[Federal Register: May 13, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 92)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25550-25561]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13my03-35]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[FR-7497-6]
RIN 2090-AA25
Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for Anne Arundel County
Millersville Landfill, Severn, MD
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is publishing this proposed site-specific rule to
implement a project under the Project eXcellence and Leadership
(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 site specific
regulatory flexibility under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), for the Anne Arundel County Millersville Landfill and Resource
Recovery Facility, Severn, Maryland (the Landfill). The Landfill is
owned and operated by Anne Arundel County (the County).
The County, the State of Maryland, and EPA signed a Final Project
Agreement (FPA) for this project, which would allow for the addition of
liquids to this landfill. The addition of liquids to landfills
accelerates the biodegradation of landfill waste and is allowed for
certain prescribed liner designs under current RCRA municipal solid
waste landfill (MSWLF) regulations. The principal objective of this XL
project to demonstrate that the alternative liner design at the
Landfill is as protective as the liner prescribed in current RCRA
municipal solid waste landfill regulations over which leachate
recirculation is allowed under existing RCRA regulations.
The County Landfill is one of several landfills, located in
different geographic and climatic regions across the country, that
under Project XL are testing this bioreactor technology over
alternative liner designs. In order to carry out this project, the
Landfill needs 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 this
landfill. If promulgated, today's proposed rule would allow the
addition of Landfill leachate and onsite storm water to a designated
(approximately 160 by 200 foot) portion of Cell 8.4 at the Landfill.
Expected benefits of this project include accelerated biodegradation of
the Landfill waste, decreased time for the waste to reach stabilization
and improved management of leachate and storm water.
DATES: Public Comments: Comments on this proposal must be received on
or before June 12, 2003. All comments should be submitted according to
the detailed directions below in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Public Hearing: Commenters may request a public hearing on or
before May 27, 2003, and such requests should specify the basis for
their request. If EPA determines that there is sufficient reason to
hold a public hearing, it will do so by June 3, 2003, during the last
week of the public comment period. Requests for a public hearing should
be submitted to the address below.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to the RCRA Docket Clerk
(5305T), 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 RCRA-2002-0032. A copy should
also be sent to Mr. Steven Donohue at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. More
detailed instructions for submitting comments in writing,
electronically, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier are
provided below in I.B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Request for a Hearing: Requests for a hearing should be mailed to
the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), RCRA
Docket (5305T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Please send an original and two copies of all comments, and refer to
Docket Number RCRA-2002-0032. A copy should also be sent to Mr. Steven
Donohue at the U.S. EPA Region 3 office. Mr. Donohue may be contacted
at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, (215) 814-3215. If a
public hearing is scheduled, the date, time, and location will be
available through a Federal Register notice or by contacting Mr. Steven
Donohue at the U.S. EPA Region 3 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Donohue at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, (3EI00), 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 at (215) 814-3215 (or
donohue.steven@epa.gov). Further information on today's action may also
[[Page 25551]]
be obtained on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline of Today's Document
The information presented in this preamble is arranged as follows:
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and other Related
Information?
B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Authority
III. Background
A. What is Project XL?
B. What Are Bioreactor Landfills?
IV. The Anne Arundel County Millersville Landfill and Resource
Recovery Facility
A. Overview
B. Description of the XL Project
C. What Kind of Liner Is Required by Current EPA Regulations?
D. How Were the Liners at the Landfill Constructed?
E. What Are the Environmental Benefits Expected Through This XL
Project?
F. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project?
G. How Long Will this Project Last and When Will it Be Complete?
H. Will This Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork
Reduction?
V. What Regulatory Changes Are Being Proposed to Implement this
Project?
A. Existing Liquid Restrictions for MSWLFs (40 CFR 258.28)
B. Proposed Site-Specific Rule
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. Docket
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0032. The official public docket consists of
the documents specifically referenced in this action and other
information related to this action. Although a part of the official
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials
that is available for public viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1742,
and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270. The
public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no
charge. Additional copies cost 15 cents per page.
2. Electronic Access
You may access this Federal Register document electronically
through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the docket facility identified in I.A above.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public
comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to
the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket.
Public comments that are mailed or delivered to EPA's Docket will be
scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical,
physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description
written by the docket staff.
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket
visit EPA Dockets online or see a description of the EPA Dockets System
at 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to
submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute,
please follow the instructions in I.B.2 and I.C. below. Do not use EPA
Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1. Electronically
If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA
recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also
include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM
you submit, and in any
[[Page 25552]]
cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can
be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact
you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
or needs further information on the substance of your comment. It is
EPA's policy not to edit comments, and any identifying or contact
information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part
of the comment that will be placed in the official public docket, and
made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
A. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket
, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To
access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page,
select ``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once
in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA-
2002-0032. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
B. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to
rcra-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0032. In
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly
to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket,
EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
C. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to the mailing address identified below. These electronic
submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
2. By Mail
Send two (2) copies of your comments to the RCRA Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-
0032.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
Deliver your comments to: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004,
Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0032. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in
A.1 above.
4. By Facsimile
Fax your comments to: 202-566-0272, Attention Docket ID. No. RCRA-
2002-0032.
C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail.
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following
address: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
RCRA Docket, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004,
Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0032. You may claim information that
you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information
as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk
or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in Summary section above.
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
II. Authority
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).
