![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Implementing Waste Treatment Systems at Two Virginia Landfills
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: December 28, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 249)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67152-67162]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28de01-29]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[FRN-7122-4]
RIN 2090-AA30
Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Implementing Waste
Treatment Systems at Two Virginia Landfills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a site-
specific rule to implement a project under the Project XL program, an
EPA initiative which encourages regulated entities to achieve better
environmental results at decreased costs at their facilities. Today's
proposal would provide regulatory flexibility under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, at two Virginia
landfills: The Maplewood Recycling and Waste Disposal Facility, located
in Amelia County, Virginia (Maplewood Landfill); and the King George
County Landfill and Recycling Facility, located in King George County,
Virginia (King George Landfill). The Maplewood Landfill is owned and
operated by USA Waste of Virginia, Inc., and the King George Landfill
is owned by King George County and operated by King George Landfills,
Inc. USA Waste of Virginia, Inc. and King George Landfills, Inc. are
both subsidiaries of Waste Management, Inc., and will be referred to
collectively as ``Waste Management.'' Maplewood Landfill and King
George Landfill, both of which are municipal solid waste landfills
(MSWLFs), will be referred to collectively as the ``Virginia Project XL
Landfills''.
On September 29, 2000, EPA, USA Waste of Virginia, Inc., and King
George Landfills, Inc., signed the Final Project Agreement (FPA) for
this project, which would allow the addition of liquids to the
landfills. This addition of liquids is expected to accelerate the
biodegradation of landfill waste, decrease the time it takes for the
waste to reach stabilization in the landfill, facilitate the management
of leachate and other liquid wastes, and promote
[[Page 67153]]
recovery of landfill gas. The principal objectives of this XL project
are to demonstrate that the alternative liners installed at the
Virginia Project XL Landfills are as protective as the liner prescribed
in EPA MSWLF regulations over which leachate recirculation is allowed
under existing RCRA regulations, and to assess the effects of applying
differing amounts of liquids to landfills. In order to carry out this
project, Waste Management will need relief from certain requirements in
EPA regulations which set forth design and operating criteria for
MSWLFs, requirements which would otherwise preclude the addition of
liquids at these landfills. Today's proposed rule would allow the
Virginia Landfills to apply collected, non-containerized non-hazardous
bulk liquids (including landfill leachate, as further described as
follows) to the landfills.
This proposed rule would require compliance with each of the
design, monitoring, record keeping, reporting, and operational
requirements contained in this proposed rule, as well as MSWLF
regulations not affected by this rule. Upon completion of the
rulemaking, these requirements and conditions would be enforceable in
the same way that current RCRA standards for solid waste landfills are
enforceable to ensure that management of non-hazardous solid waste is
performed in a manner that is protective of human health and the
environment. Today's proposed rulemaking would not affect the
provisions or applicability of any other existing or future
regulations.
The Virginia XL Project Landfills comprise two of several
landfills, located in different geographic and climactic regions across
the country, that are testing bioreactor technology under Project XL.
The bioreactor approach planned for the King George County Landfill
involves application of about twice the quantity of liquid that is
applied at the Maplewood Landfill. Other XL projects which are testing
bioreactor techniques included the Yolo County, California XL Project
(final rule published in the Federal Register at 66 FR 42441, August
13, 2001), and the Buncombe County, North Carolina XL Project (final
rule published in the Federal Register at 66 FR 44061, August 22,
2001).
DATES: Public Comments: Comments on this proposed rule must be received
on or before January 28, 2002.
Public Hearing: Commentors may request a public hearing by January
14, 2002 during the public comment period. Commentors must state the
basis for requesting the public hearing. If EPA determines there is
sufficient reason to hold a public hearing, it will do so no later than
January 18, 2002, during the last week of the public comment period. If
a public hearing is scheduled, the date, time, and location will be
made available through a Federal Register notice or may be obtained by
contacting Mr. Steven J. Donohue at the EPA Region 3 Office. If a
public hearing is held, it will take place in Virginia.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Written comments should be mailed to the RCRA
Information Center Docket Clerk (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please
submit an original and two copies of all comments and refer to Docket
Number F-2001-WVLP-FFFFF. A copy should also be sent to Ms. Sherri
Walker at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., (1807) Washington DC 20460.
EPA will also accept comments electronically. Comments should be
addressed to the following Internet address: walker.sherri@epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/6.1/
7/8/9 format file and avoid the use of special characters or any form
of encryption. Electronic comments will be transferred into a paper
version for the official record. EPA will attempt to clarify electronic
comments if there is an apparent error in transmission.
Request to Speak at Hearing: Requests to speak at a hearing should
be mailed to the RCRA Information Center Docket Clerk (5303G), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please send an original and three copies of all
comments and refer to Docket Number F-2001-WVLP-FFFFF. A copy should
also be sent to Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (1807) Washington DC 20460.
Viewing Projects Materials: A docket containing the proposed rule,
supporting materials, and public comments is available for public
inspection and copying at the RCRA Information Center (RIC) located at
Crystal Gateway, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington,
Virginia. The RIC is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding federal holidays. The public is encouraged to phone
in advance to review docket materials. Appointments can be scheduled by
phoning the Docket Office at (703) 603-9230. Refer to RCRA Docket
Number F-2001-WVLP-FFFFF. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages
from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies are $0.15
per page. Project materials are also available for review on the world
wide web at: http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/virginialandfills/index.htm.
A duplicate copy of the docket is available for inspection and
copying at the EPA Region 3 Library located at 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Appointments can be scheduled by phoning the
Library at (215) 814-5254.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Donohue at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, (3EI00), 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 or Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Policy
Innovation, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. (1807), Washington DC 20460. Mr.
Donohue may be contacted at (215) 814-3215. Further information on
today's action may also be obtained on the world wide web at http://
www.epa.gov/projectxl/. Questions to EPA regarding today's action can
be directed to Mr. Donohue at (215) 814-3215 donohue.steven@epa.gov or
Ms. Walker at (202) 260-4295, walker.sherri@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline of Today's Document
The information presented in this preamble is arranged as follows:
I. What is EPA's Legal Authority to promulgate today's proposed
rule?
II. Background
A. What is Project XL?
B. What are Bioreactor Landfills?
III. The Virginia Project XL Landfills
A. Overview
B. Description of the Project
C. What Kind of Liner Is Required by Current Federal
Regulations?
D. How Are the Liners at the Virginia XL Landfills Constructed?
E. What Environmental Benefits Would Result from the Proposed
Bioreactor Landfill Project Proposal?
F. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project?
G. How Will this Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork
Reduction?
