 
EPA is committed to processing submissions as expeditiously as 
possible.
    Consistent with the proposed rule, submissions that EPA determines 
to be incomplete will be rejected without further process, at which 
point any tolling of the facility's deadline will

[[Page 53552]]

end. (EPA anticipates that the question of tolling for incomplete 
submissions should not generally arise, as the agency anticipates 
making these determinations before April 11, 2021.) No commenter 
disagreed that this was appropriate. As described in more detail below, 
incomplete submissions include both the situation in which the 
submission does not include all of the required material, and the 
situation in which EPA is unable to determine from the submission 
whether the facility or the unit meets the criteria for the extension.
    EPA received several comments on its proposal that submission of a 
complete application would toll a facility's deadline. Some commenters 
raised concern that the review period is overly ambitious and requested 
that EPA clarify that if, after four months, no final determination has 
been made, the deadline would continue to be tolled for the facility. 
These commenters also requested that EPA revise the proposed regulatory 
text to clearly provide what will constitute a complete demonstration 
to avoid any misunderstandings. Other commenters raised concern that as 
a consequence of the decision to toll deadlines during the review 
period, and because, in their view, the proposed process would not weed 
out non-compliant facilities, the four-month time frame effectively 
creates a four-month extension for all facilities.
    EPA agrees that the time frames are ambitious but continues to 
believe that they can be met. As discussed in more detail below, the 
Agency has limited the issues to be resolved during this process, and, 
as requested by commenters, has amended the proposed regulation to 
specify in detail the information needed for a submission to be 
considered complete. Consequently, EPA anticipates it will be able to 
make most decisions without further requests for information. 
Nevertheless, to avoid penalizing a facility that has submitted a 
demonstration in good faith, the final rule provides that the deadline 
to cease receipt of waste will be tolled until the Agency determines 
that the submission is incomplete or reaches a final decision on 
whether the facility meets the criteria for the extension, even if it 
takes longer than four months. EPA disagrees that this will in essence 
grant all submitters a de facto four-month extension. The new deadline 
for submission is over four months in advance of the deadline to cease 
receipt of waste, and EPA anticipates being able to evaluate 
submissions prior to this deadline.
    Once the owner or operator submits the demonstration to EPA for 
approval, the owner or operator must place a copy into the facility's 
operating record and on its publicly accessible CCR internet site. EPA 
will also post who has submitted a demonstration on EPA's website. 
After reviewing the submission, EPA will either post a determination 
that the submission is incomplete on EPA's website or a proposed 
decision to grant or to deny the request in whole or in part on 
www.regulations.gov for public notice and comment.
    Consistent with the proposal, the public will have at least 15 days 
to comment on the proposed decision. If the demonstration is 
particularly complex, EPA would provide a longer comment period of 20 
to 30 days. EPA will evaluate the comments received and amend its 
decision as warranted. EPA will post all decisions on its website, in 
the relevant docket and notify the facility. EPA proposed that 
decisions would become automatically effective 5 days from the close of 
the comment period if EPA received no substantive comments. EPA is not 
finalizing this approach because it would be too difficult to 
implement.
    EPA acknowledges that the public comment periods are short but 
disagrees with the suggestion that they will be too short to be 
meaningful. EPA is requiring facilities to post all submissions on 
their publicly accessible CCR internet site at the same time they 
submit them to EPA. The public can start their review at the same time 
as EPA and begin to gather information and prepare their comments. In 
most cases, the issues to be resolved will be limited largely to 
whether the deadlines proposed to complete all activities are supported 
by the available information, and whether the facility remains in 
compliance with the regulations. EPA disagrees with the proposition 
that a 15- to 30-day comment period violates either section 7004(b) of 
RCRA or the APA. This process is not a rulemaking, but an informal 
adjudication. Such adjudications do not typically include an 
opportunity for public comment and therefore the provision of a 15 to 
30-day comment period meets the mandate in RCRA section 7004(b) to 
promote public participation. Moreover, the APA imposes neither a 
requirement to provide an opportunity for public comment nor any 
minimum time for a comment period for such procedures. Finally, EPA 
notes that the same commenters requesting longer comment periods have 
also raised concern that the process grants facilities too much 
additional time to continue operating. EPA is also interested in not 
granting undue amounts of additional time for facilities to continue 
operating and is expediting all aspects of this process, including the 
comment period.
    EPA will post all final decisions on EPA's website and in the 
appropriate docket. The decision will specify the facility's deadline 
to cease receipt of waste; for example, a decision rejecting a 
submission as incomplete prior to April 11, 2021 will specify that the 
deadline remains April 11, 2021. The facility must post, along with a 
copy of its demonstration, the Agency's final decision on the 
facility's publicly accessible CCR internet site. EPA intends to reach 
a final decision no later than four months after receiving a complete 
demonstration. If at any point in this process, a facility no longer 
needs an extension--e.g., because it has completed construction of 
alternative capacity prior to approval from EPA--the facility must 
notify EPA and withdraw its demonstration.
    Some commenters raised concern that EPA had neglected to propose 
the procedures associated with denial of extension requests and 
requested that EPA elaborate on these procedures in the final rule. EPA 
disagrees that the procedures in the proposed rule apply exclusively to 
situations in which EPA grants the request. While EPA anticipates there 
will be several possible responses to a request for an extension, the 
procedures associated with each are the same procedures that were 
outlined in the proposal.
    One possible outcome is that EPA will grant the requested 
extension. In this case the procedure will follow the process outlined 
in the proposed rule and discussed above. EPA will post a proposed 
decision on www.regulations.gov for at least a 15-day comment period 
and will subsequently publish its final decision on EPA's website and 
in the relevant docket.
    Another potential outcome is that no extension is granted. Some 
commenters requested that if EPA denies a request, the facility be 
granted an additional six months in which to continue receiving waste. 
EPA envisions that the circumstances under which a request is entirely 
denied will be limited and disagrees that it would be appropriate to 
universally grant a further six months in these situations. The most 
likely situation in which an extension is not granted will be where EPA 
rejects the submission as incomplete or determines that one or more of 
the criteria for the extension have not been met. In neither situation 
would authorizing additional time for the facility to operate be 
warranted.
    As explained previously, EPA will reject incomplete submissions 
without

[[Page 53553]]

further process. This could include situations in which EPA cannot 
determine from the submission whether the criteria have been met (e.g., 
the submitted information does not clearly address whether the 
downgradient monitoring system has been installed at the waste boundary 
or whether alternative capacity is available). No commenter disagreed 
that this was appropriate, and EPA continues to believe that in the 
absence of any showing that all regulatory criteria have been met no 
additional time could--and should--be authorized.
    Another possibility is that EPA will propose to deny the 
application on the grounds that one or more of the criteria have not 
been met. For example, EPA may determine that the amount of time that 
the facility requested to complete the construction of the alternative 
capacity is not supported by the record. In this case all of the 
procedures described previously with respect to approvals will apply. 
And in this circumstance the amount of time that will be granted to the 
facility will be determined by the factual record that has been 
developed through this process. Whatever additional amount of time is 
determined to be appropriate based on the factual record before the 
agency at the time--which may be none--will necessarily be more 
appropriate than the commenter's proposed six-month period. For 
example, if a facility requests two additional years of operation and 
EPA determines that the submission only supports one year of continued 
operation, a six-month timeframe would be too short. Similarly, in some 
situations the facts may demonstrate that six months is too long. As 
another example, EPA may determine alternative capacity exists and can 
be feasibly utilized. EPA recognizes that the mere fact that disposal 
capacity exists somewhere does not necessarily constitute feasibility 
for purposes of this analysis. Nevertheless, there may be instances 
where disposal capacity is available off-site and within a reasonable 
distance. In this circumstance, as well, a six-month period of 
continued operation would be equally inappropriate.
    Some commenters raised the argument that because part 257 is self-
implementing and because certain regulatory provisions might be viewed 
as ambiguous, there could be differences in opinion on what constitutes 
compliance. These commenters felt that differences in interpretation 
should be discussed during EPA's review process and corrected as 
warranted as part of a facility's completion of its demonstration.
    EPA is establishing an expedited process to resolve requests for 
continued operation under Sec.  257.103; in order to meet these time 
frames EPA has limited the issues to be resolved in this proceeding. 
Thus, under the two new alternatives in Sec.  257.103, in many cases 
one of the primary issues to be resolved will be whether the facility 
is in compliance with the regulations. Although EPA does not agree that 
the regulations are ambiguous, EPA may be able to engage in a limited 
amount of discussion with a facility before the submission deadline. To 
address concerns raised by commenters that the tolling period would 
grant de facto extensions for all facilities, such discussions would 
need to occur before the deadline for final submission of the request 
to avoid extending the tolling period. In addition, as explained 
previously, documentation that a facility remains in compliance with 
the requirements of subpart D provides critical support for a decision 
to allow continued operation of the unlined impoundment. This means 
that EPA must be able to affirmatively conclude that the facility meets 
this criterion prior to authorizing any continued operation of the 
unlined impoundment. As a consequence, any opportunity to correct the 
demonstration is limited to the period before the deadline for 
submission. Given that the final rule has been published well in 
advance of the deadline to cease receipt of waste, facilities will have 
sufficient time to raise these issues to the Agency in advance of 
submitting their application.
    Finally, note that any determinations made in evaluating compliance 
aspects of submitted demonstrations will be made solely for the purpose 
of determining whether an extension of the deadline to cease receipt of 
waste is warranted. In making these determinations the Agency generally 
expects to consider and rely on the information in a submission, 
information contained in submitted comments to a proposed decision and 
any other information the Agency has at the time of the determination. 
These determinations may not be applicable or relevant in any other 
context. Should the facility's compliance status be considered outside 
of this context in the future, the Agency may reach a contrary 
conclusion based, for example, on new information or information that 
was not considered as part of this process.
(c) Transferring Between Site-Specific Alternatives (Sec.  
257.103(f)(1) and (f)(2))
    In the December 2019 proposal, EPA proposed that a facility could 
not utilize both the short-term extension Sec.  257.103(e) and the 
site-specific longer extensions Sec.  257.103(f). However, in the 
proposal EPA did not discuss whether a facility could switch between 
the site-specific extensions. Several comments discussed this issue 
explaining the importance of being able to switch between the lack of 
alternative capacity extension in Sec.  257.103(f)(1) and the cessation 
of coal-fired boiler(s) in Sec.  257.103(f)(2) and vice versa.
    Several of these commenters stated that it is possible for a 
utility to determine that they will shut down their coal-fired 
boiler(s) after being approved under Sec.  257.103(f)(1) and still be 
able to meet the deadlines under Sec.  257.103(f)(2). They continued on 
to state that were this to happen a facility should be able to 
subsequently make the demonstration and switch extensions. Commenters 
also pointed out that allowing facilities to switch from Sec.  
257.103(f)(1) to Sec.  257.103(f)(2) would expedite the closure of the 
CCR surface impoundment in question and also reduce the overall risk, 
consistent with subtitle D protectiveness standard.
    These commenters additionally stated that the opposite is also 
possible where a facility will learn that they are unable to retire 
their coal-fired boilers and will need to develop alternative capacity. 
As such a facility should be able to make the demonstration and switch 
extensions. Therefore, EPA should provide a process for owners and 
operators to exercise this flexibility.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that a situation may arise where a 
facility needs to change course due to unexpected business decisions 
and that there should be a process for a facility to switch between the 
site-specific alternative closure provisions. Therefore, EPA is adding 
regulations at Sec.  257.103(f)(4) to allow the transfer between site-
specific alternatives. The process of obtaining approval will be the 
same as it would be under the initial application for approval.
6. Conforming Amendments to Sec.  257.103(a), (b), (c) and (d)
    To conform with the new provisions for CCR surface impoundments, 
EPA proposed a series of amendments to the Sec.  257.103 introductory 
paragraph and at Sec.  257.103(a), (b), and (c). Additionally, EPA 
proposed amending Sec.  257.103(a) and (b) to only be applicable to CCR 
landfills.