III. Background
A. What Is Project XL?
Project XL is an EPA initiative developed to encourage regulated
entities to achieve better environmental results at less cost. Project
XL--``eXcellence and Leadership''--was announced by EPA on March 16,
1995 (see 60 FR 27282, May 23, 1995). Detailed descriptions of Project
XL have been published previously in numerous public documents which
are generally available electronically via the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
Briefly, Project XL gives a limited number of
regulated entities the opportunity to develop their own pilot projects
and alternative strategies to achieve superior environmental
performance compared 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, to assess
[[Page 25553]]
whether these alternative approaches provide benefits at the specific
facility affected, and determine 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.
On September 18, 2000, EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register requesting comments on the draft Final Project Agreement (FPA)
for the Anne Arundel County Millersville Landfill XL project (65 FR
56308). The FPA was signed by EPA on December 7, 2000. A copy of the
FPA is available in the docket and on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
The FPA is a non-binding written agreement
between the project sponsor and regulatory agencies which describes the
project in detail, discusses criteria to be met, identifies performance
goals and indicators, and outlines how the agreement will be managed.
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 generally
employ the addition of liquids such as leachate. A byproduct of the
waste decomposition process is landfill gas, which includes methane,
carbon dioxide, hazardous air pollutants and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Landfill gases are produced sooner and faster in a bioreactor
than in a conventional landfill. Therefore, bioreactors typically
incorporate 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 document 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 (MSWLFs), 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 believe that operating MSWLFs
as bioreactors provides 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 are also believed
to 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. Based on 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 are believed to shorten the length of time the
liner will be exposed to leachate and lower the long term potential for
leachate migration into the subsurface environment. Bioreactors may
reduce post-closure care costs and risks, due to the accelerated,
controlled settlement of the solid waste during landfill operation.
Several additional related XL pilot projects involving operation of
landfills with alternative liners as bioreactors are being implemented
throughout the country. These additional bioreactor 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 document, EPA is interested in assessing the performance of
landfills operated as bioreactors with alternative liners, and these XL
projects are expected to produce valuable data.
The Anne Arundel County Millersville Landfill XL Project and the
other related XL projects will 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. Additional
information on bioreactor landfills is available at EPA's Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/landfill/bioreactors.htm.
IV. The Anne Arundel County Millersville Landfill and Resource Recovery
Facility
A. Overview
The Landfill is located approximately 15 miles south of Baltimore
on 565 acres in Severn, Maryland. The Landfill, which began operations
in 1975, is owned and operated by the County and is the only active
MSWLF in the County. Since 1975, Cells 1 through 7 at the Landfill were
opened, filled and closed. Cells 1 through 7 were constructed before
the current solid waste disposal laws and regulations and were not
lined. With the exception of Cell 1 West and Cell 3, all of these Cells
are now capped. In 1995 and 1997 respectively, Cell 3 and Cell 1 West
were ``mined'' by the County, i.e., all the waste and underlying soil
was excavated and either recycled, disposed of or used as cover in Cell
8. The footprint where Cell 1 West was located was graded and seeded
and the footprint where Cell 3 was located is now a storm water
infiltration basin.
Active landfilling is occurring in portions of Cell 8 at the
Landfill. Cell 8 is approximately 1200 feet by 2400 feet in size and is
divided into 8 subcells. Subcells 8.1 through 8.6 have been constructed
with a geomembrane double-liner system, with primary leachate
collection and leak detection (secondary collection) layers. Subcells
8.7 and 8.8 have not been constructed. Subcell 8.4, where the proposed
bioreactor test area is located, has not received any waste in
approximately two years. Subcell 8.6, where the proposed control area
is located, is currently receiving waste.
In 2000 the Landfill accepted approximately 390 tons per day (tpd)
of municipal solid waste (MSW), of which 1/3 (approximately 130 tpd)
was recovered for reuse and recycling and the remaining amount
(approximately 260 tpd) was landfilled. The Landfill serves on average
660 customers (residents and businesses combined) per day, 7 days per
week. There are approximately 5,800 residents within a 1-mile radius of
the Landfill; approximately 2,750 residents within a 0.5-mile radius;
and approximately 900 residents within a 0.25-mile radius.
The Landfill presently generates approximately 8,000 gallons of
leachate per day. Leachate is collected and pumped to a 305,000 gallon
influent tank. The leachate then flows to a pretreatment plant at the
Landfill where it is treated in controlled batches. From there it is
discharged into a 305,000 gallon effluent tank and ultimately
discharged to the sanitary sewer and
[[Page 25554]]
into a publicly operated wastewater treatment works.
The leachate collection system in Subcell 8.4 of the Landfill
consists of a two foot thick sand layer, a geonet that covers the
entire bottom of the Subcell and a system of perforated high density
polyethylene (HDPE) pipes placed in gravel blankets that overlay the
geonet. Leachate is conveyed by the geonet and/or pipes to a sump, from
which leachate is pumped and conveyed to an on-site leachate
pretreatment facility. The leachate collection system in Subcell 8.4 is
designed specifically to keep a very shallow depth of liquid on the top
liner, and in any event less than the maximum 30 cm allowed under 40
CFR 258.40(a)(2) at all locations within the Subcell. In the sump
areas, the liner system is enhanced by the addition of layers of
geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) below both top and bottom geomembranes.
The GCLs have saturated hydraulic conductivities of less than
1x10-9 cm/s. The GCLs together with the other liner
components result in a double synthetic liner system beneath the sump.
