Tentative Determination To Approve Site Specific Flexibility for Closure and Monitoring of the Picacho Landfill, 20274-20277 [2016-07996]
Download as PDF
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20274
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Through this priority, experiential
learning and TA will be provided to
novice interpreters in order for them to
achieve national certification. These
activities will help interpreters to more
effectively meet the communication
needs of individuals who are deaf or
hard of hearing and individuals who are
Deaf-Blind. The training ultimately will
improve the quality of VR services and
the competitive integrated employment
outcomes achieved by individuals with
disabilities. This priority would
promote the efficient and effective use
of Federal funds.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site, you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Apr 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Dated: April 1, 2016.
Michael K. Yudin,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2016–07933 Filed 4–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[FRL–9944–66–Region 9]
Tentative Determination To Approve
Site Specific Flexibility for Closure and
Monitoring of the Picacho Landfill
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, is making a tentative
determination to approve two Site
Specific Flexibility Requests (SSFRs)
from Imperial County (County or
Imperial County) to close and monitor
the Picacho Solid Waste Landfill
(Picacho Landfill or Landfill). The
Picacho Landfill is a commercial
municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF)
operated by Imperial County from 1977
to the present on the Quechan Indian
Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian
Reservation in California.
Imperial County is seeking approval
from EPA to use an alternative final
cover and to modify the prescribed list
of detection-monitoring parameters for
ongoing monitoring. The Quechan
Indian Tribe (Tribe) reviewed the
proposed SSFRs and determined that
they met tribal requirements. EPA is
now seeking public comment on EPA’s
tentative determination to approve the
SSFRs.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before May 9, 2016. If sufficient
public interest is expressed by April 22,
2016, EPA will hold a public hearing at
the Quechan Community Center,
located at 604 Picacho Rd., in
Winterhaven, CA on May 9, 2016 from
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. If by April 22,
2016 EPA does not receive information
indicating sufficient public interest for a
public hearing, EPA may cancel the
public hearing with no further notice. If
you are interested in attending the
public hearing, contact Steve Wall at
(415) 972–3381 to verify that a hearing
will be held.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
RCRA–2015–0445, by one of the
following methods:
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: wall.steve@epa.gov.
• Fax: (415) 947–3564.
• Mail: Steve Wall, Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, Mail code:
LND 2–3, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
email, Web site submittal, disk or CD–
ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. See
below for instructions regarding
submitting CBI.
The https://www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment.
If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet.
Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Tips for Submitting Comments to EPA
1. Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments,
remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by Docket
ID No. EPA–R09–RCRA–2015–0445 and
other identifying information (subject
heading, Federal Register date and page
number).
• Explain why you agree or disagree,
suggest alternatives, and provide
suggestions for substitute language for
your requested changes.
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be verified.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
2. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (CBI)
• Do not submit CBI to EPA through
https://www.regulations.gov or email.
• Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.
For CBI information in a disk or CD–
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
• In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of
the comment that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public
docket.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Additional Background Information
All documents in the administrative
record docket for this determination are
listed in the https://www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Library, located at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California. The EPA Library
is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Thursday, excluding
legal holidays, and is located in a
secured building. To review docket
materials at the EPA Library, it is
recommended that the public make an
appointment by calling (415) 947–4406
during normal business hours. Copying
arrangements will be made through the
EPA Library and billed directly to the
recipient. Copying costs may be waived
depending on the total number of pages
copied.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Apr 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Wall, Land Division, LND 2–3
Environmental Protection Agency, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105–3901; telephone number: (415)
972–3381; fax number: (415) 947–3564;
e-mail address: wall.steve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Legal Authority for This Proposal
Under sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and
4010 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as
amended by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Congress required
EPA to establish revised minimum
federal criteria for MSWLFs, including
landfill location restrictions, operating
standards, design standards, and
requirements for ground water
monitoring, corrective action, closure
and post-closure care, and financial
assurance. Under RCRA section 4005,
states are to develop permit programs
for facilities that may receive household
hazardous waste or waste from
conditionally exempt small quantity
generators of hazardous waste, and EPA
is to determine whether the state’s
program is adequate to ensure that
facilities will comply with the revised
federal criteria.
The MSWLF criteria are in the Code
of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part
258. These regulations are prescriptive,
self-implementing and apply directly to
owners and operators of MSWLFs.
