HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/13/1993
Q~ PORT -4"",
,<...J.. _.. G'<'(~
v~ .~. 'J>
.~-
~.
MEMORANDUM
321 E. FIF!'H ST. P.O. BOX 1150
PORT ANGELES, WASIUNGTON 98382
PHONE (208) 457-0411
FAX (208) 452-0353
January 13, 1993
TO:
UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CITY MANAGER and CITY ATTORNEY
FROM:
ROBERT L. JONES, SOLID WASTE SUPERINTENDENT
RE:
FAA POLICY REGARDING THE LANDFILL
Copies of the statutes and in-house policy that the FAA is using to support their position
regarding our landfill operation are attached for your information,
-"---^
~~-f-c
Robert L. Jo s,
Solid Waste Superintendent
UACbirds.RU
,
ORDER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
NORTHWEST MOUNTAIN REGION
NM 5200.'~
5/29/0,7
SUBJ: PREVENTING BIRD HAZARDS ON AND AROUND AIRPORTS
1. PIJRPLlSE. r~is Order promulgates Northwest Mountain Region policy
and procedures regarding the prevention of bird hazards to aircraft on and
around airports.
2. 0ISTRIBUTIUN. This Order Is distributed to the section level and
above in the Regional Office, to all FAA Coordinators, and to all field
offi';es and f,cilitiesjn the Northwest Mountain Region.
3. POLICY. It shall be regional policy to abide by and enforce to the
extent possible and feasible the criteria for the location of sanitary
landfills contained in Order 5200.5, "FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary
Ld1dfills On Or Near Airports." For the purpose of this directive, sewage
outfalls, sewage lagoons, rendering plants, food proce%ing plants, and any
ot~er bird attractants will be treated the same as a sanitary landfi II.
4. ~~QUIKE~ENTS.
a. The Airports District Offices (ADO's) shall handle all requests
and coordfnate all planning for the establishment of facilities described
above which could result in attracting birds to an airport and/or its
environs.
h. ~hen technical assistance is required, the ADO shall contact the
local Fist! and WIldlIfe SpeCIalIst. A lIst otth'~se specialists is
provided in paragraph 6 of this Order. If additional help is needed, the
ADD should contact the Airports Division Environmental Protection
Spec i.11 i st in the regi ona 1 offi ce who wi II either I end ass i stance di rect ly
or see~ counsel from Washington Headquarters.
~. CKITEKIA. Sani t.,ry landfills will be considered as an incompatiille
use if located within areas established for the airport through the
a~plication for the following criteria:
a. J.alli!.fills located within 1O.O()1) feet of any runway used or
planned to he used by turbOjet ai rcraft.
b. j,.~m1fills located within 5.000 f~et of .,n}' rlJnway used only by
piston type aircraft.
c.
surfaces
rev; e\lJl~j
-L~~dfill~~Yl2ide of the ahove perimeters but within the conic~l
described by fAR Part 77 and appl ied to an ai rport wi 11 be
on a ca,e-by-case basis.
Distribution: A-X-4; A-FOF-O (STD); A-FAE-l
Initiated By: ANM-620
~J1ASTER fiLE
ORDER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
5200.5A
1/31/90
SUBJ: WASTE DISPOSAL SITES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS
1. PURPOSE. This order provides guidance concerning the establishment, elimination or monitoring of landfills,
open dumps, waste disposal sites or similarly titled facilities on or in the vicinity of airportS,
2. DISTRIBUTION. This order is distributed to the division level in the Offices of Airpon Planning and Pro-
gramming, Airport Safety and Standards, Air Traffic Evaluations and Analysis, Aviation Safety Oversight, Air Traf-
fic Operations Service, and Flight Standards Service; to the division level in the regional AirportS, Air Traffic, and
Flight Standards Divisions; 10 the direclOr level at the Aeronautical Center and the FAA Technical Center; and a
limited distribution to all Airpon District Offices, Flight Standards Field Offices, and Air Traffic Facilities.