To monitor the integrity of the top liner, the quantity of leachate
removed from the subcell sumps above the bottom liner (detection zone)
is monitored on a continual basis. (The accumulation of some liquid due
to condensation is expected and is considered a normal condition.) The
number calculated and established as a ``not to exceed guideline'' is
100 gallons per acre of subcell floor per day. Daily monitoring of the
liquid above the bottom liner will continue throughout the life of
Subcell 8.4. To protect the drainage and liner system, the initial
eight-foot lift of waste in Subcell 8.4 consisted of soft trash. Soft
trash is solid waste that is collected from residential curbside trash
pickups. No curbside waste may exceed four feet in length. Curbside
household waste in general is softer than waste streams from commercial
facilities or sources from homeowners self-hauling materials from their
home or yard. This initial eight-foot lift of waste was compacted to
six feet in thickness.
Forty-three groundwater and 29 Landfill Gas (LFG) monitoring wells
are installed at the Landfill. The groundwater monitoring wells are
installed within each water-bearing zone in the subsurface beneath the
Landfill. The groundwater wells are sampled semi-annually, and the LFG
monitoring wells are monitored quarterly. The County submits ground
water sampling data to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
for their review. Starting in 1995, the County has replaced a total of
14 private home wells to address the detection of landfill leachate
contaminants in the upper aquifer or water bearing zone. The County
replaced these wells with deeper double cased wells into a deeper
aquifer when they had confirmed the detection of landfill contaminants
in two consecutive sampling rounds. The County also samples 8 other
private home wells in the area twice a year to check for possible
contamination. The groundwater contamination is believed to have
originated from the older unlined cells at the Landfill that are now
either capped or have been mined by the County. The County has proposed
to MDE that monitoring well TW-20, that is directly down gradient from
Cell 8, be designated as the groundwater point of compliance well for
the XL Project. Landfill leachate contaminants have not been detected
in TW-20 (acetone, which is a common laboratory reagent, and carbon
disulfide have been detected three times and one time respectively but
neither has been detected since April of 1999) .
This XL project is part of Anne Arundel County's larger efforts to
further improve the management of its solid waste. In 1995, the County
adopted a comprehensive Solid Waste Management Strategy (Strategy), the
main objective of which is to extend the life of the Landfill. The
Strategy comprises an integrated system involving waste reduction,
recycling, reuse and innovative technologies that provides for a multi-
faceted approach for meeting the County's future solid waste management
needs. Thus far, this Strategy has reduced the waste entering the
Landfill from 800 tons/day in 1994 to 260 tons/day in 2000. The County
has an approximately 30% recycling rate. The County operates three
``convenience centers'', including one at the Landfill, where residents
can bring in and drop off, at no cost, a wide variety of materials for
recycling including: Oil, anti-freeze, lead-acid batteries, appliances,
metal, wood, cardboard, paper, plastic and yard waste. The County
manages a total of approximately 320,600 tons of waste per year.
Approximately 75% of this total is either exported for disposal outside
the County or recycled. The remaining 25% is disposed of at the
Landfill. When the Landfill opened in 1975 it had a projected life of
25 years, or until the year 2000. As a result of the County's Solid
Waste Management Strategy, the Landfill is now projected to be able to
accept waste until 2063.
B. Description of the XL Project
The County's bioreactor pilot project will involve injecting a
controlled amount of liquids through injection devices into a 160 foot
by 200 foot (approximately 3/4 of an acre) test area located within the
southwestern portion of Subcell 8.4. The XL project will last for up to
a seven-year period (depending on effectiveness), and will involve the
monitoring of settlement, production of LFG and improvement of leachate
quality. The objectives of the project are as follows: To design and
construct a bioreactor test area in Subcell 8.4 of the Landfill;
perform liquid injection in a controlled manner using different
injection methods; monitor surface settlement, injection rates and
related parameters over a period of time; evaluate results and
ultimately identify the method that will most effectively increase the
Landfill's waste capacity; and evaluate cost effectiveness of
bioreactor techniques as a method of capacity creation.
The following discussion provides information on the proposed pilot
design. The drawings of the test area location, proposed system layout,
and details of the supplemental LFG collection system (if required)
were provided in the FPA Attachments IV, V, and VIII.
1. Proposed Test Area
The proposed test area measures 160 feet by 200 feet and is located
within the southwestern portion of Subcell 8.4. The test area is
centered in a trapezoidal shaped plateau that gradually slopes to the
northwest at an approximately 2 percent slope. Subcell 8.4 is bounded
on three sides by other existing subcells. The fourth side is adjacent
to the side slope of the cell. The distance from the test area to the
side slope varies from approximately 50 to 100 feet. The side slopes in
Cell 8 are constructed at a 3:1 slope. The test area is adjacent to an
existing haul road which makes it accessible to tank trucks for easier
liquid injection. The waste volume in this area is approximately 95,500
cubic yards (waste depth from surface to liner is approximately 80 to
85 feet).
Subcell 8.4 began accepting MSW in October 1992. Subcell 8.4 has
accepted only small quantities of curbside MSW since 1997; it last
accepted primarily construction debris about two years ago. Thus, the
lowermost portion of the waste in Subcell 8.4 contains typical MSW,
while the uppermost portion contains waste that is proportionately
higher in construction debris and lower in decomposable organic
materials. Several lifts of typical MSW in the lowermost portion of the
Subcell 8.4 were involved in a County ``mauler'' project. The mauler
was used to grind the waste into a relatively homogeneous
[[Page 25555]]
and small particle size that has an increased surface area. In 1999,
the County completed a waste composition study to provide more detailed
information about recent waste placement in the area of the proposed
test. Additional information is in a March 1995 County waste sort
report.
