Federal Register: October 1, 1993. 40 CFR Part 258. Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria; Delay of Compliance and Effective Dates; Final Rule


Friday
October 1, 1993
Part VII



Environmental

Protection  Agency

40 CFR Part 258
Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria;
Delay of Compliance and Effective Dates;
Final Rule

-------
51536 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 189 / Friday. October 1, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258
Solid Watt* Disposal Facility Criteria;
Delay of Compliance and Effective
Dates
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Final rule. _ - _

SUMMARY: On October 9, 1991, EPA
promulgated revised Federal criteria for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
(MSWLFs) under subtitle D of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Today's final rule amends
these criteria by delaying the general
date for compliance with the criteria
until April 9, 1994 for certain small
landfills and by delaying the effective
date of subpart G, Financial Assurance,
until April 9, 1995 for all MSWLFs, In
addition, the MSWLF criteria -are
amended by removing the exemption
from the ground-water monitoring
requirements and delaying the date for
compliance with all requirements of the
MSWLF criteria for two years for
owners and operators of MSWLF units
in arid and remote areas that meet the
qualifications of the small landfill
exemption in the MSWLF criteria.
Additionally, the date of final cover
installation is extended for owners/
operators of MSWLFs units that cease
receipt of waste by their compliance
date. Finally, the compliance date is
delayed for certain MSWLFs in the mid-
west roeaiviug flood-related waste from
a federally designated disaster area.
Because states/Tribes may have earlier
effective dates or other requirements in
their own state/Tribal regulations,
owners and operators of MSWLFs are
encouraged to consult with their state/
Tribe.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The amendments in
this final rule axe effective October 9,
1993, except for the amendments to
§§ 258.70 and 258.74 in subpart G,
which are effective April 9, 1995.
The effective date of subpart G of part
258 (§§ 258.70 through 258.74) which
was added at 56 FR 51016 is delayed
from April 9, 1994 until April 9, 1995.
See "H. Background, A. Effective Dates"
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
further information about this effective
date.
ADDRESSES: The public record for this
rulemaking (docket Number F-93-
XMLP-FFFFF) is located at the RCRA
Docket Information Center, (OS--305),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The public •
docket is located at EPA Headquarters
and is available for viewing from 9 «jn.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays.
Appointments may be made by calling
(202) 260-9327. Copies cost $0.15/page
Charges under $25.00 are waived.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, contact the RCRA/
Superfund Hotline, Office of Solid
Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, (800) 424-9346, TDD (800)
553-7672 (hearing impaired); in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area the
number is (703) 920-9810, TDD (703)
486-3323,
For more detailed information on
specific aspects of this final rule,
contact David Hockey or Allen Geswein,
Office of Solid Waste (OS-301), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460,
(202)260-1099.;

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Outline

L Authority
n. Background
A. Clarification of Effective Dates
B. Overview of the Subtitle D Effective
Dates as Promulgated on October 9,1091
C. Implementation of the MSWLF Criteria
D, Summary of Proposed Rule
ID. Response to Comments and Analy*i*-of
Issues
A. Delaying the General Effective Date
1. A Six-Month Time Frame
Z. lOOTons Per Day or Less Size Limitation
3. Lateral Expansions
4. State Submittal of a Permit Program
Application
5. National Priorities List
6. Other Limitations Suggested by
Commentors
B. Delaying the Financial Assurance Effective
Date
C Very Small Arid and Remote MSWLF
Extension
1. Commentor-Suggested Limitations to
Qualify for the Two Year Extension
2. Alternatives for Ground-Water
Monitoring
D. Modification of the Closure Provisions for
Owners/Operators Ceasing Receipt of
Waste by Their Respective Effective Date
E. MSWLFs Receiving Flood Debris
F. Other Issues Pertaining to the July 28,1993
Proposal
1. Sewage Sludge Disposal
2. Effects of the Extension on Source
Reduction and Recycling
IV. Summary of This Rule
V. Economic and Regulatory Impacts
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C Paperwork Reduction Act.
I. Authority
EPA is promulgating these regulations
under the authority of sections 2002 and
4010(c) of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended.
RCRA section 2002 provides the EPA
Administrator with the authority to
promulgate regulations as are necessary
to carry out her functions under the Act.
42 U.S.C. 6912. Under section 4010(c) of
RCRA, the EPA Administrator is
required to promulgate revised criteria
for facilities that may receive household
hazardous waste (HHW) or small
quantity generator (SOjG) waste. The
criteria shall be those necessary to
protect human health and the
environment. At the same time, in
promulgating these revised criteria, the
Administrator may take into account the
practicable capabilities of facilities that
may receive HHW or SQG waste. 42
U.S.C. 6949a(c). EPA has interpreted
"practicable capability" to include both
the costs which facilities will incur in
complying with the revised criteria and
the technical capability of facilities that
must comply with the regulations. 56
FR 50978,50983-84 (October 9,1991);
53 FR 33314, 3325 (August 30,1988).
EPA has taken practicable capability of
MSWLF owners and operators into
account in modifying the effective date
of the revised criteria as set forth in this
Federal Register notice.

H. Background

A. Clarification of Effective Dates
By delaying the compliance dates of
the MSWLF criteria in a number of
ways, this rule relieves restrictions that
part 258 would have imposed on those
facilities that would have otherwise had
to have complied with the criteria by
the effective dates set forth in the rule
published on October 9,1991. 56 FR
50978. Because this rule relieves, rather
than imposes, regulatory burdens,
delaying the effective date of today's
rule is not necessary in order to allow
time for the regulatory community to
comply. In addition, EPA believes that
it has good cause to make today's rule
effective in less than 30 days. If the
rule's effective date were delayed until
30 days after today's publication, all
owners and operators of MSWLFs that
fall within the ambit of this rule would
have to meet the deadline already
established in part 258, which had a
general effective date of October 9,1993.
40 CFR 258.1 (e) and (j). Such a result
would negate the entire effect of this
rule, which is to provide some
regulatory relief for certain owners/
operators of MSWLFs that are finding it
extremely difficult for a variety of
reasons (including floods in the

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 189 / Friday, October 1, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 51537
Midwest) to comply with the original
effective dates in part 258. Thus, the
Agency believes that it has the authority
to make today's rule effective in less
than 30 days in accordance with section
553 of the Administrative Procedures
Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(d) (1) and (3).
B. Overview of the Subtitle D Effective
Dates as Promulgated on October 9,
1991
On October 9,1991, EPA promulgated
a rule under subtitle D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and
section 405 of the Clean Water Act
pertaining to the disposal of solid waste
and sewage sludge in MSWLFs (56 FR
50978 (October 9,1991)). The
regulations and effective dates of the
criteria were originally promulgated as
follows. The criteria applied to owners
and operators of all MSWLF units that
receive-waste on or after October 9,
1993. Landfill owners and operators that
stopped accepting waste before October
9,1991 were not required to comply
with the regulations. Those landfill
owners and operators that stop
accepting waste between October 9,
1991 and October 9,1993 were exempt
from all of the regulatory requirements
except for the final cover (found in 40
CFR 258.60(a)), which had to be applied
within six months of last receipt of
waste. Owners and operators that
continued to receive waste beyond the
October 9,1993 effective date were
required to comply with the remainder
of the landfill regulations (including
location restrictions, operation, design,
ground-water monitoring and corrective
action, closure and post-closure, and '
financial assurance). Additionally, the
regulations provided'for a phase-in oif
two of the more costly requirements: the
financial assurance requirements
(effective April 9,1994) and ground-
water monitoring and corrective action
requirements (effective October 9,1994
through October 9,1996). Finally, the
regulations allowed for an exemption
from the design, ground-water
monitoring and corrective action
provisions for very small arid and
remote landfills that met the criteria of
258.1(f).
C. Implementation of the MSWLF
Criteria
Section 4005(c)(l)(B) of RCRA, as
amended, requires states to develop and
implement permit programs or other
systems of prior approval and
conditions to ensure that the MSWLFs
are complying with the MSWLF criteria.
[The Agency intends to extend to Indian
Tribes the same opportunity to apply for
permit program approval as is available
to states. Providing Tribes with the
opportunity .to apply for approval to
adopt and implement MSWLF permit
programs, while not a statutory
requirement in RCRA section
4005(c)(l)(B), is consistentwith EPA's
Indian Policy. The Agency plans to
propose the concept of Tribal permit
program approval when a tentative
notice of permit program adequacy is
published for the first Indian Tribe
seeking program approval. 1 EPA's
implementation role is largely to review
and determine whether these state/
Tribal permit programs are adequate.
EPA believes that for permit programs to
be considered adequate, a state/Tribe
must have the capability of issuing
permits or some other form of prior
approval for all MSWLFs in the state/
Tribe, and must establish requirements
adequate to ensure-that owners and
operators willcomply with the federal
landfill criteria. A state/Tribe also must
be able to ensure compliance through
monitoring and enforcement actions and
must provide for public participation in
their permitting and enforcement
actions.
EPA-approved state/Tribal permit
programs have the opportunity to
exercise more flexibility and discretion
in implementing the criteria according
to local conditions and needs. Owners
and operators of MSWLF units located
within the jurisdiction of a state/Tribe
with an approved program may benefit
from this potential flexibility, which
extends to many parts of the MSWLF
regulations. For example, owners and
operators of MSWLF units in
unapproved states/Tribes must design
their new units and lateral expansions
of existing units with a composite liner
in compliance with 40 CFR 258.40(b),
whereas approved states/Tribes may
allow an owner/operator to use an
alternative design based on the
performance standard described in 40
CFR 258.40(a). Because of the flexibility
provided to an approved state permit
program* and because state permit
program approval is mandated by
section 4005(c)(l)(B) of RCRA, EPA
fully expects that most states will apply
for and receive full approval of their
MSWLF permit programs, thereby
maintaining the lead role in
implementing and enforcing the
MSWLF Criteria promulgated under 40
CFR part 258.
States are currently in various stages
of the program approval process. Some
states have received full program
approval, while several states have
received "partial" program approval,
whereby only some portions of the state
permit program have been approved
while the remainder of the program is
awaiting approval pending completion
of statutory and/or regulatory changes
by the state. In situations where a state
permit program is not approved, or
where portions of a program are not
approved (in the case of a partial
approval), the MSWLF criteria (or
unapproved portions of criteria) are
implemented by the owner and
operator, with no Federal permitting
program or interaction. In such
situations, where the MSWLF criteria
are "self-implementing", each owner/
operator must documen} compliance
and maintain this documentation in the
operating record.