3. CANCELLATION. Order 5200.5, FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary Landfills On Or Near AirportS, dated
October 16, 1974, is canceled.
4, BACKGROUND, Landfills, garbage dumps, sewer or fish waste outfalls and other similarly licensed or titled
facilities used for operations to process, bury, slOre or otherwise dispose of waste, trash and refuse will alllact
rodents and birds. Where the dump is ignited and produces smoke, an additional allractant is created. All of the
above are undesirable and potential hazards to aviation since they erode the safety of the airpon environment. The
FAA neither approves nor disapproves locations of the facilities above, Such action is the responsibility of the
Environmental Protection Agency and/or the appropriate stale and local agencies. The role of the FAA is to ensure
that airpon owners and operalOrs meet their contractual obligations 10 the United States government regarding com-
patible land uses in the vicinity of the airport, While the chance of an unforeseeable, random bird strike in flight
will always exist, it is nevertheless possible to define conditions within fairly narrow limits where the risk is in-
creased. Those high-risk conditions exist in the approach and depanure patterns and landing areas on and in the
vicinity of airportS. The number of bird strikes reponed on aircraft is a matter of continuing concern to the FAA
and to airpon management. Various observations suppon the conclusion that waste disposal sites are anificial at-
tractants to birds. Accordingly, disposal sites located in the vicinity of an airport are potentially incompatible with
safe flight operations, Those sites that are not compatible need to be eliminated. Airpon owners need guidance in
making those decisions and the FAA must be in a position to assist. Some airports are not under the jurisdiction of
the community or local governing body having control of land usage in the vicinity of the airport. In these cases,
the airpon owner should use its resources and exert its best efforts to close or control waste disposal operations
within the general vicinity of the airport.
S. EXPLANA nON OF CHANGES. The following list outlines the major changes to Order 5200.5:
a. Recent developments and new techniques of waste disposal warranted updating and clarification of what
constitutes a sanitary landfill. This listing of new tides for waste disposal were oudined in paragraph 4.
b. Due to a reorganization which placed the Animal Damage Control branch of the U.S. Deparunent of Inte-
rior Fish and Wildlife Service under the jurisdiction of the U,S. Deparnnent of Agriculture, an address addition was
necessary.
c. A zone of notification was added to the criteria which should provide the appropriate FAA Airports office
an opporwnity to comment on the proposed disposal site during the selection process.
InItIated By: AAS-300
Distribution: A-WP(AP/AS/TS/OV /TO/FS)-2; A-X(AS/ AT/FS )-2;
A-YZ-1; A-FAS/FFS/FAT-o(LTD)
5200.5A
1/31/90
6. ACTION.
a. Waste disposal sites located or proposed to be located within the areas established for an airport by the
guidelines set forth in paragraph 7a, b, and c of this order should not be allowed to operate. If a waste disposal site
is incompatible with an airport in accordance with guidelines of paragraph 7 and cannot be closed within a reasona-
ble time, it should be operated in accordance with the criteria and instructions issued by Federal agencies such as
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services, and other such regulatory
bodies that may have applicable requiremcnts. The appropriate FAA airports office should advise airport owncrs.
operators and waste disposal proponents against locating, permitting or concurring in the location of a landfill or
similar facility on or in the vicinity of airports.
(I) Additionally, any operator proposing a new or expanded waste disposal site within 5 miles of a runway
end should notify the airport and the appropriate FAA Airports office so as to provide an opportunity to review and
comment on thc site in accordance with guidance contained in this order. FAA field officcs may wish to contact thc
appropriate Slate dircctor of thc United States Department of Agriculture to assist in this review. Also, any Air
Traffic control tower manager or Flight Standards District Office manager and their staffs that becomc aware of a
proposal to develop or expand a disposal site should notify the appropriate FAA Airports office.
b, The operation of a disposal site located beyond the areas described in paragraph 7 must be properly super-
vised to insure compatibility with the airport.