H. How Long Will this Project Last and When Will it Be Complete?
IV. What Regulatory Changes will be Necessary to Implement this
Project?
A. Existing Liquid Restrictions for MSWLFs (40 CFR 258.28)
B. Proposed Site-Specific Rule
V. Additional Information
A. How to Request a Public Hearing
B. How Does this Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866:
Regulatory Planning and Review?
C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?
[[Page 67154]]
D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for this
Project Under the Paperwork Reduction Act?
E. Does This Project Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act?
F. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13045:
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks?
G. How Does this Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132:
Federalism?
H. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13175:
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments?
I. How Does this Rule Comply with the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act?
J. Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use?
I. What Is EPA's Legal Authority To Promulgate Today's Proposed
Rule?
This rule is proposed under the authority of Sections 1008, 2002,
4004, and 4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6907,
6912, 6945, and 6949a).
II. Background
A. What Is Project XL?
Project XL is an EPA initiative to allow regulated entities to
achieve better environmental results at less cost. Project XL--
``eXcellence and Leadership''--was announced on March 16, 1995 as a
central part of the National Performance Review and EPA's efforts to
reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995).
Specifically, Project XL gives a limited number of regulated entities
the opportunity to develop their own pilot projects and alternative
strategies to achieve environmental performance that is superior to
what would be achieved through compliance with current and reasonably
anticipated future regulations. These efforts are crucial to the
Agency's ability to test new regulatory strategies that reduce
regulatory burden and promote economic growth while achieving better
environmental and public health protection. The Agency intends to
evaluate the results of this and other XL projects to determine which
specific elements of the projects, if any, should be more broadly
applied to other regulated entities for the benefit of both the economy
and the environment.
Project XL is intended to allow EPA to experiment with new or pilot
projects that provide alternative approaches to regulatory
requirements, both to assess whether they provide benefits at the
specific facility affected, and whether these projects should be
considered for wider application. Such pilot projects allow EPA to
proceed more quickly than would be possible when undertaking changes on
a nationwide basis. EPA may modify rules, on a site-or state-specific
basis, that represent one of several possible policy approaches within
a more general statutory directive, so long as the alternative being
used is permissible under the statute.
Adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the
context of a given XL project is not an indication that EPA plans to
adopt that interpretation as a general matter or even in the context of
other XL projects. It would be inconsistent with the forward-looking
nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative approaches
prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining whether or
not they are potentially viable in practice and successful for the
particular projects that embody them. These pilot projects are not
intended to be a means for piecemeal revision of entire programs.
EPA believes that adopting alternative policy approaches and/or
interpretations, on a limited, site-or state-specific basis and in
connection with a carefully selected pilot project, is consistent with
the expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the
environmental statutes (so long as EPA acts within the discretion
allowed by the statute). Congress recognizes that there is a need for
experimentation and research, as well as ongoing reevaluation of
environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of statutory
provisions, e.g., Sec. 8001 of RCRA, (42 U.S.C. 6981).
Under Project XL, participants in four categories (facilities,
industry sectors, governmental agencies, and communities) are offered
the opportunity to develop common sense, cost-effective strategies that
will replace or modify specific regulatory requirements on the
condition that they produce and demonstrate superior environmental
performance. To participate in Project XL, applicants must develop
alternative pollution reduction strategies pursuant to eight criteria:
(1) Superior environmental performance; (2) cost savings and paperwork
reduction; (3) stakeholder involvement and support; (4) test of an
innovative strategy; (5) transferability; (6) feasibility; (7)
identification of monitoring, reporting, and evaluation methods; and
(8) avoidance of shifting risk burden. The project must have full
support of affected federal, state, and tribal agencies (where
applicable) to be selected, approved and implemented. For more
information about the XL criteria, readers should refer to two
descriptive documents published in the Federal Register (60 FR 27282,
published May 23, 1995 and 62 FR 19872, published April 23, 1997) and
the document entitled ``Principles for Development of Project XL Final
Project Agreements,'' dated December 1, 1995.
Development of an XL Project has four basic phases: The initial
pre-proposal phase where the project sponsor comes up with an
innovative concept that it would like EPA to consider for the XL
program; the second phase where the project sponsor works with EPA and
interested stakeholders in developing its XL proposal; the third phase
where EPA, local regulatory agencies, and other interested stakeholders
review the XL proposal; and the fourth phase where the project sponsor
works with EPA, local regulatory agencies, and interested stakeholders
in developing the Final Project Agreements (FPA) and legal mechanisms.
After the designated participants sign the FPA and after promulgation
of the required federal, state and local legal mechanisms, the XL
project is implemented and the results are evaluated.
The FPA is a non-binding written agreement between the project
sponsor and regulatory agencies. The FPA contains a detailed
description of the proposed project. It addresses the eight Project XL
criteria and discusses how EPA expects the project criteria to be met.
The FPA identifies performance goals and indicators which will enable
the project sponsor to demonstrate superior environmental benefits. The
FPA also discusses administration of the agreement, including dispute
resolution and conditions for termination of the agreement. On
September 29, 2000, EPA Region 3 and Office of Solid Waste, joined by
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, and USA Waste of
Virginia, Inc. signed the FPA for the project. The Final Project
Agreement is available to the public at the EPA RCRA Docket in
Washington, DC and at the EPA Region 3 Library in Philadelphia.
B. What Are Bioreactor Landfills?
A bioreactor landfill is generally defined as a landfill operated
to transform and stabilize the readily and moderately decomposable
organic constituents of the waste stream by purposeful control to
enhance microbiological processes. Bioreactor landfills often employ
addition of liquids such as leachate. A byproduct of the waste
decomposition process is
[[Page 67155]]
landfill gas, which includes methane, carbon dioxide, hazardous air
pollutants and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Landfill gases are
produced sooner in a bioreactor than in a conventional landfill.
Therefore, bioreactors typically incorporate state-of-the-art landfill
gas collection systems to collect and control landfill gas upon start
up of the liquid addition process.
On April 6, 2000, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register
requesting information on bioreactor landfills, because the Agency is
considering whether and to what extent the Criteria for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills, 40 CFR part 258, should be revised to allow for
leachate recirculation over alternative liners in MSWLFs (65 FR 18015).
EPA is seeking information about liquid additions and leachate
recirculation in MSWLFs to the extent currently allowed, i.e., in
MSWLFs designed and constructed with a composite liner as specified in
40 CFR 258.40(a)(2).
Proponents of bioreactor technology note that operation of MSWLFs
as bioreactors provide a number of environmental benefits, including an
increased rate of waste decomposition, which in turn would extend the
operating life of the landfill and lessen the need for additional
landfill space or other disposal options. Bioreactors also decrease, or
at times eliminate, the quantity of leachate requiring treatment and
offsite disposal. Several studies have shown that leachate quality
improves over time when leachate is recirculated on a regular basis.