Many of these criteria include a flexible
performance standard as an alternative
to the prescriptive, self-implementing
regulation. The flexible standard is not
self-implementing, and requires
approval by the Director of an EPAapproved state MSWLF permitting
program. However, EPA’s approval of a
state program generally does not extend
to Indian Country because states
generally do not have authority over
Indian Country. For this reason, owners
and operators of MSWLF units located
in Indian Country cannot take advantage
of the flexibilities available to those
facilities that are within the jurisdiction
of an EPA-approved state program.
However, the EPA has the authority
under sections 2002, 4004, and 4010 of
RCRA to promulgate site-specific rules
to enable such owners and operators to
use the flexible standards. See Yankton
Sioux Tribe v. EPA, 950 F. Supp. 1471
(D.S.D. 1996); Backcountry Against
Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir.
1996). EPA refers to such rules as ‘‘Site
Specific Flexibility Determinations’’ and
has developed draft guidance for owners
and operators on preparing a request for
such a site-specific rule, entitled ‘‘Site-
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20275
Specific Flexibility Requests for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in
Indian Country Draft Guidance,’’
EPA530–R–97–016, August 1997) (Draft
Guidance).
II. Background
The Picacho Landfill is located on
Quechan tribal lands on the Fort Yuma
Indian Reservation approximately four
miles north-northeast of the community
of Winterhaven, in Imperial County,
California. The Picacho Landfill is a
commercial MSWLF operated by
Imperial County from 1977 to the
present. The landfill site is
approximately 12.5 acres.
In January 2006, the Tribe requested
that EPA provide comments on the
County’s closure plan. Between 2006
and 2011, EPA worked with the Tribe,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
the County to develop and reach
agreement on the closure plan and
SSFRs. During this time, EPA also
reviewed the SSFRs to determine
whether they met technical and
regulatory requirements. On October 27,
2010, Imperial County submitted its
Picacho Final Closure/Post-Closure
Maintenance Plan. EPA provided a final
round of comments on February 10,
2011, which Imperial County
incorporated as an addendum. On April
30, 2012, the Tribe approved the
Picacho Landfill Final Closure/
Postclosure Maintenance Plan as
amended, and, pursuant to EPA’s Draft
Guidance, the Tribe forwarded to EPA
two SSFRs that had been submitted by
Imperial County to close and monitor
the Picacho Landfill. The requests seek
EPA approval to use an alternative final
cover meeting the performance
requirements of 40 CFR 258.60(a), and
to modify the prescribed list of
detection-monitoring parameters
provided in 40 CFR 258.54(a)(1) and (2)
for ongoing monitoring.
III. Basis for Proposal
EPA is basing its tentative
determination to approve the sitespecific flexibility request on the Tribe’s
approval, dated April 30, 2012, EPA’s
independent review of the Picacho
Landfill Final Closure/Postclosure
Maintenance Plan as amended, and the
associated SSFRs.
A. Alternative Final Cover SSFR:
Alternative Final Cover System
The regulations require the
installation of a final cover system
specified in 40 CFR 258.60(a), which
consists of an infiltration layer with a
minimum of 18 inches of compacted
clay with a permeability of 1 × 10¥5 cm/
sec, covered by an erosion layer with a
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
20276
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
minimum six inches of topsoil. Imperial
County seeks approval for an alternative
final cover designed to satisfy the
performance criteria specified in 40 CFR
258.60(b); Imperial County proposes to
replace this with an alternative cover
which would consist of two and a half
feet of native soil to control infiltration
covered by six inches of a soil gravel
mixture to control erosion.
EPA is basing its tentative
determination on a number of factors,
including: (1) Research showing that
prescriptive, self-implementing
requirements for final covers, comprised
of low permeability compacted clay, do
not perform well in the arid west. The
clay dries out and cracks, which allows
increased infiltration along the cracks;
(2) Research showing that in arid
environments thick soil covers
comprised of native soil can perform as
well or better than the prescriptive
cover; and (3) Imperial County’s
analysis demonstrates, based on sitespecific climatic conditions and soil
properties, that the proposed alternative
soil final cover will achieve equivalent
reduction in infiltration as the
prescriptive cover design and that the
proposed erosion layer provides
equivalent protection from wind and
water erosion. This analysis is provided
in Appendix D and Appendix D–1 of
the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/
Postclosure Maintenance Plan dated
October 27, 2010 and amended on
February 20, 2011.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Groundwater Monitoring SSFR:
Alternative Detection Monitoring
Parameters
The regulations require post-closure
monitoring of 15 heavy metals, listed in
40 CFR part 258, Appendix I. Imperial
County, proposes to replace these, with
the exception of arsenic, with the
alternative inorganic indicator
parameters chloride, nitrate as nitrogen,
sulfate, and total dissolved solids.