c. If at any time the disposal site, by virtue of its location or operation, presents a pote.mial hazard to aircraft
operations, the owner should take action to correct the situation or terminate operation of the facility. If the owncr
of the airport also owns or controls the disposal facility and is subject to Federal obligations to protect compatibility
of land uses around the airport, failure to take corrective action could place the airport owner in noncompliancc
with its commitments to the Federal government. The appropriate FAA office should immediately evaluate the situ-
ation to determine compliance with federal agreements and take such action as may be warranted under the guide-
lines as prescribed in Order 5190.6, Airports Compliance Requirements, current edition.
(I) Airport owners should be encouraged to make periodic inspections of current operations of existing
disposal sites near a federally obligated airport where potential bird hazard problems have been reported.
d. This order is not intended to resolve all related problems, but is specifically directed toward eliminating
waste disposal sites, landfills and similarly tided facilities in the proximity of airportS, thus providing a safer envi-
ronment for aircraft operations,
e, At airports certificated under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 139, the airport certification manuaVspeci-
fications should require disposal site inspections at appropriate intervals for those operations meeting the criteria of
paragraph 7 that cannot be closed. These inspections are necessary to assure that bird populations are not increasing
and that appropriate conlfOl procedures are being established and followed. The appropriate FAA Airports offices
should develop working relationships with state aviation agencies and state agencies that have authority over waste
disposal and landfills to stay abreast of proposed developments and expansions and apprise them of the hazards to
aviation that these sites present.
r. When proposing a disposal site, operators should make their plans available to the appropriate state regula-
tory agencies. Many states have criteria conccrning siting requirements specific to their jurisdictions.
g. Additional information on waste disposal, bird hazard and related problems may be obtaincd from the fol.
lowing agencies:
U.S. Depanment of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
18th and C Streets, NW
Washington. DC 20240
U,S. Department of Agriculture
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service
P.O. Box 96464
Animal Damage Control Program
Room 1624 South Agriculture Building
Washington, DC 20090-6464
2
)
.'
)
1/31/90
5200.5A
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20406
U.S. Deparunent of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201
7, CRITERIA. Disposal sites will be considered as incompatible if located within areas established for the air-
pon through the application of the following criteria:
a. Waste disposal sites located within 10,000 feet of any runway end used or planned to be used by turbine
powered aircraft.
b. Waste disposal sites located within 5,000 feet of any runway end used only by piston powered aircraft
c. Any waste disposal site located within a 5 mile radius of a runway end that attracts or sustains hazardous
bird movements from feeding, water or roosting areas into, or across the runways and/or approach and depanure
patterns of aircraft.
~[.~
Leonard E. Mudd
Director, Office of Airpon Safety and Standards
"
,
".-
3
T
- I
~,
-
Wednesday
October 9, 1991
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 257 and 258
Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria;
Rnal Rule
50978
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
IEPA/05W-FR-91-o04 FRL-4011-91
40 CFR Parts 257 and 258
Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARV: The Environmental Protection
Agency today is promulgating revisions
to the Criteria for Classification of Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices
set forth in 40 CFR part 257. These
revisions were developed in response to
the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Today's rule adds a new part
258. which sets forth revised minimum
federal criteria for municipal solid waste
landfills (MSWLFs). including location
restrictions, facility design and
operating criteria. ground.water
monitoring requirements. cOITective
action requirements. financial assurance
requirements. and closure and post-
closure care requirements. The rule
establishes differing requirements for
existing and new units (e.g., existing
units are not required to remove wastes
in order to install liners), In addition.
today's rule amends part 257 by making
conforming changes that make it
consistent with the new part 258. The
specific criteria by which State
programs will be approved will be
published in a separate rule. which is
expected to be proposed in early 1992-
This rulemaking also fulfills a portion
ofEPA's mandate under section 405(d)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to
promulgate regulations governing the
use and disposal of sewage sludge, Part
258 of today's rule is co-promulgated
under the authority of the CW A and
applies to all MSWLFs in which sewage
sludge is co-disposed with household
wastes. A separate regulation for sludge
monofills (landfills in which only
sewage sludge is disposed of] was
proposed on February 6, 1989, under part
257 and part 503. The sludge monofill
regulations are expected to be finalized
by the end of 1991.
