[Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14878-14879]
[DOCID:fr24mr06-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-273-000]

Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

March 17, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 14, 2006, Viking Gas Transmission Company
(Viking) tendered for filing to become part of Viking's FERC Gas
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 48, to
become effective April 13, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date

need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than
the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4238 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Subpart D  Design Criteria § § 258.40 Design criteria.

( a) New MSWLF units and lateral expansions shall be constructed:

( 1) In accordance with a design approved by the Director of an approved State or as specified in § § 258.40( e) for unapproved States. The design must ensure that the concentration values listed in Table 1 of this section will not be exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of compliance, as specified by the Director of an approved State under paragraph ( d) of this section, or ( 2) With a composite liner, as defined in paragraph ( b) of this section and a leachate collection system that is designed and constructed to maintain less than a 30 cm depth of leachate over the liner.

( b) For purposes of this section, composite liner means a system consisting of two components; the upper component must consist of a minimum 30 mil flexible membrane liner ( FML), and the lower component must consist of at least a two foot layer of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 × × 10 ?  7 cm/ sec. FML components consisting of high density polyethylene ( HDPE) shall be at least 60 mil thick. The FML component must be installed in direct and uniform contact with the compacted soil component.

( c) When approving a design that complies with paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section, the Director of an approved State shall consider at least the following factors:

( 1) The hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility and surrounding land;

( 2) The climatic factors of the area; and ( 3) The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the leachate.

( d) The relevant point of compliance specified by the Director of an approved State shall be no more than 150 meters from the waste management unit boundary and shall be located on land owned by the owner of the MSWLF unit. In determining the relevant point of compliance State Director shall consider at least the following factors:

( 1) The hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility and surrounding land;

( 2) The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the leachate;

( 3) The quantity, quality, and direction, of flow of ground water;

( 4) The proximity and withdrawal rate of the ground water users;

( 5) The availability of alternative drinking water supplies;

( 6) The existing quality of the ground water, including other sources of contamination and their cumulative impacts on the ground water, and whether the ground water is currently used or reasonably expected to be used for drinking water; ( 7) Public health, safety, and welfare effects; and ( 8) Practicable capability of the owner or operator.

( e) If EPA does not promulgate a rule establishing the procedures and requirements for State compliance with RCRA section 4005( c)( 1)( B) by October 9, 1993, owners and operators in unapproved States may utilize a design meeting the performance standard in § § 258.40( a)( 1) if the following conditions are met:

( 1) The State determines the design meets the performance standard in § § 258.40( a)( 1);

( 2) The State petitions EPA to review its determination; and ( 3) EPA approves the State determination or does not disapprove the determination within 30 days.

Note to subpart D: 40 CFR part 239 is reserved to establish the procedures and requirements for State compliance with RCRA section 4005( c)( 1)( B).

Table 1  MCL ( mg/ Chemical l)  Arsenic....................................................... 0.05 Barium........................................................ 1.0 Benzene....................................................... 0.005 Cadmium....................................................... 0.01 Carbon tetrachloride.......................................... 0.005 Chromium ( hexavalent)......................................... 0.05 2,4 Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid............................... 0.1 1,4 Dichlorobenzene........................................... 0.075 1,2 Dichloroethane............................................ 0.005 1,1 Dichloroethylene.......................................... 0.007 Endrin........................................................ 0.0002 Fluoride...................................................... 4 Lindane....................................................... 0.004 Lead.......................................................... 0.05 Mercury....................................................... 0.002 Methoxychlor.................................................. 0.1 Nitrate....................................................... 10 Selenium...................................................... 0.01 Silver........................................................ 0.05 Toxaphene..................................................... 0.005 1,1,1 Trichloromethane........................................ 0.2 Trichloroethylene............................................. 0.005 2,4,5 Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid............................ 0.01 Vinyl Chloride................................................ 0.002

§ § 258.41 Project XL Bioreactor Landfill Projects. ( a) Buncombe County, North Carolina Project XL Bioreactor Landfill Requirements. Paragraph ( a) of this section applies to Cells 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility located in the County of Buncombe, North Carolina, owned and operated by the Buncombe County Solid Waste Authority, or its successors. This paragraph ( a) will also apply to Cells 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, provided that the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 4 and the State Director determine that the pilot project in Cells 3, 4, and 5 is performing as expected and that the pilot project has not exhibited detrimental environmental results.

( 1) The Buncombe County Solid Waste Authority is allowed to place liquid waste in the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility, provided that the provisions of paragraphs ( a)( 2) through ( 9) of this section are met.

( 2) The only liquid waste allowed under this section is leachate or gas condensate derived from the MSWLF, which may be supplemented with water from the French Broad River. The owner or operator shall control any liquids to the landfill to assure that the average moisture content of the landfill does not exceed 50% by weight. Liquid addition and recirculation is allowed only to the extent that the integrity of the landfill including its liner system is maintained, as determined by the State Director.

( 3) The MSWLF unit shall be designed and constructed with a liner and leachate collection system as described in § § 258.40( a)( 2) or paragraphs ( a)( 4) and ( 5) of this section. The owner or operator must place documentation of the landfill design in the operating record and notify the State Director that it has been placed in operating record;

( 4) Cells 3 10 shall be constructed with a liner system consisting of the components described in paragraphs ( a)( 4)( i) through ( v) of this section, or an equivalent or superior liner system as determined by the State Director:

( i) A lower component consisting of at least 18 inches of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 x 10 ?  5 cm/ sec., and ( ii) An upper component consisting of a minimum 30 millimeter (" mil") flexible membrane liner ( FML) or 60 mil if High Density Polyethylene (" HDPE") is used, and ( iii) A geosynthetic clay liner ( GCL) overlaying and in direct contact with the 18 inches of compacted soil in paragraph ( a)( 4) of this section and having the following properties:

( A) The GCL shall be formulated and manufactured from polypropylene geotextiles and high swelling containment resistant sodium bentonite. The bentonite geotextile liner shall be manufactured using a minimum of one pound per square foot as determined using the Standard Test Method for Measuring Mass per Unit Area of Geotextiles, ASTM D 5261 92 ( reapproved in 1996). The high swelling sodium montmorillonite clay shall be at 12% moisture content as determined by the Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water ( Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass, ASTM D2216 98. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference with 5 U. S. C. 552( a) and 1 CFR part 51. These methods are available from The American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428 2959. These methods may be inspected at EPA's docket office located at Crystal Gateway, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.

( B) The encapsulating geotextile shall be polypropylene and shall have a minimum weight of 6 oz./ square yard.

( iv) The upper component shall be installed in direct and uniform contact with an overlaying soil cushioning component.

( v) Underlying the above liner system, there shall also be installed a leak detection system consisting of a 60 mil HDPE liner placed on a prepared subgrade.

( A) A 4 inch capped pipe will drain liquid collected in the sump out beyond the footprint of the landfill cell.

( B) Water collected on the leak detection liner shall be monitored at least semi annually as directed by the State Director to determine whether any leachate escaped the liner system.

( 5) Cells 3 10 shall be designed and constructed with a leachate collection system to maintain less than 30 centimeters depth of leachate is present at the sump location. The leachate collection system shall include a continuous monitoring system to monitor depth of leachate.

( 6) The owner/ operator shall keep the Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit ( FESOP) issued by the Western North Carolina Air Quality Agency for the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility in effect, and shall comply with the provisions of the FESOP, during the entire period of leachate recirculation and the post closure period. The FESOP was issued on November 13, 2000 and contains the air quality requirements for the Buncombe County Landfill XL project.