[[Page 53554]]

(a) Amendments to Sec.  257.103(a) and (b)
    EPA proposed to revise the introductory paragraph to Sec.  257.103 
to add the phrase ``and/or non-CCR wastestreams'' and to add references 
to the proposed new paragraphs (e) and (f) to Sec.  257.103 for the 
short-term alternative and the alternative compliance deadlines 
respectively. EPA also proposed conforming revisions to Sec.  
257.103(a) and (b) to reflect the proposed alternative closure 
deadlines for surface impoundments. The current Sec.  257.103(a) and 
(b) apply to both CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments undergoing 
closure under Sec.  257.101 that need additional time to find 
alternative capacity for only CCR wastestreams. To be consistent with 
the proposals, EPA proposed amending Sec.  257.103(a) and (b) to only 
apply to CCR landfills.
    Consistent with the decisions discussed previously, EPA has decided 
to finalize the proposed conforming amendments to Sec.  257.103(a) and 
(b) so that those provisions only apply to CCR landfills. In addition, 
to address the concerns that proposed revisions to the introductory 
paragraph could be read to authorize all units to receive non-CCR 
wastestreams, EPA is revising the introductory paragraph to Sec.  
257.103 to provide that the owner or operator may continue to receive 
the waste specified in paragraphs (a), (b) or (f). Additionally, the 
references to Sec.  257.101(a) and (b)(1) are being removed from Sec.  
257.103(a) and (b), as those sections apply only to CCR surface 
impoundments. EPA is also revising the term ``CCR unit'' to ``CCR 
landfill'' to ensure clarity that Sec.  257.103(a) and (b) apply only 
to CCR landfills.
(b) Amendments to Sec.  257.103(c) and (d)
    In the December 2, 2019 proposal, EPA proposed to amend Sec.  
257.103(c) to make conforming changes to the notification requirements. 
When EPA amended the cease receipt of waste date in the July 2018 rule 
in Sec.  257.101(a) and (b)(1), EPA neglected to make the conforming 
changes to the notification requirements in Sec.  257.103(c). EPA 
proposed to amend Sec.  257.103(c)(1) by adding new paragraphs (i) 
through (iii) for CCR units closing pursuant to Sec.  257.101(a), 
(b)(1), and (d), respectively. Each respective subparagraph then 
requires the owner or operator to prepare the notification no later 
than the cease receipt of waste date according to Sec.  257.101(a), 
(b)(1), and (d). The current text of Sec.  257.103(c)(1) requires the 
owner or operator to prepare a notification within six months of 
becoming subject to closure pursuant to Sec.  257.101(a), (b)(1), or 
(d). In light of the USWAG decision and the revisions adopted in this 
rule, this language no longer makes sense.
    EPA received very few comments related to this section. Most 
comments stated generic support or disagreement for amending Sec.  
257.103(a) and (b) to only apply to landfills. There were no specific 
comments on the proposed modifications to the regulatory text in Sec.  
257.103(c).
    In the December 2, 2019 proposal EPA did not make the correct 
conforming changes to Sec.  257.103(c). EPA did not need to add the new 
notification deadlines for the units closing pursuant to Sec.  
257.101(a) and (b)(1) because of the restructuring of Sec.  257.103(a) 
and (b). As Sec.  257.103(a) and (b) will now only apply to CCR 
landfills, Sec.  257.103(c) only needs to contain the notification date 
associated with CCR landfills closing pursuant to Sec.  257.101(d). 
Therefore, EPA will not be finalizing the proposed amendments to Sec.  
257.103(c)(1) by adding new paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii). Rather, 
EPA is amending the regulatory text of Sec.  257.103(c)(1) by removing 
the citations for Sec.  257.101(a) and (b)(1). This amendment to the 
regulatory text clarifies the notification requirements for Sec.  
257.103(a) and (b). Additionally, EPA is replacing the term ``CCR 
unit'' with ``CCR landfill'' throughout Sec.  257.103(c) to add clarity 
that the provision only applies to CCR landfills. This change is 
represented in Sec.  257.103(c).
    EPA is also replacing the term ``CCR unit'' with ``CCR landfill'' 
in Sec.  257.103(d). EPA did not propose this amendment however EPA 
believes it adds further clarity to the regulation. This change is 
represented in Sec.  257.103(d).

VI. What final action is EPA taking on the August 14, 2019 proposal?

A. Revisions to the Annual Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action 
Report Requirements

    Currently, Sec.  257.90(e) requires owners and operators of CCR 
units to prepare an annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action 
report (``annual report''). This annual report must document the status 
of the groundwater monitoring and corrective action program for the CCR 
unit, summarize key actions completed, describe any problems 
encountered, discuss actions to resolve the problems, and project key 
activities for the upcoming year. The CCR regulations also specify the 
minimum information that must be included in the annual report. For 
example, one of the current requirements is to provide all the 
monitoring data obtained under the groundwater monitoring and 
corrective action program for the year covered by the report. The CCR 
regulations further require the owner or operator to include a data 
summary in the report with information such as the number of 
groundwater samples that were collected for analysis for each 
background and downgradient well, the dates the samples were collected, 
and whether the samples were required by the detection monitoring or 
assessment monitoring programs. See, Sec.  257.90(e)(3). Except for 
certain inactive CCR surface impoundments, owners and operators must 
prepare the initial annual report no later than January 31, 2018 and 
post the report to its publicly accessible CCR internet site within 30 
days of preparing the report. See, Sec. Sec.  257.90(e) and 257.107(d). 
For eligible inactive CCR surface impoundments,\40\ the deadline to 
prepare the initial annual report is August 1, 2019. See, Sec.  
257.100(e)(5)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ For more information on eligible inactive CCR surface 
impoundments, see the preamble to the direct final rule published on 
August 5, 2016 (81 FR 51802).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency reviewed the annual reports available on facilities' 
publicly accessible CCR internet sites that were due by January 31, 
2018 and January 31, 2019 and observed that some facilities did not 
provide groundwater monitoring data in formats that were clear and easy 
for the public to understand. EPA found instances where it was 
difficult to determine whether the analytical results corresponded to 
background or downgradient wells, whether the CCR unit was operating 
under the detection or assessment monitoring program, when the 
assessment monitoring program was initiated for the CCR unit, or 
whether the facility had initiated corrective action for the unit. In 
addition, several facilities only provided hundreds or thousands of 
pages of laboratory printouts of the data, making it difficult for the 
public and other stakeholders to put the results into context within 
the overall groundwater monitoring program.
    The purpose of requiring posting of the annual reports is to allow 
the public, states and EPA to easily see and understand the groundwater 
monitoring data. To accomplish this purpose, the Agency is finalizing 
one revision to the annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action 
reporting requirements and providing more explanation of another 
revision included in the preamble of the August 2019 proposed rule. See 
84 FR 40365-40366.

