[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42441-42450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20261]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[FRL-7033-4]
RIN 2090-AA18
Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for Yolo County Landfill,
Davis, Yolo County, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating today a site-specific rule proposed on May
9, 2001 to implement a project under the Project XL program, an EPA
initiative to allow regulated entities to achieve better environmental
results at decreased costs. Today's rule provides site-specific
regulatory flexibility under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), as amended, for the Yolo County Landfill, Davis, Yolo County,
California. The terms of the XL project are defined in a Final Project
Agreement (FPA) signed by Yolo County, California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, the
Solid Waste Association of North America, Institute for Environmental
Management, and EPA on September 14, 2000. Today's rule is applicable
only to the Yolo County Central Landfill, to facilitate implementation
of the XL project to use certain bioreactor techniques at its municipal
solid waste landfill (MSWLF), specifically the addition of bulk or non-
containerized liquid wastes
[[Page 42442]]
into the landfill to accelerate the biodegradation of landfill waste
and decrease the time it takes for the waste to stabilize in the
landfill. The principal objective of this bioreactor XL project is to
evaluate waste decomposition rates when leachate is supplemented with
other liquid additions. In order to carry out this project, EPA is
giving Yolo County relief from certain requirements in EPA regulations
which set forth operating criteria for MSWLFs and preclude the addition
of bulk or non-containerized liquid wastes. To achieve the objectives
of the project, today's rule provides regulatory flexibility from
Liquid Restrictions, which precludes the addition of bulk or non-
containerized liquid wastes. The Yolo County bioreactor project is one
of several bioreactor XL projects EPA is in the process of
implementing.
DATES: This final rule is effective on August 13, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Docket: Three dockets contain supporting information used in
developing this final rule, and are 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-2000-YCLP-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 for today's
action on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
A duplicate copy of the docket is available for inspection and
copying at the regional office in which the landfill project is
located.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Samolis, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street (SPE-1), San
Francisco, CA 94105 or Ms. Sherri Walker, Office of Environmental
Policy Innovation, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (1807),
Washington DC 20460. 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.
Samolis at (415) 744-2331 [email protected] or Ms. Walker at (202)
260-4295, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 40 CFR 258.28(a) by adding
a new 40 CFR 258.28(a)(3) and creates a new section, 40 CFR 258.41.
Section 258.28(a) currently prohibits application of bulk or
noncontainerized liquid waste into a municipal solid waste landfill
unit unless: (1) The waste is household waste other than septic waste;
or (2) leachate or gas condensate derived from the landfill unit and
the unit is designed with a specific composite liner meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 258.40(b), as incorporated by 40 CFR
258.40(a)(2). The rule creates a third exception to the prohibition
pertaining to the application of bulk or noncontainerized liquid waste
by referring to the new section 40 CFR 258.41, pertaining to Project XL
Bioreactor Landfills and the owner or operator places documentation of
the landfill design in the operating record and so notifies the State
Director.
This rule adds a new section 40 CFR 258.41. Section 258.41(b)
applies only to Module D of the Yolo County Landfill in Davis,
California. Currently, Module D of the Yolo County Landfill, which
otherwise conforms to the requirements of 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2), has a
composite liner which not only meets, but exceeds the requirements set
forth at 40 CFR 258.40(b). Thus, Module D of this Landfill can, under
EPA's regulations, not only currently add household liquid waste, other
than septic waste, but can also recirculate leachate or condensate gas
derived from the landfill unit. Today's rule allows the owner/operator
of the Yolo County Landfill to add other types of liquid waste to
Module D of the Landfill as well.
This final rule allowing for addition of other types of liquid
waste into Module D of the Yolo County Landfill requires compliance
with the specific design, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and
operational requirements set forth in the rule. It is also
``conditional'' on the issuance of a permit executed by the local air
quality management district under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq., as set forth in the rule. These requirements and conditions are
enforceable in the same way that current RCRA standards for solid waste
landfills are enforceable to ensure that management of nonhazardous
solid waste is performed in a manner that is protective of human health
and the environment.