For all of these reasons bioreactors are expected to decrease potential
environmental risks and costs associated with leachate management,
treatment and offsite disposal. Additionally, use of bioreactor
techniques is expected to shorten the length of time the liner will be
exposed to leachate and this should lower the long term potential for
leachate migration into the subsurface environment. Bioreactors are
also expected to reduce post-closure care costs and risks, due to the
accelerated, controlled settlement of the solid waste during landfill
operation. Finally, bioreactors provide for greater opportunity for
recovery of methane gas for energy production since methane is produced
earlier and in a larger quantity than a normal MSWLF.
EPA is implementing several additional related XL pilot projects
involving operation of landfills as bioreactors throughout the country.
These additional landfill projects will enable EPA to evaluate benefits
of different alternative liners and leachate recirculation systems
under various climatic and operating conditions. As expressed in the
above-referenced April 2000 Federal Register notice, EPA is interested
in assessing the performance of landfills operated as bioreactors, and
these XL projects could contribute valuable data.
The Virginia Project XL Landfills and other XL projects would
provide additional information on the performance of MSWLFs when
liquids are added to the landfill. The Agency is also interested in
assessing how different types of alternative liners perform when
liquids are added to the landfill, including maintaining a hydraulic
head at acceptable levels.
III. The Virginia Project XL Landfills
A. Overview
The Virginia Project XL Landfills consists of the Maplewood
Landfill and the King George Landfill. The Maplewood Landfill is
located in Amelia County, Virginia, approximately 30 miles southwest of
Richmond, Virginia. The Maplewood Landfill will cover a total area of
about 404 acres upon completion. Construction of the first phases
started in 1992. Construction of the most recent phase was completed in
1997. The King George County Landfill is located in King George County,
Virginia, approximately 50 miles north-northeast of Richmond, Virginia.
The King George Landfill will cover a total area of about 290 acres
upon completion. The first phase of liner system construction began in
1996. Construction of additional liner system areas has been performed
every year since 1996.
The Maplewood Landfill is owned and operated by USA Waste of
Virginia, Inc., and the King George Landfill is owned by King George
County and operated by King George Landfills, Inc. USA Waste of
Virginia, Inc. and King George Landfills, Inc. are both subsidiaries of
Waste Management, Inc., and will be referred to collectively
hereinafter as ``Waste Management.'' Maplewood Landfill and King George
Landfill, both of which are municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs),
will hereinafter be referred to collectively as the ``Virginia Project
XL Landfills.''
B. Description of the Project
This proposed rule would provide for the addition of liquid wastes
to certain areas of the Maplewood Landfill and the King George
Landfill.
The goal for the Maplewood Landfill is to recirculate as much
leachate as is generated at the facility. Based on facility records,
the facility generated approximately 3,000,000 gallons of leachate in
1999 (a relatively dry year). Under this XL project, between 3,000,000
and 4,000,000 gallons of liquid would be applied at the landfill per
year. The liquid application rate would be an average of 10,960 gallons
per day, based on an application rate of 4,000,000 gallons per year. In
order to comply with the requirements of the proposed rule and provide
the appropriate test conditions for biodegradation of the waste, the
exact liquid application rate will be determined by Waste Management
during implementation of the project. The proposed project area in the
Maplewood Landfill will be in ``Phase Development Areas'' 1 and 2
(leachate recirculation areas) and 3, 4, and 11 (monitored control
areas without leachate recirculation). The total size of the Phase 1,
2, 3, 4 and 11 Phase Development Areas is approximately 48 acres.
During dry periods of lower or no leachate generation, liquids
other than leachate could also be added, including non-hazardous
liquids such as storm water and truck wash water. The liquids would be
applied in trenches, excavated into the surface of the landfill in the
Phases 1 and 2 areas (approximately 10 acres in size). Phases 3, 4, and
11 will be used as control cells--no liquid will be applied to these
areas, only rainwater that naturally falls and percolates beneath the
landfill surface will enter the waste in these areas or phases.
The goal for the King George County Landfill is to recirculate as
much leachate as is generated at the facility and to add sufficient
additional liquid to make a total liquids application of between
7,000,000 and 8,000,000 gallons per year. Based on facility records for
the past three years, the facility generates approximately 3,500,000
gallons of leachate per year. Based on estimates of storm water runoff
quantities and the storage capacity of the storm water management ponds
at the site, approximately 8,000,000 gallons or more of storm water is
expected to be made available for application to the landfill waste.
The liquid application rate would be, on average, about 22,000 gallons
per day based on an estimated application rate of 8,000,000 gallons per
year. In order to comply with the requirements of the proposed rule and
provide the appropriate test conditions for biodegradation of the
waste, the exact liquid application rate will be determined by Waste
Management during implementation of the project.
The overall study area in the King George Landfill will be
established within the Municipal Solid Waste Cells
[[Page 67156]]
2, 3, and 4. The total size of Cells 2, 3, and 4 is approximately 59
acres. Liquid will be applied only in Cell 3, approximately 10 acres in
size. Cells 2 and 4 will be control cells in which no liquids will be
applied. Cell 1 was being filled with waste in July 2001.
As stated earlier, the bioreactor program that would be implemented
at the King George County Landfill involves application to the waste of
about twice the quantity of liquid that is applied at the Maplewood
Landfill. In the bioreactor at this landfill, conditions will be
established that are intended to significantly increase the rate of
degradation of waste during the operating life of the landfill to
achieve the benefits identified in the FPA. Although the process of
recirculating leachate provides much of the moisture needed to enhance
biological degradation of waste, research reported in ``Active
Municipal Waste Landfill Operations: A Biochemical Reactor'' Reinhart,
1995 (Reinhart 1995) found that the quantity of liquid needed to reach
water holding or field capacity of the waste to potentially maximize
the rate of biodegradation is typically much greater than the quantity
of leachate generated at a MSWLF. The Reinhart 1995 report is available
for review in the docket for this proposed rule. As part of the
comparison of different rates of liquid addition inherent in this
project, sources of liquid other than leachate will be used to supply
the additional quantity of liquid needed at the King George Landfill.
These sources could include storm water, truck wash water and other
non-hazardous liquid waste. For this project, these liquids may be
discharged into the landfill leachate storage tanks to supplement the
leachate and the resulting mixture would then be distributed over the
bioreactor test area.
