[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19403-19413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-9359]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[FR-6964-9]
Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Buncombe County Landfill,
Alexander, Buncombe County, North Carolina
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today proposing a
site-specific rule to implement a project under the Project XL program,
an EPA initiative to allow regulated entities to achieve better
environmental results at decreased costs. 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. Today's proposal would provide regulatory flexibility under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, for the
Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility, Alexander, Buncombe
County, North Carolina (``Buncombe County'').
Buncombe County, the State of North Carolina, and EPA signed a
Final Project Agreement (FPA) for a project under EPA's Project XL to
use certain bioreactor techniques at its municipal solid waste landfill
(MSWLF), specifically, the recirculation of landfill leachate, with the
possible addition of water, to accelerate the biodegradation of
landfill waste, to decrease the time it takes for the waste to reach
stabilization in the landfill, and to promote recovery of landfill gas.
The principal objective of this XL project is to demonstrate that
leachate can safely be recirculated over a liner that differs from the
liner prescribed in EPA MSWLF regulations. To implement this project,
Buncombe County will need relief from certain regulatory requirements
in EPA regulations which set forth the design and operating criteria
for MSWLFs.
Under existing regulations, leachate recirculation in Cells 1 and 2
is authorized because those cells were constructed using the prescribed
composite liner. The proposed rule to allow leachate recirculation over
an alternative liner would apply to
[[Page 19404]]
Buncombe County landfill Cells 3 through 10. In all, Buncombe County is
seeking to recirculate the leachate in Cells 1-10. The proposed rule
would be conditional and depends on implementation of the design
proposed in the rulemaking. Upon completion of this rulemaking, the
landfill liner design would be enforceable in the same way that current
RCRA standards for a landfill are enforceable to ensure that management
of nonhazardous solid waste is performed in a manner protective of
human health and the environment. Today's rulemaking would not in any
way affect the provisions or applicability of any existing or future
regulations. EPA retains its full range of enforcement options under
this rule.
There are several XL pilot projects involving MSWLF 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.
The terms of each XL project are contained in a Final Project Agreement
(FPA) for that landfill. The Final Project Agreement for each landfill
project is available for public review at the EPA Docket in Washington,
D.C., in each EPA regional library in which the landfill is located,
and on the worldwide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
DATES: Public Comments: Comments on the proposed rule must be received
on or before May 16, 2001.
Public Hearing: Commentors may request a public hearing by April
30, 2001 during the public comment period. Commentors must state the
basis for requesting the public hearing. If EPA determines there is
sufficient reason to hold a public hearing, it will do so no later than
May 7, 2001, during the last week of the public comment period.
Requests for a public hearing should be submitted to the address listed
below. If a public hearing is scheduled, the date, time, and location
will be made available through a Federal Register notice or by
contacting Sherri Walker at the EPA Headquarters office. If a public
hearing is held, it will take place in Asheville, North Carolina.
ADDRESSES: Comments: Written comments should be mailed to the RCRA
Information Center Docket Clerk (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please
submit an original and 3 copies of written comments as well as an
original and 3 copies of any attachments, enclosures, or other
documents referenced in the comments and refer to Docket Number F-2000-
BCLP-FFFFF. A copy should also be sent to Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (1802)
Washington DC 20460.
Request to Speak at Hearing: Requests to speak at a hearing should
be mailed to the RCRA Information Center Docket Clerk (5303G), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please send an original and two copies of all
comments and refer to Docket Number F-2000-BCLP-FFFFF. A copy should
also be sent to Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (1802) Washington DC 20460.
EPA will also accept comments electronically. Comments should be
addressed to the following Internet address: [email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/6.1/
8 format file and avoid the use of special characters or any form of
encryption. Electronic comments will be transferred into a paper
version for the official record. EPA will attempt to clarify electronic
comments if there is an apparent error in transmission.
Viewing Project Materials: A docket containing the proposed rule,
supporting materials and public comments is available for public
inspection and copying at the RCRA Information Center (RIC) located at
Crystal Gateway, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington,
Virginia. The RIC is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding federal holidays. The public is encouraged to phone
in advance to review docket materials. Appointments can be scheduled by
phoning the Docket Office at (703) 603-9230. Refer to RCRA Docket
Number F-2000-BCLP-FFFFF. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages
from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies are $0.15
per page. Project materials are also available for review on the
worldwide web at http://www.epa.gov.projectxl/ and in the regional
office where the project is located.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. (1802),
Washington DC 20460, (202) 260-4295, [email protected]. Further
information on today's action may also be obtained on the worldwide 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. Authority
II. Background
A. What is Project XL?
B. What Are Bioreactor Landfills?
III. Overview of the Buncombe County Landfill XL Project
A. Description of the Project
B. What Are the Environmental Benefits Anticipated Through
Project XL?
C. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project?
D. How Will this Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork
Reduction?
IV. What Regulatory Changes Will Be Necessary to Implement this
Project?
A. Existing Liquid Restrictions for MSWLFS (40 CFR 258.28)
B. Proposed Site-Specific Rule
1. Design Specifications
2. Operational Requirements
3. Monitoring and Reporting
4. Duration of Authority
V. Additional Information
A. How to Request a Public Hearing
B. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 12866:
Regulatory Planning and Review?
C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?
D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for this
Project Under the Paperwork Reduction Act?
E. Does this Project Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act?
F. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13045:
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks?
G. How Does this Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132:
Federalism
H. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13175:
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments?
I. How Does this Rule Comply with the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act?
I. Authority
This rule is published 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).
II. Background
A. What Is Project XL?
Project XL is an EPA initiative to allow regulated entities to
achieve better environmental results at less costs. 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).
[[Page 19405]]
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 specific 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
they are viable in practice and successful for the particular project
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 specific 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 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 FPA and legal mechanism. 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 Final Project Agreement (FPA) is a 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 July 28, 2000, EPA published a notice in the
Federal Register requesting comments on the draft FPA for Buncombe
County bioreactor landfill XL project (65 FR 46456). The FPA was signed
on September 18, 2000. A copy of the FPA is available in the docket and
on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
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 the microbiological process. Bioreactor landfills often employ
liquid addition to supplement leachate for recirculation. A byproduct
of the decomposition process is landfill gas, which includes methane,
carbon dioxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Landfill gases
are produced sooner in a bioreactor landfill than in a conventional
landfill. Therefore, bioreactors often incorporate state of the art
landfill gas collection.
On April 6, 2000, EPA published a document in the Federal Register
(65 FR 18015) 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 MSWLF. EPA
requested 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 extends
the operating life of the landfill and lessens 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
[[Page 19406]]
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.
There are several XL 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 could contribute valuable
data.
The Buncombe County project and other XL projects would provide
additional information on the performance of MSWLFs when liquids are
added to a landfill constructed with an alternative liner system. The
Agency is also interested in assessing the performance of various types
of alternative liners and how they meet the design performance standard
under bioreactor conditions.
The terms of the Buncombe County bioreactor project are contained
in a Final Project Agreement. EPA sought public comment on the draft
FPA through August 29, 2000. The Final Project Agreement is available
to the public at the EPA Docket in Washington, DC, from the Region 4 XL
Coordinator, and on the worldwide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
III. Overview of the Buncombe County Landfill XL Project
The Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility operates a RCRA
Subtitle D municipal solid waste landfill in an area north of Asheville
in Buncombe County, western North Carolina. The landfill began
operation in 1997. The landfill facility encompasses approximately 600
acres although only a portion of that acreage is used for landfilling
operations at this time. The French Broad River traces the south and
west border of the landfill facility acreage. To date three cells of
the planned 10 cells for the facility have been constructed and are in
operation.
Cells 1 and 2 of the landfill facility were constructed in 1997
with the standard composite liner system prescribed in EPA regulations
implementing RCRA Subtitle D for MSWLFs. The standard liner consists of
24 inches of compacted clay with a hydraulic conductivity of no more
than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec overlain by a 60 millimeter High
Density Polyethylene (HDPE) membrane. Cell 3 was constructed with an
alternative liner system consisting of 18 inches of compacted clay with
a hydraulic conductivity of no greater than 1 x 10-5 cm/sec
overlain by a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) with a hydraulic
conductivity of no greater than 5 x 10-9 cm/sec and a 60-mil
HDPE liner.
Cells 1, 2, and 3 were constructed with a leachate collection/
drainage system consisting of two feet of crushed stone. A 28 oz.
fabric cushion protects the underlying synthetic liner from penetration
or abrasion from the stone. Interior walls of each cell (lift) slope to
a collection sump where leachate is pumped out over the cell wall
(i.e., no liner penetration). A central leachate collection line was
also installed in Cell 3 to improve leachate collection due to the
lesser interior slopes. Leachate is pumped from each of the cells to a
1.5 million gallon composite lined leachate holding pond. A tanker
truck pumps leachate from the holding pond and hauls it to a wastewater
treatment plant located seven miles from the landfill facility.
A. Description of the Project
Buncombe County intends to construct and operate a combined
leachate recirculation and gas recovery system in prototype Cells 4 and
5 for which construction began in August, 2000. Cells 4 and 5 would be
constructed with the same alternative liner system as was installed in
Cell 3. If operation of these prototype cells is successful, Buncombe
County will construct the remaining Cells 6-10 with the same
alternative liner system and combined leachate recirculation and gas
recovery system. Buncombe also intends to begin recirculation of
leachate in Cell 3 if the proposed rule is finalized. Recirculation of
leachate would not be permitted under the current federal regulations
using the alternative liner proposed by Buncombe County.