EPA is allowing Yolo County to undertake this XL Project with the
requested regulatory flexibility to determine if the addition of other
types of liquid wastes will result in superior environmental
performance and significant costs savings while remaining protective of
human health and the environment.
Today's rule will not affect the provisions or applicability of any
other existing or future regulations.
Outline of Today's Document
The information presented in this preamble is arranged as follows:
I. Authority
II. Background
A. What did EPA Propose and What Comments were Received?
B. What is Project XL?
C. What are Bioreactor Landfills?
III. Overview of the Yolo County Landfill XL Project
A. What Kind of Liner Is Required by Current Federal
Regulations?
B. What Is Being Tested in this Project?
C. What Regulatory Changes Are Being Made to Implement this
Project?
1. Existing Liquid Restrictions for MSWLFs (40 CFR 258.28)
2. Site-Specific Rule
D. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project?
E. How Will this Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork
Reduction?
F. How Long Will this Project Last and When Will it be Complete?
IV. Additional Information
A. Why is this Rule Immediately Effective?
B. How Does this Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866:
Regulatory Planning and Review?
C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?
D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for this Rule
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act?
E. Does This Rule Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act?
F. How Does the Congressional Review Act Apply to this Rule?
G. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13045:
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks?
H. How Does this Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132:
Federalism?
I. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13175:
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ?
J. Does this Rule Comply with the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act?
K. Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use?
I. Authority
This rule is promulgated 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 6949).
[[Page 42443]]
II. Background
A. What did EPA Propose and What Comments were Received?
EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 258.28(a) by adding a new paragraph
Sec. 258.28(a)(3) to refer to a new section of the rules, Sec. 258.41,
(66 FR 23652, May 9, 2001). Section 258.41(b) applies only to Module D
of the Yolo County Landfill in Davis, California. Currently, Module D
of the Yolo County Landfill, which otherwise conforms to the
requirements of 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2), has a composite liner which not
only meets, but exceeds the requirements set forth at 40 CFR 258.40(b).
Module D of this Landfill can, under federal law, not only currently
add household liquid waste, other than septic waste, but can also
recirculate leachate or condensate gas derived from the landfill unit.
Today's rule will allow the owner/operator of the Yolo County Landfill
to also add other types of liquid waste to Module D of the Landfill.
See Section III.C of this preamble for a full description of the
regulatory relief provided for this project.
EPA received one comment letter from the California Integrated
Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The letter stated that CIWMB, along
with the California Water Resources Board and Regional Water Quality
Control Board implement California's RCRA Subtitle D program, and they
will provide regulatory oversight of this project. CIWMB stated that
this project is of particular interest to California's energy crisis as
anaerobic bioreactor conversion technology has the potential to
significantly increase renewable electricity production from landfill
gas. CIWMB further stated that they have facilitated resolution of all
local and state approvals of this project. No other comments were
received on the proposed rule. No changes have been made to the
proposed rule.
B. 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 untried,
potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess whether
they provide benefits at the specific facility affected, and whether
they 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 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' recognition 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., section 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 the full
support of affected federal, state, and tribal agencies to be selected.
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 a 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 as an XL pilot; 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 Agreement and legal mechanisms. The XL
pilot proceeds into the implementation phase and evaluation phase after
promulgation of the required federal, state and local legal mechanisms
and after the designated participants sign the FPA.
The FPA is a non-binding written agreement between the project
sponsor and regulatory agencies. The FPA contains a detailed
description of the proposed pilot project. It addresses the eight
Project XL criteria and discusses how EPA expects the project to meet
that criteria. 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 14, 2000, EPA, Yolo County Planning and
Public Works, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Yolo-
Solano Air Quality Management District, Solid Waste Association of
North America,
[[Page 42444]]
and the Institute for Environmental Management signed the FPA for the
Yolo County bioreactor landfill XL Project. In the event that Yolo
County, EPA Region 9's Regional Administrator and the state of
California agree to extend this rule beyond Phase I of Module D,
another Final Project Agreement will be entered into.
C. 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
liquid addition including leachate recirculation. A byproduct of the
decomposition process is landfill gas, which includes methane, carbon
dioxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOC's). Landfill gases are
produced sooner in a bioreactor than in a conventional landfill.