D. Summary of Proposed Rule
When the municipal solid waste
landfill criteria were developed, EPA
included a number of features that serve
to facilitate owners' and operators'
ability to come into, compliance by the
promulgated effective dates. These
features include phased-in effective
dates,' certain exemptions for very small
arid and remote landfills, and numerous
opportunities for flexibility in states/
Tribes with EPA-approved permit
programs. Despite these features, the
Agency received a significant number of
requests to extend the effective date of
the MSWLF criteria. These requests
came primarily from local governments
that own/operate smaller landfills who
related their problems with meeting the
effective date, including: (1) inability to
comply with unfunded federal
requirements; (2) lack of flexibility in
unapproved states; and (3) delays in
gaining access to new waste
management facilities. Therefore, on
July 28,1993, the Agency proposed to
amend the municipal solid waste
landfill criteria (58 FR 40568) to extend
the effective date of the Criteria. The
proposal was not intended to change'the
environmentally protective features of
the MSWLF criteria, but would provide
certain owners and operators with
additional time to come into compliance
with the MSWLF criteria requirements.
The July 28th notice proposed to
amend the criteria in four areas. First,
the Agency proposed to delay the
effective date of the criteria until April
9,1994 for certain small landfills that:
dispose of 100 tons of waste per day or
less; are located in a state that has
submitted an application for permit
program approval by October 9,1993 or
are located on Indian Lands; and are not
currently on the National Priorities List.
Second, EPA proposed to delay the
effective date of Subpart G, Financial
Assurance, until April 9,1995 for all
MSWLFs. Third, hi response to a U.S.
Court of Appeals decision, Sierra Club
v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. 992 F.2d 337 (D.C.

-------
51538 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 189 / Friday, October 1, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
Or. 1993), the Agency proposed to
remove the exemption from the ground-
water monitoring requirements in 40
CFR 258^0-258.55, for owners and
operators of MSWLF units in arid and
remote areas that meet the qualifications
of the small landfill exemption outlined
In 40 CFR 258.1(f). Additionally, EPA
proposed to extend the effective date for
all requirements of the MSWLF criteria
for a period of two years, until October
9.1995, for all MSWLF units in arid and
remote areas that qualify for the small
landfill exemption under 258.1(f).
Lastly, the Agency proposed to amend
the final cover requirements by
requiring owners/operators of MSWLF
units that cease receipt of waste by their
effective date to complete final cover
installation by October 9.1994 except
for very small MSWLFs. Very small
MSWLF* in arid and remote areas that
qualify for the small landfill exemption
(under 258.1(f)} and cease receipt of
waste before their effective date of
October 9,1995 must complete final
cover installation by October 9,1996.

m. Response to Comments and
Analysis of Issues

The SO-day comment period for the
Jury 28th proposed rule ended on
August 27,1993. The Agency received
over 300 comments on the proposal.
This section summarizes and addresses
the major comments as they relate to the
four major amendments in the July 28,
1993 proposal. The Agency received a
number of comments on the MSWLF
criteria not directly related to the issue
of delaying the effective date. The
discussion that follows is limited to the
major issues relevant to the July 28th
proposal. A discussion, of th« remaining
comments can be found in a background
document available in the RCRA Docket
Information Center.

A. Delaying the General Effective Date

In th« July 28th proposal, EPA
requested comment on a proposed six-
month delay of the effective date (to
April 9,1994) for MSWLFs accepting
100 TPD or less of any combination of
household, commercial, or industrial
solid waste on an average annual basis
that are located in either a state that has
submitted an application for permit
program approval by October 9,1993 or
on Indian lands and are not on the
Superfund National Priorities List
(NFL). The majority of commentors
were generally in favor of the proposed
delay. The major comments submitted
on this portion of the proposal are
summarized below.
1. A Six-Month Time Frame
The proposed rule provided for a one-
time, six-month delay of the general
effective date. Some commentors
questioned the appropriateness of the
Agency's choice of a six-month delay of
the effective date. Proposals from
commentors ranged from total
opposition to any delay to enthusiastic
support fora longer delay by as much
as two years. Commentors who
supported the extension cited many
reasons, including the following: (1)
inability to comply with unfunded
federal requirements; (2) lack of
flexibility in unapproved states; and (3)
delays in gaining access to a new waste
management facility. As for those who
supported a longer delay by as much as
two years, these commentors believed
that six months was too short based on
their specific situation. As stated in the
proposal, the Agency chose a six-month
delay to accommodate the parties most
in need—owners and operators, such as
small communities (including local
governments that own/operate
MSWLFs)—who have made good faith
efforts to seek alternative disposal
facilities and need some limited
additional time to complete those
efforts. 58 FR 40570-71. While six
months may not be enough time for all
owners and operators to complete all
necessary actions, EPA does not want to
further delay the implementation of die
criteria promulgated almost two years
ago. This additional time is not
designed to solve the problems feeing
communities that recently started the
siting process or who are many months
or years away from operating a new
facility. Lengthy, delays could increase
the potential for environmental
problems 4e*g., failure to close
substandard landfills) and would
penalize those who took the necessary
steps to comply with the October 9,
1993 effective date. Therefore, the
Agency did not find these arguments to
delay the effective date .beyond six
months to be persuasive.
Other commentors suggested that EPA
should delay the general effective date
for more than six months to allow EPA
more time to approve additional state
permit programs. EPA has determined
that, on the average, review and
approval of a typical state permit
program application can be completed
within approximately six months. Based
on current information from states, EPA
believes that all or almost all states will
submit an application for approval by
October 9,1993. This six-month
extension will ensure in most cases that
the federal criteria would not become
effective before the state permit program
was approved, thus allowing many
owners and operators to avoid the
situation of gearing up to meet federal
standards and then, a few months later,
changing to meet newly approved state
standards. In addition, this additional
time will allow a vast majority of
MSWLF owners and operators to take
advantage of the flexibility and the
potential cost savings available when
states are approved.
2.100 Tons Per Day or Less Size
Limitation
The proposed rule limited the six-
month extension to smaller landfills
that accept 10O tons per day or less of
any combination of household,
commercial, or industrial solid waste.
The Agency received a number of
comments on this restriction. Some
commentors suggested an increased
tonnage limit (up to 750 TPD), while
others questioned the need to limit the
extension based on the amount of waste
accepted by the landfill and felt that the
extension should be available to owners
and operators regardless of the amount
of waste accepted per day (i.e., a blanket
extension). As stated in the proposal,
the Agency believes that the 100 TPD or
less cut-off is representative of the
majority of smaller community .landfills
that have had the most difficulty coming
into full compliance by the October 9,
1993 deadline, because financial
conditions, legal challenges, and
geography have created significant
obstacles to compliance, often despite
good-faith efforts to comply. For
example, many of the smaller landfills
intend to close, and their users will
instead send their waste to a regional
waste management facility where they
can take advantage of economies of
scale. The process of regionalization-,
including closure of their existing
MSWLF and construction of anew
transfer station, has taken more time
than many small communities had
originally anticipated. Additionally, the
Agency is concerned that increasing the
tonnage or allowing a "blanket" or
unlimited extension, as suggested by
some commentors, would not fulfill
EPA's goal of granting relief to only
those most in need—primarily small
communities. By setting the limit at 100
TPD, the Agency targets relief to the
greatest extent possible while ensuring
that most waste, as of October 9,1993,
will be disposed in accordance with the
requirements of 4O CFR part 258. As
discussed in the proposal, setting the
limit at 100 tons per day would provide
potential relief to approximately 75
percent of the MSWLFs in the country
which manage only about 15 percent of
the total national waste stream.