Prior to adding any supplemental liquids to the facility, Buncombe
County will prepare a comprehensive landfill stability analysis under
recirculation conditions with supplemental liquids. Buncombe County
will submit this analysis to three university professors who are
recognized as experienced in the field of geotechnical engineering in
general and landfill slope stability. The County will incorporate
comments from these professors into a final stability analysis for
their review. The County will forward the analysis along with letters
from the reviewing professors stating that the landfill should remain
stable under the operating plan developed by the County, to the USEPA
and the State of North Carolina for concurrence prior to adding any
supplemental liquids.
As is the case with Cells 1, 2, and 3, Buncombe County will install
an automatic submersible pump at the collection point at the bottom of
each landfill cell with appurtenant piping to pump the leachate
collected to the leachate holding pond. The pump engages automatically
when the leachate reaches a certain depth above the pump. A new pump
system and dedicated force main will be constructed at the leachate
holding pond to direct leachate back to the landfill cells for
recirculation.
During operation, solid waste will be added and compacted in layers
above the landfill liner and leachate collection system. Additional
piping will be installed in a horizontal configuration as the solid
waste layers build. The piping will be used to redistribute leachate
pumped from the leachate holding pond and to collect landfill gas.
As further protection against liner leakage, performance of the
liner system will be monitored by an adjunct leak detection system
underlying the compacted soil layer of the sump portion of each
landfill cell. The leak detection system will consist of 60-mil HDPE
liner placed on a prepared subgrade. Any leakage through the primary
composite liner system would be captured on the 60 mil HDPE liner and
fed to a sump. A 4-inch capped pipe will drain leachate collected in
the sump out beyond the footprint of the landfill cell. The capped pipe
will be sampled semi-annually to determine whether any leachate escaped
the composite liner.
As required by 40 CFR 258.51, Buncombe County installed groundwater
monitoring wells to monitor whether landfill operations impact
groundwater. Two upgradient groundwater monitoring wells were installed
and sampled prior to construction of the first cell to determine true
background groundwater quality in the absence of any landfill
construction or operation. Additional downgradient monitoring wells
will continue to be installed with the construction of each landfill
unit. These wells will continue to be sampled semi-annually for
constituents listed in Appendix I of the North Carolina Solid Waste
Management Rules.
Moisture content of the landfill waste will be monitored throughout
the life of the project through a network of moisture sensors installed
as waste is placed. Final design of the moisture detection system will
occur with preparation of the permitting application.
[[Page 19407]]
Surface water quality is currently monitored at three stations
around the facility. All surface water runoff from the site flows north
through erosion control structures to Blevin Branch. Blevin Branch will
continue to be monitored at the eastern end of the site where it
originates and at the western end where it exits the landfill facility.
Leachate would be applied to landfill waste during operations to
provide enhanced conditions for rapid waste decomposition. If
additional water is needed to achieve optimal moisture level, this
water would be drawn from the French Broad River.
Leachate would be injected below the landfill surface to prevent
contact with employees or users of the landfill. In addition, the
County may apply leachate to the working face after the landfill has
stopped receiving customers and just before the day's waste is covered.
At that time, the only people nearby would be the driver of the
leachate spray truck and the heavy equipment operators placing the soil
cover. These persons should not come in contact with the leachate. If
supplemental river water is used, it will first be discharged to the
leachate collection pond before application to the landfill or the
river water will be applied directly to the working face of the
landfill by tanker truck. The recirculation system will be designed and
operated to allow application of leachate in small, discreet areas as
needed to maintain an optimum moisture level.
The volume of leachate and supplemental water added back to the
landfill will be monitored throughout the life of the project.
Recirculation quantities will be quantified using flow sensors
installed on the leachate discharge line at the leachate holding pond
and on the delivery lines to each cell. The objective is to determine
the amount of leachate returned to each cell individually and determine
an optimum moisture content and application rate.
Proponents of leachate recirculation claim that there is an
improvement in leachate quality due to the aerobic and anaerobic
decomposition of constituents which serve as a food source to the
bacteria. Improved leachate quality is an indicator of a stabilized
waste mass that poses a decreased threat to groundwater supplies should
the containment system breach at some future date. Buncombe County will
sample leachate from each cell semi-annually to determine whether
leachate quality is improving.
Since effective degradation of the waste mass and gas production
depend on optimizing the temperature within the landfill cell,
temperature gauges will be installed along with the moisture sensors as
waste is added to the landfill. As each cell reaches design grade,
monuments will be installed to monitor settlement of the waste.