( 7) Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. The owner or operator of the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility shall monitor for the parameters listed in paragraphs ( a)( 7)( i) through ( xiii) of this section and submit an annual report on the XL project to the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 4 and the State Director. The first report is due coincident with the October 2001 report to the state. The report should state what progress has been made toward the superior environmental performance and other commitments as stated in the Final Project Agreement. The report shall include, at a minimum, the following data:

( i) Amount of landfill gas generated;

( ii) Percent capture of landfill gas, if known;

( iii) Quality of the landfill gas, amount and type of liquids applied to the landfill;

( iv) Method of liquids application to the landfill;

( v) Quantity of waste placed in the landfill;

( vi) Quantity and quality of leachate collected; ( vii) Quantity of leachate recirculated back into the landfill;

( viii) Information on the pretreatment of waste applied to the landfill;

( ix) Data collected on landfill temperature and moisture content;

( x) Data on the leachate pressure ( head) on the liner;

( xi) Observations, information, and studies made on the physical stability of the MSWLF units that are developed during the project term, if any.

( xii) The above data may be summarized, and, at a minimum shall contain, the minimum, maximum, median, and average data points as well as the frequency of monitoring as applicable.

( xiii) The method and frequency of monitoring shall be specified by the State Director.

( 8) Termination and Withdrawal.

( i) Paragraph ( a) of this section will terminate August 22, 2026, unless a subsequent rulemaking is issued or terminated earlier pursuant to paragraph ( a)( 8)( ii) of this section.

( ii) In the event of noncompliance with paragraph ( a) of this section, EPA may terminate the authority under paragraph ( a) of this section and the authority to add liquid wastes to all or part of cells 3 10 under § § 258.28( a)( 3). The EPA Regional Administrator will provide written notice of intent to terminate to the Buncombe County Solid Waste Authority with a copy to the State Director. The notice will state EPA's intent to terminate under the rules and will include a brief statement of EPA's reasons for its action. The termination will take effect 60 days from the date of the notice, unless the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 4 issues a written notice rescinding the termination.

( 9) Compliance requirements in the event of termination or withdrawal. The Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility will be subject to all regulatory provisions applicable to MSWLFs upon termination of authority under this section. In the event of early termination of this section, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 4 may provide an interim period of compliance to allow Buncombe County a reasonable period of time for transition following cessation of liquids addition.

( b) This section applies solely to Module D of the Yolo County Central Landfill owned and operated by the County of Yolo, California, or its successors. It allows the Yolo County Central Landfill to add bulk or noncontainerized liquid wastes to Module D under the following conditions:

( 1) Module D shall be designed and constructed with a composite liner as defined in § § 258.40( b) and a leachate collection system that functions and continuously monitors to ensure that less than 30 centimeters depth of leachate is maintained over the liner.

( 2) The owner or operator of the Yolo County Central Landfill must ensure that the concentration values listed in Table 1 of § § 258.40 are not exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of compliance for the landfill as specified by the State Director under § § 258.40( d). ( 3) The owner or operator of the Yolo County Central Landfill shall demonstrate that the addition of any liquids to Module D does not result in an increased leakage rate, and does not result in liner slippage, or otherwise compromise the integrity of the landfill and its liner system, as determined by the State Director.

( 4) The owner or operator of the Yolo County Central Landfill must ensure that Module D is operated in such a manner so as to prevent any landfill fires from occurring.

( 5) The owner or operator of the Yolo County Central Landfill shall submit an annual report to the EPA Regional Administrator and the State Director. The first report is due within 18 months after August 13, 2001. The report shall state what progress the Project is making towards the superior environmental performance as stated in the Final Project Agreement. The data in paragraphs ( b)( 5)( i) through ( xvi) of this section may be summarized, but, at a minimum, shall contain the minimum, maximum, median, and average data points as well as the frequency of monitoring, as applicable. These reporting provisions shall remain in effect for as long as the owner or operator of the Yolo County Central Landfill continues to add liquid waste to Module D. Additional monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements related to landfill gas will be contained in a permit executed by the local air quality management district pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Application of this site specific rule to the Yolo County Central Landfill is conditioned upon the issuance of such permit. The annual report will include, at a minimum, the following data:

( i) Amount of landfill gas generated;

( ii) Percent capture of landfill gas;

( iii) Quality of the landfill gas;

( iv) Amount and type of liquids applied to the landfill;

( v) Method of liquids application to the landfill;

( vi) Quantity of waste placed in the landfill;

( vii) Quantity and quality of leachate collected, including at least the following parameters, monitored, at a minimum, on an annual basis:

( A) pH;

( B) Conductivity;

( C) Dissolved oxygen;

( D) Dissolved solids;

( E) Biochemical oxygen demand;

( F) Chemical oxygen demand; ( G) Organic carbon;

( H) Nutrients, ( including ammonia [" NH3"], total kjeldahl nitrogen [" TKN"], and total phosphorus [" TP"]);

( I) Common ions;

( J) Heavy metals;

( K) Organic priority pollutants; and ( L) Flow rate;

( viii) Quantity of leachate recirculated back into the landfill;

( ix) Information on the pretreatment of solid and liquid waste applied to the landfill;

( x) Landfill temperature;

( xi) Landfill moisture content;

( xii) Data on the leachate pressure ( head) on the liner;

( xiii) The amount of aeration of the waste;

( xiv) Data on landfill settlement;

( xv) Any information on the performance of the landfill cover; and ( xvi) Observations, information, or studies made on the physical stability of the landfill.

( 6) This section will remain in effect until August 13, 2006. By August 13, 2006, Yolo County Central Landfill shall return to compliance with the regulatory requirements which would have been in effect absent the flexibility provided through this Project XL site specific rule. This section applies to Phase I of Module D. This section also will apply to any phase of Module D beyond Phase I only if a second Final Project Agreement that describes the additional phase has been signed by representatives of EPA Region 9, Yolo County, and the State of California. Phase I of Module D is defined as the operation of twelve acres of the twenty acre Module D.

[ 66 FR 42449, Aug. 13, 2001, as amended at 66 FR 44069, Aug. 22, 2001]

§ § § § 258.42 258.49 [ Reserved] Subpart E  Ground Water Monitoring and Corrective Action § § 258.50 Applicability.

( a) The requirements in this part apply to MSWLF units, except as provided in paragraph ( b) of this section.

( b) Ground water monitoring requirements under § § 258.51 through § § 258.55 of this part may be suspended by the Director of an approved State for a MSWLF unit if the owner or operator can demonstrate that there is no potential for migration of hazardous constituents from that MSWLF unit to the uppermost aquifer ( as defined in § § 258.2) during the active life of the unit and the post closure care period. This demonstration must be certified by a qualified ground water scientist and approved by the Director of an approved State, and must be based upon:

( 1) Site specific field collected measurements, sampling, and analysis of physical, chemical, and biological processes affecting contaminant fate and transport, and ( 2) Contaminant fate and transport predictions that maximize contaminant migration and consider impacts on human health and environment.