EPA’s tentative determination is
based on the fact that the County has
performed over 15 years of semi-annual
groundwater monitoring at the site, and
during that time arsenic was the only
heavy metal detected at a value that
slightly exceeded the federal maximum
contaminant level (MCL), a standard
used for drinking water.
IV. Additional Findings
In order to comply with the National
Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C.
100101 et seq., Imperial County
Department of Public Works will
coordinate with the Tribe to arrange for
a qualified Native American monitor to
be present during any work. If buried or
previously unidentified resources are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Apr 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
located during project activities, all
work within the vicinity of the find will
cease, and the provisions pursuant to 36
CFR 800.13(b) will be implemented. If,
during the course of the Landfill closure
activities, previously undocumented
archaeological material or human
remains are encountered, all work shall
cease in the immediate area and a
qualified archaeologist shall be retained
to evaluate the significance of the find
and recommend further management
actions.
Though no known threatened or
endangered species or their habitat exist
on the site, in order to ensure
compliance with the Endangered
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536 et seq., a
preconstruction survey will be
conducted prior to cover installation to
ensure no threatened or endangered
species are present. In particular, the
survey will look for the presence of
desert tortoises, which may occur in
Imperial County. Should desert tortoises
or other threatened or endangered
species be encountered in the survey, or
at any time during the closure of the
Picacho Landfill, the County shall
contact the USFWS to develop
avoidance measures to ensure that
impacts to the species are minimized.
Following closure and vegetation
restoration activities, the project site
may become suitable for threatened and
endangered species. This would be a
beneficial effect.
Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is
not of general applicability and
therefore is not a regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
because it applies to a particular facility
only.
Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this
rule will affect only a particular facility,
it will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA.
Because this rule will affect only a
particular facility, this proposed rule
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132,
‘‘Federalism,’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule.
This rule also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The
basis for this belief is EPA’s
conservative analysis of the potential
risks posed by SRPMIC’s proposal and
the controls and standards set forth in
the application.
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
As required by section three of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ (61 FR 4729, February 7,
1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct.
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments,’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), calls for EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ See also ‘‘EPA Policy for
the Administration of Environmental
Programs on Indian Reservations,’’
(November 8, 1984) and ‘‘EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes,’’ (May 4, 2011). EPA
consulted with the Tribe throughout
Imperial County’s development of its
closure and monitoring plans for the
Picacho Landfill.
EPA specifically solicits any
additional comment on this tentative
determination from tribal officials of the
Quechan Indian Tribe.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection, Municipal
landfills, Final cover, Post-closure care
groundwater Monitoring, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste
treatment and disposal, Water pollution
control.
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
20277
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Dated: March 28, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 258, Criteria for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
1. The authority citation continues to
read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42
U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c)
and 6949a(c), 6981(a).
Subpart F—Closure and Post-Closure
Care
2. Section 258.62 is amended by
adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 258.62 Approval of site-specific flexibility
requests in Indian Country.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Picacho Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill—Alternative list of detection
monitoring parameters and alternative
final cover. This paragraph (b) applies to
the Picacho Landfill, a Municipal Solid
Waste landfill operated by Imperial
County on the Quechan Indian Tribe of
the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in
California.
(1) In accordance with 40 CFR
258.54(a), the owner and operator may
modify the list of heavy metal detection
monitoring parameters specified in 40
CFR 258, Appendix I, as required during
Post-Closure Care by 40 CFR
258.61(a)(3), by replacing monitoring of
the inorganic constituents with the
exception of arsenic, with the inorganic
indicator parameters chloride, nitrate as
nitrogen, sulfate, and total dissolved
solids.
(2) In accordance with 40 CFR
258.60(b), the owner and operator may
replace the prescriptive final cover set
forth in 40 CFR 258.60(a), with an
alternative final cover as follows:
(i) The owner and operator may
install an evapotranspiration cover
system as an alternative final cover for
the 12.5 acre site.