Monument settlement will be evaluated semi-annually. Additionally,
annual aerial topographic surveys will be conducted to evaluate
settlement and the effectiveness of the leachate recirculation system.
B. What Are the Environmental Benefits Anticipated Through Project XL?
Under the FPA for the Buncombe County bioreactor project, the
expected superior environmental benefits include: (1) maximizing
landfill gas control and minimizing fugitive methane and VOC emissions;
(2) greater recovery of landfill gas; (3) landfill life extension and/
or reduced landfill use; and (4) minimizing leachate associated
groundwater concerns.
1. 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. Buncombe 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. Buncombe County will
immediately begin collecting landfill gas once recirculation operations
begin.
2. Expedited Methane Generation/Recovery
If the landfill were operated as a conventional landfill, the
County would likely not have to install a gas collection system at this
facility under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for several
years. However, in the Buncombe bioreactor, the majority of the methane
will be generated over a much earlier and shorter time period than a
conventional landfill. The County has committed to installing the
system and collecting gas as soon as recirculation begins which should
make the total amount of gas collected at this site greater than if it
operated conventionally and only complied with NSPS. This is expected
to minimize the long-term low-rate methane generation often lost in
conventional landfill practices.
3. 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. 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, subject to applicable State regulatory requirements.
Additionally, fewer landfills may be needed to accommodate the same
inflows of waste from a given population.
4. Minimizing Leachate-Associated Concerns
Research has shown that bioreactor processes can reduce the
concentration of many pollutants in leachate. 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. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project?
Buncombe County encouraged stakeholder involvement during the
project development stage in several ways. The methods included
communicating through the media (newspaper, e-mails, and XL website);
directly contacting interested parties; and offering an educational
program regarding the regulatory requirements impacted by the XL
project. Buncombe County has continued to keep stakeholders informed on
the project status via mailing lists, newspaper articles, and public
meetings; and EPA has posted information on the website at URL: http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/buncombe/index.htm. In addition, Buncombe County
has initiated stakeholder involvement by televising a presentation of
the issues associated with the landfill originally presented to the
Buncombe County Commissioners' Annual Retreat. The State of North
Carolina and EPA are kept informed of issues as they arise.
Representatives from the local community and the Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League participated in conference calls and
meetings with the Project XL team and provided comments during the
development of the Final Project Agreement.
Few local stakeholders other than immediate residents have
expressed interest in actively participating in the
[[Page 19408]]
development of the project. Copies of all comment letters, as well as
EPA's response to comment letters, are available on the website.
As this XL project is implemented, the stakeholder involvement
program will shift its focus to ensure that: (1) Stakeholders are
apprized of the status of project implementation; and, (2) stakeholders
have access to information sufficient to judge the success of this
Project XL initiative. Anticipated stakeholder involvement during the
term of the project will likely include other general public meetings
to present periodic status reports, availability of data and other
information generated. Buncombe County will convene periodic meetings
for interested stakeholders to brief them on progress during the
duration of the XL Agreement. 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
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 site on the
Internet (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Buncombe County has preliminarily identified the following
stakeholders, and additional stakeholders may be added over time:
--Buncombe County General Services Department
--Buncombe County Citizens, as represented by the Buncombe County Board
of Commissioners
--Buncombe County Environmental Affairs Board, representing citizens of
Buncombe County
--The North Carolina Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North
America (NCSWANA)
--The Western North Carolina Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
(which has authority to issue a Title V Permit under the Clean Air Act)
--Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
--Counsel of Independent Business Owners
--Nearby residents
D. How Will This Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork
Reduction?
With respect to Cell 3, the alternative liner system saved Buncombe
County nearly $400,000 as compared with the standard composite system.
It is estimated that the County will save a total of $5 million through
build-out of the facility if the alternative liner system is used.
Other potential cost savings from the project include:
1. $5-$10 million in reduced construction costs for additional
landfill capacity if an increase of 20%-30% in additional waste volume
can be achieved due to rapid waste decomposition during operations;
and,
2. $9 million if leachate hauling and off-site treatment can be
eliminated. No appreciable reduction in paperwork is anticipated.
IV. What Regulatory Changes Will Be Necessary To Implement This
Project?
A. Existing Liquids Restriction for MSWLFs (40 CFR 258.28)
EPA is proposing a site-specific rule to grant regulatory
flexibility from 40 CFR 258.28 Liquid Restrictions, which restricts
placement of liquid wastes in a MSWLF. Under the existing rule, bulk or
noncontainerized liquid waste is not allowed to be placed in a MSWLF
unit unless (1) the waste is household waste other than septic waste,
or (2) the waste is leachate or gas condensate derived from the MSWLF
unit and the MSWLF unit is designed with a composite liner and leachate
collection system as described in Sec. 258.40(a)(2). As stated above,
Buncombe County seeks to recirculate leachate derived from the
landfill, possibly supplemented with river water, to Cell 3 and future
cells, all of which have or are expected to have a liner system that
differs from the liner prescribed in 40 CFR 258.41(a)(2). Cells 1 and 2
were constructed with the prescribed liner, and therefore would be
allowed to receive leachate and gas condensate under 40 CFR
258.28(a)(2).