( 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:

( 1) Existing MSWLF units and lateral expansions less than one mile from a drinking water intake ( surface or subsurface) must be in compliance with the ground water monitoring requirements specified in § § § § 258.51 258.55 by October 9, 1994;

( 2) Existing MSWLF units and lateral expansions greater than one mile but less than two miles from a drinking water intake ( surface or subsurface) must be in compliance with the ground water monitoring requirements specified in § § § § 258.51 258.55 by October 9, 1995;

( 3) Existing MSWLF units and lateral expansions greater than two miles from a drinking water intake ( surface or subsurface) must be in compliance with the ground water monitoring requirements specified in § § § § 258.51 258.55 by October 9, 1996.

( 4) New MSWLF units must be in compliance with the ground water monitoring requirements specified in § § § § 258.51 258.55 before waste can be placed in the unit.

( d) The Director of an approved State may specify an alternative schedule for the owners or operators of existing MSWLF units and lateral expansions to comply with the ground water monitoring requirements specified in § § § § 258.51 258.55. This schedule must ensure that 50 percent of all existing MSWLF units are in compliance by October 9, 1994 and all existing MSWLF units are in compliance by October 9, 1996. In setting the compliance schedule, the Director of an approved State must consider potential risks posed by the unit to human health and the environment. The following factors should be considered in determining potential risk: ( 1) Proximity of human and environmental receptors;

( 2) Design of the MSWLF unit;

( 3) Age of the MSWLF unit;

( 4) The size of the MSWLF unit; and ( 5) Types and quantities of wastes disposed including sewage sludge; and ( 6) Resource value of the underlying aquifer, including:

( i) Current and future uses;

( ii) Proximity and withdrawal rate of users; and ( iii) Ground water quality and quantity.

( e) Owners and operators of all MSWLF units that meet the conditions of § § 258.1( f)( 1) must comply with all applicable ground water monitoring requirements of this part by October 9, 1997.

( f) Once established at a MSWLF unit, ground water monitoring shall be conducted throughout the active life and post closure care period of that MSWLF unit as specified in § § 258.61.

( g) For the purposes of this subpart, a qualified ground water scientist is a scientist or engineer who has received a baccalaureate or post graduate degree in the natural sciences or engineering and has sufficient training and experience in groundwater hydrology and related fields as may be demonstrated by State registration, professional Certifications, or completion of accredited university programs that enable that individual to make sound professional judgements regarding ground water monitoring, contaminant fate and transport, and corrective action.

( h) The Director of an approved State may establish alternative schedules for demonstrating compliance with § § 258.51( d)( 2), pertaining to notification of placement of certification in operating record; § § 258.54( c)( 1), pertaining to notification that statistically significant increase ( SSI) notice is in operating record; § § 258.54( c) ( 2) and ( 3), pertaining to an assessment monitoring program; § § 258.55( b), pertaining to sampling and analyzing appendix II constituents; § § 258.55( d)( 1), pertaining to placement of notice ( appendix II constituents detected) in record and notification of notice in record; § § 258.55( d)( 2), pertaining to sampling for appendix I and II to this part; § § 258.55( g), pertaining to notification ( and placement of notice in record) of SSI above ground water protection standard; § § § § 258.55( g)( 1)( iv) and 258.56( a), pertaining to assessment of corrective measures; § § 258.57( a), pertaining to selection of remedy and notification of placement in record; § § 258.58( c)( 4), pertaining to notification of placement in record ( alternative corrective action measures); and § § 258.58( f), pertaining to notification of placement in record ( certification of remedy completed).

[ 56 FR 51016, Oct. 9, 1991; 57 FR 28628, June 26, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 51547, Oct. 1, 1993; 60 FR 52342, Oct. 6, 1995] § § 258.51 Ground water monitoring systems.

( a) A ground water monitoring system must be installed that consists of a sufficient number of wells, installed at appropriate locations and depths, to yield ground water samples from the uppermost aquifer ( as defined in § § 258.2) that:

( 1) Represent the quality of background ground water that has not been affected by leakage from a unit. A determination of background quality may include sampling of wells that are not hydraulically upgradient of the waste management area where:

( i) Hydrogeologic conditions do not allow the owner or operator to determine what wells are hydraulically upgradient; or ( ii) Sampling at other wells will provide an indication of background ground water quality that is as representative or more representative than that provided by the upgradient wells; and ( 2) Represent the quality of ground water passing the relevant point of compliance specified by Director of an approved State under § § 258.40( d) or at the waste management unit boundary in unapproved States. The downgradient monitoring system must be installed at the relevant point of compliance specified by the Director of an approved State under § § 258.40( d) or at the waste management unit boundary in unapproved States that ensures detection of ground water contamination in the uppermost aquifer. When physical obstacles preclude installation of ground water monitoring wells at the relevant point of compliance at existing units, the down gradient monitoring system may be installed at the closest practicable distance hydraulically down gradient from the relevant point of compliance specified by the Director of an approved State under § § 258.40 that ensure detection of groundwater contamination in the uppermost aquifer.

( b) The Director of an approved State may approve a multiunit ground water monitoring system instead of separate ground water monitoring systems for each MSWLF unit when the facility has several units, provided the multi unit ground water monitoring system meets the requirement of § § 258.51( a) and will be as protective of human health and the environment as individual monitoring systems for each MSWLF unit, based on the following factors:

( 1) Number, spacing, and orientation of the MSWLF units;

( 2) Hydrogeologic setting;

( 3) Site history;

( 4) Engineering design of the MSWLF units, and ( 5) Type of waste accepted at the MSWLF units. ( c) Monitoring wells must be cased in a manner that maintains the integrity of the monitoring well bore hole. This casing must be screened or perforated and packed with gravel or sand, where necessary, to enable collection of ground water samples. The annular space ( i. e., the space between the bore hole and well casing) above the sampling depth must be sealed to prevent contamination of samples and the ground water.

( 1) The owner or operator must notify the State Director that the design, installation, development, and decommission of any monitoring wells, piezometers and other measurement, sampling, and analytical devices documentation has been placed in the operating record; and ( 2) The monitoring wells, piezometers, and other measurement, sampling, and analytical devices must be operated and maintained so that they perform to design specifications throughout the life of the monitoring program.

( d) The number, spacing, and depths of monitoring systems shall be:

( 1) Determined based upon site specific technical information that must include thorough characterization of:

( i) Aquifer thickness, ground water flow rate, ground water flow direction including seasonal and temporal fluctuations in ground water flow; and ( ii) Saturated and unsaturated geologic units and fill materials overlying the uppermost aquifer, materials comprising the uppermost aquifer, and materials comprising the confining unit defining the lower boundary of the uppermost aquifer; including, but not limited to: Thicknesses, stratigraphy, lithology, hydraulic conductivities, porosities and effective porosities.

( 2) Certified by a qualified ground water scientist or approved by the Director of an approved State. Within 14 days of this certification, the owner or operator must notify the State Director that the certification has been placed in the operating record.

§ § 258.52 [ Reserved]

§ § 258.53 Ground water sampling and analysis requirements.

( a) The ground water monitoring program must include consistent sampling and analysis procedures that are designed to ensure monitoring results that provide an accurate representation of ground water quality at the background and downgradient wells installed in compliance with § § 258.51( a) of this part. The owner or operator must notify the State Director that the sampling and analysis program documentation has been placed in the operating record and the program must include procedures and techniques for:

( 1) Sample collection;

( 2) Sample preservation and shipment; ( 3) Analytical procedures;

( 4) Chain of custody control; and ( 5) Quality assurance and quality control.

( b) The ground water monitoring program must include sampling and analytical methods that are appropriate for ground water sampling and that accurately measure hazardous constituents and other monitoring parameters in ground water samples. Ground water samples shall not be field filtered prior to laboratory analysis.