The County used soil as a daily cover at the site until March 1993.
Since then, the County has primarily used removable and reusable
tarpaulins (tarps) throughout Cell 8 as the cover (approximately 97
percent of the time, depending on weather conditions). Previous use of
tarps (rather than soil cover, for example) presents good conditions
for a bioreactor study, as there is less potential for the creation of
barriers (e.g., compacted soil cover) to limit vertical penetration of
liquid into the waste mass. Subcell 8.4 currently has an interim soil
cover and an approximately 12 inch thick layer of shredded wood mulch
generated from tree and yard waste.
2. Liquid Injection
To improve the evaluation of different infiltration systems, the
proposed test area will include two vertical injection wells and two
horizontal injection trenches. The two trenches are proposed to be
constructed parallel to the nearest side slope and excavated so that
they slope back toward the middle of the Cell 8.4 (southeast) at a 1
percent grade in order to minimize excavation depths, promote gravity
drainage, and eliminate possible (landfill) side-slope seepage. The
horizontal trenches would consist of 6-inch diameter perforated or
slotted pipe centered in a 2 x 1.5-foot trench, backfilled with high
permeability stone or gravel. Proprietary leachate pipe products that
are relatively new to the waste industry may also be considered.
Plans for the two vertical wells consist of slotted or perforated
6-inch diameter pipe centered in a 3-foot diameter borehole and
backfilled with high permeability stone. The well depths would be
selected to penetrate between one-third and one-half the overall waste
depth.
Design spacing for the wells and trenches minimizes overlapping
areas of influence and will reduce uncertainties that may be introduced
by overlapping influences. The injection devices are designed to
maximize the amount of liquid that can be injected; however, actual
injection rates will be varied in response to information learned from
the degree of infiltration and resulting settlement. Design details of
the proposed vertical wells and horizontal trenches are shown in
Attachment V of the FPA and were submitted by the County to MDE and EPA
in an April 17, 2001 letter with enclosed drawings.
3. Settlement Plates
Prior to system startup, the County will install monuments
(settlement plates) to monitor settlement caused by the degradation of
the waste. These settlement plates will be strategically located around
wells and trenches to measure surface movements during the study. The
top elevation of each plate will be surveyed prior to liquid injection.
The County plans to monitor these settlement plates at least monthly,
but will do so more frequently if information suggests that settlement
is occurring at a rapid rate. At least one plate will be located in a
control area that is adjacent to the test area and outside the zone of
influence for the liquid injection system. This control area will
measure normal settlement rates as a comparison. Additionally, a stable
elevation benchmark will be established to ensure that all readings are
based on the same baseline elevation. Annual aerial topographic surveys
will also be performed to aid in the evaluation of settlement and the
effectiveness of the leachate recirculation.
4. Landfill Gas
The design capacity of the entire Landfill exceeds the New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) thresholds, and thus the Landfill must
comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. Cell 8 currently operates
under an Alternate Operating Scenario (AOS) approved by the State of
Maryland under its NSPS Program, and the County has included the AOS in
its application for a Part 70 Permit (also known as a Title V permit)
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Title V Permit for the Landfill was
signed on August 29, 2001. The AOS provides that at Cell 8 LFG is
collected via existing leachate collection system components, rather
than from separate LFG extraction wells and/or trenches. The AOS also
postpones the requirement for quarterly measurement of surface methane
emissions under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. The AOS applies to Cell 8
only. Each of the other Cells is part of an active LFG collection
system comprising separate extraction wells and/or trenches, and are
monitored quarterly for LFG.
Recognizing that the addition of liquids enhances the generation of
LFG, the County has agreed to take all necessary steps to control and
monitor LFG in the area of the bioreactor experiment. To accomplish
these steps, and as further detailed below, the County has: (1)
Requested an amendment to its AOS under which it will be required to
conduct quarterly surface methane emissions monitoring, beginning with
a baseline measurement taken prior to the first introduction of
liquids, and (2) in accord with the requested amendment, as the project
progresses, evaluate the need to install supplemental LFG control
devices, in the area of the bioreactor project in accordance with the
NSPS for municipal landfills, 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. A copy of
the County's proposed requested amendment was included in the FPA as
Attachment IV. The County will undertake supplemental LFG response
measures in accord with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW if methane surface
emissions exceed 500 ppm or if significant odors from the test area are
observed. The potential for surface emissions is likely to be greatest
in the immediate area of liquids injection.
In addition, the County believes that there would be a reduced
potential for LFG emissions at the landfill side slope because the
slope is covered with an intermediate cap that consists of a vegetative
layer over a two foot soil layer that has a permeability ranging from
10-4 to 10-5 centimeters per second. The existing
LFG collection system for Cell 8 is designed to apply a continuous
vacuum to the leachate collection pipe network under the waste in order
to induce a pressure gradient to draw the LFG toward the collection
network. Collected LFG is piped to an enclosed flare for destruction.
If necessary, supplemental LFG collection and control may be
implemented in the test area, based on results of quarterly methane
surface emissions monitoring and observations of odors.