The liquids application system at both Virginia XL landfills will
be constructed using typical trench construction methods and may
include other methods developed during the implementation of the
program. The construction methods are described in detail in the
Application for Project XL Landfill Bioreactor Systems King George
County Landfill and Maplewood Recycling and Waste Disposal Facility,
submitted to U.S. EPA, prepared by GeoSyntec Consultants, May 30, 2000
(May 2000, GeoSyntec Report). The May 2000, GeoSyntec Report can be
found in the docket for this proposed rule.
The liquids infiltration or ``application capacity'' of each
landfill is the amount of liquid that can be expected to flow by
gravity from all of the trenches. This quantity has been estimated
using the methodology described in ``Analysis Procedures for Design of
Leachate Recirculation Systems,'' T.B. Maier in June, 1998. The T.B.
Maier report can be found in the docket for this proposed rule. This
method involves estimating the moisture content of the waste (typically
15 to 25 percent without liquid application), the hydraulic properties
of the waste, the moisture retention capacity (field capacity) of the
waste (typically 40 percent), and the head of liquid on the trench.
Using this information, the infiltration rate of liquid into the waste
from one 400 foot long trench is calculated; the total application
capacity equals the combined infiltration rate of all six trenches. As
shown in the May 2000, GeoSyntec Report, the total application capacity
of the group of six trenches is calculated to be about 110,000 gallons
per day, which is much greater than the proposed average application
rate of either 10,960 gallons per day or the 22,000 gallons per day for
Maplewood and King George Landfills, respectively. The exact number and
length of the trenches will be determined during the implementation of
the project but at a minimum will be adequate to provide for the
proposed average application rates. The May 2000, GeoSyntec Report can
be found in the docket for this proposed rule.
EPA's RCRA MSWLF operating criteria require that MSWLFs be designed
and constructed with a leachate collection system that can ensure a
hydraulic head (leachate layer) above the liner of 30 centimeters (cm)
or less, i.e., approximately 12 inches. The operator must monitor the
depth of liquid (or thickness of ``head'') and ensure no more than 30
cm of head is on the liner. The impact of the proposed liquid
application activities on the thickness of head on the liner systems
was evaluated using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) model. This model is in the May 2000, GeoSyntec Report and is
available in the docket for this proposed rule. First, the hydrologic
evaluation was performed assuming that no liquid is applied; then, the
evaluation was performed for the liquid application condition under the
assumptions that 4,000,000 and 8,000,000 gallons per year would be
recirculated at the Maplewood and King George Landfills, respectively.
These calculations show that a head of 30 cm or less is expected on
both the Maplewood and the King George liner. The King George Landfill
is expected to maintain a lower head than the Maplewood Landfill
because the drainage layer material at the King George landfill is
approximately 100 times more permeable than the drainage layer material
at the Maplewood landfill. This is why King George was selected for an
application rate of twice the volume of liquids that will be applied to
the Maplewood Landfill.
The primary liner system of both landfills is underlain by a
secondary liner and leachate collection system. Sumps are located at
the low point of each cell in each system and will be monitored for the
depth of liquid on a monthly basis. As needed and required, liquid in
the sumps is collected and controlled as leachate. Samples are
collected to evaluate the characteristics of the liquids. If the test
results from the sampled liquid or the monitoring of the leachate level
indicate that there is a potential leak in the primary liner system,
then the need for a larger pump will be evaluated and the liquid level
in the primary system will be further evaluated and monitored to
minimize the liquid depth above the primary liner. The liner leakage
rate will be evaluated and the leachate injection rate may be reduced,
if necessary, to control the rate of flow into the secondary leachate
collection system. Waste Management will monitor the depth of liquid on
the liners of both landfills throughout the XL Project period, and will
ensure that less than the 30 cm maximum head is maintained, in
accordance with regulations. This proposed rule would not alter Waste
Management's obligation to maintain less than 30 cm of head on the
liners at both Virginia XL landfills.
It is necessary that the on-site leachate storage structures at
both the Virginia Project XL Landfills have enough capacity to store
the leachate needed for later application to the test areas in the
landfills. Liquid will be collected and stored for application when
conditions are relatively dry. The storage capacity of the leachate
tanks at the Maplewood Landfill is approximately 500,000 gallons, this
represents approximately a two months supply of leachate at a
application rate of 4 million gallons per year.
During operation of the bioreactor system, leachate storage
structures will also be used to temporarily store leachate at times
when it is not or cannot be recirculated. As a minimum, the tanks will
need to store the quantity of leachate generated over a period of
several days. The May 2000, GeoSyntec Report states that the Maplewood
Landfill generated approximately 3 million gallons of leachate in 1999.
The 500,000 gallon storage at Maplewood Landfill represents over a two
month storage capacity of leachate at a
[[Page 67157]]
generation rate of 3 million gallons per year. Therefore, the facility
has adequate leachate storage capacity for operation of the bioreactor
system. As a contingency, during times when leachate generation exceeds
the rate of recirculation in and storage capacity, leachate could be
hauled off-site as is currently being done.
In the May 2000, GeoSyntec Report, Waste Management's consultant
evaluated the physical stability of the waste at the Virginia Project
XL Landfills under bioreactor operating conditions. GeoSyntec
Consultants submitted this engineering evaluation to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) as a part of their
application for a permit modification for the bioreactor testing at the
Virginia Project XL Landfills. A static stability analysis conducted
for the slopes of the Virginia XL Landfills shows a factor of safety
(FOS) of greater than the minimum value of 1.5 was maintained even with
the addition of the liquid application trenches and a phreatic or
subsurface leachate/water table surface in the landfill cell associated
with the addition of liquids in the trench. The calculated FOS for the
existing conditions and under the leachate recirculation scenarios
remained unchanged in both the Virginia Project XL Landfills since the
critical failure surface is located outside the areas that will be
wetted by liquid addition during the bioreactor testing or the added
liquid does not change the location of the critical surface. The
GeoSyntec stability evaluation can be found in the docket for this
proposed rule.
EPA and Waste Management expect that the addition of liquids to the
landfills will accelerate the production of landfill gases; indeed, one
of the benefits of bioreactor landfills is that the time interval
during which landfill gas is generated should be compressed, thereby
facilitating its collection and potential conversion to a useful energy
source. Landfill gas generation will start sooner and end sooner in
landfills where liquids are recirculated. EPA's Standards of
Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, requires large landfills that meet the emissions threshold
to perform landfill gas monitoring and install a collection and control
system as specified in the regulation in areas where wastes are over a
certain age. Effective November 1999, Waste Management installed, and
is operating, an active (i.e. vacuum induced) landfill gas collection
system in Phases 1, 2 and 3 at the Maplewood Landfill. An active gas
collection system became operational at the King George Landfill on
December 10, 2000. In addition, on September 1, 2001 Waste Management
signed an agreement with a private energy development company to
construct a 9MW power plant fueled by landfill gas at the Maplewood
Landfill. Waste Management is currently negotiating a similar gas/
energy recovery agreement for the King George Landfill.