EPA has entered into Final Project Agreements for several
bioreactor pilot projects. Each of these projects will require a site-
specific rulemaking in order to be implemented. EPA is proposing to
amend 40 CFR 258.28(a) by adding a new subsection (3) to allow liquids
to be added to municipal solid waste landfills that are subject to
site-specific provisions set forth in a new 40 CFR 258.41. This
amendment to Sec. 258.28(a) would apply to all Project XL MSWLF
bioreactor projects. Until such an amendment is promulgated, EPA is
including this amendment in each site specific rule proposal, to ensure
that this provision can be promulgated with the first site specific
rule. Therefore, the amendment to Sec. 258.28(a) is included in today's
proposal.
B. Proposed Site-Specific Rule
Today's proposal would 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. The new Sec. 258.41(a) would specifically apply to the
Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility in Buncombe County,
North Carolina and would allow Cells 1-10 of the landfill to utilize
recirculation of leachate supplemented with river water, as long as
each cells meets the design criteria and other requirements set forth
in Sec. 258.41(a).
1. Design Specifications
Currently, federal regulations outline two methods for complying
with liner requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. The first
method is a performance standard 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) sets forth a specific 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
1 x 10-7 cm/sec.
As stated earlier, leachate recirculation in municipal landfills is
allowed under 40 CFR 258.28(a)(2) but only if the liner system complies
with the design standard set out under 40 CFR 258.40(b) and a leachate
collection system as described in Sec. 258.40(a)(2). The reason that
the existing regulation requires a leachate collection system and a
composite liner design as specified Sec. 258.40(a)(2) is to ensure that
contaminant migration to the aquifer is controlled. (56 FR 50978, 51056
(Oct. 9, 1991)).
Under today's proposal, 40 CFR 258.41(a) would specifically address
Buncombe County Landfill in Alexander, North Carolina and would allow
Cells 3 -10 of that landfill to recirculate leachate over an
alternative liner as long as those cells met the
[[Page 19409]]
requirements set forth in that subsection. Section 258.41(a)(4) would
provide an alternative to the landfill liner design requirements set
forth at 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) and (b). These design criteria would be
identical to the liner design described in 40 CFR 258.40(b), except
that the upper component would include a 60 mil HDPE liner overlying a
GCL with a hydraulic conductivity of no greater than
1 x 10-9 cm/sec. The lower component of the composite liner
would consist of 18 inches of compacted soil with a hydraulic
conductivity of not more than 1 x 10-5 cm/sec. The GCL will
overlay and be in direct contact with the compacted soil layer.
The State of North Carolina reviewed the alternative liner system
proposed for Cell 3 prior to approval and authorization for
construction. The state's alternative liner design showed a leakage
rate through the standard Subtitle D liner system and compared that
figure against rates calculated for the alternative liner system
proposed for Cell 3. The standard liner calculations produced a leakage
rate of 1.12 gallons/acre/day while the alternative liner calculations
produced a leakage rate of only 0.53 gallons/acre/day (North Carolina
Permitting Guidance for Alternative Composite Liner Systems, June 1,
1998). The alternative liner's leakage rate is expected to be less than
half that of the standard prescribed liner. The modeling performed to
complete the demonstration of the acceptability (and superiority) of
the alternative liner involves inputting the leakage rates into EPA's
MULTIMED model, which simulates the movement of contaminants leaching
from a landfill. The output of the MULTIMED model reflects the fact
that the alternative liner is more protective than the standard
regulatory liner. Based on this information, EPA is satisfied that the
liner design will afford as much, if not more, protection to
groundwater as the standard composite liner specified in 40 CFR
258.41(a).
As further protection against liner leakage, the proposed rule
would require cells 3 -10 to be constructed with an adjunct leak
detection system underlying the compacted soil layer of the sump
portion of each landfill cell. The leak detection system would be
required to consist of 60-mil HDPE liner placed on a prepared subgrade.
Any leakage through the primary composite liner system would be
captured on the 60 mil HDPE liner and fed to a sump. The design
specifications would also require a 4-inch capped pipe to drain
leachate collected in the sump out beyond the footprint of the landfill
cell.
Based on the modeling for the alternative liner, in conjunction
with the leak detection system, EPA believes that the addition of
landfill leachate into cells 3-10 will not result in any increased
leakage to groundwater from the bioreactor cells. EPA seeks comment on
allowing the addition of liquids to cells 3-10 if constructed with the
proposed alternative liner.