( c) The sampling procedures and frequency must be protective of human health and the environment.

( d) Ground water elevations must be measured in each well immediately prior to purging, each time ground water is sampled. The owner or operator must determine the rate and direction of ground water flow each time ground water is sampled. Ground water elevations in wells which monitor the same waste management area must be measured within a period of time short enough to avoid temporal variations in ground water flow which could preclude accurate determination of ground water flow rate and direction.

( e) The owner or operator must establish background ground water quality in a hydraulically upgradient or background well( s) for each of the monitoring parameters or constituents required in the particular ground water monitoring program that applies to the MSWLF unit, as determined under § § 258.54( a) or § § 258.55( a) of this part. Background ground water quality may be established at wells that are not located hydraulically upgradient from the MSWLF unit if it meets the requirements of § § 258.51( a)( 1).

( f) The number of samples collected to establish ground water quality data must be consistent with the appropriate statistical procedures determined pursuant to paragraph ( g) of this section. The sampling procedures shall be those specified under § § 258.54( b) for detection monitoring, § § 258.55 ( b) and ( d) for assessment monitoring, and § § 258.56( b) of corrective action.

( g) The owner or operator must specify in the operating record one of the following statistical methods to be used in evaluating ground water monitoring data for each hazardous constituent. The statistical test chosen shall be conducted separately for each hazardous constituent in each well.

( 1) A parametric analysis of variance ( ANOVA) followed by multiple comparisons procedures to identify statistically significant evidence of contamination. The method must include estimation and testing of the contrasts between each compliance well's mean and the background mean levels for each constituent.

( 2) An analysis of variance ( ANOVA) based on ranks followed by multiple comparisons procedures to identify statistically significant evidence of contamination. The method must include estimation and testing of the contrasts between each compliance well's median and the background median levels for each constituent. ( 3) A tolerance or prediction interval procedure in which an interval for each constituent is established from the distribution of the background data, and the level of each constituent in each compliance well is compared to the upper tolerance or prediction limit.

( 4) A control chart approach that gives control limits for each constituent.

( 5) Another statistical test method that meets the performance standards of § § 258.53( h). The owner or operator must place a justification for this alternative in the operating record and notify the State Director of the use of this alternative test. The justification must demonstrate that the alternative method meets the performance standards of § § 258.53( h).

( h) Any statistical method chosen under § § 258.53( g) shall comply with the following performance standards, as appropriate:

( 1) The statistical method used to evaluate ground water monitoring data shall be appropriate for the distribution of chemical parameters or hazardous constituents. If the distribution of the chemical parameters or hazardous constituents is shown by the owner or operator to be inappropriate for a normal theory test, then the data should be transformed or a distribution free theory test should be used. If the distributions for the constituents differ, more than one statistical method may be needed.

( 2) If an individual well comparison procedure is used to compare an individual compliance well constituent concentration with background constituent concentrations or a ground water protection standard, the test shall be done at a Type I error level no less than 0.01 for each testing period. If a multiple comparisons procedure is used, the Type I experiment wise error rate for each testing period shall be no less than 0.05; however, the Type I error of no less than 0.01 for individual well comparisons must be maintained. This performance standard does not apply to tolerance intervals, prediction intervals, or control charts.

( 3) If a control chart approach is used to evaluate ground water monitoring data, the specific type of control chart and its associated parameter values shall be protective of human health and the environment. The parameters shall be determined after considering the number of samples in the background data base, the data distribution, and the range of the concentration values for each constituent of concern.

( 4) If a tolerance interval or a predictional interval is used to evaluate ground water monitoring data, the levels of confidence and, for tolerance intervals, the percentage of the population that the interval must contain, shall be protective of human health and the environment. These parameters shall be determined after considering the number of samples in the background data base, the data distribution, and the range of the concentration values for each constituent of concern.

( 5) The statistical method shall account for data below the limit of detection with one or more statistical procedures that are protective of human health and the environment. Any practical quantitation limit ( pql) that is used in the statistical method shall be the lowest concentration level that can be reliably achieved within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions that are available to the facility. ( 6) If necessary, the statistical method shall include procedures to control or correct for seasonal and spatial variability as well as temporal correlation in the data.

( i) The owner or operator must determine whether or not there is a statistically significant increase over background values for each parameter or constituent required in the particular ground water monitoring program that applies to the MSWLF unit, as determined under § § § § 258.54( a) or 258.55( a) of this part.

( 1) In determining whether a statistically significant increase has occurred, the owner or operator must compare the ground water quality of each parameter or constituent at each monitoring well designated pursuant to § § 258.51( a)( 2) to the background value of that constituent, according to the statistical procedures and performance standards specified under paragraphs ( g) and ( h) of this section.

( 2) Within a reasonable period of time after completing sampling and analysis, the owner or operator must determine whether there has been a statistically significant increase over background at each monitoring well.

§ § 258.54 Detection monitoring program.

( a) Detection monitoring is required at MSWLF units at all ground water monitoring wells defined under § § § § 258.51 ( a)( 1) and ( a)( 2) of this part. At a minimum, a detection monitoring program must include the monitoring for the constituents listed in appendix I to this part.

( 1) The Director of an approved State may delete any of the appendix I monitoring parameters for a MSWLF unit if it can be shown that the removed constituents are not reasonably expected to be in or derived from the waste contained in the unit.

( 2) The Director of an approved State may establish an alternative list of inorganic indicator parameters for a MSWLF unit, in lieu of some or all of the heavy metals ( constituents 1 15 in appendix I to this part), if the alternative parameters provide a reliable indication of inorganic releases from the MSWLF unit to the ground water. In determining alternative parameters, the Director shall consider the following factors:

( i) The types, quantities, and concentrations of constituents in wastes managed at the MSWLF unit;

( ii) The mobility, stability, and persistence of waste constituents or their reaction products in the unsaturated zone beneath the MSWLF unit;

( iii) The detectability of indicator parameters, waste constituents, and reaction products in the ground water; and ( iv) The concentration or values and coefficients of variation of monitoring parameters or constituents in the groundwater background.

( b) The monitoring frequency for all constituents listed in appendix I to thispart, or in the alternative list approved in accordance with paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section, shall be at least semiannual during the active life of the facility ( including closure) and the post closure period. A minimum of four independent samples from each well ( background and downgradient) must be collected and analyzed for the appendix I constituents, or the alternative list approved in accordance with paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section, during the first semiannual sampling event. At least one sample from each well ( background and downgradient) must be collected and analyzed during subsequent semiannual sampling events. The Director of an approved State may specify an appropriate alternative frequency for repeated sampling and analysis for appendix I constituents, or the alternative list approved in accordance with paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section, during the active life ( including closure) and the post closure care period. The alternative frequency during the active life ( including closure) shall be no less than annual. The alternative frequency shall be based on consideration of the following factors:

( 1) Lithology of the aquifer and unsaturated zone;

( 2) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer and unsaturated zone;

( 3) Ground water flow rates;

( 4) Minimum distance between upgradient edge of the MSWLF unit and downgradient monitoring well screen ( minimum distance of travel); and ( 5) Resource value of the aquifer.