E_CTIVE DATE: October 9. 1993, except
subpart G of part 258 is effective April 9,
1994,
ADDRESSES: The public record for this
rulemaking (docket number F-{I1-
CMLF-FFFFF) is located at the RCRA
Docket Infonnation Center, (0~05),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters, 401 M Stree~ SW..
Washington, DC 20460. The public
docket is located at EPA Headquarters
and is available for viewing from 9 a.m.
to 4 p.m.. Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays.
Appointments may be made by calling
(202) 47~327. Copies cost $O.15/page.
FOR FURTHER INFoRMAnON CONTACT:
For general information. contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline, Office of
Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Stree~ SW..
Washington, DC 20460. (800) 424-9348,
toll.free, or (703) 920-9810. local in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area,
For more detailed information on
specific aspects of this final rule, contact
Allen Geswein, Paul Cassidy. or
Andrew Teplitzky, Office of Solid
Waste (0S-301), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington. DC 20480, (202) 280-1099.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAnON: Copies
of the following document are available
for purchase through NTIS, U .S,
Department of Commerce, Springfield,
Virginia 22181. 1 (BOO) 55~7 or (703)
487-4650:
(1) U.s. EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
December 1990 Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) and the August 1991
Addendum for the Final Criteria for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills-{40
CFR part 258)-Subtitle D of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). August 1991,
Preombl. OulllDe
L Authority
II. Background
A Current Solid Waste Controls Under
RCRA and the CW A
1. RCRA Subtitle D Criteria
2. Sewage Sludge Criteria
B. Report to Congre8B on Solid Waste
Dispose!
C. BFA Concerns Regarding Local
Government and Indian Tribe Impacts
D. EPA's Solid Waste "Agenda for Action"
1. Increasing Information
2. Improving Integrated Waste
Management Planning
3.lncreasi.r1g Source Reduction
4.lncrsaains Recycling
5. Improving Municipal Waste Combustion
e.lmproving Municipal Solid Waste
LandBlling
E. Summary of ProposB<i Rule
Ill. Regulatory Approach of Today's Final
RuI. .
A. Statutory Ballis
B. Regulatory Options Considered and
Summary of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis
1. Risk and Resource Damage Analysis
2. Other benefits
3. Costs and Economic Impacts
4. Selection of Today's Regulatory
Approach
C. Pollution Prevention Aspects of Final
RuI.
IV. Major Jasues
A. Small Landfilla
B. Regulatory Structure
C. Implementation and Enforcement
1. Procedures for State Program Approval
z. Public Participation
3. Enforcement Considerations
D. Ground-Water Policy
1. Differential Protection of Ground Water
2. Well Head Protection Programs
E. Issues Pertaining to Sewage Sludge
1. Pollutant Limits for Sewage Sludge
2. Removal Credits
V. Summary of Amendments to part 257
A. Confonning Changes to part 257
B. Notification and Exposure Information
Requirements
VI. Summary of part 258
A. Subpart A-General
B. Subpart B-Location Restrictions
c. Subpart C-Operating Criteria
D. Subpart D-Design Criteria
E. Subpart E-Ground-water Monitoring
and Corrective Action
F. Subpart F-Closure.snd Post-Closure
Care
G. Subpart G-Financial Assurance
Criteria
vn. Implementation of Today's Rule
vm. EPA Training on Final Rule
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. References
XI. List of $ubjects
A. Part 257
B. Part 258
Appendix A. [Reserved) .