[[Page 53555]]

    First, EPA is amending Sec.  257.90 by adding new paragraph (e)(6) 
requiring a summary to be included at the beginning of the annual 
report. EPA received many comments on this proposal, most of which were 
supportive of the addition of the proposed provisions at Sec.  
257.90(e)(6).
    Environmental groups and most private citizens who commented 
supported the inclusion of an upfront summary because a summary would 
be helpful for the public to understand the reports. They also said the 
summaries should include and not misrepresent or gloss over the 
conclusions based on the data. Specifically Earthjustice et al. 
commented that proper oversight and enforcement of the CCR regulations 
can only happen if owners and operators include a clear summary of the 
status of groundwater monitoring and corrective action, each 
statistically significant increase (SSI) over background levels (for 
Appendix III constituents) or groundwater protection standards (for 
Appendix IV constituents). They further commented that the report 
should include the dates when assessment monitoring was initiated, when 
an assessment of corrective measures was initiated, when an assessment 
of corrective measures was completed, and when a remedy was selected, 
where applicable. Earthjustice et al. also commented that clear 
summaries of all groundwater monitoring data are necessary, not just 
the data associated with an SSI.
    Multiple states commented on this issue. The Alabama Department of 
Environmental Management commented that the report should include 
whether a facility began or ended the reporting cycle in detection or 
assessment monitoring (as well as provide the dates for the 
transition), and specify if and when a facility has moved to the 
corrective action stage of the groundwater monitoring program. The 
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality also supported the minimum 
set of requirements included in the proposal.
    Many industry stakeholder and electric utility commenters supported 
the inclusion of an upfront summary setting forth certain information 
to help readers understand the data contained in the report and to 
provide more specificity and transparency as to what the report 
contains. Some industry group commenters did not support repeating 
information in the annual reports that is already required by the 
groundwater sampling and analysis plan at Sec.  257.93. Some industry 
commenters wanted clarification that these requirements would not apply 
retroactively to past annual reports.
    In light of these comments, the Agency is finalizing the new 
requirements at Sec.  257.90(e)(6). This new provision establishes a 
minimum set of requirements to be addressed in the summary discussion 
of the status of the groundwater monitoring and corrective action 
programs for the CCR unit at the beginning of the annual report (e.g., 
as part of the report's executive summary). The minimum requirements 
for this summary include stating whether the CCR unit was operating 
pursuant to the detection monitoring program under Sec.  257.94 or the 
assessment monitoring program under Sec.  257.95; identifying those 
constituents and the corresponding wells, if any, for which the 
facility had determined that there is a statistically significant 
increase over background levels for constituents listed in Appendix III 
(or if operating under the assessment monitoring program, constituents 
in Appendix IV that were detected at statistically significant levels 
above the groundwater protection standard); the date when the 
assessment monitoring program was initiated for the CCR unit; and a 
description and the dates of any corrective measures initiated or 
completed, including the remedy, during the annual reporting period. 
These requirements will only apply to future annual reports, starting 
with the next report completed after the effective date of this final 
rule. EPA believes the elements finalized are sufficient to give a 
snapshot of the groundwater monitoring and corrective action activities 
in the previous year but are not repetitive with other rule 
requirements.
    Second, the Agency solicited comment on whether to amend Sec.  
257.90 to require the groundwater monitoring analytical results and 
related information to be presented in a standardized format, such as 
multiple tables, in the annual report. Possible examples of standard 
formats are available for review in the docket of the August 2019 
proposal.\41\ The Agency also requested comment on formats that could 
be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See EPA memorandum titled ``Annual Groundwater Monitoring 
Report Data Examples''; dated July 1, 2019. (EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0524-
0013)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information about the groundwater wells was proposed to include the 
following data elements: Well identification number, sampling date, 
latitude and longitude in decimal degrees, groundwater elevation 
including well depth to groundwater and total depth of groundwater, and 
whether the groundwater well is upgradient or downgradient of the CCR 
unit. This information is already collected and reported in the 
groundwater sampling and analysis plan under Sec.  257.93 and so the 
information is readily available to the facility.
    Sample information was proposed to be provided in a table that 
contains fields including sampling date, sampling time, sampling phase 
(i.e., background, detection monitoring, assessment monitoring, 
corrective action), whether the groundwater well is upgradient or 
downgradient of the CCR unit, and analytical methods listed separately 
for every method used to analyze the constituent concentrations. Data 
for Appendix III to part 257--Constituents for Detection Monitoring was 
proposed to contain concentrations in milligrams per liter (unless 
otherwise specified) of the following: Boron, calcium, chloride, 
fluoride, pH (standard units), sulfate, and total dissolved solids 
(TDS). Data for Appendix IV to part 257--Constituents for Assessment 
Monitoring was proposed to contain concentrations in milligrams per 
liter (unless otherwise specified) of the following: Antimony, arsenic, 
barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, lithium, mercury, 
molybdenum, radium 226-228 combined (pCi/L), selenium, and thallium. It 
was proposed that each constituent concentration identify the detection 
limit for the analytical method used with data qualifiers specified for 
non-detect samples.
    EPA believed that a required standardized format would increase 
transparency and enable the general public, as well as Federal, state, 
and local officials, to more easily understand the groundwater 
monitoring data and thus plan for and evaluate the appropriate next 
steps to protect public health and the environment.
    The Agency received many comments on the groundwater monitoring 
data standardized format. In general, environmental organizations and 
citizens supported the inclusion of data in a standardized format for 
ease of understanding and for the reasons included in the proposal. 
Many commenters requested the data to be presented in a machine-
readable and preferably spreadsheet format. Some commenters, including 
Earthjustice, said EPA should require elements beyond those included in 
the proposal to satisfy the RCRA section 4004 protectiveness standard, 
and include the location of the groundwater well, groundwater 
elevation, and whether each well is upgradient, downgradient, 
sidegradient, or something else. These

[[Page 53556]]

comments also said that access to the full data set should be included 
without having to wade through thousands of pages of laboratory reports 
to provide the public, state and Federal agencies with an opportunity 
to independently evaluate the data. Some commenters recommended that a 
summary of historical detections would also be helpful, especially if 
groundwater protection standards are established based on background 
concentrations at a given site.
    While state commenters were generally supportive of requiring 
groundwater monitoring analytical results in a standardized format, the 
Agency received comment from only two states on this issue. Alabama 
Department of Environmental Management supported the requirement that 
groundwater analytical results for each sampling event be summarized, 
preferably in tabular format, for ease of the reader. The state found 
it has been extremely difficult, even for a trained individual, to 
review groundwater monitoring reports given the complex nature of the 
sites and the magnitude of data being presented. The state recommended 
a summary of historical detections would also be helpful, especially if 
groundwater protection standards are established based on background 
concentrations at a given site. The Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality (VDEQ) generally supported the inclusion of a 
minimum set of requirements in a summary of the groundwater monitoring 
and corrective action programs. However, VDEQ stated that the 
standardized format and elements should only be a minimum standard so 
that states may require additional elements or information in state 
reporting without requiring separate reports to be generated.
    Overall, industry commenters did not support the addition of 
standardized formats for groundwater monitoring data and analytical 
results. Industry commenters did support EPA's desire to make 
information decipherable to the public but believe the regulations 
should maintain flexibility for states and for facilities to determine 
how best to present the data. Some said a standardized format could be 
problematic in that certain facilities may not be able to display site-
specific well networks sufficiently to meet the requirements of the CCR 
regulations. Other industry commenters said EPA should not require 
additional information beyond what is currently required by Sec.  
257.90(e) for the annual reports. Many industry commenters expressed 
concern about requiring information about groundwater wells including 
latitude and longitude of the wells in decimal degrees. These 
commenters said such information poses a security concern for the 
facility. They believe that providing a map of the monitoring wells is 
sufficient to be in compliance with the CCR regulations.
    After considering the comments, EPA is not finalizing a requirement 
for owners and operators of CCR units to present groundwater monitoring 
analytical results in a standardized format. EPA is not convinced that 
such a requirement is necessary to serve the purposes of ensuring 
greater transparency. The Agency is also concerned about prescribing a 
standardized format which may not be consistent with existing state 
reporting requirements, especially given that only two states provided 
comments on this issue. The new requirement for a summary will ensure 
that the critical information is presented up front in the report, 
where it can be readily accessed by the public. EPA believes the 
current groundwater monitoring requirements of Sec.  257.90 are 
sufficient as a minimum set of criteria to show the groundwater 
monitoring activities of the previous year. EPA also agrees with the 
commenters that allowing states the flexibility in requiring certain 
data elements and formats because of the use of certain software or 
what is required by the state regulations for consistency is important. 
Additionally, EPA is maintaining flexibility for facilities to report 
groundwater monitoring data in ways that are publicly accessible for 
all stakeholders. If, however, it becomes clear that the summaries are 
insufficient to ensure that the annual reports provide the public with 
useful information EPA will revisit this issue.
    In this regard, it should be noted, however, that the annual 
reports should not only contain thousands of pages of groundwater 
monitoring data directly from the laboratory. Many commenters said this 
data is difficult to sift through, even for trained environmental 
specialists. That format is not easy to understand for the public, 
either. Data should be presented in a way that clearly communicates the 
required information to the general public in order to ensure proper 
oversight and enforcement of the CCR regulations by the public, states, 
and Federal agencies. The data could be presented in a tabular format, 
include historical detections, or include elements in the proposal that 
are not being finalized in this action.

B. Revisions to the Publicly Accessible CCR Internet Site Requirements

    In the 2015 CCR rule, pursuant to RCRA section 7004(b)(2), the 
Agency promulgated a requirement for owners and operators of any CCR 
unit to establish and maintain a publicly accessible internet site, 
titled ``CCR Rule Compliance Data and Information.'' Section 7004(b)(3) 
directs EPA to provide for, encourage, and assist ``[p]ublic 
participation in the development, revision, implementation, and 
enforcement of any regulation, guideline, information, or program under 
this chapter.'' To achieve these ends, internet postings are required 
for various elements identified in the following sections of the CCR 
regulations: Location restrictions; design criteria; operating 
criteria; groundwater monitoring and corrective action; and closure and 
post closure care. Consistent with the statutory directive, the 
websites are important to make the notices and relevant information 
required by the regulations available to the public in a manner that 
will encourage and assist public participation in the implementation of 
the regulations. This means, for example, that the posted documents 
must be clearly identifiable as documents, reports, demonstrations, 
etc., to those attempting to access them. The internet is a widely 
accessible and effective means for gathering and disseminating 
information to the public and the states.
    EPA has observed that some of the publicly accessible internet 
sites that owners and operators of CCR facilities have established in 
response to the CCR regulations, fail to make the posted documents 
publicly accessible. For example, a number of publicly accessible CCR 
internet sites require either some sort of registration whereby 
personal information identifying the user must be provided before 
members of the public are granted ``access'' to the website. Other 
websites require a user to submit a request for each document 
individually and the requested document is subsequently emailed to the 
user. Still other websites have been designed such that the posted 
documents cannot be downloaded or printed from the website. EPA does 
not consider these kinds of practices to be consistent with the 
requirement that the information be made publicly available. EPA 
acknowledges that the current regulation does not define the term 
``publicly available,'' or contain detailed requirements that such 
websites must meet, nor are the practices described above explicitly 
prohibited. To avoid