This XL Project will comply with the subpart WWW performance
standards for MSWLFs under the federal Clean Air Act. Waste Management
will continue to provide subpart WWW-compliant landfill gas monitoring,
collection and control during and following the application of liquids
at the landfills. Waste Management's obligations with respect to
landfill gas will be set forth in a Federally Enforceable State
Operating Permit (FESOP). The VADEQ is the regulatory agency which,
under the federal Clean Air Act, has air permitting authority for both
landfills. The VADEQ has issued a New Source Review Permit 9 VAC 5-80-
10 (NSR) for the King George Landfill which contains the enforceable
parameters and requirements reflecting the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS)--compliant gas collection, control and monitoring. In
addition, on July 31, 2001, VADEQ issued a Title V Operating Permit 9
VAC 5-80-50 et. seq. (Title V), for the King George Landfill. Both the
Title V permit and the underlying NSR permit issued by VADEQ are
considered Federally enforceable. An NSR Permit for the Maplewood
Landfill is under development. An NSR Permit will be in place for each
landfill prior to the addition of liquids, and will include at least
the following provisions:
1. Waste Management will enhance the gas collection and control
systems at the landfills (e.g. using additional extraction wells or
trenches or by enhancing the cover over affected areas.) This will be
done at the discretion of Waste Management, or as directed by VADEQ, if
it is determined that there is a potential to exceed the applicable air
quality permit requirements or New Source Performance Standards during
evaluation of routine monitoring data or if odor problems or air
quality problems occur. The system will be expanded as needed (e.g.,
using additional extraction wells or trenches or by placing additional
cover or tarps over affected areas) to ensure compliance with the
applicable air quality permit requirements.
2. The performance of the landfill gas extraction systems at the
Virginia Project XL Landfills will be documented and assessed by
obtaining monitoring data from the gas extraction wells and the
landfill surface for parameters such as methane, carbon dioxide,
oxygen, non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) and other constituent
concentrations, in accord with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. The gas
temperature at the well heads will also be monitored as required by
subpart WWW.
3. A baseline round of air monitoring at each landfill will be
completed prior to the introduction of liquids, and the monitoring will
continue for the duration of the project.
4. Collected landfill gas will be controlled through the use of an
active gas control system at both sites.
The site stakeholders, listed in Section F of today's proposed
rule, recognize that the increased production of landfill gas may
result in an increase in the flow rate of NOX emissions from
any flares or other gas processing equipment installed as part of the
project. Air quality permits for these emissions may need to be amended
to allow the implementation of the XL Project.
In the FPA Waste Management committed to exploring alternative uses
for the collected gas other than flaring. On September 1, 2001 Waste
Management signed an agreement with a private energy development
company to construct a 9MW power plant fueled by landfill gas at the
Maplewood Landfill. Waste Management is currently negotiating a similar
agreement for the King George Landfill.
C. What Kind of Liner Is Required by Current Federal Regulations?
Currently, the federal regulations outline two methods for
complying with liner requirements for municipal solid waste landfills.
The first method is a performance standard set out under 40 CFR
258.40(a)(1). This standard allows installation of any liner
configuration provided the liner design is approved by the director of
an approved state (defined in Sec. 258.2) and the design ensures that
certain constituent concentrations are not exceeded in the uppermost
aquifer underlying the landfill facility at the point of compliance.
The second method is set out in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) and (b).
Sec. 258.40(b) specifies a liner design which consists of two
components: (1) An upper component comprising a minimum of 30 mil
flexible membrane liner (60 mil if High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is
used); and (2) a lower component comprising at least two feet of
compacted soil with a hydraulic
[[Page 67158]]
conductivity no greater than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec.
D. How Are the Liners at the Virginia XL Landfills Constructed?
Both the Maplewood Landfill and the King George County Landfill
were constructed to meet or exceed the performance standard set forth
in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(1). The liner under each landfill was built with a
geomembrane double synthetic liner systems, with primary leachate
collection and leak detection (secondary collection) layers. The King
George County liner and leachate collection system consists, from top
to bottom, 1.5 feet of protective cover, leachate drainage material, 16
oz./square yard nonwoven geotextile, 60 mil textured HDPE primary
geomembrane liner, a geosynthetic clay liner, geocomposite drainage
layer, 60 mil textured HDPE secondary geomembrane liner, geosynthetic
clay liner, 40 mil textured HDPE tertiary geomembrane liner and 1 foot
of geologic buffer material with a permeability (k) of 1 x
10-5 cm/sec. The Maplewood Landfill liner and leachate
collection system consists of, from top to bottom, 1.5 feet of primary
granular drainage layer, 60 mil HDPE geomembrane, geonet layer, 60 mil
HDPE geomembrane, bentonite geocomposite, underlain by 1.5 feet of a
clayey soil liner with a permeability (k) of 1 x 10-5 cm/
sec. The liner systems for the two landfills are illustrated in Figure
2 of the Final Project Agreement.
The 60 mil HDPE upper liner component of both landfills' liners
meets the specified upper membrane liner component under RCRA (40 CFR
258.40(b). However, instead of a lower liner component comprised of at
least two feet of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity no
greater than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec, the Virginia XL Landfills
were built with a second geosynthetic 60 mil HDPE layer. Additionally,
beneath the double liner system at the King George County is a third 40
mil HDPE liner, underlain by one foot of soil compacted to a
permeability (k) of 1 x 10-5 cm/sec., and the double liner
system at the Maplewood Landfill is underlain by 18 inches of soil
compacted to a permeability (k) of 1 x 10-5 cm/sec.
While the landfills do not have a composite liner as specified in
the Design Criteria Sec. 258.40 (b), the alternative liner systems meet
or exceed the performance requirements for municipal solid waste
landfills. Indeed, these landfills' double-liner systems provide a high
level of protection to the environment against potential impacts caused
by leakage of leachate.
E. What Environmental Benefits Would Result From the Proposed
Bioreactor Landfill Project Proposal?
The expected superior environmental benefits from the Virginia
Landfills XL Project include: (1) Landfill life extension; (2)
minimizing the potential for long-term leachate-associated groundwater
and offsite surface water concerns; and (3) increasing landfill gas
control, minimizing fugitive methane and VOC emissions and minimizing
the duration of gas generation.