Appendix B. Supplemental information for
Subpart A-General
1. I 258.1 Purpose. Scope. and Applicability
B. Closed Facilities
b. Contrals on Municipal Waste
Combustion
Co Rule Effective Date
2. I 258.2 Definitions
3. 1 258.3 Consideration of Other Federal
Laws
Appendix C. Supplemental Information (or
Subpart B-Location Restrictions
I. I 258.10 Airport Safety
2. 1 258.11 Floodplains
3. I 258.12 Wetlands
4. 1 258.13 Fault Areas
5. 1 258.14 Seismic Impact Zones
6. 1 258.15 Unstable Areas
7. I 256.16 Closure of Existing Units
8. Other Location Areas
9. Wellhead Protection
Appendix D. Supplemental Information for
Subpart C-Operating Criteria
1. 1 25820 Procedures for Excluding the
Receipt of Hazardous Waste
2. 1 258.Z1 Cover Material Requirements
3. 1258.22 Disease Vector Control
4. t 258.23 Explosive Gases Control
5. I 258.24 Air Criteria
6.1258.25 Access Requirements
7. 1 258.26 Run-on/Run-off Control Systems
8. 1 258.27 Surface Water Requirements
9. 1 258.28IJquids Restriction.
10. 1 258.29 Recordkeeping Requitements
Appendix E. Supplemental Information for
Subpart D-De8ign Criteria
1. Overview of Proposed Rule
2. Summary of Comments
3. Evaluation of Propo8al and Alternatives
4. Final Rule Approach
.
;.-
,.. .:;.~... .:...... C.' ~.-. -- ~
Federai Register I Vol. 56. No. 196 I Wednesday, October 9. 1991 I Rules and
~heir existing units in these ioeations.
but must comply with the ;Jrovisions
governing new units if they wish to
;ateraHy expand. EPA recognizes that
applying these provisions to iateral
expansions (and new units) will
somewhat limit the ability of owners
and operators to address capacity
needs, However, the Agency believes
that the flexibility provided owners and
operators to vertically expand existing
units will adequately address shon-term
capacity needs. In addition. the 24-
month window prior to the effective
date of today's mie provides owners
and operators time to plan for future
capacity needs.
Section 258,29(a) requires the MSWLF
owner/operator to record and retain in
an operating record any location
restriction demonstrations. The final
rule allows the Director of an approved
State to specify an alternative location
for maintaining the operating record and
alternative schedules for recordkeeping
and notification requirements.
1. Section 258.10 Airport Safety
The proposed criteria specified that
new MSWLF units. laterAl p-ynRnJl:inns
and exis~MSWLF units located
WIthin 10 feet (3 n4R mptp-Y'!'l:1 of :mv
a' ort runwa used b turbo' et aircrait
or WI n 5.000 eet 1.524 meters or an
a~ort runway use yon ~ 6iston~type
attcratt shall not pose a bll' sz8rd to
aircraft. These distance limits were
derived from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Order 5200.5,
"FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary
Landfills on or Near Airports" (October
18. 1974). The proposal was identical to
existins ~ 2S7.3-8. applicable to solid
waste disposal facilities.
In general. commenters supported the
proposed airport safety criteria:
however. some commenters suggested
that the Agency consult with the FAA to
establish a coordinated national poiicy
for siting of new MSWLF units near
airports. Specifically. commenters were
concerned that the FAA had placed
additional restrictions on siting near
airports that were not reflected in EPA's
revised criteria.
In response to these comments. the
Agency consulted with the FAA on the
la test policies for siting near airports. In
January 1990. the FAA revised FAA
Order 5200,5, which was the basis for
tha Asency's existing part 257 criteria
and proposed part 258 airport safety
provision. Under this revision (FAA
ordar 5200,5AJ any waste disposal site
located wit.~in a five-mile radius of a
runway end and that attracts or sustains
hazardous bird movements from
feeding. water. or roosting areas into. or
across the nmways and/or approach
:ind deoarture oattems ox" aircraft wiH
be considered :'incompatible"' with
'1irports. Additionally. any ooerator
roposing 8 new or expanaed waste
IS osa aCI I WI In lve mI es OI a
runway entt s 0 n~ e airport
and the anorot;Jnate F aimort office
so as to proVIae an opportunIty to
reView ana comment on the site In
accordance With FAA OllinAnl"1I If the
disposal faciiity is determined by the
FAA to be incompatible with the airport
then under the terms of the order, it
should not be sited at that location.