Therefore, bioreactors often incorporate state-of-the-art landfill gas
collection systems.
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, 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:
(1) increasing the 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; (2) decreasing, or
even eliminating, the quantity, and increasing the quality, of leachate
requiring treatment and offsite disposal, leading to decreased risks
and costs associated with leachate management, treatment and disposal;
(3) reduced post-closure care costs and risks, due to the accelerated,
controlled settlement of the solid waste during landfill operation; (4)
lower long term potential for leachate migration into the subsurface
environment; and (5) opportunity for recovery of methane gas for energy
production.
EPA is also in the process of implementing several other XL pilot
projects involving operation of landfills as bioreactors throughout the
country. These landfill projects will enable EPA to evaluate benefits
of different alternative liners and leachate recirculation systems
under various terrains 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, and these XL projects are expected to contribute valuable
data.
The Yolo County XL project and other XL projects are expected to
provide additional information on the performance of MSWLFs when
liquids are added to the landfill. The Agency is also interested in
determining whether and which types of alternative liners are capable
of meeting the design performance standard including maintaining a
hydraulic head at acceptable levels.
The terms of the Yolo County bioreactor project are contained in
the FPA. The FPA is available to the public at the EPA RCRA Docket in
Washington, D.C., in the EPA Region 9 library, and on the world wide
web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
III. Overview of the Yolo County Landfill XL Project
The Yolo County Central Landfill (YCCL) is an existing non-
hazardous municipal waste landfill with two surface impoundments for
disposal of selected non-hazardous liquid wastes. This site encompasses
722 acres and is owned and operated by Yolo County. It is located at
the intersection of Road 104 and Road 28H, 2 miles northeast of the
City of Davis, California. The YCCL was opened in 1975 for the disposal
of non-hazardous solid waste, construction debris, and non-hazardous
liquid waste. Existing on-site operations include an eleven-year old
landfill methane gas recovery and energy generation facility, a drop-
off area for recyclables, a metal recovery facility, a wood and yard
waste recovery and processing area, and a concrete recycling area.
Adjacent land uses include the City of Davis Wastewater Treatment
Plant lagoons located immediately east and south of the landfill and
the Willow Slough By-pass which runs parallel to the southern boundary
of the site. The remainder of land uses adjacent to the site are
agricultural (row crops).
Groundwater levels at the facility fluctuate 8 to 10 feet during
the year, rising from the lowest in September to the highest around
March. Water level data indicate that the water level table is
typically 4 to 10 feet below ground surface during the winter and
spring months. During the summer and fall months, the water table is
typically 5 to 15 feet below ground surface. In January 1989, the
County of Yolo constructed a soil/bentonite slurry cutoff wall to
retard groundwater flow to the landfill site from the north. The cutoff
wall was constructed along portions of the northern and western
boundaries of the site to a maximum depth of 44 feet and has a total
length of 3,680 feet, 2,880 feet along the north side and 800 feet
along the west. In the fall of 1990, irrigation practices to the north
of the landfill site were altered to minimize the infiltration of
water. Additionally, sixteen groundwater extraction wells were
installed south of the cutoff wall in order to lower the water table
south and east of the wall. The purpose was to depress the water table
to provide vertical separation between the base of the landfill and the
groundwater.
Yolo County proposes to operate the next phase of its landfill
module (Module D) as both an anaerobic and aerobic bioreactor. Twelve
acres of the 20-acre module have been constructed (Phase I). Ten acres
would be operated as a full scale anaerobic bioreactor, while the
remaining two acres would be operated as an aerobic pilot demonstration
cell.
A. 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 an EPA-approved
state 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).
Section 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.
B. What Is Being Tested in This Project?
The bottom liner system of Module D was designed to exceed the
requirements of Subtitle D of the Federal guidelines and was upgraded
from other liner systems used
[[Page 42445]]
previously at the site. The County believes and EPA agrees that, given
the constructed configuration and the stringent monitoring and
operational requirements established for Module D, the liner system
will be suitable for use in the bioreactor operations.