(ii) The alternative final cover system
shall be constructed to achieve an
equivalent reduction in infiltration as
the infiltration layer specified in
§ 258.60(a)(1) and (2), and provide an
equivalent protection from wind and
water erosion as the erosion layer
specified in § 258.60(a)(3).
(iii) The final cover system shall
consist of a minimum three-feet-thick
multi-layer cover system comprised,
from bottom to top, of:
(A) A minimum 30-inch thick
infiltration layer consisting of:
(1) Existing intermediate cover; and
(2) additional cover soil which, prior
to placement, shall be wetted to optimal
moisture as determined by ASTM D
1557 and thoroughly mixed to near
uniform condition, and the material
shall then be placed in lifts with an
uncompacted thickness of six to eight
inches, spread evenly and compacted to
90 percent of the maximum dry density
as determined by ASMT D 1557, and
shall:
(i) Exhibit a grain size distribution
that excludes particles in excess of three
inches in diameter;
(ii) have a minimum fines content
(percent by weight passing U.S. No. 200
Sieve) of seven percent for an individual
test and eight percent for the average of
ten consecutive tests;
(iii) have a grain size distribution with
a minimum of five percent finer than
five microns for an individual test and
six percent for the average of ten
consecutive tests; and
(iv) exhibit a maximum saturated
hydraulic conductivity on the order of
1.0E–03 cm/sec.; and
(3) a minimum six-inch surface
erosion layer comprised of a rock/soil
admixture. The surface erosion layer
admixture and gradations for 3% slopes
and 3:1 slopes are detailed below:
(i) 3% slopes: For the 3% slopes the
surface admixture shall be composed of
pea gravel (3⁄8-inch to 1⁄2-inch diameter)
mixed with cover soil at the ratio of
25% rock to soil by volume with a
minimum six-inch erosion layer.
(ii) For the 3:1 side slopes the surface
admixture shall be composed of either:
gravel/rock (3⁄4-inch to one-inch
diameter) mixed with additional cover
soil as described in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section at the
ratio of 50% rock to soil by volume and
result in a minimum six-inch erosion
layer, or gravel/rock (3⁄4-inch to twoinch diameter) mixed with additional
cover soil as described in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section at the
ratio of 50% rock to soil by volume and
result in a minimum 12-inch erosion
layer.
(iii) The owner and operator shall
place documentation demonstrating
compliance with the provisions of this
Section in the operating record.
(iv) All other applicable provisions of
40 CFR part 258 remain in effect.
[FR Doc. 2016–07996 Filed 4–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1994–0002; EPA–HQ–
OLEM–2016–0151, 0152, 0153, 0154, 0155,
0156, 0157 and 0158; FRL–9944–35–OLEM]
National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,
requires that the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list
of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United
States. The National Priorities List
(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is
intended primarily to guide the
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining
which sites warrant further
investigation. These further
investigations will allow the EPA to
assess the nature and extent of public
health and environmental risks
associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed
remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rulemaking proposes
to add eight sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. This
proposed rule also withdraws a
previous proposal to add a site to the
NPL.
SUMMARY:
Comments regarding any of these
proposed listings must be submitted
(postmarked) on or before June 6, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate
docket number from the table below.
DATES:
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE
Site name
City/county, state
Docket ID No.
Argonaut Mine ................................................................
Bonita Peak Mining District ............................................
Riverside Ground Water Contamination ........................
Jackson, CA ...................................................................
San Juan County, CO ....................................................
Indianapolis, IN ..............................................................
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0151
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0152
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0153
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Apr 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20274-20277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07996]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[FRL-9944-66-Region 9]
Tentative Determination To Approve Site Specific Flexibility for
Closure and Monitoring of the Picacho Landfill
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, is making a
tentative determination to approve two Site Specific Flexibility
Requests (SSFRs) from Imperial County (County or Imperial County) to
close and monitor the Picacho Solid Waste Landfill (Picacho Landfill or
Landfill). The Picacho Landfill is a commercial municipal solid waste
landfill (MSWLF) operated by Imperial County from 1977 to the present
on the Quechan Indian Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in
California.