( c) If the owner or operator determines, pursuant to § § 258.53( g) of this part, that there is a statistically significant increase over background for one or more of the constituents listed in appendix I to this part or in the alternative list approved in accordance with paragraph ( a)( 2) of this section, at any monitoring well at the boundary specified under § § 258.51( a)( 2), the owner or operator:

( 1) Must, within 14 days of this finding, place a notice in the operating record indicating which constituents have shown statistically significant changes from background levels, and notify the State director that this notice was placed in the operating record; and ( 2) Must establish an assessment monitoring program meeting the requirements of § § 258.55 of this part within 90 days except as provided for in paragraph ( c)( 3) of this section.

( 3) The owner/ operator may demonstrate that a source other than a MSWLF unit caused the contamination or that the statistically significant increase resulted from error in sampling, analysis, statistical evaluation, or natural variation in ground water quality. A report documenting this demonstration must be certified by a qualified ground water scientist or approved by the Director of an approved State and be placed in the operating record. If a successful demonstration is made and documented, the owner or operator may continue detection monitoring as specified in this section. If, after 90 days, a successful demonstration is not made, the owner or operator must initiate an assessment monitoring program as required in § § 258.55.

§ § 258.55 Assessment monitoring program. ( a) Assessment monitoring is required whenever a statistically significant increase over background has been detected for one or more of the constituents listed in the appendix I to this part or in the alternative list approved in accordance with § § 258.54( a)( 2).

( b) Within 90 days of triggering an assessment monitoring program, and annually thereafter, the owner or operator must sample and analyze the ground water for all constituents identified in appendix II to this part. A minimum of one sample from each downgradient well must be collected and analyzed during each sampling event. For any constituent detected in the downgradient wells as a result of the complete appendix II analysis, a minimum of four independent samples from each well ( background and downgradient) must be collected and analyzed to establish background for the constituents. The Director of an approved State may specify an appropriate subset of wells to be sampled and analyzed for appendix II constituents during assessment monitoring. The Director of an approved State may delete any of the appendix II monitoring parameters for a MSWLF unit if it can be shown that the removed constituents are not reasonably expected to be in or derived from the waste contained in the unit.

( c) The Director of an approved State may specify an appropriate alternate frequency for repeated sampling and analysis for the full set of appendix II constituents required by § § 258.55( b) of this part, during the active life ( including closure) and post closure care of the unit considering the following factors:

( 1) Lithology of the aquifer and unsaturated zone;

( 2) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer and unsaturated zone;

( 3) Ground water flow rates;

( 4) Minimum distance between upgradient edge of the MSWLF unit and downgradient monitoring well screen ( minimum distance of travel);

( 5) Resource value of the aquifer; and ( 6) Nature ( fate and transport) of any constituents detected in response to this section.

( d) After obtaining the results from the initial or subsequent sampling events required in paragraph ( b) of this section, the owner or operator must:

( 1) Within 14 days, place a notice in the operating record identifying the appendix II constituents that have been detected and notify the State Director that this notice has been placed in the operating record;

( 2) Within 90 days, and on at least a semiannual basis thereafter, resample all wells specified by § § 258.51( a), conduct analyses for all constituents in appendix I to this part or in the alternative list approved in accordance with § § 258.54( a)( 2), and for those constituents in appendix II to this part that are detected in response to paragraph ( b) of this section, and record their concentrations in the facility operating record. At least one sample from each well ( background and downgradient) must be collected and analyzed during these sampling events. The Director of an approved State may specify an alternative monitoring frequency during the active life ( including closure) and the post closure period for the constituents referred to in this paragraph. The alternative frequency for appendix I constituents, or the alternative list approved in accordance with § § 258.54( a)( 2), during the active life ( including closure) shall be no less than annual. The alternative frequency shall be based on consideration of the factors specified in paragraph ( c) of this section;

( 3) Establish background concentrations for any constituents detected pursuant to paragraph ( b) or ( d)( 2) of this section; and ( 4) Establish ground water protection standards for all constituents detected pursuant to paragraph ( b) or ( d) of this section. The ground water protection standards shall be established in accordance with paragraphs ( h) or ( i) of this section.

( e) If the concentrations of all appendix II constituents are shown to be at or below background values, using the statistical procedures in § § 258.53( g), for two consecutive sampling events, the owner or operator must notify the State Director of this finding and may return to detection monitoring.

( f) If the concentrations of any appendix II constituents are above background values, but all concentrations are below the ground water protection standard established under paragraphs ( h) or ( i) of this section, using the statistical procedures in § § 258.53( g), the owner or operator must continue assessment monitoring in accordance with this section.

( g) If one or more appendix II constituents are detected at statistically significant levels above the ground water protection standard established under paragraphs ( h) or ( i) of this section in any sampling event, the owner or operator must, within 14 days of this finding, place a notice in the operating record identifying the appendix II constituents that have exceeded the ground water protection standard and notify the State Director and all appropriate local government officials that the notice has been placed in the operating record. The owner or operator also:

( 1)( i) Must characterize the nature and extent of the release by installing additional monitoring wells as necessary;

( ii) Must install at least one additional monitoring well at the facility boundary in the direction of contaminant migration and sample this well in accordance with § § 258.55( d)( 2);

( iii) Must notify all persons who own the land or reside on the land that directly overlies any part of the plume of contamination if contaminants have migrated off site if indicated by sampling of wells in accordance with § § 258.55 ( g)( 1); and ( iv) Must initiate an assessment of corrective measures as required by § § 255.56 of this part within 90 days; or ( 2) May demonstrate that a source other than a MSWLF unit caused the contamination, or that the SSI increase resulted from error in sampling, analysis, statistical evaluation, or natural variation in groundwater quality. A report documenting this demonstration must be certified by a qualified ground water scientist or approved by the Director of an approved State and placed in the operating record. If a successful demonstration is made the owner or operator must continue monitoring in accordance with the assessment monitoring program pursuant to § § 258.55, and may return to detection monitoring if the appendix II constituents are at or below background as specified in § § 258.55( e). Until a successful demonstration is made, the owner or operator must comply with § § 258.55( g) including initiating an assessment of corrective measures.

( h) The owner or operator must establish a ground water protection standard for each appendix II constituent detected in the ground water. The ground water protection standard shall be:

( 1) For constituents for which a maximum contaminant level ( MCL) has been promulgated under section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act ( codified) under 40 CFR part 141, the MCL for that constituent;

( 2) For constituents for which MCLs have not been promulgated, the background concentration for the constituent established from wells in accordance with § § 258.51( a)( 1); or ( 3) For constituents for which the background level is higher than the MCL identified under paragraph ( h)( 1) of this section or health based levels identified under § § 258.55( i)( 1), the background concentration.

( i) The Director of an approved State may establish an alternative ground water protection standard for constituents for which MCLs have not been established. These ground water protection standards shall be appropriate health based levels that satisfy the following criteria:

( 1) The level is derived in a manner consistent with Agency guidelines for assessing the health risks of environmental pollutants ( 51 FR 33992, 34006, 34014, 34028, Sept. 24, 1986);

( 2) The level is based on scientifically valid studies conducted in accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act Good Laboratory Practice Standards ( 40 CFR part 792) or equivalent;

( 3) For carcinogens, the level represents a concentration associated with an excess lifetime cancer risk level ( due to continuous lifetime exposure) with the 1 × × 10 ?  4 to 1 × × 10 ?  6 range; and ( 4) For systemic toxicants, the level represents a concentration to which the human population ( including sensitive subgroups) could be exposed to on a daily basis that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. For purposes of this subpart, systemic toxicants include toxic chemicals that cause effects other than cancer or mutation.