The proposed rule would not change the requirement in 40 CFR
258.28(a)(2) 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 landfill unit. Buncombe County's proposed design for Cells 3-10
would still be required to have leachate collection systems designed to
maintain leachate over the liner to a depth of no more than 30 cm.
2. Operational Requirements
The proposed rule would only allow certain liquid waste to be added
to the Buncombe County facility. Section 258.41(a)(2) would authorize
only leachate or gas condensate derived from the MSWLF, which may be
supplemented with water from the French Broad River. Buncombe County
would also be required to control liquids addition in order to assure
that the average moisture content of the landfill does not exceed 50%
by weight. EPA is proposing a moisture content of 50% by weight because
this is in the middle of the 40%-70% range commonly accepted as needed
for biological reaction to go forward in a bioreactor landfill.\1\ The
proposal allows the State Director to establish a different maximum
limit on landfill unit moisture content if the State Director
determines that a different limit is either necessary to maintain the
integrity of the landfill and its liner system or to increase the
reaction rate, provided landfill and liner system integrity are
maintained. As previously stated, prior to adding any supplemental
liquids to the facility, Buncombe County will prepare a comprehensive
landfill stability analysis under recirculation conditions with
supplemental liquids and will submit this analysis to three university
professors who are recognized as experienced in the field of
geotechnical engineering in general, and landfill slope stability. The
proposed rule also includes, as a prerequisite to adding liquids, the
requirement that Buncombe County receive an air quality permit from the
Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency incorporating
requirements for Buncombe County Landfill XL project. The air quality
permit is also referred to as the Federally-Enforceable State-Operating
Permit (FESOP). The air permit addressing the potential for earlier gas
generation was issued on November 13, 2000 and would be required to be
in effect during the entire period of leachate recirculation and post
closure period. As described above in section III.B., Expected Superior
Environmental Performance, one result of adding liquids to a landfill
is that landfill gases will be generated earlier and over a shorter
period than in a conventional landfill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reinhart, Debra R. and Townsend, Timothy G., Landfill Design
and Operation (Lewis Pub. 1998), p. 140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Monitoring and Reporting
As discussed above in section III.A., Description of the Project,
an important element of the project is the information about bioreactor
operation, alternative liner performance, waste decomposition
efficiency, and potential environmental impacts. The proposed rule
would require Buncombe County to monitor certain parameters which are
not required for conventional MSWLFs under 40 CFR part 258. Some of
this data, for example, moisture content, would be required in order to
assess the physical stability of the landfill unit. The proposed rule
would also require Buncombe County to report data obtained from the
required monitoring to the State and EPA on an annual basis.
4. Duration of Authority
The FPA calls for the project to continue for 25 years in order to
take into account the bioreactor process in all 10 cells of the
facility. Therefore, today's proposal would provide that 40 CFR
258.41(a) be in effect for 25 years from the effective date of the
rule.
The proposal also includes an early termination provision in the
event of noncompliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 258.41(a). The
EPA Regional Administrator for Region 4 would be authorized to issue a
notice of termination, stating the reason for the decision to terminate
the authority under 40 CFR 258.41(a). The Regional Administrator could
terminate the rule with respect to all or part of the landfill cells
for which the site-specific authority to add liquids would be required
(Cells 3-10). Termination would take effect 60 days from the date of
the notice, unless the Regional Administrator determined, in writing,
to rescind the termination. In the event of termination, all the
applicable regulatory requirements of 40 CFR part 258 that would have
applied to the Buncombe County facility in the absence of 40 CFR
258.41(a) would be
[[Page 19410]]
applicable. However, the Regional Administrator could establish an
interim compliance period if deemed necessary to complete the
transition from bioreactor operation to conventional ``dry tomb''
operation.
This provision for early termination of the rule is not exclusive.
In addition to termination for noncompliance, the FPA allows any party
to the agreement to terminate the project before the end of 25 years,
for any reason. In the event that EPA determines that this project and
site-specific rule should be terminated for reasons other than
noncompliance before the end of the 25 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 Buncombe County returned to full compliance with the
existing requirements of 40 CFR part 258.
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 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.
V. Additional Information
A. How To Request a Public Hearing
If requested, a public hearing will be held to provide opportunity
for interested persons to make oral presentations regarding this
proposed rulemaking, in accordance with 40 CFR part 25. Persons wishing
to make an oral presentation on the proposed site specific rule to
implement a leachate recirculation system with an alternative liner at
the Buncombe County Landfill should contact Sherri Walker at the
address given in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Any member of
the public may file a written statement before the hearing or after the
hearing to be received by EPA no later than fourteen days after
publication of this proposed rulemaking. Written statements should be
sent to EPA at the addresses given in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. If a public hearing is held, a verbatim transcript of the
hearing and written statements provided at the hearing will be
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours at
the EPA addresses for docket inspection given in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble.
B. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review?
Because this rule affects only 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), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
generally requires an agency to conduct 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 Buncombe County officials, the county population in 1990
exceeded 150,000; thus, Buncombe County does not qualify as ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
Consequently, EPA can certify that this proposed rulemaking will not
have an significant impact on a small governmental jurisdiction and is
not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.
D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for This Project Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act?
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 4 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. The requirements of this proposed rule would not apply to 10 or
more entities, therefore the PRA does not apply.
E. Does This Project Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act?
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments in
the aggregate or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of the EPA regulatory proposal with significant Federal
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
As discussed above, this proposed rulemaking has limited
application. It applies only to the Buncombe County Solid Waste
Management Facility. If adopted, this proposed rule would result in a
cost savings for Buncombe 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 proposed rule would 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. While this proposed rule would have a
unique affect for Buncombe County, the population of Buncombe County
exceeds that which would qualify it as a ``small government,''
therefore, EPA is not required under section 203 of UMRA to develop a
small government plan.
[[Page 19411]]
However, EPA has worked with and continues to work with Buncombe
County, affected citizens, and other stakeholders in seeking meaningful
and timely input into the development of the Final Project Agreement
and this proposed rule. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
F. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks?
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically
significant,'' as defined in Executive Order 12886; and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to potentially effective and feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The proposed rule does not involve
decisions based on environmental health or safety risks because it is
limited to modifying a regulatory construction standard for a municipal
solid waste liner that is expected to result in a liner which performs
at least as well as the liner design specified in the current
regulations and for a lesser construction cost.
G. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial and
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.''
The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of powers and responsibilities among various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rulemaking will only
affect one local governmental entity and state and would provide
regulatory flexibility for each entity concerned. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
H. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments?
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
EPA is currently unaware of any Indian tribes located in the vicinity
of the landfill or Buncombe County. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule.
I. Does This Rule Comply With the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, requires that EPA use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless such
practice is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example,
material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standard bodies. If EPA elects not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards, EPA must provide an explanation to
Congress, through OMB, as to why EPA is not using the standard.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. This rule
complies with the requirements of the NTTAA because it utilizes
existing voluntary consensus standards developed by the American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). The ASTM is a voluntary
consensus standards-setting body under the NTTAA. EPA proposes to use
ASTM D5261 and ASTM D2216 as standards for the geosynthetic liner
specified in proposed 40 CFR 258.41(a)(4)(iii). These standards assure
the proper standards of production for geotextiles and geosynthetic
clay liners addressed in today's proposed rule. Both standards were
approved on June 15, 1992. They are available from ASTM through their
website, http://www.astm.org/, or by contacting them at ASTM, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 19428-2959. In addition,
EPA asks the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards not addressed by EPA and explain why this standard
is applicable and how it should be applied in this regulation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection, Solid waste, Landfill.
Dated: April 3, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 258 of title 40
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907,
6912(a), 6944, 6945(c), and 6949a(c).
Subpart C--Operating Criteria
2. Amend Sec. 258.28 by:
a. Removing ``or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(1).
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(2) and adding in
it's place ``; or'.
c. Adding paragraph (a)(3).
The addition reads as follows:
[[Page 19412]]
Sec. 258.28 Liquids restrictions.
(a) * * *
(3) The MSWLF unit is a Project XL MSWLF and meets the applicable
requirements in 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. Section 258.41 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 258.41 Project XL bioreactor landfill projects.
(a) Buncombe County, North Carolina Project XL Bioreactor Landfill
Requirements. Paragraph (a) of this section applies to Cells 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 of the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility located
in the County of Buncombe, North Carolina, owned and operated by the
Buncombe County Solid Waste Authority, or its successors. This
subsection will also apply to Cells 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, provided that
the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 4 and the State Director
determine that the pilot project in Cells 3, 4, and 5 is performing as
expected and that the pilot project has not exhibited detrimental
environmental results.
(1) The Buncombe County Solid Waste Authority is allowed to place
liquid waste in the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility,
provided that the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this
section are met.
(2) The only liquid waste allowed under this section is leachate or
gas condensate derived from the MSWLF, which may be supplemented with
water from the French Broad River. The owner or operator shall control
any liquids to the landfill to assure that the average moisture content
of the landfill does not exceed 50% by weight. Liquid addition and
recirculation is allowed only to the extent that the integrity of the
landfill including its liner system is maintained, as determined by the
State Director.