[[Page 53557]]

any further confusion, EPA proposed to amend the current regulation to 
clearly specify that facilities must ensure that all information 
required to be on the websites must be made available to any member of 
the public, including through printing and downloading, without any 
requirement that the public wait to be ``approved'', or provide 
information in order to access the website.
    States, industry and environmental groups submitted comments that 
agreed with this proposal. Specifically, the states of Alabama and 
Virginia commented that they agreed with this proposed requirement. 
Earthjustice, Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Incorporated, the 
American Public Power Association, Labadie Environmental Organization, 
Sierra Club and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Fund also 
submitted comments stating that they agreed with the proposed 
requirement to make information and documents on the publicly 
accessible CCR internet site immediately accessible (including 
downloading and printing). One commenter said that EPA should not 
completely prohibit registration features on CCR websites because those 
features can alert the companies that users are having trouble 
accessing the data and allows the facility to contact those individuals 
to assist them. The Agency believes that requiring some sort of 
mechanism for users to contact the facility if there are issues with 
accessing the information on the site is a more effective mechanism to 
address those types of problems. Another company commented that EPA 
should not view these security approaches as inappropriately limiting 
access to utilities' publicly available CCR sites, as they are needed 
to protect the security interests of the utilities. This commenter did 
not provide details on how or why these practices are needed to address 
security concerns. In the absence of any explanation of the commenter's 
concerns and given that the vast majority of publicly accessible CCR 
internet sites do not require registration or permission to access the 
information, EPA does not believe this is enough justification to limit 
or restrict access to the information. Therefore, EPA is finalizing 
this revision to the regulations as proposed.
    Another issue EPA has noticed is that the internet addresses for 
many of the publicly accessible CCR internet sites have changed; for 
some sites, more than once. It is very difficult for the public, 
states, and EPA to access the information required to be posted on 
these websites if the URLs change without notice. In response, the 
Agency proposed to amend the regulations to require that facilities 
notify EPA within 14 days of changing their publicly accessible CCR 
internet site address, to allow EPA to update the Agency's website with 
the correct URL address. Commenters generally agreed with this 
requirement and one commenter suggested that facilities also notify the 
state director when the URL for the facility's website changes. EPA 
agrees with this suggestion and is finalizing the requirement that when 
a facility changes the URL for its publicly accessible CCR internet 
site, they must notify EPA and the state director within 14 days of the 
new website address.
    Another issue EPA has noted is that when there is a question or 
problem with a publicly accessible CCR internet site, such as a broken 
link or a document that will not download, it can be difficult to reach 
the appropriate contact at the facility in order to gain access to the 
information. Therefore, the Agency requested comment on whether each 
publicly accessible CCR internet site should be required to have a 
mechanism (e.g., a ``contact us'' electronic form on the CCR website) 
for the public to contact the facility about issues of information 
accessibility. Commenters generally agreed with the idea of having some 
way for the public to easily contact the correct person to report 
problems with the website. One commenter said that EPA should require 
owners and operators to post a contact email address rather than a 
contact form. Several commenters suggested that the specific mechanism 
for the public to bring issues of information accessibility to the 
facility should be left up to the facility. EPA agrees that some sort 
of ``contact us'' mechanism is warranted; for example this could 
include either a ``contact us'' form much like the one EPA uses on the 
EPA CCR website or an email address for a specific contact at the 
facility who can address issues related to the accessibility on the 
website. The Agency is adding this requirement to the regulations in 
Sec.  257.107(a).
    One commenter also mentioned that even though Sec.  257.107(c) 
requires that the information posted to the website must be made 
available to the public for at least five years, some documents are 
being removed from the websites after they are posted. EPA would like 
to reiterate that the regulations require that posted documents remain 
on the websites for at least five years. Section 257.107(c). If the 
documents are revised or updated, the original documents must still 
remain on the website. The same requirement exists if a unit is closed 
or consolidated with another unit; the original documents that were 
required for that unit must remain on the website for at least five 
years.

VII. Rationale for 30-Day Effective Date

    The effective date of this rule is 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that 
publication of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days 
before its effective date and that this provision applies in the 
absence of a specific statutory provision establishing an effective 
date. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d) and 559. EPA has determined there is no 
specific provision of RCRA addressing the effective date of regulations 
that would apply here, and thus the APA's 30-day effective date 
applies.
    EPA has previously interpreted section 4004(c) of RCRA to generally 
establish a six-month effective date for rules issued under subtitle D. 
See 80 FR 37988, 37990 (July 2, 2015). After further consideration, EPA 
interprets section 4004(c) to establish an effective date solely for 
the regulations that were required to be promulgated under subsection 
(a). Section 4004(c) is silent as to subsequent revisions to those 
regulations; EPA therefore believes section 4004(c) is ambiguous.
    Section 4004(c) states that the prohibition in subsection (b) shall 
take effect six months after promulgation of regulations under 
subsection (a). Subsection (a), in turn provides that ``[n]ot later 
than one year after October 21, 1976 . . . [EPA] shall promulgate 
regulations containing criteria for determining which facilities shall 
be classified as sanitary landfills and which shall be classified as 
open dumps within the meaning of this chapter.'' As noted, section 
4004(c) is silent as to revisions to those regulations.
    In response to Congress's mandate in section 4004(a), EPA 
promulgated regulations on September 13, 1979. 44 FR 53438. EPA 
interprets section 4004(c) to establish an effective date applicable 
only to that action, and not to future regulations the Agency might 
issue under this section. In the absence of a specific statutory 
provision establishing an effective date for this rule, APA section 
553(d) applies.
    EPA considers that its interpretation is reasonable because there 
is no indication in RCRA or its legislative history that Congress 
intended for the agency to have less discretion under RCRA subtitle D 
than it would have under the APA to establish a suitable effective date 
for subsequent rules issued under section 4004(c). Consistent with 
EPA's interpretation of the express

[[Page 53558]]

language of section 4004, EPA interprets statements in the legislative 
history, explaining that section 4004(c) provides that the effective 
date is to be 6 months after the date of promulgation of regulations, 
as referring to the initial set of regulations required by Congress to 
be promulgated not later than 1 year after October 21, 1976. These 
statements do not mandate a 6 month effective date for every regulatory 
action that EPA takes under this section. This rule contains specific, 
targeted revisions to the 2015 rule and the legislative history 
regarding section 4004 speaks only to these initial 1976 mandated 
regulations.
    This reading allows the Agency to establish an effective date 
appropriate for the nature of the regulation promulgated, which is what 
EPA believes Congress intended. EPA further considers that the minimum 
30-day effective date under the APA is reasonable in this circumstance 
where none of the provisions being finalized require an extended period 
of time for regulated entities to comply.

VIII. State CCR Programs

A. Effect on This Final Rule on States With Approved CCR Programs

    This final rule has impacts on states with an approved program. The 
effects depend on whether the state has received approval for the 
provisions that have been amended in this rule. As of this final rule, 
EPA has granted approvals to the states of Oklahoma and Georgia.
    On June 28, 2018, EPA granted Oklahoma full program approval. 
However, on April 15, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia vacated part of that approval. Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. v. 
Wheeler, No. 18-02230, 2020 WL 1873564 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 2020). 
Specifically, the court vacated those portions of the Oklahoma program 
approval that mirrored those portions of the federal program that had 
been vacated by the D.C. Circuit in USWAG--i.e., the provisions that 
allowed unlined impoundments to continue to operate until they leak; 
the provisions that treated ``clay-lined'' units as lined units; and 
the provisions that excluded legacy units. As a consequence, the 
federal requirements that correspond to those provisions will now apply 
in Oklahoma. Two of these provisions have been revised in this 
rulemaking, and those revisions will take effect in Oklahoma because 
these federal requirements continue to operate. These are the revisions 
to 40 CFR 257.101(a) and section 257.71(a)(1)(i).
    However, Oklahoma was granted approval for Sec.  257.103, and their 
regulations continue to operate without change in lieu of the federal 
program. In essence this means that the revisions promulgated in this 
rule making will not take effect in Oklahoma until such time as 
Oklahoma revises the program to adopt them. However, Oklahoma must 
revise its CCR regulations within three years of any revisions to the 
federal regulations that are more stringent, in order to maintain their 
program approval. See, RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(D)(i)(II). EPA 
determined that parts of the amendments to Sec.  257.103 are more 
stringent than the previous regulations. The modifications that allow 
the continued disposal of non-CCR wastestreams are arguably less 
stringent; however, the maximum amount of time allowed under the new 
provisions in Sec.  257.103 is less than that allowed under the 
previous regulations and therefore these revisions are considered to be 
more stringent.
    The same is true with respect to the amendments to the annual 
groundwater monitoring and corrective action report and to the publicly 
accessible CCR internet sites requirements in Sec. Sec.  257.90 and 
257.107. EPA considers these revisions to be more stringent because 
they impose new substantive requirements. However, because the state 
provisions that correspond to these federal requirements have been 
approved the federal revisions will not take effect unless the state 
adopts the revisions.
    To maintain their program approval, Oklahoma will have to update 
its state CCR regulations and submit the modified portions for EPA 
approval. The process for approving Oklahoma's modifications is the 
same as for the initial program approval: EPA will propose to approve 
or deny the program modification and hold a public hearing during the 
comment period. EPA will then issue the final program determination 
within 180 days of determining that the state's submission is complete.
    Similarly, Georgia did not apply for approval of four provisions in 
their permit program; as a consequence, the federal requirements that 
correspond to those four provisions continue to apply in Georgia. Two 
of these four provisions have been revised in this rulemaking, and 
those revisions will take effect in Georgia because these federal 
requirements continue to operate. These are the revisions to Sec. Sec.  
257.101(a) and 257.71(a)(1)(i). For the same reason, the state is not 
required to modify these parts of their program within the three years 
in order to maintain program approval. However, Georgia was granted 
approval for Sec. Sec.  257.90, 257.103, 257.107, and because the state 
regulations operate in lieu of the federal regulations the revisions 
made to these provisions in this rule will not take effect in Georgia 
unless the state amends its regulations to adopt them.
    As discussed above, because the amended provisions are more 
stringent than the previous regulations, Georgia will need to amend its 
regulations to incorporate the new timeframes within three years of the 
effective date of this final rule and submit a program modification to 
EPA for approval.