The Module D liner and leachate collection system consists, from
top to bottom, of a 2 foot thick chipped tire operations/drainage layer
(k> 1 cm/sec), a blanket geocomposite drainage layer, a 60-milliliter
(mil) High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) liner, 2 feet of compacted clay
(k6 x 10-\9\ cm/sec), 3 feet of compacted earth fill (k
1 x 10-\8\ cm/sec), and a 40 mil HDPE vapor barrier
layer.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Golder Associates, ``Final Report, Construction Quality
Assurance, Yolo County Central Landfill, WMU 6, Module D, Phase 1
Expansion'', December 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The permeability (k) of the clay liner, as constructed, is on the
average about 6 x 10-\9\ cm/sec and the earth fill averaged
about 1 x 10-\8\ cm/sec. These two layers in effect provide
a 5 foot thick composite liner. It is anticipated that this liner
system, coupled with the lower permeability, will result in a
significantly more effective barrier to leachate migration than the
prescriptive liner system.
The liner system within the collection trenches and sump areas was
upgraded further to a double composite liner to account for
infringement on the 5 foot groundwater offset and to minimize potential
leakage in these critical collection areas where head on the primary
liner will be at its greatest. Specifically, the liner and leachate
collection system in the collection trenches and sumps consists, from
top to bottom, of a minimum of 2 feet of gravel drainage material, a
protective geotextile layer, a blanket geocomposite drainage layer, a
primary 60-mil HDPE liner, a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) (k
5 x 10-\9\ cm/sec), a secondary 60-mil HDPE liner, 2 feet of
compacted clay (k 6 x 10-\9\ cm/sec), a minimum of 0.5 feet
of compacted earth fill (k 1 x 10-\8\ cm/sec), and a 40-mil
HDPE vapor barrier layer. The thickness of the compacted earth fill
actually varies from a minimum at the south end of the trench of 0.5
feet to a maximum of about 2.5 feet at the upper, north end of the
leachate collection trench. Leachate collection pipes were also placed
in the collection trench and at other locations on top of the primary
liner to transport leachate immediately to the sumps for recovery,
removal, and recirculation, as needed.
As described above, the more rigorous Module D leachate collection
and recovery system (LCRS) and liner system is expected to outperform
the Subtitle D liner design requirements. The LCRS has been designed
and constructed to be free-draining throughout the life of the module
and will maintain less head over the primary liner system than the type
of liner prescribed by Subtitle D.
For the anaerobic operation, it is estimated that during peak
liquid additions, up to 10 gallons per minute (gpm) of liquid per
10,000 square feet (.1 gpm per 100 square feet) of disposal area will
typically be delivered to the waste once the module has reached its
design height. Based on a previous smaller scale demonstration cell,
the amount of liquid added would be in the range of 30 to 50 gallons
per ton of waste. According to results of the bioreactor demonstration
project by Moore et al.\2\, the average leachate generated during
liquid introduction peaked at about 47% of the liquid delivery rate,
which would equate to approximately 20 gpm per acre for the proposed
program. Given a 10 acre drainage area, the total anticipated flow into
any given sump would be approximately 200 gpm (288,000 gallons per day)
assuming there will be no preferred pathways within the waste mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Moore et al., ``Hydraulic Characteristics of Municipal Solid
Waste Findings of the Yolo County Bioreactor Landfill Project.'',
Thirteenth International Conference on Solid Waste Technology and
Management, Philadelphia, PA, November 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the aerobic operation, liquid will be added to waste at a
faster rate since the aerobic reaction causes much of the liquid to
evaporate. It is estimated that the range of liquid used will be 200 to
400 gallons of liquid per ton of waste.
Liquid will be applied during strategic periods to temporarily
raise the moisture content of the waste to provide optimum conditions
for rapid degradation and improved gas production. This liquid will
initially consist of a mixture of leachate and condensate from other
Waste Management Units and ground water (from the extraction wells)
delivered through a series of pipes, drip irrigation, or other
application systems either after the landfill reaches its design height
or after an interim cover and gas collection system has been
constructed to control the landfill gases generated. The liquid will
continually be introduced (as needed) to raise the moisture content
within the waste to near its field capacity. The liquid application
system will be constructed such that the solution can be applied or
discontinued at designated locations to raise and lower the moisture
within the waste.