( ii) [ Reserved]

( j) In establishing ground water protection standards under paragraph ( i) of this section, the Director of an approved State may consider the following:

( 1) Multiple contaminants in the ground water;

( 2) Exposure threats to sensitive environmental receptors; and ( 3) Other site specific exposure or potential exposure to ground water. § § 258.56 Assessment of corrective measures.

( a) Within 90 days of finding that any of the constituents listed in appendix II to this part have been detected at a statistically significant level exceeding the ground water protection standards defined under § § 258.55 ( h) or ( i) of this part, the owner or operator must initiate an assessment of corrective measures. Such an assessment must be completed within a reasonable period of time.

( b) The owner or operator must continue to monitor in accordance with the assessment monitoring program as specified in § § 258.55.

( c) The assessment shall include an analysis of the effectiveness of potential corrective measures in meeting all of the requirements and objectives of the remedy as described under § § 258.57, addressing at least the following:

( 1) The performance, reliability, ease of implementation, and potential impacts of appropriate potential remedies, including safety impacts, cross media impacts, and control of exposure to any residual contamination;

( 2) The time required to begin and complete the remedy;

( 3) The costs of remedy implementation; and ( 4) The institutional requirements such as State or local permit requirements or other environmental or public health requirements that may substantially affect implementation of the remedy( s).

( d) The owner or operator must discuss the results of the corrective measures assessment, prior to the selection of remedy, in a public meeting with interested and affected parties.

§ § 258.57 Selection of remedy.

( a) Based on the results of the corrective measures assessment conducted under § § 258.56, the owner or operator must select a remedy that, at a minimum, meets the standards listed in paragraph ( b) of this section. The owner or operator must notify the State Director, within 14 days of selecting a remedy, a report describing the selected remedy has been placed in the operating record and how it meets the standards in paragraph ( b) of this section.

( b) Remedies must:

( 1) Be protective of human health and the environment;

( 2) Attain the ground water protection standard as specified pursuant to § § § § 258.55 ( h) or ( i);

( 3) Control the source( s) of releases so as to reduce or eliminate, to the maximum extent practicable, further releases of appendix II constituents into the environment that may pose a threat to human health or the environment; and ( 4) Comply with standards for management of wastes as specified in § § 258.58( d).

( c) In selecting a remedy that meets the standards of § § 258.57( b), the owner or operator shall consider the following evaluation factors:

( 1) The long and short term effectiveness and protectiveness of the potential remedy( s), along with the degree of certainty that the remedy will prove successful based on consideration of the following:

( i) Magnitude of reduction of existing risks;

( ii) Magnitude of residual risks in terms of likelihood of further releases due to waste remaining following implementation of a remedy;

( iii) The type and degree of long term management required, including monitoring, operation, and maintenance;

( iv) Short term risks that might be posed to the community, workers, or the environment during implementation of such a remedy, including potential threats to human health and the environment associated with excavation, transportation, and redisposal of containment;

( v) Time until full protection is achieved;

( vi) Potential for exposure of humans and environmental receptors to remaining wastes, considering the potential threat to human health and the environment associated with excavation, transportation, redisposal, or containment;

( vii) Long term reliability of the engineering and institutional controls; and ( viii) Potential need for replacement of the remedy.

( 2) The effectiveness of the remedy in controlling the source to reduce further releases based on consideration of the following factors:

( i) The extent to which containment practices will reduce further releases;

( ii) The extent to which treatment technologies may be used.

( 3) The ease or difficulty of implementing a potential remedy( s) based on consideration of the following types of factors:

( i) Degree of difficulty associated with constructing the technology;

( ii) Expected operational reliability of the technologies;

( iii) Need to coordinate with and obtain necessary approvals and permits from other agencies;

( iv) Availability of necessary equipment and specialists; and ( v) Available capacity and location of needed treatment, storage, and disposal services. ( 4) Practicable capability of the owner or operator, including a consideration of the technical and economic capability.

( 5) The degree to which community concerns are addressed by a potential remedy( s).

( d) The owner or operator shall specify as part of the selected remedy a schedule( s) for initiating and completing remedial activities. Such a schedule must require the initiation of remedial activities within a reasonable period of time taking into consideration the factors set forth in paragraphs ( d) ( 1)( 8) of this section. The owner or operator must consider the following factors in determining the schedule of remedial activities:

( 1) Extent and nature of contamination;

( 2) Practical capabilities of remedial technologies in achieving compliance with ground water protection standards established under § § 258.55 ( g) or ( h) and other objectives of the remedy;

( 3) Availability of treatment or disposal capacity for wastes managed during implementation of the remedy;

( 4) Desirability of utilizing technologies that are not currently available, but which may offer significant advantages over already available technologies in terms of effectiveness, reliability, safety, or ability to achieve remedial objectives;

( 5) Potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to contamination prior to completion of the remedy;

( 6) Resource value of the aquifer including:

( i) Current and future uses;

( ii) Proximity and withdrawal rate of users;

( iii) Ground water quantity and quality;

( iv) The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituent;

( v) The hydrogeologic characteristic of the facility and surrounding land;

( vi) Ground water removal and treatment costs; and ( vii) The cost and availability of alternative water supplies.

( 7) Practicable capability of the owner or operator.

( 8) Other relevant factors. ( e) The Director of an approved State may determine that remediation of a release of an appendix II constituent from a MSWLF unit is not necessary if the owner or operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of the approved State that:

( 1) The ground water is additionally contaminated by substances that have originated from a source other than a MSWLF unit and those substances are present in concentrations such that cleanup of the release from the MSWLF unit would provide no significant reduction in risk to actual or potential receptors; or ( 2) The constituent( s) is present in ground water that:

( i) Is not currently or reasonably expected to be a source of drinking water; and ( ii) Is not hydraulically connected with waters to which the hazardous constituents are migrating or are likely to migrate in a concentration( s) that would exceed the ground water protection standards established under § § 258.55 ( h) or ( i); or ( 3) Remediation of the release( s) is technically impracticable; or ( 4) Remediation results in unacceptable cross media impacts.

( f) A determination by the Director of an approved State pursuant to paragraph ( e) of this section shall not affect the authority of the State to require the owner or operator to undertake source control measures or other measures that may be necessary to eliminate or minimize further releases to the ground water, to prevent exposure to the ground water, or to remediate the ground water to concentrations that are technically practicable and significantly reduce threats to human health or the environment.

§ § 258.58 Implementation of the corrective action program.

( a) Based on the schedule established under § § 258.57( d) for initiation and completion of remedial activities the owner/ operator must:

( 1) Establish and implement a corrective action ground water monitoring program that:

( i) At a minimum, meet the requirements of an assessment monitoring program under § § 258.55;

( ii) Indicate the effectiveness of the corrective action remedy; and ( iii) Demonstrate compliance with ground water protection standard pursuant to paragraph ( e) of this section.

( 2) Implement the corrective action remedy selected under § § 258.57; and ( 3) Take any interim measures necessary to ensure the protection of human health and the environment. Interim measures should, to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent with the objectives of and contribute to the performance of any remedy that may be required pursuant to § § 258.57. The following factors must be considered by an owner or operator in determining whether interim measures are necessary:

( i) Time required to develop and implement a final remedy;

( ii) Actual or potential exposure of nearby populations or environmental receptors to hazardous constituents;

( iii) Actual or potential contamination of drinking water supplies or sensitive ecosystems;

( iv) Further degradation of the ground water that may occur if remedial action is not initiated expeditiously;

( v) Weather conditions that may cause hazardous constituents to migrate or be released;

( vi) Risks of fire or explosion, or potential for exposure to hazardous constituents as a result of an accident or failure of a container or handling system; and ( vii) Other situations that may pose threats to human health and the environment.