1. Landfill Life Extension
The life of a landfill, when operated as a bioreactor, should be
extended due to the biodegradation of the waste. This more rapid
biodegradation increases the apparent density and decreases the volume
of the in place waste remaining in the landfill. Reducing the volume of
waste translates into either longer landfill life and/or less need for
additional landfill space. Thus, this bioreactor landfill will be able
to accept more waste over its working lifetime (subject to applicable
State regulatory requirements). Additionally, less landfill space may
be needed to accommodate the same amount of waste.
2. Minimizing Leachate/Groundwater-Associated Concerns
Research reported in Reinhart 1995, has shown that bioreactor
processes tend to reduce the concentration of many pollutants in
leachate, including organic acids and other soluble organic pollutants.
Bioreactor operations brings pH to near-neutral conditions and
generally, metals are much less mobile under these condition. Reinhart
1995 found that metals were largely precipitated and immobilized in the
waste of bioreactor landfills. This report can be found in the docket
for this proposed rule. Discussions between Waste Management, the
VADEQ, and the host communities for the Maplewood Landfill and the King
George County Landfills, indicated that groundwater-related issues are
of primary concern to the stakeholders, including minimizing the long-
term threat to groundwater quality. This project should provide for
accelerated biodegradation of the waste in the landfills and, thereby,
minimizing the potential for the waste to present a long-term threat to
groundwater quality. Routine groundwater monitoring is, and will
continue to be, performed to verify containment. Cleaner leachate also
translates into decreased load on the offsite publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) where the leachate from these landfills is now being
treated. As described in Section 1.2 of the FPA, both the Maplewood and
King George County Landfills were constructed with double-liner
systems, which are highly efficient at preventing leakage of leachate
from landfills.
3. Maximizing Landfill Gas Control and Minimizing Fugitive Methane and
VOC Emissions
Landfill gas contains roughly 50% methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
In terms of climate effects, methane is second in importance only to
carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Landfill gas also contains volatile
organic compounds (VOC's) that are air pollutants of local concern.
While the rate of gas generation will be increased by adding liquids to
the landfills, the period of post closure landfill gas generation will
be compressed. The existing, active gas collection systems in operation
at both landfills is expected to efficiently collect and control
landfill gas. The system will be maintained and monitored in accordance
with the terms of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and all applicable
permits. In addition, on September 1, 2001 Waste Management signed an
agreement with a private energy development company to construct a 9MW
power plant fueled by landfill gas at the Maplewood Landfill. Waste
Management is currently negotiating a similar gas/energy recovery
agreement for the King George Landfill.
It is also anticipated that the information obtained from this XL
Project will provide the EPA and the waste disposal industry with data
concerning the use of bioreactor techniques at MSWLF sites throughout
the United States, in accord with the Agency' April 6, 2000 Request for
Information and Data regarding Alternative Liner Performance, Leachate
Recirculation, and Bioreactor Landfills, 65 FR 18014 (April 6, 2000).
F. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in This Project?
Initial public meetings were held on August 1, 2000 (King George
County) and August 2, 2000 (Amelia County) to solicit comments from the
public on the intent of the sponsors to participate in Project XL.
Additional public meetings were also held during the week of September
4, 2000 in King George and Amelia County to discuss the draft FPA with
the citizens from these localities. Since both landfills have valid
state operating permits, the VADEQ intends to amend the permits to
allow the construction and operation of the bioreactor systems as an
experimental
[[Page 67159]]
process. Before VADEQ issues a permit amendment, a public hearing will
be held in the locality to solicit comments on the draft permit
amendments from concerned citizens. The details of the permit
amendments for each landfill are outlined in advertisements along with
contact information and document viewing locations. The public hearing
is also advertised in a local paper. The VADEQ has a standardized
mailing list of state agencies to whom a draft permit or notice of
permit amendment can be sent to solicit comments. Conditions may be
imposed due to additional state requirements or as a result of public
comment.
In accord with VADEQ regulatory requirements, Virginia will hold
public meetings and hearings on the proposed amendments to the solid
waste construction and operating permits for the Virginia Project XL
Landfills. If requested, these public hearings will be supplemented
with additional stakeholder meetings. A stakeholder mailing list
maintained by Waste Management will be updated as necessary to include
private citizens and other interested parties. Periodically, progress
reports and other relevant information will be distributed. If
requested, Waste Management has also agreed to provide site tours and
briefings to better educate any interested citizens or stakeholders.
Transcripts and video tape recordings of all public meetings and
hearings will be maintained at the repositories. A repository for the
project will be maintained by VADEQ at 629 East Main Street, Richmond,
VA, 23219 c/o Paul Farrell, (804) 698-4214. Additional copies of the
repository records will be maintained in the James Hamner Memorial
Library, 16351 Dunn Street Amelia, Virginia 23002 and in the L.F. Smoot
Lewis Memorial Library, 9533 Kings Highway, King George, Virginia
22485. A public file on this XL project has been maintained at the
website at: http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/virginialandfills/index.htm
Throughout project development, EPA will continue to update the website
as the project is implemented. A detailed description of the XL Project
and the stakeholder support for this project is included in the Final
Project Agreement, which is available through the docket or through
EPA's Project XL website on the Internet.
Waste Management will periodically meet with a representative from
each local landfill advisory committee or the entire stakeholder group
to discuss issues of concern and to disseminate information. To solicit
additional stakeholder involvement, Waste Management may do outreach
including contacting nationwide professional and citizen groups that
may have an interest in bioreactor technology and will attempt to
disseminate information to its members, as well as, attend national
workshops or seminars.
The following have been identified as VA Project XL Bioreactor
Landfill stakeholders:
Direct Participants:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Waste Management, Inc.
King George County Landfill
Maplewood Landfill
Maplewood Recycling Waste Disposal Facility
Commentors:
Members of Local Landfill Advisory Committees
G. How Will This Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork
Reduction?
As stated earlier, this project is expected to result in cost
savings by virtue of assisting in an increased rate of decomposition of
the waste placed in certain areas of the two Virginia Project XL
Landfills, and to improve the quality of leachate generated in those
areas. The increased decomposition rate is, in turn, expected to extend
the life of the landfill, and, potentially, result in direct cost
savings to Waste Management from its landfills more efficient use and
decreased leachate treatment and disposal costs. In addition, the
methane generation and recovery operations are expected to yield
increased methane recovery over a shorter time period, thereby
facilitating the further evaluation and possible use of the methane for
energy generation. No appreciable direct reduction in paperwork is
anticipated at the Virginia landfills.