IX. Economic Impacts of This Action

A. Introduction

    EPA estimated the costs and benefits of this action in a Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (RIA), which is available in the docket for this 
action. The RIA estimates the incremental costs and cost savings 
attributable to the provisions of this action against the baseline 
costs and practices in place as a result of the 2015 CCR final rule, 
and the 2018 CCR Phase One final rule.
    EPA updated the 2015 CCR final rule baseline to account for the 
2018 Phase One final rule and also to account for two developments. 
These are the availability of publicly accessible universe data and the 
effect of the 2018 court decisions. These updates increase the baseline 
costs estimated for the CCR program against which the RIA estimates the 
incremental effects of this final rulemaking action.
    The RIA estimates that the net annualized impact of this final 
regulation will be annual cost savings of $26.1 million at 7 percent or 
an estimated annualized net cost savings of $16.7 million per year when 
discounting at 3 percent. This action is not considered an economically 
significant action under Executive Order 12866.

B. Affected Universe

    This final rulemaking action affects coal fired electric utility 
plants (assigned to the utility sector North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code 22). The rule is estimated to 
potentially impact 523 surface impoundments at 229 facilities.

C. Costs, Cost Savings, and Benefits of the Final Rule

    The costs attributable to this final rule arise from the reporting 
and documentation that must be completed by regulated entities and 
submitted to EPA in order to qualify for some of the closure deadline 
extension provisions of

[[Page 53559]]

the rule as well as other reporting requirements related to the annual 
groundwater monitoring and corrective action reports, publicly 
accessible CCR internet sites, and the closure of CCR units. These 
costs are estimated to amount to an annualized $0.2 million per year 
when discounting at 7 percent and an annualized $0.02 million per year 
when discounting at 3 percent.
    The cost savings attributable to this final rule include cost 
savings from extending the deadlines by which units must cease 
receiving waste and initiate closure. Cost savings also follow from the 
avoided cost of new unit construction for CCR units associated with 
qualified coal fired boilers which are closing by 2023 or 2028. 
Overall, the final rule is expected to result in net cost savings of an 
annualized $26.1 million when discounting at 7 percent or an estimated 
annualized net cost savings of $16.7 million per year when discounting 
at 3 percent.
    The RIA accompanying the 2015 CCR Rule monetized 11 categories of 
benefits attributable to the national minimum criteria. EPA expects to 
retain the vast majority of these monetized benefits under the 
provisions of the Part A rule. Some benefit categories, such as reduced 
future CCR impoundment releases, are unaffected by the provisions of 
the Part A rule. Other benefit categories, such as reduced groundwater 
contamination and other human health and environmental benefits should 
be largely retained because EPA is requiring units that take advantage 
of the alternative closure provisions in Sec.  257.103(f)(1) and Sec.  
257.103(f)(2) to certify to EPA that they are in full compliance with 
the 2015 CCR rule. Units unable to make this certification must instead 
close by the earliest possible date, which EPA identifies as April 11, 
2021. A discussion of the impact to each category of monetized benefits 
is available in Section 3.4 of the Part A RIA.

X. Statutory and Executive Order (E.O.) Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it raises 
novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an 
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 
action. This analysis is available in the docket and is summarized in 
section IX of this preamble.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 
action. Details on the estimated costs of this final rule can be found 
in EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with 
this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that 
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1189.32. You can find a 
copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here.
    The information to be collected as a part of this rule includes 
demonstrations that must be made to EPA by owners and operators of 
units that seek to obtain a Sec.  257.103(f)(1) extension. These 
demonstrations will show that the unit in question meets the necessary 
criteria to receive the extension. Units that operate under this 
extension will also be required to publish semi-annual progress reports 
on their publicly accessible CCR internet sites to keep EPA and the 
public appraised of their progress and any operational changes at the 
facility. Similarly, units that seek to obtain a Sec.  257.103(f)(2) 
extension must demonstrate to EPA that they meet the necessary criteria 
to receive the extension. The criteria are generally the same as the 
criteria for Sec.  257.103(f)(1) with the addition of a risk mitigation 
plan. Units that obtain an extension under Sec.  257.103(f)(2) must 
publish annual progress reports on their publicly accessible CCR 
internet sites.
    Information to be collected also include the addition of a summary 
at the beginning of the required annual groundwater monitoring and 
corrective action reports. These summaries will make the information in 
the reports more easily accessible to the public.
    EPA is also revising the requirements for publicly accessible CCR 
internet sites to ensure that all information required to be on the 
websites be made available to any member of the public in multiple 
formats, in a timely way, and not requiring any information be 
submitted in exchange for access.
    Respondents/affected entities: Coal-fired electric utility plants 
that will be affected by the rule.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: The recordkeeping, 
notification, and posting are mandatory as part of the minimum national 
criteria being promulgated under Sections 1008, 4004, and 4005(a) of 
RCRA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 299.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of response varies.
    Total estimated burden: EPA estimates the total annual burden to 
respondents to be an increase in burden of approximately 9,820 hours 
from the currently approved burden. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $722,000 (per year), includes $0 annualized 
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, EPA believes that the impact of concern is 
any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, and that an 
agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves 
regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The rule is 
estimated to potentially impact 77 facilities that are considered 
small.
    This action is expected to result in net cost savings of an 
annualized $26.1 million per year. These cost savings will accrue to 
all regulated entities. We have therefore concluded that this action 
will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small 
entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million 
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

[[Page 53560]]

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. For the ``Final Rule: Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric 
Utilities'' published April 17, 2015 (80 FR 21302), EPA identified 
three of the 414 coal-fired electric utility plants (in operation as of 
2012) as being located on tribal lands. However, this action does not 
impose substantial direct compliance costs or otherwise have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, to the best of 
EPA's knowledge. Neither will it have substantial direct effects on the 
relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risk and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
the document titled ``Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal 
Combustion Residuals,'' which is available in the docket for the final 
rule as docket item EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-11993.
    As ordered by E.O. 13045 Section 1-101(a), for the ``Final Rule: 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal 
Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities'' published April 17, 2015 
(80 FR 21302), EPA identified and assessed environmental health risks 
and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children in the 
revised risk assessment. The results of the screening assessment found 
that risks fell below the criteria when wetting and run-on/runoff 
controls required by the rule are considered. Under the full 
probabilistic analysis, composite liners required by the rule for new 
waste management units showed the ability to reduce the 90th percentile 
child cancer and non-cancer risks for the groundwater to drinking water 
pathway to well below EPA's criteria. Additionally, the groundwater 
monitoring and corrective action required by the rule reduced risks 
from current waste management units. This action does not adversely 
affect these requirements and EPA believes that this rule will be 
protective of children's health.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution or use of energy. For the 2015 CCR rule, EPA analyzed the 
potential impact on electricity prices relative to the ``in excess of 
one percent'' threshold. Using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), EPA 
concluded that the 2015 CCR Rule may increase the weighted average 
nationwide wholesale price of electricity between 0.18 percent and 0.19 
percent in the years 2020 and 2030, respectively. As the proposed rule 
represents a cost savings rule relative to the 2015 CCR rule, this 
analysis concludes that any potential impact on wholesale electricity 
prices will be lower than the potential impact estimated of the 2015 
CCR rule; therefore, this proposed rule is not expected to meet the 
criteria of a ``significant adverse effect'' on the electricity markets 
as defined by Executive Order 13211.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The 
documentation for this decision is contained in EPA's Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA) for the CCR rule which is available in the docket for 
the 2015 CCR final rule as docket item EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-12034.
    EPA's risk assessment did not separately evaluate either minority 
or low-income populations. However, to evaluate the demographic 
characteristics of communities that may be affected by the CCR rule, 
the RIA for the 2015 CCR Rule compares the demographic characteristics 
of populations surrounding coal-fired electric utility plants with 
broader population data for two geographic areas: (1) One-mile radius 
from CCR management units (i.e., landfills and impoundments) likely to 
be affected by groundwater releases from both landfills and 
impoundments; and (2) watershed catchment areas downstream of surface 
impoundments that receive surface water run-off and releases from CCR 
impoundments and are at risk of being contaminated from CCR impoundment 
discharges (e.g., unintentional overflows, structural failures, and 
intentional periodic discharges).
    For the population as a whole 24.8 percent belong to a minority 
group and 11.3 percent falls below the Federal Poverty Level. For the 
population living within one mile of plants with surface impoundments 
16.1 percent belong to a minority group and 13.2 percent live below the 
Federal Poverty Level. These minority and low-income populations are 
not disproportionately high compared to the general population. The 
percentage of minority residents of the entire population living within 
the catchment areas downstream of surface impoundments is 
disproportionately high relative to the general population, i.e., 28.7 
percent, versus 24.8 percent for the national population. Also, the 
percentage of the population within the catchment areas of surface 
impoundments that is below the Federal Poverty Level is 
disproportionately high compared with the general population, i.e., 
18.6 percent versus 11.3 percent nationally.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 257

    Environmental protection, Beneficial use, Coal combustion products, 
Coal combustion residuals, Coal combustion waste, Disposal, Hazardous 
waste, Landfill, Surface impoundment.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA amends title 40, 
chapter

[[Page 53561]]

I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 257--CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 
FACILITIES AND PRACTICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 257 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3), 6912(a)(1), 6944, 6945(a) and 
(d); 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e).