(3) The MSWLF unit shall be designed and constructed with a liner
and leachate collection system as described in Sec. 258.40(a)(2) or
paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this section. The owner or operator must
place documentation of the landfill design in the operating record and
notify the State Director that it has been placed in operating record;
(4) Cells 3-10 shall be constructed with a liner system consisting
of the components described in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (v) of this
section, or an equivalent or superior liner system as determined by the
State Director:
(i) A lower component consisting of at least 18 inches of compacted
soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 x
10-5 cm/sec., and
(ii) An upper component consisting of a minimum 30-millimeter
(``mil'') flexible membrane liner (FML) or 60-mil if High Density
Polyethylene (``HDPE'') is used, and
(iii) A geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) overlaying and in direct
contact with the 18 inches of compacted soil in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of
this section and having the following properties:
(A) The GCL shall be formulated and manufactured from polypropylene
geotextiles and high swelling containment resistant sodium bentonite.
The bentonite-geotextile liner shall be manufactured using a minimum of
one pound per square foot as determined using ASTM D5261 test method,
of a high swelling sodium montmorillonite clay at 12% moisture content
as determined by the ASTM D2216 test method.
(B) The encapsulating geotextile shall be polypropylene and shall
have a minimum weight of 6 oz./square yard.
(iv) The upper component shall be installed in direct and uniform
contact with an overlaying soil cushioning component.
(v) Underlying the above liner system, there shall also be
installed a leak detection system consisting of a 60-mil HDPE liner
placed on a prepared subgrade.
(A) A 4 inch capped pipe will drain liquid collected in the sump
out beyond the footprint of the landfill cell.
(B) Water collected on the leak detection liner shall be monitored
at least semi-annually as directed by the State Director to determine
whether any leachate escaped the liner system.
(5) Cells 3-10 shall be designed and constructed with a leachate
collection system to maintain less than 30 centimeters depth of
leachate is present at the sump location. The leachate collection
system shall include a continuous monitoring system to monitor depth of
leachate.
(6) The owner/operator shall keep the Federally Enforceable State
Operating Permit (FESOP) issued the by the Western North Carolina Air
Quality Agency for the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility
in effect, and shall comply with the provisions of the FESOP, during
the entire period of leachate recirculation and the post closure
period. The FESOP was issued on November 13, 2000 and contains the air
quality requirements for the Buncombe County Landfill XL project.
(7) Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. The owner or operator of
the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility shall monitor for
the parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xiii) of this
section and submit an annual report on the XL project to the EPA
Regional Administrator for Region 4 and the State Director. The first
report is due coincident with the October 2001 report to the state. The
report should state what progress has been made toward the superior
environmental performance and other commitments as stated in the Final
Project Agreement. The report shall include, at a minimum, the
following data:
(i) Amount of landfill gas generated;
(ii) Percent capture of landfill gas, if known;
(iii) Quality of the landfill gas, amount and type of liquids
applied to the landfill;
(iv) Method of liquids application to the landfill;
(v) Quantity of waste placed in the landfill;
(vi) Quantity and quality of leachate collected;
(vii) Quantity of leachate recirculated back into the landfill;
(viii) Information on the pretreatment of waste applied to the
landfill;
(ix) Data collected on landfill temperature and moisture content;
(x) Data on the leachate pressure (head) on the liner;
(xi) Observations, information, and studies made on the physical
stability of the MSWLF units that are developed during the project
term, if any.
(xii) The above data may be summarized, and, at a minimum shall
contain, the minimum, maximum, median, and average data points as well
as the frequency of monitoring as applicable.
(xiii) The method and frequency of monitoring shall be specified by
the State Director.
(8) Termination and Withdrawal.
(i) Paragraph (a) of this section will terminate 25 years from its
effective date, unless a subsequent rulemaking is issued or terminated
earlier pursuant to paragraph (a)(8)(ii) of this section.
(ii) In the event of noncompliance with paragraph (a) of this
section, EPA may terminate the authority under paragraph (a) of this
section and the authority to add liquid wastes to all or part of cells
3-10 under Sec. 258.28(a)(3). The EPA Regional Administrator will
provide written notice of intent to terminate to the Buncombe County
Solid Waste Authority with a copy to
[[Page 19413]]
the State Director. The notice will state EPA's intent to terminate
under the rules and will include a brief statement of EPA's reasons for
its action. The termination will take effect 60 days from the date of
the notice, unless the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 4 issues a
written notice rescinding the termination.
(9) Compliance Requirements in the Event of Termination or
Withdrawal. The Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility will be
subject to all regulatory provisions applicable to MSWLFs upon
termination of authority under this section. In the event of early
termination of this section, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region
4 may provide an interim period of compliance to allow Buncombe County
a reasonable period of time for transition following cessation of
liquids addition.
(b) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 01-9359 Filed 4-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P