A. LFG Monitoring. Monitoring, record keeping and reporting
requirements for LFG agreed to in the FPA signed by the County, EPA and
MDE are contained in the Title V permit for the Landfill issued on
August 29, 2001 pursuant to the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. The Title V
permit specifies that the LFG monitoring and reporting in the test area
will be done according to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW. The County will perform quarterly monitoring for surface emissions
over the entire plateau area that includes the test area of Subcell
8.4. The plateau area measures approximately 180 feet by 300 feet and
the test area is essentially centered on the plateau. Based on the
results of the quarterly monitoring for surface emissions supplemental
LFG monitoring and control may be required by the County's Title V
permit,
[[Page 25556]]
including semi-annual testing for non-methane organic compounds and
weekly testing at the well heads for methane, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, oxygen and nitrogen. Also, if the County undertakes such
supplemental LFG collection measures, the County will continuously
collect the LFG flow rate from Cell 8 and on a weekly basis determine
the LFG flow rate in the plateau area of Subcell 8.4.
B. LFG Control. If any quarterly surface monitoring shows a surface
methane concentration that exceeds 500 ppm over the test area plateau
or if significant odors are found to be emanating from the test area,
the County will take corrective actions (which may include installation
and operation of supplemental LFG collection and control technology) as
provided in 40 CFR 60.755. Such supplemental LFG collection and control
technology may include either passive LFG collection technology (i.e.
using candlestick flares independent of the existing active LFG
collection system) or active LFG collection technology (i.e. connected
to the existing active LFG collection system). In any event, the LFG
collection and control measures (including any supplemental measures
undertaken in the area of the Test Area) will be run continuously if
sufficient gas is present to sustain combustion, and shall otherwise be
operated in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. If and when
the County undertakes such supplemental LFG collection measures, the
County will continuously collect the LFG flow rate from Cell 8 and on a
weekly basis determine the LFG flow rate in the plateau area of Subcell
8.4.
5. Liquids Monitoring
Each injection device will be fed from a centrally located 6,500
gallon tank truck through a single hose connection. A flow meter will
be installed to allow measurement of liquid flow to each injection
device. Four control valves will be installed to allow independent flow
regulation to each of the injection ports. A central feed location will
be used to ease system operations and reduce truck traffic that may
affect settlement rates. Finally, precipitation will be recorded via a
rain gauge to allow for adjustments to the injection rate. As noted
above, at no time will more than 30 centimeters (cm) of leachate be
permitted to collect over the liner. The quantity of leachate, and
supplemental storm water (if required), added back to the landfill will
be measured throughout the life of the project. The County expects to
measure recirculation quantities using flow meters installed on the
leachate receptacle just prior to the distribution system piping and
valves.
The leachate collection/drainage layer constructed in each subcell
consists of two feet of high permeability sand over a geonet drainage
layer. Due to the internal subcell slopes and high permeability of the
drainage layer, the County expects that there will be very little
pressure or ``head'' buildup on the liner notwithstanding the increased
levels of liquids. As noted above, the leachate collection system is
designed to maintain a depth of leachate over the liner at all
locations within a subcell, significantly less than the prescribed
maximum 30 cm depth in a MSWLF constructed with a composite liner under
40 CFR 258.28(a)(2)). Leachate recirculation will be suspended if there
appears to be head build-up, and in any event the head would not be
allowed to exceed 30 cm under today's proposed rule.
The primary liner system of the Landfill is underlain by a
secondary liner and leachate collection system. Sumps are located at
the low point of each subcell and are monitored for the depth of liquid
on a continual basis. There are double risers extending about 200 feet
from the sump in the primary leachate collection layer up to the toe of
the side slopes of the Landfill. The double risers provide redundant
access to the leachate collection layer. 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.
Since leachate is pumped from each subcell individually, during the
proposed project the County intends to sample the leachate from
Subcells 8.4 (test cell) and 8.6 (control cell) semi-annually for
parameters that will help establish whether or not leachate quality is
improving in Subcell 8.4.
6. Protection Against Landfill Fires
Fires in landfills are usually caused by poorly designed or
operated active LFG collection systems that allow ambient air into the
waste. For this project, the LFG collection system will be carefully
operated to handle excess gas generated while minimizing the potential
for landfill fires. The potential for landfill fires will also be
minimized for this project since it is based on the anaerobic
bioreactor concept. If quarterly monitoring for surface methane
emissions triggers supplemental LFG controls, the County will test any
Landfill gas extraction wells installed in the test area on a weekly
basis for gases including: methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
oxygen and nitrogen. The County will carefully monitor for and manage
the oxygen concentration in the LFG to reduce the potential occurrence
of a landfill fire. The County, MDE and EPA acknowledge that a portion
of the closed and capped Cell 5-6-7 has had a landfill fire in the past
and have agreed to monitor and control the anaerobic bioreactor testing
to ensure this does not occur as a result of this project.
C. What Kind of Liner Is Required by Current EPA Regulations?
Currently, the EPA's regulations outline two methods for complying
with liner requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. The first
method is a performance standard set forth at 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 40 CFR 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 forth at 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) and (b). 40
CFR 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 conductivity no greater than
1x10-7 cm/sec.
D. How Were the Liners at the Landfill Constructed?
The liner in the test area at the Landfill was constructed to meet
or exceed the performance standard set forth in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(1).
The base liner system for each constructed Subcell in Cell 8 is a
double synthetic system consisting of the following, from top to
bottom:
1. 2-foot protective sand cover over geotextile filter;
[[Page 25557]]
2. Leachate collection geonet drainage layer;
3. 60-mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane top liner;
4. Leakage detection geonet drainage layer;
5. 60-mil HDPE geomembrane bottom liner; and
6. 1.5-foot low permeability (1x10-7, cm/s, demonstrated
by construction QA/QC) soil subbase.