0
2. Amend Sec.  257.53 by adding definitions in alphabetical order for 
``Eligible unlined CCR surface impoundment,'' ``Technically feasible,'' 
and ``Technically infeasible'' to read as follows:


Sec.  257.53  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Eligible unlined CCR surface impoundment means an existing CCR 
surface impoundment that meets all of the following conditions:
    (1) The owner or operator has documented that the CCR unit is in 
compliance with the location restrictions specified under Sec. Sec.  
257.60 through 257.64;
    (2) The owner or operator has documented that the CCR unit is in 
compliance with the periodic safety factor assessment requirements 
under Sec.  257.73(e) and (f); and
    (3) No constituent listed in Appendix IV to this part has been 
detected at a statistically significant level exceeding a groundwater 
protection standard defined under Sec.  257.95(h).
* * * * *
    Technically feasible means possible to do in a way that would 
likely be successful.
    Technically infeasible means not possible to do in a way that would 
likely be successful.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  257.71 by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(1)(i) and 
revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  257.71  Liner design criteria for existing CCR surface 
impoundments.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The owner or operator of the CCR unit determines that the CCR 
unit is not constructed with a liner that meets the requirements of 
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section; or
    (ii) The owner or operator of the CCR unit fails to document 
whether the CCR unit was constructed with a liner that meets the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  257.90 by adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  257.90  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (6) A section at the beginning of the annual report that provides 
an overview of the current status of groundwater monitoring and 
corrective action programs for the CCR unit. At a minimum, the summary 
must specify all of the following:
    (i) At the start of the current annual reporting period, whether 
the CCR unit was operating under the detection monitoring program in 
Sec.  257.94 or the assessment monitoring program in Sec.  257.95;
    (ii) At the end of the current annual reporting period, whether the 
CCR unit was operating under the detection monitoring program in Sec.  
257.94 or the assessment monitoring program in Sec.  257.95;
    (iii) If it was determined that there was a statistically 
significant increase over background for one or more constituents 
listed in appendix III to this part pursuant to Sec.  257.94(e):
    (A) Identify those constituents listed in appendix III to this part 
and the names of the monitoring wells associated with such an increase; 
and
    (B) Provide the date when the assessment monitoring program was 
initiated for the CCR unit.
    (iv) If it was determined that there was a statistically 
significant level above the groundwater protection standard for one or 
more constituents listed in appendix IV to this part pursuant to Sec.  
257.95(g) include all of the following:
    (A) Identify those constituents listed in appendix IV to this part 
and the names of the monitoring wells associated with such an increase;
    (B) Provide the date when the assessment of corrective measures was 
initiated for the CCR unit;
    (C) Provide the date when the public meeting was held for the 
assessment of corrective measures for the CCR unit; and
    (D) Provide the date when the assessment of corrective measures was 
completed for the CCR unit.
    (v) Whether a remedy was selected pursuant to Sec.  257.97 during 
the current annual reporting period, and if so, the date of remedy 
selection; and
    (vi) Whether remedial activities were initiated or are ongoing 
pursuant to Sec.  257.98 during the current annual reporting period.
* * * * *


Sec.  257.91  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  257.91 by removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2).

0
6. Amend Sec.  257.95 by revising paragraph (g)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  257.95  Assessment monitoring program.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (5) The owner or operator must prepare a notification stating that 
an assessment of corrective measures has been initiated.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  257.101 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1)(i) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  257.101  Closure or retrofit of CCR units.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Except as provided by paragraph (a)(3) of this section, as soon 
as technically feasible, but not later than April 11, 2021, an owner or 
operator of an existing unlined CCR surface impoundment must cease 
placing CCR and non-CCR wastestreams into such CCR surface impoundment 
and either retrofit or close the CCR unit in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  257.102.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1)(i) Location standard under Sec.  257.60. Except as provided by 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the owner or operator of an existing 
CCR surface impoundment that has not demonstrated compliance with the 
location standard specified in Sec.  257.60(a) must cease placing CCR 
and non-CCR wastestreams into such CCR unit as soon as technically 
feasible, but no later than April 11, 2021, and close the CCR unit in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  257.102.
* * * * *

0
8. Revise Sec.  257.103 to read as follows:


Sec.  257.103  Alternative closure requirements.

    The owner or operator of a CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, 
or any lateral expansion of a CCR unit that is subject to closure 
pursuant to Sec.  257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d) may nevertheless continue 
to receive the wastes specified in either paragraph (a), (b), (f)(1), 
or (f)(2) of this section in the unit provided the owner or operator 
meets all of the requirements contained in the respective paragraph.
    (a) CCR landfills--(1) No alternative CCR disposal capacity. 
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  257.101(d), a CCR landfill may 
continue to recieve CCR if the owner or operator of the CCR landfill 
certifies that the CCR must

[[Page 53562]]

continue to be managed in that CCR landfill due to the absence of 
alternative disposal capacity both on and off-site of the facility. To 
qualify under this paragraph, the owner or operator of the CCR landfill 
must document that all of the following conditions have been met:
    (i) No alternative disposal capacity is available on or off-site. 
An increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not 
sufficient to support qualification under this section;
    (ii) The owner or operator has made, and continues to make, efforts 
to obtain additional capacity. Qualification under this paragraph (a) 
lasts only as long as no alternative capacity is available. Once 
alternative capacity is identified, the owner or operator must arrange 
to use such capacity as soon as feasible;
    (iii) The owner or operator must remain in compliance with all 
other requirements of this subpart, including the requirement to 
conduct any necessary corrective action; and
    (iv) The owner or operator must prepare the annual progress report 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section documenting the continued 
lack of alternative capacity and the progress towards the development 
of alternative CCR disposal capacity.
    (2) Once alternative capacity is available, the CCR landfill must 
cease receiving CCR and initiate closure following the timeframes in 
Sec.  257.102(e).
    (3) If no alternative capacity is identified within five years 
after the initial certification, the CCR landfill must cease receiving 
CCR and close in accordance with the timeframes in Sec.  257.102(e) and 
(f).
    (b) CCR landfills--(1) Permanent cessation of a coal-fired 
boiler(s) by a date certain. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  
257.101(d), a CCR landfill may continue to receive CCR if the owner or 
operator certifies that the facility will cease operation of the coal-
fired boilers within the timeframe specified in paragraph (b)(4) of 
this section, but in the interim period (prior to closure of the coal-
fired boiler), the facility must continue to use the CCR landfill due 
to the absence of alternative disposal capacity both on and off-site of 
the facility. To qualify under this paragraph, the owner or operator of 
the CCR landfill must document that all of the following conditions 
have been met:
    (i) No alternative disposal capacity is available on or off-site. 
An increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not 
sufficient to support qualification under this section.
    (ii) The owner or operator must remain in compliance with all other 
requirements of this subpart, including the requirement to conduct any 
necessary corrective action; and
    (iii) The owner or operator must prepare the annual progress report 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section documenting the continued 
lack of alternative capacity and the progress towards the closure of 
the coal-fired boiler.
    (2)-(3) [Reserved]
    (4) For a CCR landfill, the coal-fired boiler must cease operation, 
and the CCR landfill must complete closure no later than April 19, 
2021.
    (c) Required notices and progress reports for CCR landfills. An 
owner or operator of a CCR landfill that closes in accordance with 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must complete the notices and 
progress reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Within six months of becoming subject to closure pursuant to 
Sec.  257.101(d), the owner or operator must prepare and place in the 
facility's operating record a notification of intent to comply with the 
alternative closure requirements of this section. The notification must 
describe why the CCR landfill qualifies for the alternative closure 
provisions under either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, in 
addition to providing the documentation and certifications required by 
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
    (2) The owner or operator must prepare the periodic progress 
reports required by paragraph (a)(1)(iv) or (b)(1)(iii) of this 
section, in addition to describing any problems encountered and a 
description of the actions taken to resolve the problems. The annual 
progress reports must be completed according to the following schedule:
    (i) The first annual progress report must be prepared no later than 
13 months after completing the notification of intent to comply with 
the alternative closure requirements required by paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section.
    (ii) The second annual progress report must be prepared no later 
than 12 months after completing the first annual progress report. 
Subsequent annual progress reports must be prepared within 12 months of 
completing the previous annual progress report.
    (iii) The owner or operator has completed the progress reports 
specified in this paragraph (c)(2) when the reports are placed in the 
facility's operating record as required by Sec.  257.105(i)(11).
    (3) An owner or operator of a CCR landfill must also prepare the 
notification of intent to close a CCR landfill as required by Sec.  
257.102(g).
    (d) CCR landfill recordkeeping. The owner or operator of the CCR 
landfill must comply with the recordkeeping requirements specified in 
Sec.  257.105(i), the notification requirements specified in Sec.  
257.106(i), and the internet requirements specified in Sec.  
257.107(i).
    (e) [Reserved]
    (f) Site-specific alternative deadlines to initiate closure of CCR 
surface impoundments. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  
257.101(a) and (b)(1), a CCR surface impoundment may continue to 
receive the waste specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section, 
provided the owner or operator submits a demonstration that the 
criteria in either paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section have been 
met. The demonstration must be submitted to the Administrator or the 
Participating State Director no later than the relevant deadline in 
paragraph (f)(3) of this section. The Administrator or the 
Participating State Director will act on the submission in accordance 
with the procedures in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (1) Development of alternative capacity is technically infeasible. 
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  257.101(a) and (b)(1), a CCR 
surface impoundment may continue to receive the waste specified in 
paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section, provided the owner or 
operator demonstrates the wastestream(s) must continue to be managed in 
that CCR surface impoundment because it was technically infeasible to 
complete the measures necessary to provide alternative disposal 
capacity on or off-site of the facility by April 11, 2021. To obtain 
approval under this paragraph all of the following criteria must be 
met:
    (i) No alternative disposal capacity is available on or off-site. 
An increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not 
sufficient to support qualification under this section;
    (ii)(A) For units closing pursuant to Sec.  257.101(a) and 
(b)(1)(i), CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams must continue to be managed 
in that CCR surface impoundment because it was technically infeasible 
to complete the measures necessary to obtain alternative disposal 
capacity either on or off-site of the facility by April 11, 2021.
    (B) For units closing pursuant to Sec.  257.101(b)(1)(ii), CCR must 
continue to be managed in that CCR surface impoundment because it was 
technically infeasible to complete the measures necessary to obtain 
alternative disposal capacity either on or off-site of the facility by 
April 11, 2021.
    (iii) The facility is in compliance with all of the requirements of 
this subpart.