( b) An owner or operator may determine, based on information developed after implementation of the remedy has begun or other information, that compliance with requirements of § § 258.57( b) are not being achieved through the remedy selected. In such cases, the owner or operator must implement other methods or techniques that could practicably achieve compliance with the requirements, unless the owner or operator makes the determination under § § 258.58( c).

( c) If the owner or operator determines that compliance with requirements under § § 258.57( b) cannot be practically achieved with any currently available methods, the owner or operator must:

( 1) Obtain certification of a qualified ground water scientist or approval by the Director of an approved State that compliance with requirements under § § 258.57( b) cannot be practically achieved with any currently available methods;

( 2) Implement alternate measures to control exposure of humans or the environment to residual contamination, as necessary to protect human health and the environment; and ( 3) Implement alternate measures for control of the sources of contamination, or for removal or decontamination of equipment, units, devices, or structures that are:

( i) Technically practicable; and ( ii) Consistent with the overall objective of the remedy.

( 4) Notify the State Director within 14 days that a report justifying the alternative measures prior to implementing the alternative measures has been placed in the operating record.

( d) All solid wastes that are managed pursuant to a remedy required under § § 258.57, or an interim measure required under § § 258.58( a)( 3), shall be managed in a manner: ( 1) That is protective of human health and the environment; and ( 2) That complies with applicable RCRA requirements.

( e) Remedies selected pursuant to § § 258.57 shall be considered complete when:

( 1) The owner or operator complies with the ground water protection standards established under § § § § 258.55( h) or ( i) at all points within the plume of contamination that lie beyond the ground water monitoring well system established under § § 258.51( a).

( 2) Compliance with the ground water protection standards established under § § § § 258.55( h) or ( i) has been achieved by demonstrating that concentrations of appendix II constituents have not exceeded the ground water protection standard( s) for a period of three consecutive years using the statistical procedures and performance standards in § § 258.53( g) and ( h). The Director of an approved State may specify an alternative length of time during which the owner or operator must demonstrate that concentrations of appendix II constituents have not exceeded the ground water protection standard( s) taking into consideration:

( i) Extent and concentration of the release( s);

( ii) Behavior characteristics of the hazardous constituents in the ground water;

( iii) Accuracy of monitoring or modeling techniques, including any seasonal, meteorological, or other environmental variabilities that may affect the accuracy; and ( iv) Characteristics of the ground water.

( 3) All actions required to complete the remedy have been satisfied.

( f) Upon completion of the remedy, the owner or operator must notify the State Director within 14 days that a certification that the remedy has been completed in compliance with the requirements of § § 258.58( e) has been placed in the operating record. The certification must be signed by the owner or operator and by a qualified ground water scientist or approved by the Director of an approved State.

( g) When, upon completion of the certification, the owner or operator determines that the corrective action remedy has been completed in accordance with the requirements under paragraph ( e) of this section, the owner or operator shall be released from the requirements for financial assurance for corrective action under § § 258.73.

§ § 258.59 [ Reserved]


[Federal Register: August 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 39128-39130]
[DOCID:fr05au09-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60397; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Amex LLC Extending the
Operative Date of NYSE Amex Equities Rule 92(c)(3) from July 31, 2009
to December 31, 2009

July 30, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on July 24, 2009, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\5\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operative date of NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 92(c)(3) from July 31, 2009 to December 31, 2009. The
text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the
Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to extend the delayed operative date of
NYSE Amex Equities Rule 92(c)(3) from July 31, 2009 to December 31,
2009. The Exchange believes that this extension will provide the time
necessary for the Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''),
and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') to
harmonize their respective rules concerning customer order protection
to achieve a standardized industry practice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-NYSE-2009-73, formally submitted on July 24, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Merger Background
    As described more fully in a related rule filing,\7\ NYSE Euronext
acquired The Amex Membership Corporation (``AMC'') pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January 17, 2008 (the ``Merger'').
In connection with the Merger, the Exchange's predecessor, the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''), a subsidiary of AMC, became a subsidiary
of NYSE Euronext and was renamed NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the
``Exchange''), and continues to operate as a national securities
exchange registered under Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the ``Act'').\8\ The effective date of the Merger was
October 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673 (Sept. 29,
2008), 73 FR 57707 (Oct. 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60 and SR-Amex 2008-
62) (approving the Merger).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with the Merger, on December 1, 2008, the Exchange
relocated all equities trading conducted on the Exchange legacy trading
systems and facilities located at 86 Trinity Place, New York, New York,
to trading systems and facilities located at 11 Wall Street, New York,
New York (the ``Equities Relocation''). The Exchange's equity trading
systems and facilities at 11 Wall Street (the ``NYSE Amex Trading
Systems'') are operated by the NYSE on behalf of the Exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58705 (Oct. 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (Oct. 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63) (approving the
Equities Relocation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the Equities Relocation, NYSE Amex adopted NYSE Rules 1-
1004, subject to such changes as necessary to apply the Rules to the
Exchange, as the NYSE Amex Equities Rules to govern trading on the NYSE