-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 189 /  Friday,  October 1, 1993  /  Rules and  Regulations    51539
  One commentor argued that the
Agency should have adhered to its own
definition, in the October 9,1991 rule,
of a small landfill used for the small
landfill exemption found at 258.1(f)
(i.e., 20 tons per day). In developing the
proposed size limitation, EPA found
that landfills accepting no more than
100 tons per day of solid waste tend to
be those experiencing the most severe
budget and technical problems. The
Agency did not set the waste acceptance
limit for this extension at 20 tons per
day, because the scope of the problem
appeared to extend to somewhat larger
landfills, primarily .those serving
communities with a population up to a
range of 45,000 to 57,000 (i.e., landfills
accepting approximately 100 tons per
day). Additionally, a portion of the
landfills accepting 20 TPD or less will
qualify for the two year delay of all  of
the MSWLF criteria (see subsection D;
Very Small Arid and Remote MSWLF
Extension), if they meet the criteria of
the small landfill exemption in 258.l(f).
Therefore, the Agency is retaining the
100 TPD limit in the final rule. As in the
proposal, it is important to note that the
effective date for MSWLF units
accepting greater than 100 TPD will
continue to be October 9,1993.
  In the proposed rule, the Agency
solicited comments on whether two
calculations were necessary to
determine whether an MSWLF unit
qualified and continued to be eligible
for the extension. First, to qualify for the
extension, the MSWLF unit would have
had to dispose of 100 tons per day or
less of solid waste between October 9,
1991 and October 9,1992. Second, the
owner/operator of the MSWLF unit
would not be allowed to dispose of
mora than an average of 100 TPD of
solid waste each month between
October 9,1993 and April 9,1994. The
"historical" (e.g., October 9,1991
through October 9,1992) time frame
was suggested mainly to assure that
larger landfills would not alter the
amount of waste they are presently
accepting in order to take advantage of
today's six-month extension, while the
monthly average calculation was
intended-to ensure that, the "small"
landfills would remain so during the
extension period. As discussed in this
preamble, today's extension is intended
for smaller landfills already in
existence.
  A few commentors generally
supported the need for an historical
time frame calculation to determine that
the MSWLF qualifying for the extension
was indeed a small landfill. However,
numerous commentors, including many
small landfill owners and operators,
cited many reasons why they believed
the proposed method of determining the
historical time frame (i.e., based on the
average collected during the year
October 9,1991 through October 9,
1992) was unnecessarily restrictive. For
example, commentors felt the historical
time frame did not consider that
unusual circumstances (e.g., sudden
additional incoming waste due to
closure of a neighboring landfill during
the target year) may have increased the
quantity of waste to a landfill during the
target period. Commentors also were
concerned that a great deal of time and
resources could be spent in determining
whether or not a landfill, .with no scales
or past records, qualified for the
extension. Commentors noted that
recordkeeping at small landfills, usually
staffed part-time, may be non-existent
for the historical time period, may not
be organized in a way that identifies the
daily tonnage, nor allows such a time
period to be readily identified. These
commentors felt that such resources and
time would be better spent upgrading
the landfill or finding waste
management alternatives. One
commentor argued that their landfill did
not begin receiving waste until after the
historical time period and therefore has
no records.
  The Agency recognizes that some of
these situations could prevent some
otherwise deserving landfills from
qualifying for the six-month extension.
Today's rule is intended to grant needed
relief to certain MSWLF owners and
operators in a manner that does not
disqualify truly deserving facilities and
does not increase owner/operator
record-keeping burden in order tp
qualify for the extension. In an effort to
balance the need to limit the extension
to only small landfills, while at the
same time limiting the burden on those
who qualify, today's final rule provides
that the extension is for units that
"disposed of 100 tons per day or less of
solid waste during a representative
period prior to October 9,1993." The
historical measurement of waste receipt
should be based on the average
acceptance of waste over a
representative period prior to October 9,
1993, as determined by the  owner/
operator. In determining the historical
measurement of waste, the Agency
recommends that owners and operators
determine the average receipt of waste
during the period of October 9,1991
through October 9,1992. This period of
time should provide the most current
representative "snapshot" of waste
receipt at a MSWLF unit. Waste receipt
at MSWLF units after October 1992 may
not be  as representative due to changes
in practices (either downsizing or
upgrading) as a result of the impending
October 9,1S93 effective date. However.
in the instance that the owner/operator
does not have records for this period, or
believes that this period is not
representative of their past receipt of
waste, then the owner/operator may
choose an alternative period (e.g., the
most recent twelve consecutive month
period not impacted by extraneous
circumstances). The  historical
calculation method adopted for today's
extension is implicitly the same as the
historical measurement method MSWLF
owners and operators use in
determining if their MSWLF will meet
the small landfill exemption (less than
20 TPD) of 258.1(f). Owners and
operators therefore will have the
flexibility to base their historical
determination of average waste receipt
on their available records while
considering special circumstances.
  It is the responsibility of the owner/
operator to document an historical
acceptance of waste of 100 TPD or less.
The Agency will not require owners and
operators to maintain records on the
amount of waste the  facility accepts, but
if the owner/operator believes that the
facility may be close to the 100 TPD
limit, then it may be in the owner/
operators' best interest to develop and
maintain some indication on the
amount of waste accepted given the
possibility of citizen suits being filed
under section 7002 of RCRA.
  Commentors supported the proposed
monthly calculation  during the
extension period to continue to qualify
for the extension. Therefore, MSWLFs
will continue to be required to accept
100 TPD or less based on a monthly
average during the time period of
October 9,1993 until April 9,1994 to
qualify for an extension.
  Finally, the proposed rule requested
comment on methods of calculating the
tons per day accepted by facilities. EPA
suggested two methods: (1) divide the
total annual amount of waste received
by 365 days or (2)  conduct a one-time
measurement of a  day's typical full
trash-hauling vehicles, then estimate the
weight from volume of trash-hauling
vehicles by using a conversion factor
(e.g., one ton equal to three cubic yards
of waste) or using  sales/acceptance
receipts from trash haulers. Commentors
generally agreed that both of these
methods to calculate the acceptance of
waste would suffice  for the majority of
their situations. Several commentors
suggested the use of a conversion factor
of one ton equal to five cubic yards of
noncompacted waste. Rather than set
strict calculation methods, the Agency
believes that the approach should
remain flexible whereby the owner/

-------
51340 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 189 / Friday, October 1, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
operator use reasonable and defensible
assumptions in calculating their
tonnage.

3. Lateral Expansions
The proposed rule limited the
extension to existing units and to lateral
expansions of existing units to
accommodate trench and area fills. A
few commentors were concerned that
landfills qualifying for the extension
would laterally expand over a larger.
area than actually needed, thus greatly
increasing the size of their existing unit
by the new April 9,1994 effective date.
The commentors proposed that EPA
limit the capacity-of MSWLF unit lateral
expansions to not exceed six-months of
capacity for the entire MSWLF unit -The
Agency feels that this type of limitation
would create an unnecessary
complication for owners and operators
in implementation of this extension and
that this, issue already is. addressed in
the current definition of an Existing
unit The definition of "existing
MSWLF unit" in § 258.2, defines such a
unit as one that is receiving solid waste
as of the effective date of the landfill
criteria with the caveat that waste
placement in the unit be consistent with
past operating practices or modified
practices to ensure good management
The Agency has interpreted this to mean
that an existing unit is defined by the
area! extent of waste (sometimes
referred to as the waste "footprint")
placed as of the effective date of the
criteria and that the spreading of waste
over a large area to avoid the liner
requirements is not acceptable (see 56
FR 51041, October 9,1991).
A commentor suggested that EPA
should only have granted an exemption
to landfills that were undertaking
vertical expansions, and not extend the
exemption to lateral expansions. As
noted earlier, the major difficulties fn
meeting the criteria deadline appear to
fall mainly on smaller community
landfills and the extension therefore is
largely directed at such' landfills. Many
of these smaller landfills use trench and
area fill practices. For example, in a
trench fill operation, a small trench is
excavated, filled, and covered in a
relatively short period of time. As the
old trench is filled, it is extended to
accommodate additional waste. This
extension is by definition a lateral
expansion. Limiting the extension to
vertical expansions would therefore
disrupt these customary practices and
limit the extension to considerably
fewer landfills than EPA intended.
Therefore, today's final rule continues
to allow existing units and lateral
expansions of existing units to receive
the six-month extension.
4. State Submittal of a Permit Program
Application
The proposed rule limited the six-
month extension only to owners and
operators of MSWLFs in. states that have
submitted ah application for permit
program approval by October 9,1993 or
are located on Indian Lands. Some
commentors questioned the need for the
state to have submitted an application
in order for the owner/operator to
qualify for the extension. The Agency
continues to work toward its goal of
approving all states and Tribes (to the
extent they apply). Approval of State/
Tribal permit programs is a high priority
and the Agency does not want the
extension to detract from this goal. EPA
believes that the linkage, of the
extension to submission of an
application'will serve as impetus for
states to submit their applications by
October-9; 1993 and tor advancing the
Agency's goal of approving all states by
April 9,1994. La fact, the Agency now
believes that every state except Iowa
will submit an application by October 9,
1993.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
indicated that when it published the
final rule, it would include a list of
states who have submitted an
application by the date on which the
final rule was signed. 58 FR 40572.
Because most states have now submitted
an application, for purposes of
simplicity, the following is a list of
those states who have not submitted an
application as of the date of signature:
Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona,
Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, New
Jersey, Northern Marianas, Ohio, Puerto
Rico, Rhode Island, and the Virgin
Islands. Because most of these states are
expected to. apply between the date of
signature and October 9,1993, owners
and operators of MSWLF units located
in these states are encouraged to contact
their state to find out whether the State
has submitted an application by October
9,1993.
Due to the time and resources
required to deal with the effects of the
Great Flood of 1993, the state of Iowa
has indicated that it will not be able to
apply for approval of its permit program
by October 9,1993, although the state
had originally planned to do so. In an
effort not to penalize those small
landfills in-need of relief located in the
state of Iowa, the final rule does not
include the requirement that Iowa
submit a permit program application by
October 9,1993 for owners and
operators in that state to take advantage
of the six-month deity. Owners and
operators in Iowa, however, will be
required to meet all other requirements
to qualify for the six-month extension in
today's final rule.
In the proposal, the Agency provided
that owners and operators of MSWLFs
located on Indian lands would be
eligible for the six month extension
even if the Tribe had not submitted an
application for permit program approval
by October 9,1993. As discussed in the
proposal, RCRA does not require Indian
Tribes to develop a permit program for
MSWLFs. Because many of the landfills
on Indian lands could qualify for
today's six-month extension by virtue of
the fact that they accept less than 100
TPD and are not on the National
Priorities List, the Agency proposed to
allow MSWLF units on Indian lands to
take advantage of the six-month
extension, even if the Indian Tribe has
not submitted an application for permit
program approval by October 9,1993.
Commentors agreed with this provision
as long as all other requirements for the
extension are fulfilled. Therefore,
today's final rule allows owners/
operators located on Indian Lands to be
granted the six-month extension as long
as all of the other requirements of this
rule are met.
No comments were received that
suggested changes to the proposed
definitions of "Indian land or Indian
country" and "Indian Tribe or Tribe."
Therefore, these definitions are retained
in today's final rule. While the
definition of Tribes in today's final rule
does not explicitly include Alaska
Native Villages, EPA believes that, to
the extent these entities exercise
substantial governmental duties and
powers, they would be eligible to apply
for permit program approval. For
purposes of today's rule, as with Indian
lands in other States, EPA is allowing
landfills on Native Village Lands to be
eligible for the six-month extension
whether or not the Village has
submitted an application for permit
program approval.
Some commentors suggested that EPA
delegate to states who have submitted a
permit program application by October
9,1993 more flexibility in
implementation of the delay.
Commentors suggested, for example,
that such states would have the
flexibility to: Determine the need for a
delay on a site-by-site basis, to grant
longer than a six-month extension, or to
waive the 100 TPD limit. As discussed
throughout this preamble, the Agency
set the length of the extension and size
criteria so as to target limited relief for
those MSWLF units in'greatest need—
small landfills. Therefore, in order to
maintain this focus, the Agency will
continue to require that these criteria be
used as the minimum national criteria.