H. How Long Will This Project Last and When Will It Be Complete?
As with all XL projects testing alternative environmental
protection strategies, the term of this XL Project is limited. Today's
proposed rule would be in effect for 10 years. In the event that EPA
determines that this project should be terminated before the end of the
10 year period and that the site-specific rule should be rescinded, the
Agency may withdraw this rule through a subsequent rulemaking. This
would allow all interested persons and entities the opportunity to
comment on the proposed termination and withdrawal of regulatory
authority. In the event of an early termination of the project term ,
EPA or the state would establish an interim compliance period, not to
exceed six months, such that Waste Management will be returned to full
compliance with the existing requirements of 40 CFR part 258. In
accordance with 9 VAC 20-80-480.G, VADEQ expects to utilize an
experimental permit to provide for operation of the VA Project XL
Landfills as bioreactors. If the XL Project proves to be feasible,
VADEQ expects to modify the permit for the facility to provide for the
ten year XL Project term.
The FPA allows any party to the agreement to withdraw from the
agreement at any time before the end of the 10 year period. It also
sets forth several conditions that could trigger an early termination
of the project, as well as procedures to follow in the event that EPA,
the State or local agency seeks to terminate the project (see FPA
section 11).
For example, an early conclusion would be warranted if the
project's environmental benefits do not meet the Project XL requirement
for the achievement of superior environmental results. In addition, new
laws or regulations may become applicable during the project term which
might render the project impractical, or might contain regulatory
requirements that supersede the superior environmental benefits that
are being achieved under this XL Project. Or, during the project
duration, EPA may decide to change the federal rule allowing
recirculation over alternative liners and the addition of outside bulk
liquids for all Subtitle D landfills. In that event, the FPA and site-
specific rule for this project would no longer be needed.
IV. What Regulatory Changes Will Be Necessary To Implement This
Project?
A. Existing Liquid Restrictions for MSWLFs (40 CFR 258.28)
This proposed site specific regulation would grant regulatory
relief from certain requirements of RCRA that restrict application of
liquids in these MSWLFs, because as previously described, both the
Maplewood and King George landfills were constructed with alternative
liners pursuant to 40 CFR 258.40(a)(1). When the FPA for this project
was signed, RCRA regulations, 40 CFR 258.28(a) allowed bulk or
noncontainerized liquid waste to be added to a MSWLF only if the
following two conditions were met:
--The liquids comprise household waste (other than septic waste), or
leachate from the landfill itself, or gas condensate derived from the
landfill, and
[[Page 67160]]
--The MSWLF has been built with a liner designed as prescribed in the
design standard set forth in 40 CFR 258.40 (a)(2) (i.e. not the
performance standard set forth in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(1)).
Since then, EPA promulgated a site-specific rule for the Yolo
County, CA bioreactor landfill project under Project XL, which amended
Sec. 258.28(a). The amendment allows bulk liquid wastes to be added to
a MSWLF if ``the MSWLF unit is a Project XL MSWLF and meets the
applicable requirements of Sec. 258.41'' 66 FR 42441, 42449 (August 13,
2001). Therefore, the regulatory relief needed for the VA Project XL
landfills is a site-specific amendment to 40 CFR 258.41.
B. Proposed Site-Specific Rule
The Maplewood landfill project would provide for addition of
liquids primarily consisting of leachate from the landfill, while the
King George bioreactor would involve the addition of leachate generated
at this facility plus other liquids, including non-containerized
liquids such as storm water, truck wash water and other non-hazardous
liquid waste. Further information on the liquids proposed for addition
to the Maplewood and King George Landfills can be found in the FPA in
Section 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2, respectively. Today's proposal would add a
new subsection of the rules in Sec. 258.41. New Sec. 258.41(c) would
specifically apply to the Maplewood Landfill, in Amelia County,
Virginia and the King George Landfill, in King George County, Virginia,
and would allow leachate to be applied to these two landfills.
The proposed rule would impose certain minimum monitoring,
reporting, and control requirements on Waste Management, which, among
other things, will ensure that the project is protective of human
health and the environment, and to facilitate EPA's evaluation of the
project. The project monitoring and reporting requirements are listed
in Sections 2.2.1.4, 2.2.1.5, 2.2.2.4, and 2.2.2.5, Table 6 and 6A of
the FPA and would require that Waste Management provide semi-annual
reporting of the monitoring data to stakeholders and regulators in
order to facilitate project evaluation.
Existing regulation also requires a leachate collection system as
specified in Sec. 258.40(a)(2) to ensure that contaminant migration to
the aquifer is controlled. (56 FR 50978, 51056 (Oct. 9, 1991)). The
proposed rule would not change the requirement in Sec. 258.28(a)(2)
that a leachate collection system (as described in Sec. 258.40(a)(2))
be in place in order for leachate to be recirculated in the landfill
unit, and Waste Management would still be required to ensure that
leachate collection systems at the landfills maintain the leachate head
over the liner at a depth of less than 30 cm.
V. Additional Information
A. How To Request a Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide opportunity
for interested persons to make oral presentations regarding this
proposed rulemaking, in accordance with 40 CFR part 25. Persons wishing
to make an oral presentation on the proposed site specific rule for the
Virginia Project XL Landfills should contact Sherri Walker at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (1807)
Washington DC 20460. Any member of the public may file a written
statement before the hearing or after the hearing to be received by EPA
no later than fourteen days after publication of this proposed
rulemaking. Written statements should be sent to EPA at the addresses
given in the Addresses section in the preamble of this document. If a
public hearing is held, a verbatim transcript of the hearing and
written statements provided at the hearing will be available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours at the EPA
addresses for docket inspection given in the Addresses section of this
preamble.
B. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review ?
Because this rule affects only two facilities, it is not a rule of
general applicability and therefore not subject to OMB review under
Executive Order 12866. In addition, OMB has agreed that review of site
specific rules under Project XL is not necessary.
C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and public comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The project sponsor,
Waste Management Inc., is the regulated entity for this pilot project.
They are not a small business. This rule does not apply to small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, nor small governmental
jurisdictions. Further, it is a site-specific rule with limited
applicability to only two landfills in the nation. Therefore, I certify
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for This Project Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act ?
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
It is exempt from OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act because
it is a site specific rule, directed to fewer than ten persons. 44
U.S.C. 3502(3), (10); 5 CFR 1320.3(c), 1320.4 and 1320.5.
E. Does This Project Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act ?
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments in
the aggregate or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
[[Page 67161]]
development of the EPA regulatory proposal with significant Federal
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements. As used here, ``small
government'' has the same meaning as that contained under 5 U.S.C.
601(5), that is, governments of cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.
As discussed above, this proposed rule would have limited
application. It applies only to the Maplewood and King George County
Landfills. If adopted, this proposed rule would result in a cost
savings for Waste Management when compared with the costs it would have
had to incur if required to adhere to the requirements contained in the
current rule. EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for state, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, today's
proposal is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA. EPA has also determined that this proposed rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
F. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks?