Yolo County will monitor moisture content throughout the life of
the module through the use of a network of moisture sensors to be
installed during waste placement. A moisture sensor system used during
a bioreactor demonstration project in Module B proved to be very
effective and will be the basis for the layout in Module D.
Specifically, the moisture sensors will be installed at 20-foot
increments of depth at a spacing of about 100 feet on center. Using
these sensors, the County can determine where liquid application can be
increased or decreased to optimize the effectiveness of the system and
to prevent build-up of head over the liner.
The County will measure the quantity of leachate and applied liquid
throughout the life of the module. Once leachate is produced, it will
supplement the system and be re-circulated, thereby reducing the amount
of clean water used. Liquid will be quantified using flow sensors
installed on the leachate discharge line, re-circulation line, and
liquid application line. These sensors will provide direct flow readout
for determining flow rates in the pipelines and the total flow of all
the liquid used and leachate produced.
The County will also monitor the head over the liner after waste
placement using a network of pressure transducers and sensors. These
devices will be installed on the primary liner, immediately before
waste placement, to provide measurements of the leachate depth. Several
of these transducers were installed in the LCRS during the Module D
construction.
In the event that the transducers indicate that the head is going
to exceed the allowable value, the system will automatically start
pumps to reduce the liquid level and shut-off valves to reduce the
liquid application rate. These measures would be used to reduce the
liquid application rate across the entire module or specifically, in
the area of head build-up. Generally, the County will only continue to
apply the liquid until the gas generation phase of the unit is
complete, at which time leachate production is anticipated to
continually decrease until conclusion of the post-closure period. The
County will also closely monitor the quality of the leachate to
evaluate the system, determine the methods for future leachate
treatment, and provide a basis for future use of similar bioreactors at
the site or elsewhere.
Finally, the degradation and gas production of the waste is also
related to the temperature within the
[[Page 42446]]
decomposing waste. The effectiveness of both aerobic and anaerobic
bioreactors is dependent on keeping within an optimum temperature
range; therefore, the County will install temperature gauges to aid in
the operation of the system. The temperature gauge network will be
placed in a similar pattern to the moisture sensors at designated
intervals throughout the waste mass.
For the Yolo County bioreactor landfill proposal, the superior
environmental benefits include: (a) maximizing landfill gas control and
minimizing fugitive methane and VOC emissions; (b) greater recovery of
landfill methane; (c) landfill life extension and/or reduced landfill
use; and (d) minimizing leachate-associated concerns.
a. 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. Landfill gas also contains volatile
organic compounds (VOC's) that are air pollutants of local concern.
Yolo County will immediately begin collecting landfill gas by
installing a gas collection system consisting of a surface permeable
gas collection layer overlain by a cover of soil with an embedded
membrane. Gas will be withdrawn such that this permeable layer beneath
surface containment will be at a slight vacuum. This system will
minimize the amount of landfill gas emitted to the environment.
b. Expedited methane generation/recovery. In the Yolo bioreactor,
the majority of the methane will be generated over a much earlier and
shorter time period than a conventional landfill. This is expected to
minimize the long-term low-rate methane generation often lost in
conventional landfill practices.
c. Landfill life extension and/or reduced landfill use. The more
rapid conversion of greater quantities of solid waste to gas reduces
the volume of the waste. Settlement in the Yolo test cell is already
over 18% in three years. Volume reduction translates into either
landfill life extension and/or less landfill use. Thus, this bioreactor
landfill will be able to accept more waste over its working lifetime.
Additionally, fewer landfills may be needed to accommodate the same
inflows of waste from a given population
d. Minimizing leachate-associated concerns. The bioreactor
processes, both anaerobic and aerobic, have been shown in studies at
many scales to reduce the concentration of many leachate pollutants.
These include organic acids and other soluble organic pollutants. Since
a bioreactor operation brings pH to near-neutral conditions, metals of
concern are largely precipitated and immobilized in the waste.