-------
Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 189 / Friday, October 1, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 51541
However, other commentors were
concerned that a delay of the criteria
would undermine states' efforts in
implementing the MSWLF criteria (e,g.,
oppose state's existing closure
schedules for substandard landfills). As
stated in the proposal, a state/Tribe,
regardless of its permit program
approval status, may impose more
stringent effective dates and/or more
stringent criteria for qualifying for an
extension (e.g., maintain current closure
schedules) if they so choose. Therefore,
the extension should not have the
negative effect predicted by these
commentors.

5. National Priorities List
The proposed rule did not extend the
six-month extension to MSWLFs
currently on the Superfund National
Priorities List as published in appendix
B to 40 CFR part 300. Commentors
agreed with this exclusion; therefore,
the final rule retains this provision.
Some commentors suggested that the
extension be further restricted by
disallowing any MSWLF that is on a
state Superfund list or in violation of
another state environmental regulation.
As discussed in the previous section,
states may always be more stringent
(e.g., prevent MSWLFs on their state
Superfund lists from gaining an
extension) in their approach to the
extension.
6. Other Limitations Suggested by
Commentors
A few commentors requested that
EPA limit the extension to prohibit
MSWLFs that qualify from accepting
non-hazardous industrial waste. Under
the criteria as promulgated on October
9,1991, MSWLFs may accept non-
hazardous industrial waste to be co-
disposed with household waste. The
Agency did not limit today's extension
in the manner suggested for the
following reasons: (1) The prohibition of
non-hazardous industrial waste would
be difficult to implement and enforce;
(2) this waste stream typically
represents a small fraction of the entire
waste sent to a MSWLF; (3) for some
generators, the local MSWLF represents
the only economical method of disposal
of their non-hazardous industrial waste;
and (4) this is a one-time extension for
a short period of time (i.e., six months).
Therefore, the final rule will allow
MSWLFs qualifying for the extension to
accept non-hazardous industrial waste
for co-disposal with household waste.
Finally, some commentors suggested
that in order to qualify for the extension.
the MSWLF must be in compliance with
all of the location restrictions of subpart
B of the criteria by the effective date.
EPA did not limit the extension based
on a facility meeting the location
restrictions because many of the
restrictions (e.g., wetlands, fault areas,
seismic zones) do not apply to existing
units, the major target of the extension.
In addition, under the criteria as
promulgated, existing units that cannot
meet the requirements for airports,
floodplains, or unstable areas already
have until October 9.1996 to close
(unchanged by today's rule). Limiting
the extension for these facilities would
not have much of an effect Therefore,
today's final rule does not place location
restrictions on MSWLFs eligible for the
extension.

B. Delaying the Financial Assurance
Effective Date
The proposed rule provided for « one-
year extension of the financial assurance
requirements (from April 9,1994 to
April 9,1995) for all MSWLFs,
regardless of size. The majority of
commentors supported the need to
extend the financial assurance
requirements. Commentors noted that
the one-year delay provides time for the
owners and operators to budget and to
acquire the appropriate financial
assurance mechanism for their
MSWLFs, The Agency, in setting the
original April 9,1994 effective date for
the financial assurance requirement*,
believed that this date would allow
adequate time to promulgate a financial
test for local governments and another
test for corporations (see 56 FR 50978).
However, the Agency currently
estimates that neither financial test will
be promulgated within the time frame
anticipated. The Agency believes that
local governments should have these
financial tests available to them before
the financial responsibility provisions
become effective. The delay of one year
provided in this rule should enable EPA
to finish promulgation of these tests and
should ensure that owners aad
operators will have the opportunity to
evaluate their needs based on these
financial tests. Asa result, many local
governments will be able to realize a
significant decrease in the cost of
compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements, while
assuring that the costs associated with
closure, post-closure, and known
corrective action at the MSWLFs will be
met.
A few commentors suggested that
EPA extend the effective date of the
financial assurance requirements
beyond die proposed aae-y«ar delay.
The Agency anticipates that the one
year extension will be sufficient time to
complete the proposal and
promulgation of the financial tests. EPA
also believes that one year should
provide adequate notice to affected
parties so they may determine whether
they satisfy the applicable financial test
criteria for all of the obligations
associated with their faaKtins or
whether they need to obtain an alternate
instrument for some or all of their
obligations. The Agency note* that
approved states/Tribes have tha
flexibility to develop alternative
financial mechanisms that meet tha
criteria specified in § 258,74(1) for use
by their owners and operators. This may
include development of a state financial
test. Therefore, today's final rule retains
the one year extension for financial
assurance.
C. Very Small And aad Remote MSWLF
Extension

1. Commentor-Suggested Limitations to
Qualify for the Two-Year Extension
The October 9,1991 Final Rule for the
MSWLF Criteria included an exemption
for owners and operators of certain
small MSWLF units from tha design
(subpart D) and ground-water
monitoring and corrective action
(subpart E) requirements of the Criteria.
See 40 CFR 258.1(f>. To qualify for the
exemption, the small landfill had to
accept less than 20 tons per day, on an
average »nni»»l basis, exhibit no
evidence of ground-water
contamination, and serve either
(i) A community that experiences an
annual interruption of at least three
consecutive months of surface
transportation that prevents access to a
regional waste management facility, or
(ii) A community that has no
practicable waste management
alternative and the landfill unit is
located in an area that annually receives
less than or equal to 25 inches of
precipitation.
In adopting this limited exemption,
the Agency maintained that it had
complied with the statutory standard to
protect human health and the
environment, taking into account the
practicable capabilities of smalt landfill
owners and operators. See discussion in
56 FR 50991,
In January 1992, the Sierra Club and
the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) filed a petition, with the ILS,
Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
Circuit, for review of the subtitle D
criteria. The Siena Club and NRDC suit
alleged, among other things, that EPA
acted illegally when it exempted these
small landfills fronvthe ground-water
monitoring requirements. On May 7,
1993, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued an opinion pertaining to

-------
51542 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 189 / Friday, October 1, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
the Sierra Club and NRDC challenge to
the small landfill exemption. Sierra
Club v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 992 F.2d 337 (DC
Or. 1993).
The Court held that under section
4010(c), the only factor EPA could
consider in determining whether
facilities must monitor their ground
water was whether such monitoring was
"necessary to detect contamination,"
not whether such monitoring is
"practicable." The Court noted that
while EPA could consider the
Sracticable capabilities of facilities in
etermining the extent or kind of
ground-water monitoring that a landfill
owner/operator must conduct, EPA
could not justify the complete
exemption from ground-water
monitoring requirements. Thus, the
Court vacated the small landfill
exemption as it pertains to ground-water
monitoring, directing the Agency to
«* * * ravnlse its rule to require ground-
water monitoring at all landfills;" (The
Court decision did not affect the small
landfill exemption as it pertain's to the
design requirements.)
Therefore, today's final rule, as
required by the Court, modifies the
small landfill exemption whereby,
owners and operators of MSWLF units
that meet the qualifications outlined in
§ 258.1(f) are no longer exempt from
ground-water monitoring requirements
in 40 CFR 258.50-258.55.
The proposed rule, while removing
the exemption from ground-water
monitoring for these very small
landfills, provided a two-year extension
of the effectivadate for those landfills
In order for them to rethink and act on
their waste management options in light
of the Court ruling. Some commentors
proposed limiting the two-year
extension to only the ground-water
monitoring requirements of part 258.
The Agency believes that many of those
facilities that qualified for the small
landfill exemption made a decision to
remain open based on the costs of
operation without ground-wajer
monitoring. These landfills acted in
good faith, and should therefore be
allowed to reconsider their overall
decision now that the costs have
fundamentally changed. These facilities
should be given a similar amount of
time that other facilities have had to
make such decisions. (All MSWLFs
were originally given two years notice
following promulgation of the criteria
during which time they could decide
whether jo remain in operation, when
the criteria take effect) Therefore, the
final rulo provides for an extension for
all of the MSWLF criteria requirements,
for a period of two years, for all MSWLF
units that qualify for the small landfill
exemption (§ 258.1(0). (It is important to
note that this extension is independent
of, and not in addition to, the six-month
extension for MSWLF units accepting
less than 100 TPD.)