To respond to commenters concerns
about the need for a coordinated
national policy for siting near airports.
the Agency carefully considered
modifying ~ 258.10 so as to make it
consistent with the FAA Drder 52CO.5A.
However. the Agency recognizes the
public has not had full opportunity to
review and comment on these notential
additional part 258 requirements for
airport safety, particclarly substantive
new periormance c:i.teria and
restrictions for new MSWLFs and
lateral expansions within five miles oi
airport runways. Therefore. EPA has
decided not to include new performance
criteria for MSWLFs within five miles of
airport runways, in today's mie.Instead
EP A expects to propose additional
performance criteria or restrictions rar
new and expanded MSWLFs near
airports when the Agency revises these
criteria in the future.
However. EPA believes it is
appropriate to include in today's rule
one minor procedural element of the
revised FAA order-that owners and
operators proposing new MSWLF or
[lateral) expansions within five miles of
a nmway notify the affected airport and
the appropriate FAA office. EPA
believes that this requirement wlll
ensure communication between the
owner or opera tor and the FAA. and
facilitate implementation of the revised
FAA order by the FAA EP A believes
this requirement partiaIly addresses
commenters' concerns about a
coordinBted national poiicy on siting
near airports. More importantly. today's
notification requirement imposes little
burden on the owner or operator. EPA
believes this burden is particulariy small
when weighed against the FAA concern
that landfills and other waste disposai
sites erode the safety of the airport
environment. Owners and operators can
comply with today's notification
requirement simply by submitting letters
to the affected airport and the
appropriate FAA airports office statins
their intent to site a new MSWLF or
lateral expansions within five miles of
an airport runway. And finally, this
notification requirement is a type of
other appiicabie
with which an 01
comply with und
mle.
Today's final,
applicable to nel
\1SWLFs. and la
unchanged from
minor ciarifying
Asency also wi.
today's airport s,
prohibit the disp
within the specil
the owner or OpE
the required delI
the landfill is de,
as not to pose a
regulation simpl~
zone" within wh
be taken to erum
arises. Also. todi
only to MSWLF,
location of airpo
within the specd
Finally, comm
the terms "bird I
defined In the ro
final role, the A,
tenns by usin~ ti
found in 40 CFR
for these definiti
valid for purpOSI
found at 44 FR s:
1979. The definit
"Airport" is a p\l
the public withOl
without restrictil
capacities of aV15
hazard" is "an iI
of birdl aircrait ,
cause damage to
its occupants~"
2. Section 258.11
The proposed
new MSWLF unl
and e."(lstinS MS.
100-year floodpl,
the flow of the 11
the temporary w
the floodplain. 01
of solid waste so
human heaith an
proposed requirE
the existing part
applicable to all
facilities, includi
The intent of d
ensure tha t MS\\
year floodplains
opera ted to preY!
on the lOO-year I
storage capacity.
of solid waste in
the followins kin
adverse impacts:
protected from \\I
carried by flood'
51044
Federal Register; Vol. 56. No. 196 / Wednesday. October 9, 1
..---
lhe !>i~e, <.:iTL:cting downstream water
quality: t~) r:::ing in the floodplains may
restrict trle flow of flood waters. causing
greater flooding upstream; and (3) filling
in the floocioiain may reduce the size
and effect:\:eness o(the temporary
water storage capacity of the floodplain.
which may cause a more rapid
movement of flood waters dO\'ffistream.
resulting in higher flood levels and
greater flood damage downstream.