Attachment VI in the FPA contains a detailed drawing of the base
liner system currently constructed in the subcells in Cell 8. This
liner system exceeds the performance requirements of MDE and EPA for
MSW landfills, and incorporates two geomembranes providing for leak
detection, features typically associated with stricter hazardous waste
landfill designs.
E. What Are the Environmental Benefits Expected Through This XL
Project?
The expected environmental benefits of this XL project include: (1)
Accelerated biodegradation of waste, resulting in increased space for
new waste in the Landfill (air space) and therefore longer Landfill
life; (2) decreased concentration of most leachate constituents; (3)
reduced amount of leachate requiring pretreatment; (4) reduced amount
of leachate that the Landfill discharges to the local wastewater
treatment plant, with subsequent discharge of effluent to the Patuxent
River, and (5) reduced post-closure care, maintenance and risk (since
the controlled settlement of the solid waste will occur during Landfill
operation, there will be lower potential for leachate migration into
the subsurface environment, and more LFG will be produced during
operation). Additional information on the potential environmental
benefits of bioreactor landfills is discussed in Section III.B. and is
available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/landfill/bioreactors.htm
and at http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/ To adequately measure the environmental and other benefits of the
proposed bioreactor pilot project, the County will establish a baseline
that records the environmental impacts of the Landfill without the
proposed bioreactor project. Without the project, Subcell 8.4 would be
filled until it reaches its capacity, and then covered. The remainder
of the subcells in Cell 8 would also be filled until they reach
capacity and Cell 8 will be closed and the County would develop Cell 9.
Without this project, it is assumed, Cell 8 would also continue to
generate the same levels of leachate for disposal to the local Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW). Treatment of leachate outside the
Landfill necessitates the use of equipment, chemicals and ultimately
results in the discharge of effluent to surface water. If all the
leachate is managed inside the Landfill there will be no discharge to
surface water and it is expected to result in cost savings to the
County.
The superior environmental performance for this XL Project would be
measured using the baseline against the actual results of the project
for the following areas: The amount of landfill settlement, the
additional air space created in the Cell 8.4 and the amount and
concentration of leachate disposed at the local POTW. Specific
monitoring parameters are listed in the proposed rule following this
preamble.
F. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in This Project?
The County has a history of involving stakeholders in projects at
its solid waste acceptance or disposal facilities. This philosophy has
proved to be beneficial to all involved parties. The County has divided
the stakeholders into three groups. The groups are identified as
primary stakeholders, potential interested parties, and members of the
general public.
The primary stakeholders are the regulatory agencies involved with
solid waste disposal facilities or other activities at the Landfill.
The primary stakeholders include:
[sbull] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
[sbull] Maryland Department of the Environment, Solid Waste Program
[sbull] Anne Arundel County Health Department, Environmental Health
Bureau
[sbull] Anne Arundel County, Planning and Code Enforcement
[sbull] Anne Arundel County, Soil Conservation District
Other potentially interested stakeholders have expressed an
interest in the project and have had some involvement in the project.
It is not anticipated that all stakeholders would play an active and
ongoing role in the project. If they do not actively participate in the
project, they will be kept informed of the project's progress at
appropriate milestones. Their input will be welcomed in verbal or
written form.
In May of 2001, after the FPA was signed, the County sent
newsletters to approximately 130 nearby residents and concerned
citizens with information on the bioreactor testing under project XL.
During implementation of this XL project, the stakeholder
involvement program agreed to in the FPA would ensure that: (1)
Stakeholders are apprised of the status of project implementation; and
(2) stakeholders have access to information sufficient to judge the
success of this XL project. Anticipated stakeholder involvement during
the term of the project may include other general public meetings to
present periodic status reports, availability of data and other
information generated. Anne Arundel County plans to convene periodic
meetings for interested stakeholders to brief them on progress during
the duration of the XL project. In addition to the reporting
requirements of today's proposed rule, the FPA includes provisions
whereby the County will make copies of project reports available to all
interested parties.
A public file on this XL project has been maintained at the Web
site throughout project development, and the EPA will continue to
update it as the project is implemented. Additional information is
available at EPA's Web site at URL http://www.epa.gov/projectxl.
G.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 seven (7) years. In the event that
EPA determines that this project should be terminated before the end of
the seven year period and that the site-specific rule should be
rescinded, the Agency may withdraw this rule through a subsequent
rulemaking. This will 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 will establish an interim compliance
period, not to exceed six months, such that the County will be returned
to full compliance with the existing requirements of 40 CFR part 258.
The FPA allows any party to the agreement to withdraw from the
agreement at any time before the end of the seven 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.
For example, an early conclusion will be warranted if the project's
environmental benefits do not meet the Project XL goal for the
achievement of superior environmental results. In
[[Page 25558]]
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.
H. Will This Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction?
EPA did not prepare an economic estimate of the cost of today's
proposed rule or an estimate of any paperwork reduction. EPA notes,
however, that the County volunteered for this pilot project which will
affect only one facility and is expected to result in an overall cost
savings by: Accelerating the decomposition of waste placed in Cell 8.4
of the Landfill, which is expected to extend the life of this cell and
improving the quality and management of leachate generated at the
landfill, both of which are expected to decrease leachate treatment and
disposal costs.
V. What Regulatory Changes Are Being Proposed To Implement This
Project?