C. What Regulatory Changes Are Being Made To Implement This Project?
1. Existing Liquids Restriction for MSWLFs (40 CFR 258.28)
Today's site specific rule grants regulatory flexibility from 40
CFR 258.28 Liquid Restrictions, which precludes the addition of bulk or
noncontainerized liquid waste. In its XL project, the County will add
ground water from its extraction wells as a liquid amendment, as well
as other liquids such as gray-water from the local waste water
treatment plant, septic waste, and food-processing waste that is
currently being land applied. Liquid wastes such as these, which
normally have no beneficial use, may beneficially enhance the
biodegradation of solid waste in the landfill which is the subject of
this project.
2. Site-Specific Rule
Today's rule amends 40 CFR 258.28(a) by adding a new paragraph
Sec. 258.28(a)(3) to refer to a new section of the rules, Sec. 258.41.
The new Sec. 258.41(b) specifically applies to the Yolo County Landfill
in Davis, California only and will allow Module D of that landfill to
receive bulk or non-containerized liquid wastes as long as that module
meets the design criteria set forth in Sec. 258.41(b). Additionally,
today's rule imposes certain minimum monitoring and reporting
requirements on Yolo County, which, among other things, will facilitate
EPA's evaluation of the project.
The reason that the existing regulation requires a leachate
collection system and a composite liner design as specified in 40 CFR
258.40(a)(2) is to ensure that contaminant migration to the aquifer is
controlled (56 FR 50978, 51056, Oct. 9, 1991). Today's rule does 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. Yolo County's design
for Module D is required to have leachate collection systems designed
to maintain leachate over the liner at a depth of less than 30 cm. In
addition, since Yolo County's design of its liner goes beyond the
requirements of Subtitle D of the Federal Regulations, EPA believes
that adding additional liquid wastes into Module D will not result in
any increased leakage to groundwater from the bioreactor cells.
D. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in This Project?
Stakeholder involvement and support has already been demonstrated
by previous federal, state, and local support of this bioreactor
concept. For example, in 1994, the Yolo County Planning and Public
Works Department, initiated a demonstration project (Module B) to
evaluate the Bioreactor Landfill concept for its Central Landfill near
Davis, California. The construction phase of the project was funded by
Yolo and Sacramento Counties ($125,000 each), the California Energy
Commission ($250,000), and the California Integrated Waste Management
Board ($63,000). More recent grant funding for the monitoring phase of
the project has been received from the U. S. Department of Energy
through the Urban Consortium Energy Task Force ($110,000), and the
Western Regional Biomass Energy Program ($50,000). Greenhouse gas and
emission abatement cost-effectiveness studies have recently been
completed with $48,000 in support from the Federal Energy Technology
Center/National Energy Technology Laboratory (hereafter, NETL). Further
support, $462,000 recently committed by NETL, is enabling operation of
the test cells for approximately 2 more years as well as helping
prepare for the larger module operation. Furthermore, on January 26,
2000, the California Integrated Waste Management Board granted Yolo
County $400,000 for the construction and testing of this full-scale
bioreactor demonstration project.
Concerning local involvement for this XL project, Yolo County held
a stakeholder meeting on June 5th, 2000 for the full-scale
demonstration project. Other informational meetings have been held
during the regular Waste Advisory Committee meetings to keep the
community informed on the project. The County will also convene
periodic meetings of the stakeholder group to provide updates on the
project's progress during the duration of the XL agreement. A public
file on this XL project has been maintained at the website throughout
project development, and the EPA will continue to update it as the
project is implemented. Additional information is available at EPA's
website at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl.
A detailed description of this program 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
[[Page 42447]]
site on the Internet (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Yolo County has preliminarily identified the following
stakeholders:
Direct Participants:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Institute for Environmental Management (IEM)
California State Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley
Region 5
Yolo County Department of Environmental Health
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
Commentors:
California Integrated Waste Management Board
California State Water Resources Control Board
California Air Resources Board
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL, previously FETC), U.S.