[[Page 53563]]

    (iv) The owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must 
submit documentation that the criteria in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through 
(iii) of this section have been met by submitting to the Administrator 
or the Participating State Director all of the following:
    (A) To demonstrate that the criteria in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and 
(ii) of this section have been met the owner or operator must submit a 
workplan that contains all of the following elements:
    (1) A written narrative discussing the options considered both on 
and off-site to obtain alternative capacity for each CCR and/or non-CCR 
wastestreams, the technical infeasibility of obtaining alternative 
capacity prior to April 11, 2021, and the option selected and 
justification for the alternative capacity selected. The narrative must 
also include all of the following:
    (i) An in-depth analysis of the site and any site-specific 
conditions that led to the decision to select the alternative capacity 
being developed;
    (ii) An analysis of the adverse impact to plant operations if the 
CCR surface impoundment in question were to no longer be available for 
use; and
    (iii) A detailed explanation and justification for the amount of 
time being requested and how it is the fastest technically feasible 
time to complete the development of the alternative capacity;
    (2) A detailed schedule of the fastest technically feasible time to 
complete the measures necessary for alternative capacity to be 
available including a visual timeline representation. The visual 
timeline must clearly show all of the following:
    (i) How each phase and the steps within that phase interact with or 
are dependent on each other and the other phases;
    (ii) All of the steps and phases that can be completed 
concurrently;
    (iii) The total time needed to obtain the alternative capacity and 
how long each phase and step within each phase will take; and
    (iv) At a minimum, the following phases: Engineering and design, 
contractor selection, equipment fabrication and delivery, construction, 
and start up and implementation.;
    (3) A narrative discussion of the schedule and visual timeline 
representation, which must discuss all of the following:
    (i) Why the length of time for each phase and step is needed and a 
discussion of the tasks that occur during the specific step;
    (ii) Why each phase and step shown on the chart must happen in the 
order it is occurring;
    (iii) The tasks that occur during each of the steps within the 
phase; and
    (iv) Anticipated worker schedules; and
    (4) A narrative discussion of the progress the owner or operator 
has made to obtain alternative capacity for the CCR and/or non-CCR 
wastestreams. The narrative must discuss all the steps taken, starting 
from when the owner or operator initiated the design phase up to the 
steps occurring when the demonstration is being compiled. It must 
discuss where the facility currently is on the timeline and the efforts 
that are currently being undertaken to develop alternative capacity.
    (B) To demonstrate that the criteria in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of 
this section have been met, the owner or operator must submit all of 
the following:
    (1) A certification signed by the owner or operator that the 
facility is in compliance with all of the requirements of this subpart;
    (2) Visual representation of hydrogeologic information at and 
around the CCR unit(s) that supports the design, construction and 
installation of the groundwater monitoring system. This includes all of 
the following:
    (i) Map(s) of groundwater monitoring well locations in relation to 
the CCR unit(s);
    (ii) Well construction diagrams and drilling logs for all 
groundwater monitoring wells; and
    (iii) Maps that characterize the direction of groundwater flow 
accounting for seasonal variations;
    (3) Constituent concentrations, summarized in table form, at each 
groundwater monitoring well monitored during each sampling event;
    (4) A description of site hydrogeology including stratigraphic 
cross-sections;
    (5) Any corrective measures assessment conducted as required at 
Sec.  257.96;
    (6) Any progress reports on corrective action remedy selection and 
design and the report of final remedy selection required at Sec.  
257.97(a);
    (7) The most recent structural stability assessment required at 
Sec.  257.73(d); and
    (8) The most recent safety factor assessment required at Sec.  
257.73(e).
    (v) As soon as alternative capacity for any CCR or non-CCR 
wastestream is available, the CCR surface impoundment must cease 
receiving that CCR or non-CCR wastestream. Once the CCR surface 
impoundment ceases receipt of all CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams, the 
CCR surface impoundment must initiate closure following the timeframes 
in Sec.  257.102(e) and (f).
    (vi) Maximum time frames. All CCR surface impoundments covered by 
this section must cease receiving waste by the deadlines specified in 
paragraphs (f)(1)(vi)(A) and (B) of this section and close in 
accordance with the timeframes in Sec.  257.102(e) and (f).
    (A) Except as provided by paragraph (f)(1)(vi)(B) of this section, 
no later than October 15, 2023.
    (B) An eligible unlined CCR surface impoundment must cease 
receiving CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams no later than October 15, 
2024. In order to continue to operate until October 15, 2024, the owner 
or operator must demonstrate that the unit meets the definition of an 
eligible unlined CCR surface impoundment.
    (vii) An owner or operator may seek additional time beyond the time 
granted in the initial approval by making the showing in paragraphs 
(f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section, provided that no facility may 
be granted time to operate the impoundment beyond the maximum allowable 
time frames provided in Sec.  257.103(f)(1)(vi).
    (viii) The owner or operator at all times bears responsibility for 
demonstrating qualification under this section. Failure to remain in 
compliance with any of the requirements of this subpart will result in 
the automatic loss of authorization under this section.
    (ix) The owner or operator must:
    (A) Upon submission of the demonstration to the Administrator or 
the Participating State Director, prepare and place in the facility's 
operating record a notification that it has submitted the 
demonstration, along with a copy of the demonstration. An owner or 
operator that claims CBI in the demonstration may post a redacted 
version of the demonstration to its publicly accessible CCR internet 
site provided that it contains sufficient detail so that the public can 
meaningfully comment on the demonstration.
    (B) Upon receipt of a decision pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) of this 
section, must prepare and place in the facility's operating record a 
copy of the decision.
    (C) If an extension of an approved deadline pursuant to paragraph 
(f)(1)(vii) of this section has been requested, place a copy of the 
request submitted to the Administrator or the Participating State 
Director in the facility's operating record.
    (x) The owner or operator must prepare semi-annual progress 
reports. The semi-annual progress reports must contain all of the 
following elements:

[[Page 53564]]

    (A) Discussion of the progress made to date in obtaining 
alternative capacity, including:
    (1) Discussion of the current stage of obtaining the capacity in 
reference to the timeline required under paragraph (f)(1)(iv)(A) of 
this section;
    (2) Discussion of whether the owner or operator is on schedule for 
obtaining alternative capacity;
    (3) If the owner or operator is not on or ahead of schedule for 
obtaining alternative capacity, the following must be included:
    (i) Discussion of any problems encountered, and a description of 
the actions taken or planned to resolve the problems and get back on 
schedule; and
    (ii) Discussion of the goals for the next six months and major 
milestones to be achieved for obtaining alternative capacity; and
    (B) Discussion of any planned operational changes at the facility.
    (xi) The progress reports must be completed according to the 
following schedule:
    (A) The semi-annual progress reports must be prepared no later than 
April 30 and October 31 of each year for the duration of the 
alternative cease receipt of waste deadline.
    (B) The first semi-annual progress report must be prepared by 
whichever date, April 30 or October 31, is soonest after receiving 
approval from the Administrator or the Participating State Director; 
and
    (C) The owner or operator has completed the progress reports 
specified in paragraph (f)(1)(x) of this section when the reports have 
been placed in the facility's operating record as required by Sec.  
257.105(i)(17).
    (xii) The owner or operator must prepare the notification of intent 
to close a CCR surface impoundment as required by Sec.  257.102(g).
    (xiii) The owner or operator must comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements specified in Sec.  257.105(i), the notification 
requirements specified in Sec.  257.106(i), and the internet posting 
requirements in Sec.  257.107(i).
    (2) Permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date 
certain. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  257.101(a), and 
(b)(1), a CCR surface impoundment may continue to receive CCR and/or 
non-CCR wastestreams if the facility will cease operation of the coal-
fired boiler(s) and complete closure of the impoundment within the 
timeframes specified in paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of this section, but in 
the interim period (prior to closure of the coal-fired boiler), the 
facility must continue to use the CCR surface impoundment due to the 
absence of alternative disposal capacity both on and off-site of the 
facility. To qualify under this paragraph all of the following criteria 
must be met:
    (i) No alternative disposal capacity is available on or off-site. 
An increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not 
sufficient to support qualification under this section.
    (ii) Potential risks to human health and the environment from the 
continued operation of the CCR surface impoundment have been adequately 
mitigated;
    (iii) The facility is in compliance with all other requirements of 
this subpart, including the requirement to conduct any necessary 
corrective action; and
    (iv) The coal-fired boilers must cease operation and closure of the 
impoundment must be completed within the following timeframes:
    (A) For a CCR surface impoundment that is 40 acres or smaller, the 
coal-fired boiler(s) must cease operation and the CCR surface 
impoundment must complete closure no later than October 17, 2023.
    (B) For a CCR surface impoundment that is larger than 40 acres, the 
coal-fired boiler(s) must cease operation, and the CCR surface 
impoundment must complete closure no later than October 17, 2028.
    (v) The owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must 
submit the following documentation that the criteria in paragraphs 
(f)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section have been met as specified in 
paragraphs (f)(2)(v)(A) through (D) of this section.
    (A) To demonstrate that the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this 
section have been met the owner or operator must submit a narrative 
that explains the options considered to obtain alternative capacity for 
CCR and/or non-CCR wastestreams both on and off-site.
    (B) To demonstrate that the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of 
this section have been met the owner or operator must submit a risk 
mitigation plan describing the measures that will be taken to expedite 
any required corrective action, and that contains all of the following 
elements:
    (1) A discussion of any physical or chemical measures a facility 
can take to limit any future releases to groundwater during operation.
    (2) A discussion of the surface impoundment's groundwater 
monitoring data and any found exceedances; the delineation of the plume 
(if necessary based on the groundwater monitoring data); identification 
of any nearby receptors that might be exposed to current or future 
groundwater contamination; and how such exposures could be promptly 
mitigated.
    (3) A plan to expedite and maintain the containment of any 
contaminant plume that is either present or identified during continued 
operation of the unit.
    (C) To demonstrate that the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of 
this section have been met, the owner or operator must submit all of 
the following:
    (1) A certification signed by the owner or operator that the 
facility is in compliance with all of the requirements of this subpart;
    (2) Visual representation of hydrogeologic information at and 
around the CCR unit(s) that supports the design, construction and 
installation of the groundwater monitoring system. This includes all of 
the following:
    (i) Map(s) of groundwater monitoring well locations in relation to 
the CCR unit;
    (ii) Well construction diagrams and drilling logs for all 
groundwater monitoring wells; and
    (iii) Maps that characterize the direction of groundwater flow 
accounting for seasonal variations;
    (3) Constituent concentrations, summarized in table form, at each 
groundwater monitoring well monitored during each sampling event;
    (4) Description of site hydrogeology including stratigraphic cross-
sections;
    (5) Any corrective measures assessment required at Sec.  257.96;
    (6) Any progress reports on remedy selection and design and the 
report of final remedy selection required at Sec.  257.97(a);
    (7) The most recent structural stability assessment required at 
Sec.  257.73(d); and
    (8) The most recent safety factor assessment required at Sec.  
257.73(e).
    (D) To demonstrate that the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 
this section have been met, the owner or operator must submit the 
closure plan required by Sec.  257.102(b) and a narrative that 
specifies and justifies the date by which they intend to cease receipt 
of waste into the unit in order to meet the closure deadlines.
    (vi) The owner or operator at all times bears responsibility for 
demonstrating qualification for authorization under this section. 
Failure to remain in compliance with any of the requirements of this 
subpart will result in the automatic loss of authorization under this 
section.
    (vii) The owner or operator must comply with the recordkeeping 
requirements specified in Sec.  257.105(i), the notification 
requirements specified in Sec.  257.106(i), and the internet posting 
requirements in Sec.  257.107(i).
    (viii) Upon submission of the demonstration to the Administrator or