Several commenters noted that the
proposed rule and preamble were
inconsistent. Specifically. the rule
language specified that the MS\'lLF
must not restrict the flow of the lOO-year
flood or reduce th~ temporary' water
storage capacity of the floodplain or
result in washout of solid waste so 85 to
pose a hazard to hu.'1lan health and the
environment. However. the preamble
stated that locating a MSWLF in a
floodplain will always have some
impact on the flow of the 100-vear flood
and water storage capacity. The Agency
agrees that an MS\VLF "",rill always have
some impact upon the flow and water
storage capacity of the 100-year flood
and a requirement that an MS\lVLF not
do so is impracticable. As proposed, the
Agency is requiring that the flow
restriction or impact upon water storage
capacity that does occur, as the result of
the MSWLF. not pose a hazard to
human health and the environment.
Several other commenters disagreed
with the proposed requirement and
strongly urged EPA to ban all MS\~-L.f
units from the 100-year floodplain.
These commenters argued that it is
difficult to predict in advance the
adverse impacts of a flood and asserted
that. in the event of a flood. remediation
would likelv involve further
environmental threats and would be
extremely costly. if even possible. Those
commenters also suggested that if the
Agency still decides not to ban MSWLFs
from the loa-year floodplain, EPA
should at least ban MSWLFs in areas
subject to frequent flooding (e.g., five. or
ten-year floodplains).
The Agency decided not to ban the
siting of new MSWLF units, lateral
expansions. or existing MS\VLF units in
the lOO-year floodplain for two reasons.
First. EPA believes that such an across-
the-board ban is not necessary for
MSWLFs to protect human health and
the environment. EPA believes that the
demonstration requirement in today's
final rule ful!v addresses the human
health and environmental concerns (Le.,
restricting flow, reducing temporary
water storage capacity. and washout or
waste) posed by the siting of MSWLFs
in floodplain areas. If such a
demonstration cannot be made. the
landfill cannot be sited in that location
or must be closed in accordance with
S 258.16 of this part, Although EPA
agrees with commenters that it is
somewhat difficult to predict in advance
the adverse impacts of a flood. the
Agency believes such predictions can be
made. In fact, such demonstrations have
been made in the past by facility owners
and operators to comply with identical
floodplain restrictions for solid waste
disposal facilities under part 257. which
have been in existence since 1979.
Second. as stated previously in the
preamble to the proposed rule. L,e
ouiright banning of all MSWLFs from
the loa-year floodplain could affect
large portions of the nation. including
large areas of some Stales (e.g..
Louisiana. Mississippi. Missouri. and
Arkansas) and, thus, could strain the
ragulated community's ability to provide
adequate disposal capacity for
municipal solid waste in those areas.
Ov..rners or operators of MSWLFs can
determine if their facilities are located in
a loa-year floodplain by using the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rale
maps (FIR.\is). These maps cover over
99 percent of the flood-prone
communities in the United States and
can be obtained at no cost from the
fEMA Flood Map Distribution Center,
6930 (A-F) San Tomas Road, Baltimore,
Maryland, 21227-6227. For the small
number of areas that are not covered bv
FIRMs. owners or opera tors could ~
obtain lOC-year floodplain maps from:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Soil Conservation Service. the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U.S. Geological
Survey, the Bureau of Land
Management. the Bureau of
Reclamation. the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and State and local flood
control agencies and other departments.
Additional guidance on procedures for
delineating floodplains where no maps
exist will be included in the techni.:::;al
guidance for this rule, whicb is
discussed in section V of today's
preamble.
Tne Agency also decided not to ban
the siting of all MSWLF units in ere as of
more frequent flooding (e.g.. fi....e- or ten-
year floodplains). Under the 10lJ.year
floodplain criterion, an MSWLF unit
cannot be located in the lOG-year
floodplain unless the MSWLF unit is
designed. constructed. and maintained
so as not to restrict the flow of the 100-
year flood. reduce the temporary water
storage capacity of the floodplain, or
result in washout of solid waste. The
main difference between the five- or ten-
year floods and the lOO-year flood is the