Department of Energy
SWANA-California Gold Rush Chapter and Southern California Chapter
Yolo County Waste Advisory Committee
University of California at Davis
Geosynthetic Institute, Drexel University
Members of the General Public:
Yolo County Citizens
Natural Resources Commission
Sacramento County Public Works Department, Solid Waste Management
Division
California Energy Commission
E. 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 Module D of the landfill. The increased
decomposition rate is, in turn, expected to extend the life of the
landfill, and, potentially, result in direct cost savings to Yolo
County. In addition, the methane generation and recovery operations are
expected to yield increased methane recovery over a shorter time
period, thereby resulting in increased energy generation for Yolo
County beyond what would otherwise occur in a conventional landfill.
Finally, no appreciable reduction in paperwork is anticipated.
F. 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 one of limited
duration. Today's rule will be in effect for five years. In the event
that EPA determines that this project should be terminated before the
end of the five year period and that the site-specific rule should be
rescinded, the Agency would withdraw this rule through a subsequent
rulemaking. This will afford all interested persons and entities the
opportunity to comment on the proposed early termination and withdrawal
of regulatory authority, and the proposed termination would also
include any proposal for an interim compliance period while Yolo County
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 five 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 the local agency seeks to terminate the project.
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. Additional Information
A. Why Is This Rule Immediately Effective?
Under 5. U.S.C. 553(d), the rulemaking section of the
Administrative Procedure Act, EPA is making this rule effective upon
publication. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), EPA is making this rule
immediately effective because the rule relieves a restriction in that
it allows the Yolo County Central Landfill to add to the landfill
additional types of liquid waste beyond what is currently allowed under
40 CFR 258.28(a)(1) and (2). In addition, under 5. U.S.C. 553(d)(3),
EPA finds good cause exists to make this rule effective immediately
because Yolo County is the only regulated entity affected by the rule,
sought the conditional relief provided in this rule, and has had full
notice of the rule. Making the rule immediately effective will allow
Yolo County to proceed sooner with the bioreactor project.
B. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review ?
Because this rule affects only one facility, it is not a rule of
general applicability and therefore not subject to OMB review and
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. Only the definition
of ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is relevant here. 5 U.S.C.
601(5) defines ``small governmental jurisdiction'' to mean governments
of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.
According to Yolo County officials, the county population in 1990
exceeded 150,000; thus, Yolo County does not qualify as ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for this Rule Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act?
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. The requirements of this rule do not apply to 10 or more entities,
therefore the PRA does not apply.
E. Does This Rule Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act?
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
[[Page 42448]]
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
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 rule has limited application. It applies
only to the Yolo County landfill. This rule will result in a cost
savings for Yolo County when compared with the costs it would have had
to incur if required to adhere to the requirements contained in the
current rule. As such, this 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 rule is not subject to the requirements
of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also determined that this
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
F. How Does the Congressional Review Act Apply to this Rule?
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this is a rule of particular applicability.
G. 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 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 rule will allow the addition of
bulk or non-containerized liquid amendments over a liner that not only
meets but exceeds the design requirements in 40 CFR 258.40(b). Modeling
results predict that this liner is more protective than the prescribed
composite liner. Therefore, no additional risk to public health,
including children's health, is expected to result from this rule.
H. 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 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 rule will only affect one
local governmental entity and state, and will provide regulatory
flexibility for the state and local governmental entity concerned.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
I. 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 rule does not have tribal implications within the meaning of
Executive Order 13175. 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. The rule would impose no new
[[Page 42449]]
requirements or costs on tribal governments, nor does it alter the
relationship or distribution of power or responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule.
However, EPA identified two Native American communities in the
vicinity of the Yolo County Landfill, the Rumsey and Cortina
Rancherias. EPA notified the governments of both tribes of this project
and site-specific rule, and both tribes expressed interest in being
kept informed of the project as it progresses.
J. Does this Rule Comply with the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act?
As noted in the proposed rules, 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 to do
so would be 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
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. EPA did not identify any
applicable voluntary consensus standards related to this rule.
K. 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: August 7, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth, part 258 of title 40 Chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
1. The authority citation for part 258 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 C--Operating Criteria
2. Amend Sec. 258.28 to remove ``or'' at the end of paragraph
(a)(1), remove the period and add ``; or'' in its place at the end of
paragraph (a)(2), and add paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 258.28 Liquid restrictions.