[[Page 53565]]

the Participating State Director the owner or operator must prepare and 
place in the facility's operating record and on its publicly accessible 
CCR internet site a notification that is has submitted a demonstration 
along with a copy of the demonstration.
    (ix) Upon receipt of a decision pursuant to paragraph (f)(3) of 
this section, the owner or operator must place a copy of the decision 
in the facility's operating record and on the facility's publicly 
accessible CCR internet site.
    (x) The owner or operator must prepare an annual progress report 
documenting the continued lack of alternative capacity and the progress 
towards the closure of the CCR surface impoundment. The owner or 
operator has completed the progress report when the report has been 
placed in the facility's operating record as required by Sec.  
257.105(i)(20).
    (3) Process to Obtain Authorization. (i) Deadlines for Submission. 
(A) The owner or operator must submit the demonstration required under 
paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this section, for an alternative cease receipt 
of waste deadline for a CCR surface impoundment pursuant to paragraph 
(f)(1) of this section, to the Administrator or the Participating State 
Director for approval no later than November 30, 2020.
    (B) An owner or operator may seek additional time beyond the time 
granted in the initial approval, in accordance with paragraph 
(f)(1)(vii) of this section, by submitting a new demonstration, as 
required under paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this section, to the 
Administrator or the Participating State Director for approval, no 
later than fourteen days from determining that the cease receipt of 
waste deadline will not be met.
    (C) The owner or operator must submit the demonstration required 
under paragraph (f)(2)(v) of this section to the Administrator for 
approval no later than November 30, 2020.
    (ii) EPA will evaluate the demonstration and may request additional 
information to complete its review. Submission of a complete 
demonstration will toll the facility's deadline to cease receipt of 
waste until issuance of a decision under paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this 
section. Incomplete submissions will not toll the facility's deadline 
and will be rejected without further process. All decisions issued 
under this paragraph or paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of this section will 
contain the facility's deadline to cease receipt of waste.
    (iii) EPA will publish its proposed decision on a complete 
demonstration in a docket on www.regulations.gov for a 15-day comment 
period. If the demonstration is particularly complex, EPA will provide 
a comment period of 20 to 30 days.
    (iv) After consideration of the comments, EPA will issue its 
decision on the alternative compliance deadline within four months of 
receiving a complete demonstration.
    (4) Transferring between site-specific alternatives. An owner or 
operator authorized to continue operating a CCR surface impoundment 
under this section may at any time request authorization to continue 
operating the impoundment pursuant to another paragraph of subsection 
(f), by submitting the information in paragraph (f)(4)(i) or (ii) of 
this section.
    (i) Transfer from Sec.  257.103(f)(1) to Sec.  257.103(f)(2). The 
owner or operator of a surface impoundment authorized to operate 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section may request authorization 
to instead operate the surface impoundment in accordance with the 
requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section, by submitting a new 
demonstration that meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(2)(v) of 
this section to the Administrator or the Participating State Director. 
EPA will approve the request only upon determining that the criteria at 
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iv) have been met.
    (ii) Transfer from Sec.  257.103(f)(2) to Sec.  257.103(f)(1). The 
owner or operator of a surface impoundment authorized to operate 
pursuant to paragraph (f)(2) of this section may request authorization 
to instead operate the surface impoundment in accordance with the 
requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, by submitting a new 
demonstration that meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of 
this section to the Administrator or the Participating State Director. 
EPA will approve the request only upon determining that the criteria at 
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi) of this section have been 
met.
    (iii) The procedures in paragraph (f)(3) of this section will apply 
to all requests for transfer under this paragraph.

0
9. Amend Sec.  257.105 by adding paragraphs (i)(14) through (20) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  257.105  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (14) The notification of intent to comply with the site-specific 
alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternative 
capacity infeasible as required by Sec.  257.103(f)(1)(ix)(A).
    (15) The approved or denied demonstration for the site-specific 
alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternative 
capacity infeasible as required by Sec.  257.103(f)(1)(ix)(B).
    (16) The notification for requesting additional time to the 
alternative cease receipt of waste deadline as required by Sec.  
257.103(f)(1)(ix)(C).
    (17) The semi-annual progress reports for the site-specific 
alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternative 
capacity infeasible as required by Sec.  257.103(f)(1)(xi).
    (18) The notification of intent to comply with the site-specific 
alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a 
coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as required by Sec.  
257.103(f)(2)(viii).
    (19) The approved or denied demonstration for the site-specific 
alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a 
coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as required by Sec.  
257.103(f)(2)(ix).
    (20) The annual progress report for the site-specific alternative 
to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired 
boiler(s) by a date certain as required by Sec.  257.103(f)(2)(x).
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  257.106 by adding paragraphs (i)(14) through (20).


Sec.  257.106  Notification requirements.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (14) Provide the notification of intent to comply with the site-
specific alternative to initiation of closure due to development of 
alternative capacity infeasible as specified under Sec.  
257.105(i)(14).
    (15) Provide the approved or denied demonstration for the site-
specific alternative to initiation of closure due to development of 
alternative capacity infeasible as required by as specified under Sec.  
257.105(i)(15).
    (16) Provide the notification for requesting additional time to the 
alternative cease receipt of waste deadline as required by Sec.  
257.105(i)(16).
    (17) The semi-annual progress reports for the site-specific 
alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternative 
capacity infeasible as specified under Sec.  257.105(i)(17).
    (18) Provide the notification of intent to comply with the site-
specific alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent 
cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as specified 
under Sec.  257.105(i)(18).

[[Page 53566]]

    (19) Provide the approved or denied demonstration for the site-
specific alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent 
cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as required by 
Sec.  257.105(i)(19).
    (20) The annual progress report for the site-specific alternative 
to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired 
boiler(s) by a date certain as required by Sec.  257.105(i)(20).
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  257.107 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs 
(i)(14) through (20) to read as follows:


Sec.  257.107  Publicly accessible internet site requirements.

    (a) Each owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to the 
requirements of this subpart must maintain a publicly accessible 
internet site (CCR website) containing the information specified in 
this section. The owner or operator's website must be titled ``CCR Rule 
Compliance Data and Information.'' The website must ensure that all 
information required to be posted is immediately available to anyone 
visiting the site, without requiring any prerequisite, such as 
registration or a requirement to submit a document request. All 
required information must be clearly identifiable and must be able to 
be immediately printed and downloaded by anyone accessing the site. If 
the owner/operator changes the web address (i.e., Uniform Resource 
Locator (URL)) at any point, they must notify EPA via the ``contact 
us'' form on EPA's CCR website and the state director within 14 days of 
making the change. The facility's CCR website must also have a 
``contact us'' form or a specific email address posted on the website 
for the public to use to submit questions and issues relating to the 
availability of information on the website.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (14) The notification of intent to comply with the site-specific 
alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternative 
capacity infeasible as specified under Sec.  257.105(i)(14).
    (15) The approved or denied demonstration for the site-specific 
alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternative 
capacity infeasible as required by as specified under Sec.  
257.105(i)(15).
    (16) The notification for requesting additional time to the 
alternative cease receipt of waste deadline as required by Sec.  
257.105(i)(16).
    (17) The semi-annual progress reports for the site-specific 
alternative to initiation of closure due to development of alternative 
capacity infeasible as specified under Sec.  257.105(i)(17).
    (18) The notification of intent to comply with the site-specific 
alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a 
coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as specified under Sec.  
257.105(i)(18).
    (19) The approved or denied demonstration for the site-specific 
alternative to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a 
coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain as required by Sec.  
257.105(i)(19).
    (20) The annual progress report for the site-specific alternative 
to initiation of closure due to permanent cessation of a coal-fired 
boiler(s) by a date certain as required by Sec.  257.105(i)(20).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-16872 Filed 8-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P