A. Existing Liquids Restriction for MSWLFs (40 CFR 258.28)
This proposed site specific rule would grant regulatory relief from
certain requirements of RCRA that restrict application of liquids in
MSWLFs, because, as previously described, Subcell 8.4 of the Landfill
was constructed with an alternative liner 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 non-containerized 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
--The MSWLF has been built with a liner 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
40 CFR 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 40 CFR 258.41'' (66 FR 42441-42449, August
13, 2001). Therefore, the regulatory relief needed for the Anne Arundel
County XL Project is a site-specific amendment to 40 CFR 258.41. With
the exception of those specific provisions modified by this proposed
rule, all other applicable existing and future regulatory requirements
in part 258 and elsewhere continue to apply to the Anne Arundel County
Millersville Landfill.
B. Proposed Site-Specific Rule
This proposed rule would allow the operator of the Landfill to add
liquids, primarily consisting of leachate from the Landfill and
possibly supplemental storm water (``liquids'') to a portion of Subcell
8.4 of the Landfill, as long as the maintenance, operational,
monitoring and other requirements set forth in 40 CFR 258.41(d) are
met. This proposed rule would add a new subsection to the rules in 40
CFR 258.41. New 40 CFR 258.41(d) would specifically apply to the Anne
Arundel County Millersville Landfill, in Severn, Anne Arundel County,
Maryland, and would allow liquids to be applied to a portion of Subcell
8.4 in this Landfill. This proposed rule would impose certain minimum
monitoring, reporting, and control requirements on the County, which,
among other things, would ensure that the project is protective of
human health and the environment and facilitate EPA's evaluation of the
project.
The CAA Title V Permit for the Landfill was signed by MDE on August
29, 2001. Monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements for LFG
previously agreed to in the FPA (Sections II. B. and III. G. and Tables
4 and 5) which was signed by the County, EPA and MDE are contained in
the Title V permit for the Landfill. The Title V permit specifies that
the LFG monitoring and reporting in the test area will be performed
according to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. The
County will perform quarterly monitoring for surface emissions over the
entire plateau area that includes the test area of Subcell 8.4. The
plateau area measures 180 feet by 300 feet and the test area is
essentially centered on the plateau. Based on the results of the
quarterly monitoring supplemental LFG monitoring and control may be
required by the County's Title V permit, including semi-annual testing
for non-methane organic compounds and weekly testing at the well heads
for methane, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, oxygen and nitrogen.
Also, if the County undertakes such supplemental LFG collection
measures, the County will continuously collect the LFG flow rate from
Cell 8 and on a weekly basis determine the LFG flow rate in the plateau
area of Subcell 8.4.
Existing regulation allowing leachate recirculation over a
composite liner (40 CFR 258.28(a)(2)) requires a leachate collection
system as specified in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) to ensure that contaminant
migration to the aquifer is controlled. (56 FR 50978-51056, Oct. 9,
1991). This proposed rule would also require that a leachate collection
system (as described in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2)) be in place in order for
leachate to be recirculated in the Subcell 8.4, and the County would be
required to ensure that the leachate collection systems maintains the
leachate head over the liner at a depth of less than 30 cm in Subcell
8.4.
Today's proposed rule would not provide any regulatory flexibility
with respect to monitoring requirements; rather it adds monitoring to
that which would be required for this Landfill if it continued
operating as a conventional MSWLF. In addition to the monitoring
required in part 258, for example, the County would be required to
monitor and report whether surface seeps are occurring and determine
whether they are attributable to operation of the liquid application
system; perform a semi-annual analysis of leachate quality in both test
and control areas; and at least monthly, monitor the gas temperature at
well heads. EPA believes this additional information will provide the
necessary indicators of any increased risk to human health or the
environment in a timely manner and will enable the County, MDE and/or
EPA to take whatever steps are necessary, including suspension or
termination of the project to reduce or eliminate any such risk. EPA
also believes that this additional information will be valuable in
assessing the benefits of bioreactor operation.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must
determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to formal review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive Order, which
include assessing the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of
this regulatory action. The Order defines ``significant regulatory''
action as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or
[[Page 25559]]
state, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Because this proposed
rule affects only one facility, it is not a rule of general
applicability and therefore not subject to OMB review under Executive
Order 12866. In addition, after consultation OMB has determined that
review of proposed site-specific rules under Project XL is not
necessary.
B. 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.,
since it applies to only one facility. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), whenever an Agency is required to publish a notice for
any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the proposed rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a proposed rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it affects only one
facility, the Anne Arundel County Millersville Landfill, and it is not
a small entity.
Based on the foregoing discussion, I hereby certify that this
proposed rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Consequently, the Agency has
determined that preparation of a formal Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
is unnecessary.
D. 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 a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating a 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 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
potentially affected small governments, enable officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
As noted above, this proposed rule is applicable only to one
facility in Maryland. EPA has determined that this proposed rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. EPA has also determined that this
proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountability process that would
ensure meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are 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.''
Today's proposal does not have federalism implications. It will not
have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, nor on the distribution of
powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's proposal will only affect
one facility, providing regulatory flexibility applicable to this
specific site. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule.
F. 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 accountability process that would 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
[[Page 25560]]
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.'' Today's proposal
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, nor on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. EPA is currently unaware of any
Indian tribes located in the vicinity of the facility. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
``Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that EPA
determines (1) ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive
Order 12866, 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
other potential effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant
rule as defined by Executive Order 12866.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It will
not result in increased energy prices, increased cost of energy
distribution, or an increased dependence on foreign supplies of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA,'' Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Today's proposal does not establish technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February
11, 1994) is designed to address the environmental and human health
conditions of minority and low-income populations. EPA is committed to
addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership
role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental
quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are
to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color,
national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's
policies, programs, and activities. In response to Executive Order
12898, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of
environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop
an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER
Directive No. 9200.3-17). Potential environmental justice impacts are
identified consistent with the EPA's Environmental Justice Strategy and
the OSWER Environmental Justice Action Agenda.