2. Alternatives for Ground-Water
Monitoring
The U.S. Court of Appeals, in its
decision, did not preclude the
possibility that the Agency could
establish separate ground-water
monitoring standards for the small dry/
remote landfills that take such factors as
size, location, and climate into account.
Therefore, in the proposal, EPA
requested comments on alternative
ground-water monitoring requirements
for these facilities.
While the Agency received a number
of comments supporting alternative
ground-water monitoring requirements
for these very small landfills, several
commentors requested additional time
to provide suggested alternatives.
Therefore) the Agency will continue to
maintain an open dialogue with all
interested parties to discuss whether
alternative ground-water monitoring
requirements should be established and
will continue to accept information on
alternatives. Information and
suggestions on alternative ground-water
monitoring requirements can be sent to
"Alternative Ground-Water
Monitoring", Office of Solid Waste (OS-
301), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Headquarters, 401M Street,
SW.. Washington, DC 20460.
Commentors also suggested that the
Agency set an effective date for the
ground-water monitoring requirements
for these very small landfillstwo years
after the promulgation of regulations
regarding alternative ground-water
monitoring for these facilities. The point
of today's action is to respond to the
Court's mandate. At this time, the
Agency is still investigating this issue
and cannot be certain that practicable
alternatives for detecting ground-water
contamination wfll exist for MSWLF
units that would qualify for the
exemption under § 258.1(f). Therefore,
today's final rule does not tie the
effective date of ground-water
monitoring for landfills that qualify for
the small/arid and remote exemption to
promulgation of alternative ground-
water monitoring requirements.

D. Modification of Closure Provisions for
Owners/Operators Ceasing Receipt.of
Waste by Their Respective Effective Date
The proposed rule modified the
closure requirements, for MSWLFs
ceasing receipt of waste before the
effective date by requiring these owners
and operators to complete cover
installation by October 9,1994 rather
than six months after last receipt of
• waste. Commentors agreed with the
assessment of the problems associated
with completion of closure activities
within six months of last receipt of
waste. Some commentors restated their
view that, the requirement to finish
closure during the late fall/winter
months of October through March
would be most difficult and subject
their facilities to delays, if not rendering
it impossible to complete within the six
month time frame.
A few commentors suggested that the
Agency extend the completion date for
closure activities beyond the proposed
October 9,1994 to accommodate their
specific situation. EPA believes that the
October 9,1994 deadline provides
sufficient time for owners and operators
of closing landfills to complete cover
installation. This would mean that
owners/operators that are subject to the
October 9,1993 effective date would
have at least one year to install a cover,
while owners and operators of landfills
subject to the April 9,1994 effective
date would have at least six months to
install a cover. Both time frames should
provide at least six months of moderate
weather during which to plan and
install a landfill cover.
Therefore, the final rule retains the
requirement that owners and operators
ceasing receipt of waste before their
effective date (either October 9,1993 or
April 9,1994) complete cover
installation by October 9,1994. Owners/
operators of very small landfills that
qualify for the extension in 258.1(1) who
cease receipt of waste prior to the new
effective date of October 9,1995 must
complete cover installation by October
9,1996. As hi the October 9,1991 final
rule, owners and operators failing to
install a cover by these new dates will
subject the MSWLF unit to all of the
requirements of part 258.
E. MSWLFs Receiving Flood Debris
A tremendous volume of debris from
the Great Flood of 1993 in the Midwest
is expected to strain the capacity of
certain MSWLFs in. that region as well
as interfere with their efforts to comply
with the criteria. On July 28,1993, EPA
asked for comments in the proposal on
how to accommodate landfills that will
be affected by this flood-related debris,
given the original October 9,1993
effective date for the MSWLF criteria
and the extensions proposed at that
time. The comments received generally
acknowledge the need to provide some
relief to such landfills. While some
commentors requested a special two-
year or open-ended extension, others

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 189 / Friday, October 1. 1993 / Rules and Regulations 51543
indicated that six months would
generally suffice, based on past
experience in dealing with floods and
on existing landfill capacity. Several
commentors requested that states be
delegated the authority to grant targeted
relief to MSWLFs within their state that
were in need.
After reviewing and considering
comments, the Agency developed a
regulatory scenario that meets the
Agency's dual goals of granting relief to
those MSWLF units affected by the
flood of '93 while maintaining
simplicity for the purpose of
implementation. The final rule contains
a two-stage approach for extending the
effective date for such landfills, which
is independent of the extensions
discussed earlier in this preamble (e.g.,
for MSWLFs receiving less than 100
TPD).
First, existing MSWLF units and
lateral expansions of existing MSWLF
units may continue to receive waste up
to April 9,1994, without being subject
to part 258 (except the final cover
requirement), if the state determines
that they are needed to receive flood-
related waste from a Federally-
designated disaster area resulting from
the Great Flood of 1993. This provision
responds to EPA's belief that in most
cases, six months will be adequate to
handle flood-related waste especially for
historically smaller landfills that
ordinarily would have qualified for the
six-month extension for landfills
receiving less than 100 TPD, but now
exceed the tonnage limit due to
acceptance of flood debris. As with
today's six-month extension for MSWLF
units accepting 100 TPD or less, the
extension for MSWLF units'accepting
flood-related waste is limited only to
existing units and lateral expansions of
existing units; it is not intended for new
units.
Second, existing MSWLF units and
lateral expansions of existing MSWLF
units that have received a six (6) month
extension, may continue to receive
waste without being subject to part 258
(except the final cover requirements),
for an additional period of time up to
six (6) months beyond April 9,1994, if
the state determines that the MSWLF
unit is needed to receive flood-related
waste from a Federally-designated
disaster area resulting from the Great
Flood of 1993. This second provision
will allow those states that believe that
their owners and operators may need to
operate for an additional period of time
after April 9,1994, to continue to
operate up to another six months
without being subject to part 258, only
on an as-needed basis determined by the
state. EPA encourages states to limit the
use of this additional six month
extension only to situations where local
hardships will occur if the site is not
available for continued flood cleanup
activities. EPA does not intend this
flood-related extension to delay
compliance any longer than is necessary
to meet clean-up needs, especially for
larger facilities that are not subject to
the general six-month extension
discussed earlier. In no case, however,
may a state extend the effective date for
these landfills beyond October 9,1994.
Owners and operators of MSWLF
units who receive an extension to
receive flood waste and cease receipt of
waste at the end of that extension, must
complete cover installation within one
year of the date on which the extension
ended, but in no case shall the cover
installation extend beyond October 9,
1995. Owners and operators of MSWLF
units that continue to accept waste after
their extension expires must comply
with all of the part 258 requirements,
including: (1) The ground-water
monitoring requirements in accordance
with the schedule in 258.50(c) or in
accordance with an approved state/tribe
schedule and (2) the financial assurance
requirements by April 9,1995.
F. Other Issues Pertaining to the July 28,
1993 Proposal

1. Sewage Sludge Disposal
Commentors agreed that EPA should
not grant removal credits authority to a
POTW unless the POTW sends its
sewage sludge to a MSWLF unit that
complies with the full panoply of the
part 258 rule requirements. Hence, EPA
will not grant removal credits authority
to POTWs if they send their sludge to
landfills using one of today's extensions
(e.g., small landfills that choose to take
advantage of the six-month extension, or
very small landfills that qualify for the
two-year extension), since such landfills
will not be in full compliance with part
258.

2. Effects of the Extension on Source
Reduction and Recycling
One commentor felt that an extension
to the MSWLF criteria effective date
would undercut recycling and source
reduction due to continuation of
"cheap" landfill tipping fees. EPA
promotes an integrated waste
management approach favoring source
reduction and recycling as the preferred
options. EPA does not believe that this
rule will create significant negative
effects on the Agency's goal of
increasing cost-effective source
reduction and recycling. This is a
limited extension, in most cases lasting
only for a six month time frame and as
discussed earlier, affecting only 15
percent of all waste. In addition, many
states have already closed or are in the
process of closing their inadequate
landfills that would fail to meet the
MSWLF criteria requirements. The
overall effect of the criteria continues to
be supportive of both safer disposal and
more incentives for alternatives to
disposal.
IV. Summary of This Rule
Table I provides a summary of the
changes to the effective dates of the
MSWLF criteria as outlined in today's
final rule.
TABLE I.—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE EFFECTIVE DATES OF THE MSWLF CRITERIA

General effective date'
MSWLF units ac-
cepting greater than
TOO TPD
October 9, 1993 —
MSWLF units accepting less
than 100 TPD; are not on the
NPL; and are located In a
state that has submitted an ap-
plication for approval by
10VSWW
April 9, 1994 ,
MSWLF units that
meet the small land-
fill exemption In 40
CFR §258.1(f)
October 9, 1995
MSWLF units receiving flood-
related waste
Up to October 9, 1994 as de-
termined by State In six
month Intervals.