Imperial County is seeking approval from EPA to use an alternative
final cover and to modify the prescribed list of detection-monitoring
parameters for ongoing monitoring. The Quechan Indian Tribe (Tribe)
reviewed the proposed SSFRs and determined that they met tribal
requirements. EPA is now seeking public comment on EPA's tentative
determination to approve the SSFRs.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2016. If
sufficient public interest is expressed by April 22, 2016, EPA will
hold a public hearing at the Quechan Community Center, located at 604
Picacho Rd., in Winterhaven, CA on May 9, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. If by April 22, 2016 EPA does not receive information indicating
sufficient public interest for a public hearing, EPA may cancel the
public hearing with no further notice. If you are interested in
attending the public hearing, contact Steve Wall at (415) 972-3381 to
verify that a hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
RCRA-2015-0445, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: wall.steve@epa.gov.
Fax: (415) 947-3564.
Mail: Steve Wall, Environmental Protection Agency Region
IX, Mail code: LND 2-3, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-
3901.
Instructions: EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any email, Web site submittal, disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. See below for
instructions regarding submitting CBI.
The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any
form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Tips for Submitting Comments to EPA
1. Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-
2015-0445 and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and provide suggestions for substitute language for your requested
changes.
[[Page 20275]]
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
verified.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
2. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)
Do not submit CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does
not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
3. Additional Background Information
All documents in the administrative record docket for this
determination are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically in https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Library, located at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California. The EPA Library is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m., Monday through Thursday, excluding legal holidays, and is located
in a secured building. To review docket materials at the EPA Library,
it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (415)
947-4406 during normal business hours. Copying arrangements will be
made through the EPA Library and billed directly to the recipient.
Copying costs may be waived depending on the total number of pages
copied.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Wall, Land Division, LND 2-3
Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901; telephone number: (415) 972-3381; fax number: (415) 947-
3564; e-mail address: wall.steve@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Legal Authority for This Proposal
Under sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq., Congress required EPA to establish revised minimum federal
criteria for MSWLFs, including landfill location restrictions,
operating standards, design standards, and requirements for ground
water monitoring, corrective action, closure and post-closure care, and
financial assurance. Under RCRA section 4005, states are to develop
permit programs for facilities that may receive household hazardous
waste or waste from conditionally exempt small quantity generators of
hazardous waste, and EPA is to determine whether the state's program is
adequate to ensure that facilities will comply with the revised federal
criteria.
The MSWLF criteria are in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR
part 258. These regulations are prescriptive, self-implementing and
apply directly to owners and operators of MSWLFs. Many of these
criteria include a flexible performance standard as an alternative to
the prescriptive, self-implementing regulation. The flexible standard
is not self-implementing, and requires approval by the Director of an
EPA-approved state MSWLF permitting program. However, EPA's approval of
a state program generally does not extend to Indian Country because
states generally do not have authority over Indian Country. For this
reason, owners and operators of MSWLF units located in Indian Country
cannot take advantage of the flexibilities available to those
facilities that are within the jurisdiction of an EPA-approved state
program. However, the EPA has the authority under sections 2002, 4004,
and 4010 of RCRA to promulgate site-specific rules to enable such
owners and operators to use the flexible standards. See Yankton Sioux
Tribe v. EPA, 950 F. Supp. 1471 (D.S.D. 1996); Backcountry Against
Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 1996). EPA refers to such rules
as ``Site Specific Flexibility Determinations'' and has developed draft
guidance for owners and operators on preparing a request for such a
site-specific rule, entitled ``Site-Specific Flexibility Requests for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country Draft Guidance,''
EPA530-R-97-016, August 1997) (Draft Guidance).
II. Background
The Picacho Landfill is located on Quechan tribal lands on the Fort
Yuma Indian Reservation approximately four miles north-northeast of the
community of Winterhaven, in Imperial County, California. The Picacho
Landfill is a commercial MSWLF operated by Imperial County from 1977 to
the present. The landfill site is approximately 12.5 acres.