Amex Trading Systems.\10\ The NYSE Amex Equities Rules, which became
operative on December 1, 2008, are substantially identical to the
current NYSE Rules 1-1004 and the Exchange continues to update the NYSE
Amex Equities Rules as necessary to conform with rule changes to
corresponding NYSE Rules filed by the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58705 (Oct. 1,
2008), 73 FR 58995 (Oct. 8, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-63); No. 58833 (Oct.
22, 2008), 73 FR 64642 (Oct. 30, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-106); No. 58839
(Oct. 23, 2008), 73 FR 64645 (October 30, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-
03); No. 59022 (Nov. 26, 2008), 73 FR 73683 (Dec. 3, 2008) (SR-
NYSEALTR-2008-10); and No. 59027 (Nov. 28, 2008), 73 FR 73681 (Dec.
3, 2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 92 Background
    On July 5, 2007, the Commission approved amendments to NYSE Rule 92
to permit riskless principal trading at the NYSE.\11\ These amendments
were filed in part to begin the harmonization process between NYSE Rule
92 and FINRA's Manning Rule.\12\ In connection with those amendments,
the NYSE implemented for an operative date of January 16, 2008, NYSE
Rule 92(c)(3), which permits NYSE member organizations to submit
riskless principal orders to the NYSE, but requires them to submit to a
designated NYSE database a report of the execution of the facilitated
order. That rule also requires members to submit to that same database
sufficient information to provide an electronic link of the execution
of the facilitated order to all of the underlying orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56017 (Jul. 5,
2007), 72 FR 38110 (Jul. 12, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-21).
    \12\ See NASD Rule 2111 and IM-2110-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of NYSE Rule 92(c)(3), the NYSE informed member
organizations that when executing riskless principal transactions,
firms must submit order execution reports to the NYSE's Front End
Systemic Capture (``FESC'') database linking the execution of the
riskless principal order on the NYSE to the specific underlying orders.
The information provided must be sufficient for both member firms and
the NYSE to reconstruct in a time-sequenced manner all orders,
including allocations to the underlying orders, with respect to which a
member organization is claiming the riskless principal exception.
    Because the rule change required both the NYSE and member
organizations to make certain changes to their trading and order
management systems, the NYSE filed for immediate effectiveness to delay
to May 14, 2008 the operative date of the NYSE Rule 92(c)(3)
requirements, including submitting end-of-day allocation reports for
riskless principal transactions and using the riskless principal
account type indicator.\13\ The NYSE filed for additional extensions of
the operative date of NYSE Rule 92(c)(3) to March 31, 2009 and July 31,
2009.\14\ Because NYSE Amex adopted NYSE Rule 92 in its then current
form, the delayed operative date of March 31, 2009 for the NYSE Rule
92(c)(3) reporting requirements also applied for NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 92(c)(3) reporting requirements and NYSE Amex filed for an
extension of the operative date of Rule 92(c)(3) from March 31, 2009 to
July 31, 2009.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56968 (Dec. 14,
2007), 72 FR 72432 (Dec. 20, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-114).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57682 (Apr. 17,
2008), 73 FR 22193 (Apr. 24, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-29) and 59621 (Mar.
23, 2009), 74 FR 14179 (Mar. 30, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-30).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59620 (Mar. 23,
2009), 74 FR 14176 (Mar. 30, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2009-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Extension
    FINRA, NYSE, and the Exchange have been working diligently on fully
harmonizing their respective rules, including reviewing the
possibilities for a uniform reporting standard for riskless principal
transactions. However, because of the complexity of the existing
customer order protection rules, including the need for input from
industry participants as well as Commission approval, the Exchange,
NYSE, and FINRA will not have harmonized their respective customer
order protection rules by the current July 31, 2009 date for the
implementation of the FESC riskless principal reporting.
    The Exchange notes that it has agreed with NYSE and FINRA to pursue
efforts to harmonize customer order protection rules. As authorized by
their respective Boards, FINRA and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE
Regulation'') have each published a Regulatory Notice/Information Memo
that solicit comments from their respective member participants on the
proposed harmonized approach to customer order protection.\16\ Because
industry participants need to code their trading systems to comply with
customer order protection rules, the Exchange believes that industry
input is vital to ensuring that the approach to customer order
protection both meets regulatory needs of protecting customer orders,
but is also feasible technologically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NYSE Regulation Information Memo 09-13 (March 12,
2009); FINRA Regulatory Notice 09-15 (March 12, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both FINRA and NYSE Regulation have received comments from the
public on the Regulatory Notice and Information Memo, including
comments from industry forums such as SIFMA and FIF. The comments have
generally supported efforts to harmonize the FINRA and NYSE rules.
Among issues raised in the comment letters, however, is the concern
that FINRA and NYSE have a harmonized approach for reporting riskless
principal transactions. In addition, commenters note the need for an
implementation period to develop any technology that would be needed to
comply with the proposed reporting standard. FINRA and NYSE Regulation
continue to work together to develop such a harmonized approach to
reporting riskless principal trades.
    The Exchange continues to believe that pending full harmonization
of the respective customer order protection rules, it would be
premature to require firms to meet the current NYSE Amex Equities Rule
92(c)(3) FESC reporting requirements.\17\ Indeed, having differing
reporting standards for riskless principal orders would be inconsistent
with the overall goal of the harmonization process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange notes that it would also need to make
technological changes to implement the proposed FESC reporting
solution for Rule 92(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, to provide the Exchange, NYSE, and FINRA the time
necessary to review their respective rules and develop a harmonized
rule set that would apply across their respective marketplaces,
including a harmonized approach to riskless principal trade reporting,
the Exchange is proposing to delay the operative date for NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 92(c)(3) from July 31, 2009 to December 31, 2009.
    Pending the harmonization of the three rules, the Exchange will
continue to require that, as of the date each member organization
implements riskless principal routing, the member organization have in
place systems and controls that allow them to easily match and tie
riskless principal execution on the Exchange to the underlying orders
and that they be able to provide this information to the Exchange upon
request. To make clear that this requirement continues, the Exchange
proposes to amend supplementary material .95 to Rule 92 to specifically
provide that the NYSE Amex Equities Rule 92(c)(3) reporting
requirements are suspended until December 31, 2009 and that member
organizations are required to have in place such systems and controls
relating to their riskless principal executions on the Exchange.
Moreover, the Exchange will coordinate

with NYSE and FINRA to examine for compliance with the rule
requirements for those firms that engage in riskless principal trading
under Rule 92(c).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\18\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes the proposed extension provides the Exchange, NYSE, and FINRA
the time necessary to develop a harmonized rule concerning customer
order protection that will enable member organizations to participate
in the national market system without unnecessary impediments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it
has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the self-regulatory organization to submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay so that the Exchange can extend the operative date of
NYSE Equities Rule 92(c)(3) without interruption. The Commission hereby
grants the Exchange's request and believes such waiver is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest.\22\
Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change
operative upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-48. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2009-48 and should be submitted on or before
August 26, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18667 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61356-61357]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-421, OMB Control No. 3235-0481]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 15c2-8

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c2-8 (17 CFR 240.15c2-
8). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and
approval.
    Rule 15c2-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.) requires broker-dealers to deliver preliminary and/or
final prospectuses to certain people under certain circumstances. In
connection with securities offerings generally, including initial
public offerings (``IPOs''), the rule requires broker-dealers to take
reasonable steps to distribute copies of the preliminary or final
prospectus to anyone who makes a written request, as well as any
broker-dealer who is expected to solicit purchases of the security and
who makes a request. In connection with IPOs, the rule requires a
broker-dealer to send a copy of the preliminary prospectus to any
person who is expected to receive a confirmation of sale (generally,
this means any person who is expected to actually purchase the security
in the offering) at least 48 hours prior to the sending of such
confirmation. This requirement is sometimes referred to as the ``48
hour rule.''
    Additionally, managing underwriters are required to take reasonable
steps to ensure that all broker-dealers participating in the
distribution of or trading in the security have sufficient copies of
the preliminary or final prospectus, as requested by them, to enable
such broker-dealer to satisfy their respective prospectus delivery
obligations pursuant to Rule 15c2-8, as well as Section 5 of the
Securities Act of 1933.
    Rule 15c2-8 implicitly requires that broker-dealers collect
information, as such collection facilitates compliance with the rule.
There is no requirement to submit collected information to the
Commission. In order to comply with the rule, broker-dealers
participating in a securities offering must keep accurate records of
persons who have indicated interest in an IPO or requested a
prospectus, so that they know to whom they must send a prospectus.
    The Commission estimates that the time broker-dealers will spend
complying with the collection of information required by the rule is
24,200 hours for equity IPOs and 29,320

hours for other offerings. The Commission estimates that the total
annualized cost burden (copying and postage costs) is $48,400,000 for
IPOs and $1,172,800 for other offerings.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
R. Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: November 1, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-24144 Filed 11-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 01/17/2008 10:52 AM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Mtg call in for today?

Got it, thank you!

h

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:52 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: Mtg call in for today?

Sorry, Margaret and Barbara are out so you were not on the formal

invite.   The call-in is<PHONE_NUMBER>

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@o

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To

                                      Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet

             01/17/2008 10:20         Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

             AM                                                      cc

                                                                Subject

                                      Mtg call in for today?

Ron and Janet,

I don't have a call-in for today's 3pm phone call

I suspect we'll be in my office at OMB<PHONE_NUMBER>; do you want to

call us, or is there a conf line set up?

Thank you;

heidi