-------
51544 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 189 / Friday, October 1, 1993 / Rules and Regulationa
TABLE I.—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE EFFECTIVE DATES OF THE MSWLF CRITERIA—Continued

INe to »he eOecNve do* for to-
0600, operation, deelgn,
and ctosure/poet-ctoauje.
D^bywHchtocloeeBcaaae
ncefr ct waste by the gen-
eral effective date.
Effective date of groundwaiv
rnoortonog ana corrective ac-
«on.
r*f!V*4ftuek r^Mi* rrf ftnmnrlal ••*
•uranc* rtqui ramtrts.
MSWLF unfta ao-
copttno orsntsr ttun
fOOTPD
October 9, 1994
Prior to receipt ol
unHs; October 9.
1994 through Oc-
tobers, 1996 for
existing units and
lateral expansions.
Arvril B 1Qfl£

MSWLF units accepting loss
tfun 100 TP0; «f« not on to*
NPU and arc located In a
state that has submitted on ap-
<^&%r*»
October 9, 1994
October 9, 1994 for new units;
Qrfnhftf A IQQel ttumuth Oc-
tober 9, 1996 for existing
and lateral expansions.
April 9 1995'

MSWLF untts that
meet the small land-
flfl exemption in 40
CFR § 258.1 (t)
October 9, 1996 —
October 9, 1995 for
rwjw units' Octo-
ber 9, 1996 for
existing and lat-
eral expansions.
October 9, 1995 . .

MSWLF unite receiving ftood-
related waste
Within one year of date deter-
mined by State; no later
than October 9, 1995.
October 9, 1994 for new units;
October 9 1994 through Oc-
tober 9, 1996 for existing
and lateral expansions.
April 9, 1995.

'Ha MSWLF recer/ee<
this date the unit must'comply wMh aM'of Part 258.
V. Economic cod Xegnlalorjr Impact!
A, Regulatory Impact Analysis

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
mint determine whether a new
regulation Is a "major" rule and prepare
a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in
connection with a major rule. A "major"
rule is defined as one that is likely to
result in: (1) an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more; (2) a
major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal, state/Tribal, and local
government agencies or geographic
regions; or (3) significant adverse effects
on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation or
on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises
to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
The amendments to the regulations
outlined in this rule will, except for the
provision requiring dry/remote vary
small landfills to perform ground-water
monitoring, have the effect of reducing
requirements imposed by the 40 CFR
part 258 criteria. While the Agency
estimates that increased costs to
household* for the ground-water
monitoring requirements added as a
result of the Court's decision may be
significant for some of the very smallest
communities, the Agency does not
believe that this is a major rule for the
purposes of determining whether to
conduct an RIA. Moreover, under
today's final rule, owners and operators
of MSWLF units that meet the small
landfill exemption of $ 258.1 (f) are
provided regulatory relief by a delayed
effective date.
EPA has updated and revised the cost
estimates reported in the preamble for
the proposal for today's rule. A detailed
explanation of unit costs and
methodology can be found in a
technical memorandum to the docket.
In estimating the national annualized
costs attributable to the removal of the
ground-water monitoring exemption for
dry/small landfills, the Agency defined
small landfills as those accepting less
than 20 tons per day (TPD), and dry
landfills as those located in exeas
receiving less than 25 inches of
precipitation per year. (The Agency
does not have complete data on the
number of very small landfills that
qualify for the exemption because they
are remote; that is, because they
experience three consecutive months
with no surface transportation.
However, the Agency believes that most
of these landfills are captured in the
assumptions used to develop the
estimated number of small arid
landfills.) EPA assumed a universe of
750 dry/small landfills will be operating
in 1995 (approximately 517 1 TPD
landfills and 232 10 TPD landfills). This
estimate is derived from the municipal
landfill survey of 1988, and is based
upon the closure dates reported by
landfills at that time. EPA assumed
landfills which reported closure dates
prior to 1995 will nave closed and those
communities have turned to larger
landfills which would not be affected by
today's rule. For landfills which
reported closure dates after 1995, EPA
estimated ground-water monitoring
costs.
EPA developed national costs
estimates using most of the assumptions
used in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) developed for the revised Criteria.
For the purposes of this analysis, EPA
assumed that landfills would monitor
ground water during the operating life
and for a thirty year post-closure care
period (the post-closure care period
requirement may vary in an approved
state). EPA estimated costs for two
representative sizes under 20 TPD: A 10
TPD landfill and a 1 TPD landfill. The
Agency assumed that for a 10 TPD
landfill, five well clusters, with three
wells each would be used. For a one
TPD landfill, EPA assumed three well
clusters with three wells each would be
used. EPA used average unit capital
costs for ground-water monitoring,
assuming a well depth of 140 feet. The
Agency recognizes that these average
costs may underestimate costs to some
individual landfills which, due to
remoteness or site-specific
characteristics (e.g., high depth to
ground water), may have higher well
construction costs than estimated. For
example, the depth to ground water in
some dry areas can be several hundred
result in additional costs of
approximately $35 to $50 for each
additional foot. This means that the
difference in cost of a well cluster
extending to 140 feet versus a well
cluster extending to 300 feet would be
approximately 25% more for the well
construction costs, which would
increase the initial hydrogeologic study
and construction costs incurred in one
year by approximately B percent for a 1
TPD landfill and 11 percent for a 10
TPD landfill. Additional well depths
would likewise continue to increase^
costs. One commentor from Nevada
indicated that the depth to ground water

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 189 / Friday, October 1. 1993 / Rules and Regulations S1545
can be over 1,000 feet. Clearly the costs
of digging a well in this situation will
be higher than estimated here.
Additionally, the costs of well
construction in remote areas could be
higher if an expense to transport
equipment to the site is incurred. This
may be a significant cost to
communities which are very remote and
have limited access.
EPA assumed it will cost less to
comply with the ground-water
monitoring requirements in today's rule
for landfills located in states already
requiring ground-water monitoring (39
states required ground-water monitoring
in 1991).
EPA assumed that landfills with short
remaining lives would distribute the
costs of the ground-water monitoring
over the life of the new replacement
landfill.' This is a reasonable
assumption for municipalities which
control tipping fees for residents and
have the ability to spread the costs of
ground-water monitoring over a longer
time period. It will not always be
possible for private landfill owners to
annualized these costs over post-closure
years.
EPA estimates that the national
annualized costs of requiring ground-
water monitoring for all dry/small
landfills is approximately $13 million
per year (in 1992 dollars). This estimate
represents potential costs resulting from
the court decision to require ground-
water monitoring for all dry/small
landfills. EPA expects, however, that
some dry/small landfills would have
joined a regionalized waste management
system prior to the implementation
date, and thus will not incur these
ground-water monitoring costs.
Costs-to individual landfills will vary
greatly. Landfills located in states which
already require ground-water
monitoring may not experience any
additional costs. Landfills located in
states with no ground-water
requirements may incur the full cost of
ground-water monitoring.
Size will affect landfill cost. EPA
estimates that the annualized cost (for
i For example, a landfill which is expected to
close in five years would distribute the costs across
the five, years plus the twenty years a new
replacement landfill would operate. This ability to
average costs of existing landfills and new
replacement landfills was assumed in the RIA.
Because the cost analysis in the RIA indicates that,
except in the most remote or unaccessible areas,
costs per ton for using a larger regional landfill is
less expensive than for small landfills, EPA
assumed communities would use regional waste
facilities upon closure of small landfills. Since
requirements for large landfills axe not being
affected by today's very small landfill ground-water
monitoring requirements, no costs of the
replacement landfill are included in cost estimates
presented today.
thirty years) for ground-water
monitoring at a 10 TPD landfill, with a
ten year operating life, would be
approximately $32,000 or $32 per
household per year. The annualized cost
for ground-water monitoring at a 1 TPD
landfill, with a ten year operating life,
Would be approximately $22,000 or
$222 per household per year. Clearly,
costs to the very small landfills (e.g., 1
TPD) may be high per household.
The Agency does not believe a
significant number of MSWLFs will
experience corrective action costs due to
the Court's decision for several reasons.
First, it is unlikely that continued
operation of these small landfills will
result in ground-water contamination
that requires corrective action. Because
these landfills generally are located in
dry areas receiving less than 25 inches
of precipitation per year, very little
leachate will be available'for release to
the ground water. Additionally, many of
these dry/small landfills are situated
above aquifers that typically are located
several hundred feet below the ground
surface, thereby creating a significant
natural barrier to threat of
contamination. Second, even if these
landfill owners and operators detected
contamination that would trigger
corrective action, the MSWLF criteria
currently allow the Director of a state
with an EPA-approved permit program
to waive corrective action under the
circumstances outlined in 40 CFR
258.57(e). Thud, of the small landfills
that would have qualified for the small
landfill exemption, it is difficult to
estimate the number of these landfills
that will continue to operate now that
they are required to perform ground-
water monitoring. Many will choose to
close because of-these new
requirements.
Thus, given these factors, it is difficult
to estimate the national cost impact of
corrective action on these small
landfills. The Agency believes that few
would contaminate ground water and be
required to perform these clean-up
activities. However, if a landfill did
trigger corrective action in a state that
required clean-up, the Agency estimates
that the average total annualized cost
(over 20 years) of corrective action for
that landfill would range from
approximately $160,000 to $350,000 per
year. These costs assume pump and
treat clean-up technology and a 40-year
post-closure care period.
Again, most of the cost assumptions
in this estimate are based on unit cost
assumptions from the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Revised Subtitle D
Criteria found in docket number F-91-
CMLF-FFFFF.
The Agency believes that the final
rule does not meet the definition of a
major regulation. Thus, the Agency is
not conducting a Regulatory Impact
Analysis at this time. Today's final rule
has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to
prepare, and make available for public
comment, a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the impact of a
proposed or final rule on small entities
(Le., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of an
agency certifies the rule will not have
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The estimates of potential total
annualized costs for specific landfills
are discussed above.in Section V-A.
However, not all landfills will
experience these costs. Many landfills
are located in states that already require
ground-water monitoring and/or
corrective action and thus there would
be little incremental cost to these
landfills due to the court decision. In
addition, EPA believes there will be a
reduction in small landfills over time as
these landfills close and communities
regionalize.
The amendments to 40 CFR part 258,
except for the provision requiring dry/
remote small landfills accepting less
than 20 TPD to perform ground-water
monitoring, have the general effect of
reducing the requirements of the part
258 criteria, thereby imposing no
additional economic impact to small
entities.
The provision requiring dry/remote
landfills accepting less than 20 TPD to
perform ground-water monitoring could
have a significant economic impact on
some of these small entities. Agency
data indicate that economic impact will
vary with size, with larger landfills
experiencing a relatively moderate Cost
increase per household when compared
to smaller landfills where economies of
scale are not available, Agency data
indicate that the average annualized
costs of ground-water monitoring for a
MSWLF unit accepting approximately
10 TPD operating for 10 years would
cost about $30 per. household when
annualized over 30 years ($65 per
household when annualized over only
the 10 year operating life). For landfills
accepting less than one TPD (the
Agency estimates that over one-half of
all MSWLF units that qualify for the