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,''
as defined in Executive Order 12886; and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to potentially effective and feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This proposed rule would allow for
the addition of bulk or non-containerized liquid amendments over a
liner that does not meet the design requirements in 40 CFR. 258.40(b),
however, the liner systems meet or exceed the performance requirements
for municipal solid waste landfills. Indeed, these landfills' double-
liner systems provide a high level of protection to the environment
against potential impacts caused by leakage of leachate. Therefore, no
additional risk to public health, including children's health, is
expected to result from this proposed rule.
G. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132: Federalism?
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
The phrase, ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined
in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposal would only affect
two local governmental entities and a state, and would provide
regulatory flexibility for the state and local governmental entity
concerned. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
H. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments?
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
I. How Does This Rule Comply With the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless such practice is inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (for example, material specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This
proposed rulemaking however, does not involve any voluntary consensus
standards.
J. Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use?
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection, Landfill, Solid waste.
Dated: December 19, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth, part 258 of Chapter I of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
[[Page 67162]]
PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 258 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907,
6912(a), 6944, 6945(c), and 6949a(c).
Subpart D--Design Criteria
2. Amend ``258.41 to add a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 258.41 Project XL Bioreactor Landfill Projects.
* * * * *
(c) Virginia Landfills XL Project Requirements. Paragraph (c) of
this section applies solely to two Virginia landfills operated by the
Waste Management, Inc. or its successors: The Maplewood Recycling and
Waste Disposal Facility, located in Amelia County, Virginia
(``Maplewood Landfill''); and the King George County Landfill and
Recycling Facility, located in King George County, Virginia (``King
George Landfill'') collectively hereinafter, ``the VA Project XL
Landfills or landfill.'' The VA Project XL Landfills are allowed to add
non-hazardous bulk or non-containerized liquids including, leachate,
storm water and truck wash water, hereinafter, ``liquid or liquids'',
to Cell 3 of the King George Landfill (hereinafter ``Cell 3'') and
Phases 1 and 2 of the Maplewood Landfill (hereinafter ``Phases 1 and
2'') under the following conditions:
(1) The operator of the landfill shall maintain the liners
underlying Cell 3 and Phases 1 and 2, which were designed and
constructed with an alternative liner as defined in Sec. 258.40(a)(1)
in accord with their current installed design in order to maintain the
integrity of the liner system and keep it and the leachate collection
system in good operating order. The operator of the landfill shall
ensure that the addition of any liquids 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. In addition, the leachate collection
system shall be operated, monitored and maintained to ensure that less
than 30 cm depth of leachate is maintained over the liner.
(2) The operator of the landfill shall ensure that the
concentration values listed in Table 1 of Sec. 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 Sec. 258.40(d).
(3) The operator of the landfill shall monitor and report whether
surface seeps are occurring and determine whether they are attributable
to operation of the liquid application system. EPA and VADEQ shall be
notified in the semi-annual report of the occurrence of any seeps.
(4) The operator of the landfill shall determine on a monthly basis
the leachate quality in test and control areas with and without liquid
addition. The operator of the landfill shall collect monthly samples of
the landfill leachate and analyze them for the following parameters:
pH, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen, Dissolved Solids, Biochemical
Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Organic Carbon, Nutrients
(ammonia, total kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus), Common Ions,
Heavy Metals and Organic Priority Pollutants.
(5) The operator of the landfill shall determine on a semi-annual
basis the total quantity of leachate collected in test and control
areas; the total quantity of liquids applied in the test areas and
determination of any changes in this quantity over time; the total
quantity of leachate in on-site storage structures and any leachate
taken for offsite disposal.
(6) Prior to the addition of any liquid to the landfill, the
operator of the landfill shall perform an initial characterization of
the liquid and notify EPA and VADEQ of the liquid proposed to be added.
The parameters for the initial characterization of liquids shall be the
same as the monthly parameters for the landfill leachate specified in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section. The operator shall annually test all
liquids added to the landfill and compare these results to the initial
characterization.
(7) The operator of the landfill shall ensure that Cell 3 and
Phases 1 and 2 are operated in such a manner so as to prevent any
landfill fires from occurring. The operator of the landfill shall
monitor the gas temperature at well heads, at a minimum, on a monthly
basis.
(8) The operator of the landfill shall perform an annual surface
topographic survey to determine the rate of the settlement of the waste
in the test and control areas.
(9) The operator of the landfill shall monitor and record the
frequency of odor complaints during and after liquid application
events. EPA and VADEQ shall be notified of the occurrence of any odor
complaints in the semi-annual report.
(10) The operator of the landfill shall collect representative
samples of the landfill waste in the test areas on an annual basis and
analyze the samples for the following solid waste stabilization and
decomposition parameters: Moisture Content, Biochemical Methane
Potential, Cellulose, Lignin, Hemi-cellulose, Volatile Solids and pH.
(11) The operator of the landfill shall report to the EPA Regional
Administrator and the State Director on the information described in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of this section on a semi-annual basis.
The first report is due within 6 months after the effective date of
this section. These reporting provisions shall remain in effect for the
duration of the project term.
(12) Additional monitoring, record keeping and reporting
requirements related to landfill gas will be contained in a Federally
Enforceable State Operating Permit (``FESOP'') for the VA Project XL
Landfills issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Application of this site-specific rule to the VA Project XL Landfills
is conditioned upon the issuance of such a FESOP.
(13) This section will remain in effect until [10 years after the
effective date of the final rule]. By [date 10 years after the
effective date of the final rule], the VA Project XL Landfills must
return to compliance with the regulatory requirements which would have
been in effect absent the flexibility provided through this section. If
EPA Region 3's Regional Administrator, the Commonwealth of Virginia and
Waste Management agree to an amendment of the project term, the parties
must enter into an amended or new Final Project Agreement for any such
amendment.
(14) The authority provided by this section may be terminated
before the end of the 10 year period in the event of noncompliance with
the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, the determination by
the EPA Region 3's Regional Administrator that the project has failed
to achieve the expected level of environmental performance, or the
promulgation of generally applicable requirements that would apply to
all landfill that meet or exceed the performance standard set forth in
40 Sec. 258.40(a)(1). In the event of early termination EPA in
consultation with the Commonwealth of Virginia will determine an
interim compliance period to provide sufficient time for the operator
to return the landfills to compliance with the regulatory requirements
which would have been in effect absent the authority provided by this
section. The interim compliance period shall not exceed six months.
[FR Doc. 01-31939 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P