In January 2006, the Tribe requested that EPA provide comments on
the County's closure plan. Between 2006 and 2011, EPA worked with the
Tribe, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the County to develop and
reach agreement on the closure plan and SSFRs. During this time, EPA
also reviewed the SSFRs to determine whether they met technical and
regulatory requirements. On October 27, 2010, Imperial County submitted
its Picacho Final Closure/Post[hyphen]Closure Maintenance Plan. EPA
provided a final round of comments on February 10, 2011, which Imperial
County incorporated as an addendum. On April 30, 2012, the Tribe
approved the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/Postclosure Maintenance
Plan as amended, and, pursuant to EPA's Draft Guidance, the Tribe
forwarded to EPA two SSFRs that had been submitted by Imperial County
to close and monitor the Picacho Landfill. The requests seek EPA
approval to use an alternative final cover meeting the performance
requirements of 40 CFR 258.60(a), and to modify the prescribed list of
detection-monitoring parameters provided in 40 CFR 258.54(a)(1) and (2)
for ongoing monitoring.
III. Basis for Proposal
EPA is basing its tentative determination to approve the site-
specific flexibility request on the Tribe's approval, dated April 30,
2012, EPA's independent review of the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/
Postclosure Maintenance Plan as amended, and the associated SSFRs.
A. Alternative Final Cover SSFR: Alternative Final Cover System
The regulations require the installation of a final cover system
specified in 40 CFR 258.60(a), which consists of an infiltration layer
with a minimum of 18 inches of compacted clay with a permeability of 1
x 10-\5\ cm/sec, covered by an erosion layer with a
[[Page 20276]]
minimum six inches of topsoil. Imperial County seeks approval for an
alternative final cover designed to satisfy the performance criteria
specified in 40 CFR 258.60(b); Imperial County proposes to replace this
with an alternative cover which would consist of two and a half feet of
native soil to control infiltration covered by six inches of a soil
gravel mixture to control erosion.
EPA is basing its tentative determination on a number of factors,
including: (1) Research showing that prescriptive, self-implementing
requirements for final covers, comprised of low permeability compacted
clay, do not perform well in the arid west. The clay dries out and
cracks, which allows increased infiltration along the cracks; (2)
Research showing that in arid environments thick soil covers comprised
of native soil can perform as well or better than the prescriptive
cover; and (3) Imperial County's analysis demonstrates, based on site-
specific climatic conditions and soil properties, that the proposed
alternative soil final cover will achieve equivalent reduction in
infiltration as the prescriptive cover design and that the proposed
erosion layer provides equivalent protection from wind and water
erosion. This analysis is provided in Appendix D and Appendix D-1 of
the Picacho Landfill Final Closure/Postclosure Maintenance Plan dated
October 27, 2010 and amended on February 20, 2011.
B. Groundwater Monitoring SSFR: Alternative Detection Monitoring
Parameters
The regulations require post-closure monitoring of 15 heavy metals,
listed in 40 CFR part 258, Appendix I. Imperial County, proposes to
replace these, with the exception of arsenic, with the alternative
inorganic indicator parameters chloride, nitrate as nitrogen, sulfate,
and total dissolved solids.
EPA's tentative determination is based on the fact that the County
has performed over 15 years of semi-annual groundwater monitoring at
the site, and during that time arsenic was the only heavy metal
detected at a value that slightly exceeded the federal maximum
contaminant level (MCL), a standard used for drinking water.
IV. Additional Findings
In order to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, 54
U.S.C. 100101 et seq., Imperial County Department of Public Works will
coordinate with the Tribe to arrange for a qualified Native American
monitor to be present during any work. If buried or previously
unidentified resources are located during project activities, all work
within the vicinity of the find will cease, and the provisions pursuant
to 36 CFR 800.13(b) will be implemented. If, during the course of the
Landfill closure activities, previously undocumented archaeological
material or human remains are encountered, all work shall cease in the
immediate area and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to
evaluate the significance of the find and recommend further management
actions.
Though no known threatened or endangered species or their habitat
exist on the site, in order to ensure compliance with the Endangered
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536 et seq., a preconstruction survey will be
conducted prior to cover installation to ensure no threatened or
endangered species are present. In particular, the survey will look for
the presence of desert tortoises, which may occur in Imperial County.
Should desert tortoises or other threatened or endangered species be
encountered in the survey, or at any time during the closure of the
Picacho Landfill, the County shall contact the USFWS to develop
avoidance measures to ensure that impacts to the species are minimized.
Following closure and vegetation restoration activities, the project
site may become suitable for threatened and endangered species. This
would be a beneficial effect.
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only.
Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a
particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA.
Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this
proposed rule 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The basis for this belief is EPA's conservative analysis of
the potential risks posed by SRPMIC's proposal and the controls and
standards set forth in the application.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
As required by section three of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct.
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
calls for EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' See also ``EPA Policy for the
Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations,''
(November 8, 1984) and ``EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes,'' (May 4, 2011). EPA consulted with the Tribe
throughout Imperial County's development of its closure and monitoring
plans for the Picacho Landfill.
EPA specifically solicits any additional comment on this tentative
determination from tribal officials of the Quechan Indian Tribe.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection, Municipal landfills, Final cover, Post-
closure care groundwater Monitoring, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
[[Page 20277]]
Dated: March 28, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 258, Criteria
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
0
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907,
6912(a), 6944, 6945(c) and 6949a(c), 6981(a).
Subpart F--Closure and Post-Closure Care
0
2. Section 258.62 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 258.62 Approval of site-specific flexibility requests in Indian
Country.
* * * * *
(b) Picacho Municipal Solid Waste Landfill--Alternative list of
detection monitoring parameters and alternative final cover. This
paragraph (b) applies to the Picacho Landfill, a Municipal Solid Waste
landfill operated by Imperial County on the Quechan Indian Tribe of the
Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in California.
(1) In accordance with 40 CFR 258.54(a), the owner and operator may
modify the list of heavy metal detection monitoring parameters
specified in 40 CFR 258, Appendix I, as required during Post-Closure
Care by 40 CFR 258.61(a)(3), by replacing monitoring of the inorganic
constituents with the exception of arsenic, with the inorganic
indicator parameters chloride, nitrate as nitrogen, sulfate, and total
dissolved solids.
(2) In accordance with 40 CFR 258.60(b), the owner and operator may
replace the prescriptive final cover set forth in 40 CFR 258.60(a),
with an alternative final cover as follows:
(i) The owner and operator may install an evapotranspiration cover
system as an alternative final cover for the 12.5 acre site.
(ii) The alternative final cover system shall be constructed to
achieve an equivalent reduction in infiltration as the infiltration
layer specified in Sec. 258.60(a)(1) and (2), and provide an
equivalent protection from wind and water erosion as the erosion layer
specified in Sec. 258.60(a)(3).
(iii) The final cover system shall consist of a minimum three-feet-
thick multi-layer cover system comprised, from bottom to top, of:
(A) A minimum 30-inch thick infiltration layer consisting of:
(1) Existing intermediate cover; and
(2) additional cover soil which, prior to placement, shall be
wetted to optimal moisture as determined by ASTM D 1557 and thoroughly
mixed to near uniform condition, and the material shall then be placed
in lifts with an uncompacted thickness of six to eight inches, spread
evenly and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by ASMT D 1557, and shall:
(i) Exhibit a grain size distribution that excludes particles in
excess of three inches in diameter;
(ii) have a minimum fines content (percent by weight passing U.S.
No. 200 Sieve) of seven percent for an individual test and eight
percent for the average of ten consecutive tests;
(iii) have a grain size distribution with a minimum of five percent
finer than five microns for an individual test and six percent for the
average of ten consecutive tests; and
(iv) exhibit a maximum saturated hydraulic conductivity on the
order of 1.0E-03 cm/sec.; and
(3) a minimum six-inch surface erosion layer comprised of a rock/
soil admixture. The surface erosion layer admixture and gradations for
3% slopes and 3:1 slopes are detailed below:
(i) 3% slopes: For the 3% slopes the surface admixture shall be
composed of pea gravel (\3/8\-inch to \1/2\-inch diameter) mixed with
cover soil at the ratio of 25% rock to soil by volume with a minimum
six-inch erosion layer.
(ii) For the 3:1 side slopes the surface admixture shall be
composed of either: gravel/rock (\3/4\-inch to one-inch diameter) mixed
with additional cover soil as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)(2)
of this section at the ratio of 50% rock to soil by volume and result
in a minimum six-inch erosion layer, or gravel/rock (\3/4\-inch to two-
inch diameter) mixed with additional cover soil as described in
paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section at the ratio of 50% rock to
soil by volume and result in a minimum 12-inch erosion layer.
(iii) The owner and operator shall place documentation
demonstrating compliance with the provisions of this Section in the
operating record.
(iv) All other applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 258 remain in
effect.
[FR Doc. 2016-07996 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P