-------
5154* Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 189 / Friday, October 1, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
exemption BIS in this BIZ* category), the
average annualized exist would be about
$220 per household when annualized
over 30 yaers ($450 per household if
annualized over only the 10 year
operating life).
The Agency believes that estimated
costs of $220 per household for the very
smallest communities are significant In
the RIA for the revised criteria, the
Agency used a threshold of $100 per
household to identify moderate impacts.
For the RIA, the Agency also looked at
a second threshold; the Agency
considered incremental costs that were
greater than one percent of median
household income as being
"significant." 1990 Census data
indicates that median household
income across the United States is
$30,000. However, EPA recognizes that
several communities have median
household incomes below the national
median. 19S9 Census data indicate that
13.1 percent of all persons live below
poverty level. Poverty level for a three
person household is defined as $9,900
income per year. In communities where
household incomes are below the
national median, a $100 or higher cost
per household could be close to one
percent of household income and thus
nave a significant impact. Again, cost
figures presented here are rough
estimates using national unit costs;
labor and equipment costs will vary per
site and may be more expensive in rural,
remote areas of the country. Also, the
Agency assumed a specific ground-
water monitoring system of 3 or 5 wells
clusters depending on the size of the
landfill. To the extent that landfills use
different systems, costs will vary.
The Agency does not have a precise
count of small landfills that will be
affected by this rule. According to the
1986 landfill survey, many of the small
landfills had plans to close by 1995.
Others have closed as communities
participate in regionalized waste
management Therefore, while EPA
estimates, according to information from
the 1986 survey, that there may be
approximately 750 landfills that could
be affected by today's rule, it is unclear
how many actually are in this universe
today.
While the Agency believes that the
costs described above may have
substantial impacts on some of the very
smallest communities, the court
decision leaves the Agency no choice
but to promulgate these change* to
ground-water monitoring requirements
for dry/small t«nHfill«. However.as
mentioned earlier, the Agency continues
to solicit information on alternative
ground-water monitoring procedures
that could accommodate the practicable
capability of small landfills through
consideration of size, location, and
climate, while ensuring that the
program is adequate to detect
contamination. It is the Agency's goal to
identify alternative monitoring methods
that would reduce the cost impacts
described above.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Agency has determined that there
are no new reporting, notification, or
recordkeeping provisions associated
with today's final rule.
List of Subject ia 40 CFRPart 258
Corrective action, Ground-water
monitoring, Household hazardous
waste, Liner requirements, Liquids in
landfills, State/Tribal permit program
approval and adequacy, Security
measures. Small quantity generators,
Waste disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: September 27,1993.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble,
title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS

1. The authority citation for part 258
is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6907(a){3), 6912(a),
6944(a) and 694B(c); 33 U.S.C 1345 (d) and
(e).
2. Section 258.1 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d), (e), (f)(l)
introductory text (f)(3), and (j) to read
as follows:

S 258.1 Purpose, acope, and applicability.
*****
(d)(l) MSWLF units that meet the
conditions of 258.1(e)(2) and receive
waste after October 9,1991 but stop
receiving waste before April 9,1994. are
exempt from all the requirements of this
part 258, except the final cover
requirement specified in § 258.60(a).
The final cover must be installed by
October 9,1994. Owners or operators of
MSWLF units described in this
paragraph that fail to complete cover
installation by October 9,1994 will be
subject to all the requirements of this
part 258, unless otherwise specified.
(2) MSWLF units that meet the
conditions of § 258.1(eH3) and receive
waste after October 9,1991 but stop
receiving waste before the date
designated by the state pursuant to
258.1(e)(3), are exempt from all the
requirements of this part 258, except the
final cover requirement specified in
§ 258.60(a). The final cover must be
installed within one year after the date
designated by the state pursuant to
258.1(eK3). Owners or operators of
MSWLF units described in this
paragraph that fail to complete cover
installation within one year after the
date designated by the state pursuant to
258.1(e)(3) will be subject to all the
requirements of this part 258, unless
otherwise specified.
(3) MSWLF units that meet the
conditions of 258.1(f)(l) and receive
waste after October 9,1991 but stop
receiving waste before October 9,1995,
are exempt from all the requirements of
this part 258, except the final cover
requirement specified in 258.60(a). The
final cover must be installed by October
9,1996. Owners or operators of MSWLF
units described in this paragraph that
fail to complete cover installation by
October 9,1996 will be subject to all the
requirements of this part 258, unless
otherwise specified.
(4) MSWLF units that do not meet the
conditions of 258.1 (e)(2), (e)(3). or (f)
and receive waste after October 9,1991
but stop receiving waste before October
9,1993, are exempt from all the
requirements this part 258, except the
final cover requirement specified in
258.60(a). The final cover must be
installed by October 9,1994. Owners or
operators of MSWLF units described in
this paragraph that fail to complete
cover installation by October 9,1994
will be subject to all the requirements of
this part 258, unless otherwise
specified.
(e){l) The compliance date for all
requirements of this part 258, unless
otherwise specified, is October 9,1993
for all MSWLF units that receive waste
on or after October 9,1993, except those
units that qualify for an extension under
(e)(2), (3), or (4) of this section.
(2) The compliance date for all
requirements of this part 258, unless
otherwise specified, is April 9,1994 for
an existing MSWLF unit or a lateral
expansion of an existing MSWLF unit
that meets the following conditions:
(i) The MSWLF unit disposed of 100
tons per day or less of solid waste
during a representative period prior to
October 9,1993;
(ii) The unit does not dispose of more
than an average of 100 TPD of solid
waste etch month between October 9,
1993 and April 9,1994;
(iii) The MSWLF unit is located in a
state that has submitted an application
for permit program approval to EPA by
October 9,1993, is located in the state
of Iowa, or is located on Indian Lands
or Indian Country, and
(iv) The MSWLF unit is not on the
National Priorities List (NPL) as found
in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 300.

-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 58, No.  189 / Friday, October 1,  1993 / Rules and Regulations    51547
  (3) The compliance date for all
requirements of this part 258, unless
otherwise specified, for an-existing
MSWLF unit or. lateral expansion of an
existing MSWLF unit receiving flood-
related waste from federally-designated
areas within the major disasters
declared for the states of Iowa, Illinois,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri,
Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota, and
South Dakota by the President during
the summer of 1993 pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq., shall be designated
by the state in which the MSWLF unit
is located in accordance with the
following:
  (i) The MSWLF unit may continue to
accept waste up to April 9,1994
without being subject to part 258, if the
state in which the MSWLF unit is
located determines that the MSWLF
unit is needed to receive flood-related
waste from a federally-designated
disaster area as specified in (e}{3) of this
section.
  (ii) The MSWLF unit that receives an
extension under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of
this section may continue to accept
waste up to an additional six months
beyond April 9,1994  without being
subject to part 258, if the state in which
the MSWLF unit is located determines
that the MSWLF unit  is needed to
receive flood-related waste from a
federally-designated disaster area.
specified in (e)(3) of this section.
  (iii) In no case shall a MSWLF unit
receiving an extension under paragraph
(e)(3) (i) or (ii) of this  section accept
waste beyond October 9,1994 without
being subject to part 258.
  (4) The compliance date for all
requirements of this part 258, unless
otherwise specified, is October 9,1995
for a MSWLF unit that meets the
conditions for the exemption in
paragraph (f)(l) of this section.
  (f)(l) Owners or operators of new
MSWLF units, existing MSWLF units,
and lateral expansions that dispose of
less than twenty (20) tons, of municipal
solid waste daily, based on an annual
average, are exempt from subpart D of
this part, so long as there is no evidence
of ground-water contamination from the
MSWLF unit, and the MSWLF unit
serves:
  (3) If the owner or operator of a new
MSWLF unit, existing MSWLF unit, or
lateral expansion has knowledge of
ground-water contamination resulting
from the unit that has asserted the
exemption in paragraph (f)(l)(i) or
(f)(l)(ii) of this section, the owner or
operator must notify the state Director of
such contamination and, thereafter,
comply with subpart D of this part.
*****
  (j) Subpart G of this part is effective
April 9,1995, except for MSWLF units
meeting the requirements of paragraph
(f)(l) of this section, in which case the
effective date of subpart G is October 9,
1995.
*****
  3. Section 258.2, is amended by
revising the definitions  of "Existing
MSWLF unit" and "New MSWLF unit"
and by adding definitions for "Indian
lands" and "Indian tribe" to read as
follows:

258.2  Definitions.
*****
  Existing MSWLF unit  means any
municipal solid waste landfill unit that
is receiving solid waste  as of the
appropriate dates specified in § 258.l(e).
Waste placement in existing units must
be consistent with past operating
practices or modified practices to ensure
good management.
*****
  Indian lands or Indian country means:
  (1) All land within the limits of any
Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States
Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and including
rights-pf-way running throughout the
reservation;
  (2) All dependent Indian communities
within the borders of the United States
whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof,
and whether within or without the
limits of the State; and
  (3) All Indian allotments, the Indian
titles to which have not been
extinguished, including rights of way
running through the same.
  Indian Tribe or Tribe  means any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or
community recognized by the Secretary
of the Interior and exercising substantial
governmental duties and powers on
Indian lands.
*****
  New MSWLF unit means any
municipal solid waste landfill unit that
has not received waste prior to October
9,1993, or prior to October 9,1995 if
the MSWLF unit meets  the conditions of
§258.1(5(1).
*****
  4. Section 258.50 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) introductory text,
by redesignating paragraphs (e), (f) and
(g) as paragraphs (f), (g), and (h); and by
adding paragraph (e) to  read as follows:

258,30  Applicability.
  (c) Owners and operators of MSWLF
units, except those meeting the
conditions of 258.1{f>, must comply
with the ground-water monitoring
requirements of this part according to
the following schedule unless an
alternative schedule is specified under
paragraph (d) of this section:
*****
  (e) Owners and operators of all
MSWLF units that meet the conditions
of 258.1(f)(l) must comply with the
ground-water monitoring requirements
of this part according to the following
schedule:
  (1) All MSWLF units less than two
miles from a drinking water intake
(surface or subsurface) must be in
compliance with the ground-water
monitoring requirements specified in
258.51 through 258.55 by October 9,
1995;
  (2) All MSWLF units greater than two
miles from a drinking water intake
(surface or subsurface) must be in
compliance with the ground-water
monitoring requirements specified in
258.51 through 258.55 by October 9,
1996.
*****
  5. Section 258.70 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 258.70  Applicability and effective date.
*****
  (b) The requirements of this section
are effective April 9,1995 except for
MSWLF units meeting the conditions of
258.1(f)(l), in which case the effective
date is October 9,1995.
  6. Section 258.74 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:

§258.74  Allowable mechanisms.
*****
  (a)  • •  *
  (5) The initial payment into the trust
fund must be made before the initial
receipt of waste or before the effective
date the requirements of this section
(April 9,1995, or October 9,1995 for
MSWLF units meeting the conditions of
258.1(f)(l)), whichever is later, in the
case of closure and post-closure care,, or
no later than 120 days after the
corrective action remedy has been
selected in accordance with the
requirements of 258.58.
*****
  7. Section 258.74 is amended by
revising the third sentence of paragraph
(b)(l); by revising the second sentence
of paragraph (c)(l); and by revising the
second sentence of paragraph (d)(l) to
read as follows:

§258.74  Allowable mechanisms.

-------
51548    Federal Register  /  Vol. 58, No. 189 / Priday, October 1, 1993  / Rules and Regulations
  (b)* * •
  (1) * * * The bond must be effective
before the Initial receipt of waste or
before the effective date of the
requirements of this section (April 0,
1995, or October 9,1995 .for MSWLF
unit* meeting the conditions of
258.1(f)(l)), whichever is later, in the
case of closure and post-closure care, or
no later than 120 days after the
corrective action remedy has been
selected in accordance with the
requirements of § 258.58.
*****
  (c) • « •
   (1) * * * The letter of credit must be
 effective before the initial receipt of
. waste or before the effective date of the
 requirements of this section (April 9,
 1995, or October 9,1995 for MSWLF
 units meeting the conditions of
 258.1(0(1)), whichever is later, in the
 case of closure and post-closure care, or
 no later than 120 days after the
 corrective action remedy has been
 selected in accordance with the
 requirements of § 258.58.
 *****

   (d) * * *
  (1) * * * The insurance must be
effective before the initial receipt of
waste or before the effective date of the
requirements of this section (April 9,
1995, or October 9,1995 for MSWLF
units meeting the conditions of
258.1(f)(l)), whichever is later, in the
case of closure and post-closure care, or
no later than 120 days after the
corrective action remedy has been
selected in accordance with the
requirements off 258.58.
*****
(PR Doc. 93-24229 Filed 9-3O-93; 8:45 am]
MLUNQ CODE IStO-«0-P

-------
53136 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 197 / Thursday, October 14, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258
[FRL-4788-6]

Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria;
Delay of the Effective Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; corrections.

SUMMARY: EPA is making technical
corrections to the Table "Summary of
Changes to the Effective Dates of the
MSWLF Criteria" which was included
in the preamble to the final rule "Solid
Waste Disposal Facility Criteria; Delay
of the Effective Date" that appeared in
the Federal Register on October 1,1993
(58 FR 51536). This correction notice
will amend errors that appear in the
portion of the table related to "Effective
date of ground-water monitoring and
corrective action."

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 14,1993.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
David Hockey (202) 260-7596.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 1,1993, EPA promulgated a
final rule under Subtitle D of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and section 405 of the Clean Water
Act delaying the effective date of the
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria
(58 FR 51536). The preamble to the rule
included a table on pages 51543 and
51544 that summarized the effective
dates of the final rule. That rule
contained minor editorial errors that
EPA is correcting in this action. The
corrections are for the table "Summary
of Changes to the Effective Dates of the
MSWLF Criteria" for the row titled
"Effective date of ground-water
monitoring and corrective action." For
the category of MSWLF units accepting
100 TPD or less; are not on the NPL; and
are located in a state that has submitted
an application for approval by 10/9/93:
the effective date for new units should
read October 0,1993 and not October 9,
1994. For the category of MSWLF units
that meet the small landfill exemption
in 40 CFR 258.1(f): the effective date for
existing units and lateral expansions
should read October 9,1995 through
October 9,1996 and not October 9,1996
only. For the category of MSWLF units
receiving flood-related waste: the
effective date for new units should read
October 9,1993 and not October 9,
1994.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the final rule is
corrected by revising the table on pages
51543 and 51544 to read as follows:
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE EFFECTIVE DATES OF THE MSWLF CRITERIA 1

Gflnarat Affective dfiifi 2 »u.
This Is the affective date for location,
operation, design, and closure/post-
closure.
Date by which to install final cover if
cease receipt of waste by the gen-
eral effective date.
MSWLF units ac-
cepting greater
than 100 TPD
October 9, 1993 ....
Octobers, 1994 ....
MSWLF units ac-
cepting 100 TPD
or less; are not on
the NPL; and are
located In a state
that has submitted
an application for
approval by 10/9/
93
April 9, 1994
October 9, 1994 _..
MSWLF units that
meet the small
landfill exemption
In 40 CFR
§258.1(f)
October 9, 1995 ....
October 9, 1996 ....
MSWLF units receiving flood-related
waste
Up to October 9, 1994 as determined
by State.
Within one year of date determined by
State; no later than October 9,
1995.

-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 197 / Thursday. October 14, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 53137

SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE EFFECTIVE DATES OF THE MSWLF CRITERIA '—Continued

Effective data of ground-water mon-
itoring and corrective action.
Etfectfve dale of financial assurance
requirements.
MSWLF units ac-
cepting greater
than 100 TPD
Prior to receipt of
waste for new
units; October 9.
1994 through
October 9. 1996
for existing units
and lateral ex-
pansions.
April 9. 1995
MSWLF units ac-
cepting 100 TPD
or less; are not on
the NPL; and are
located In a state
that has submitted
an application for
approval by 10/9/
93
October 9. 1993
for new units;
October 9, 1994
through October
9. 1996 for exist-
ing uriits and lat-
eral expansions.
AprU9.l1995
MSWLF units that
meet the small
landfill exemption
ki40CFR
§258.1(0
October 9. 1995
lor new units;
October 9, 1995
through October
9. 1996 for exist-
ing units and lat-
eral expansions.
October 9, 1995 ....
MSWLF units receiving flood-related
waste
October 9. 1993 for new
bar 9. 1994 through
1996 for existing units
expansions.
April 9. 1995.
units; Octo-
October 9.
and lateral
'This Table provides a summary of the major changes to the effective dates. See the final rule and preamble published on October 1,1993
(58 FR 51536) for a rut) discussion of an changes ana related conditions. All other versions of this table. Including the version In the October 1,
1993 Federal Register (58 FR 51536) on pages 51543 and 51544, are obsolete.
a If a MSWLF unit receives waste after this date, the unit must comply with aft of Part 258.
Authority

EPA is promulgating these regulations
under the authority of sections 2002 and
4010(c) of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended.
42 USC 6912.

Dated: October 5,1993.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.,

Acting Astlrtant Administrator. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
(FR Doc. 93-25100 Filed 10-13-93; 6:45 am]
IHUMQ

-------