(a) * * *
(3) The MSWLF unit is a Project XL MSWLF and meets the applicable
requirements of Sec. 258.41. The owner or operator must place
documentation of the landfill design in the operating record and notify
the State Director that it has been placed in the operating record.
* * * * *
Subpart D--Design Criteria
3. Subpart D is amended by adding a new Sec. 258.41 to read as
follows:
Sec. 258.41 Project XL Bioreactor Landfill Projects.
(a) [Reserved]
(b) This section applies solely to Module D of the Yolo County
Central Landfill owned and operated by the County of Yolo, California,
or its successors. It allows the Yolo County Central Landfill to add
bulk or noncontainerized liquid wastes to Module D under the following
conditions:
(1) Module D shall be designed and constructed with a composite
liner as defined in Sec. 258.40(b) and a leachate collection system
that functions and continuously monitors to ensure that less than 30
centimeters depth of leachate is maintained over the liner.
(2) The owner or operator of the Yolo County Central Landfill must
ensure that the concentration values listed in Table 1 of 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 owner or operator of the Yolo County Central Landfill shall
demonstrate that the addition of any liquids to Module D does not
result in an increased leakage rate, and does not result in liner
slippage, or otherwise compromise the integrity of the landfill and its
liner system, as determined by the State Director.
(4) The owner or operator of the Yolo County Central Landfill must
ensure that Module D is operated in such a manner so as to prevent any
landfill fires from occurring.
(5) The owner or operator of the Yolo County Central Landfill shall
submit an annual report to the EPA Regional Administrator and the State
Director. The first report is due within 18 months after August 13,
2001. The report shall state what progress the Project is making
towards the superior environmental performance as stated in the Final
Project Agreement. The data in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (xvi) of
this section may be summarized, but, at a minimum, shall contain the
minimum, maximum, median, and average data points as well as the
frequency of monitoring, as applicable. These reporting provisions
shall remain in effect for as long as the owner or operator of the Yolo
County Central Landfill continues to add liquid waste to Module D.
Additional monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements
related to landfill gas will be contained in a permit executed by the
local air quality management district pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Application of this site-specific rule to the Yolo
County Central Landfill is conditioned upon the issuance of such
permit. The annual report will include, at a minimum, the following
data:
(i) Amount of landfill gas generated;
(ii) Percent capture of landfill gas;
(iii) Quality of the landfill gas;
(iv) Amount and type of liquids applied to the landfill;
(v) Method of liquids application to the landfill;
(vi) Quantity of waste placed in the landfill;
(vii) Quantity and quality of leachate collected, including at least
the following parameters, monitored, at a minimum, on an annual basis:
(A) pH;
(B) Conductivity;
(C) Dissolved oxygen;
(D) Dissolved solids;
(E) Biochemical oxygen demand;
(F) Chemical oxygen demand;
(G) Organic carbon;
(H) Nutrients, (including ammonia [``NH3''], total
kjeldahl nitrogen [``TKN''], and total phosphorus [``TP'']);
(I) Common ions;
(J) Heavy metals;
(K) Organic priority pollutants; and
(L) Flow rate;
(viii) Quantity of leachate recirculated back into the landfill;
(ix) Information on the pretreatment of solid and liquid waste applied
to the landfill;
[[Page 42450]]
(x) Landfill temperature;
(xi) Landfill moisture content;
(xii) Data on the leachate pressure (head) on the liner; (xiii) The
amount of aeration of the waste;
(xiv) Data on landfill settlement;
(xv) Any information on the performance of the landfill cover; and
(xvi) Observations, information, or studies made on the physical
stability of the landfill.
(6) This section will remain in effect until August 13, 2006. By
August 13, 2006, Yolo County Central Landfill shall return to
compliance with the regulatory requirements which would have been in
effect absent the flexibility provided through this Project XL site-
specific rule. This section applies to Phase I of Module D. This
section also will apply to any phase of Module D beyond Phase I only if
a second Final Project Agreement that describes the additional phase
has been signed by representatives of EPA Region 9, Yolo County, and
the State of California. Phase I of Module D is defined as the
operation of twelve acres of the twenty acre Module D.
[FR Doc. 01-20261 Filed 8-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P