Today's proposal applies to one facility in Maryland. Overall, no
disproportional impacts to minority or low income communities are
expected.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection, Landfill, Solid waste.
Dated: May 7, 2003.
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:
PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
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
3. Amend Sec. 258.41 to add a new paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 258.41 Project XL Bioreactor Landfill Projects.
* * * * *
(d) Anne Arundel County, Millersville Landfill Requirements.
Paragraph (d) of this section applies solely to the Anne Arundel
County, Millersville Landfill, owned and operated by the Anne Arundel
County Department of Public Works, or its successors, located in
Severn, Anne Arundel County, Maryland (``Landfill''). The Landfill is
allowed to Landfill leachate and onsite storm water, hereinafter,
``liquid or liquids'', to a test area contained in portion of Subcell
8.4 of the Landfill under the following conditions:
(1) The operator of the Landfill shall maintain the liner
underlying Subcell 8.4, which was designed and constructed with an
alternative liner in accordance with Sec. 258.40(a)(1), and a leachate
collection system, in order to maintain the integrity of the liner
system and keep it and the leachate collection system in good operating
order. From top to bottom the base liner underlying the waste in Cell 8
consists of: 2-feet of sand cover, a geotextile filter, a leachate
collection layer, a 60-mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) top liner,
a leakage detection layer; a 60-mil HDPE bottom liner and 1.5-feet of a
low permeability soil subbase. 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 or waste slippage, or
otherwise compromise the integrity of the Landfill and its liner
system, as determined by the Director of the Maryland Department of the
Environment (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.
[[Page 25561]]
(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 Cell 8
of the Landfill, as specified by the State Director, under section
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 the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) shall be notified in the semi-
annual report of the occurrence of any seeps.
(4) The operator of the Landfill shall determine on a semi-annual
basis the leachate quality by analyzing samples of the Landfill
leachate, from the sumps in Subcell 8.4 (where the test area is
located) and 8.6 (where the control area is located), for the following
parameters: dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, biochemical oxygen
demand, chemical oxygen demand, organic carbon, nutrients (ammonia,
nitrogen, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus), nitrate, nitrite,
total alkalinity, ortho phosphate, total suspended solids, cyanide,
chloride, total dissolved solids, RCRA hazardous metals, volatile
organic compounds and semi-volatile organic compounds by Method SW-846.
The operator of the Landfill shall collect weekly samples of Landfill
leachate, from the sumps in Subcell 8.4 and Subcell 8.6, and analyze
them for the following parameters: pH and conductivity. The depth of
liquid in the sumps shall be monitored on a continual basis and the
leachate flow rate shall be calculated on a monthly basis.
(5) The operator of the Landfill shall determine on a semi-annual
basis: The total quantity of leachate collected in Subcell 8.4 and
Subcell 8.6; the total quantity of liquids applied in the test areas;
any changes in the application rate or quantity 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 MDE of the liquid proposed to be added.
The parameters for the initial characterization of liquids shall be the
same as the semi-annual parameters for the Landfill leachate specified
in paragraph (d)(4) of this section. The operator shall annually test
all liquids, other than leachate, added to the Landfill for the semi-
annual parameters specified in paragraph (d)(4) of this section and
compare these results to the initial characterization.
(7) The operator of the Landfill shall ensure that Subcell 8.4 is
operated in such a manner so as to prevent any landfill fires from
occurring. If quarterly monitoring for surface methane emissions
triggers supplemental LFG controls, the County will test any Landfill
gas extraction wells installed in the test area on a weekly basis for
LFG flow rate and gases including: methane, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, oxygen and nitrogen. The County will carefully monitor for
and manage the oxygen concentration in the LFG to reduce the potential
occurrence of a landfill fire.
(8) The operator of the Landfill shall determine on a semi-annual
basis the settlement of the test area based on measurements of the
elevation of monuments installed for this purpose. The operator of the
Landfill shall determine on a annual basis the settlement of the test
and control areas based on topographic surveys.
(9) The operator of the Landfill shall monitor the frequency of
odor complaints during and after liquid application events. EPA and MDE
shall be notified of the occurrence of any odor complaints in the semi-
annual report.
(10) The operator of the Landfill shall report to the EPA Regional
Administrator and the State Director on the information described in
paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) of this section on a semi-annual basis.
The first report is due within 6 months after [THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE]. These reporting provisions shall remain in effect for
the duration of the project term.
(11) Application of this site-specific rule to the Landfill is
conditioned upon the Landfill being subject to an approved Title V
permit issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
(CAA) that provides for compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part
60, Subpart WWW in the plateau area of Subcell 8.4 that is impacted by
the recirculation activities.
(12) This section will remain in effect until [DATE SEVEN YEARS
FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]. By [DATE SEVEN YEARS FROM EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the Landfill 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 State of Maryland and Anne Arundel County agree to
an amendment of the project term, the parties must enter into an
amended or new Final Project Agreement for any such amendment.
(13) The authority provided by this section may be terminated
before the end of the 7 year period in the event of noncompliance with
the requirements of paragraph (d) 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 apply instead of
this section may also result in termination of the authority provided
by this section. In the event of early termination EPA, in consultation
with the State of Maryland, will determine an interim compliance period
to provide sufficient time for the owner or 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. 03-11909 Filed 5-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P