18014
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
67
/
Thursday,
April
6,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
(
c)
Before
further
flight
and
thereafter
at
intervals
not
to
exceed
50
hours
time­
inservice
perform
the
following:
(
1)
Clean
each
tail
rotor
drive
shaft
bearing
support.
Using
a
6­
power
or
higher
magnifying
glass
and
a
bright
light,
visually
inspect
the
attach
lugs
of
the
bearing
supports
B
and
C
(
shown
in
Figure
1)
for
cracks,
particularly
in
the
area
extending
from
the
bend
radius
to
the
attaching
screws
and
rivets
connecting
the
bearing
supports
to
the
tail
boom.
Before
further
flight,
replace
each
cracked
bearing
support
with
an
airworthy
bearing
support.
(
2)
Inspect
each
bearing
attach
hardware
lock
plate
for
bent­
open
tabs
and
slippage
marks
for
attach
hardware
looseness
or
rotation.
Before
further
flight,
replace
any
loose
bearing
attach
hardware
(
including
lock
plates
found
bent
or
open
due
to
bolt
rotation)
with
airworthy
hardware.
(
d)
An
alternative
method
of
compliance
or
adjustment
of
the
compliance
time
that
provides
an
acceptable
level
of
safety
may
be
used
if
approved
by
the
Manager,
Regulations
Group,
Rotorcraft
Directorate,
FAA.
Operators
shall
submit
their
requests
through
an
FAA
Principal
Maintenance
Inspector,
who
may
concur
or
comment
and
then
send
it
to
the
Manager,
Regulations
Group.

Note
3:
Information
concerning
the
existence
of
approved
alternative
methods
of
compliance
with
this
AD,
if
any,
may
be
obtained
from
the
Regulations
Group.

(
e)
Special
flight
permits
may
be
issued
in
accordance
with
sections
21.197
and
21.199
of
the
Federal
Aviation
Regulations
(
14
CFR
21.197
and
21.199)
to
operate
the
helicopter
to
a
location
where
the
requirements
of
this
AD
can
be
accomplished.

Note
4:
The
subject
of
this
AD
is
addressed
in
Luftfahrt­
Bundesamt
(
Federal
Republic
of
Germany)
AD's
1998
 
033/
7
and
1998
 
389,
both
dated
September
14,
1998.

Issued
in
Fort
Worth,
Texas,
on
March
29,
2000.
Henry
A.
Armstrong,
Manager,
Rotorcraft
Directorate,
Aircraft
Certification
Service.
[
FR
Doc.
00
 
8520
Filed
4
 
5
 
00;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
4910
 
13
 
U
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
52
[
TX
 
107
 
2
 
7424b;
FRL
 
6567
 
6]

Approval
and
Promulgation
of
Implementation
Plans;
Texas;
Control
of
Air
Pollution
From
Volatile
Organic
Compounds,
Vent
Gas
Control
and
Offset
Lithographic
Printing
Rules
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
is
taking
action
on
revisions
to
the
Texas
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP).
This
document
covers
three
separate
actions:
Approving
the
Revisions
to
the
30
TAC,
Chapter
115,
Control
of
Air
Pollution
from
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(
VOC),
Subchapter
B,
Division
2,
Vent
Gas
Control
(
bakery
oven
emissions)
rule
as
meeting
our
Reasonably
Available
Control
Technology
(
RACT)
requirements
for
controlling
the
VOC
emission
from
such
major
sources
in
the
Dallas/
For
Worth
(
D/
FW)
ozone
nonattainment
area;
converting
EPA's
limited
approval
of
certain
sections
in
30
TAC,
Chapter
115,
Control
of
Air
Pollution
from
VOC,
Subchapter
B,
Division
2,
Vent
Gas
Control
(
bakery
oven
emissions)
rule
to
a
full
approval
as
meeting
the
RACT
requirements
for
controlling
the
VOC
emission
from
such
major
sources
in
the
D/
FW
ozone
nonattainment
area.
By
this
approval
action,
we
are
saying
that
Texas
will
be
implementing
the
RACT
for
VOC
emissions
resulting
from
operation
of
the
bakeries
in
the
D/
FW
area;
and
approving
that
the
revisions
to
the
30
TAC,
Chapter
115,
Control
of
Air
Pollution
from
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(
VOC),
Subchapter
E,
Division
4,
Offset
Lithography
Printing
as
meeting
our
RACT
requirements
for
controlling
the
VOC
emission
from
such
major
sources
in
the
D/
FW
ozone
nonattainment
area.
By
this
approval
action,
we
are
saying
that
Texas
will
be
implementing
the
RACT
for
VOC
emissions
resulting
from
operation
of
the
offset
lithography
printing
sources
in
the
D/
FW
area.
The
EPA
is
approving
these
revisions
to
regulate
emissions
of
VOCs
as
meeting
RACT
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Federal
Clean
Air
Act.
In
the
``
Rules
and
Regulations''
section
of
this
Federal
Register,
EPA
is
approving
the
State's
SIP
revision
as
a
direct
final
rule
without
prior
proposal
because
the
EPA
views
this
as
a
noncontroversial
revision
and
anticipates
no
adverse
comment.
The
EPA
has
explained
its
reasons
for
this
approval
in
the
preamble
to
the
direct
final
rule.
If
EPA
receives
no
relevant
adverse
comments,
the
EPA
will
not
take
further
action
on
this
proposed
rule.
If
EPA
receives
relevant
adverse
comment,
EPA
will
withdraw
the
direct
final
rule
and
it
will
not
take
effect.
The
EPA
will
address
all
public
comments
in
a
subsequent
final
rule
based
on
this
proposed
rule.
The
EPA
will
not
institute
a
second
comment
period
on
this
action.
Any
parties
interested
in
commenting
must
do
so
at
this
time.
DATES:
Written
comments
must
be
received
by
May
8,
2000.
ADDRESSES:
Written
comments
should
be
addressed
to
Mr.
Thomas
H.
Diggs,
Chief,
Air
Planning
Section
(
6PD
 
L),
at
the
EPA
Region
6
Office
listed
below.
Copies
of
documents
relevant
to
this
action
are
available
for
public
inspection
during
normal
business
hours
at
the
following
locations.
Anyone
wanting
to
examine
these
documents
should
make
an
appointment
with
the
appropriate
office
at
least
two
working
days
in
advance.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
6,
Air
Planning
Section
(
6PD
 
L),
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Dallas,
Texas
75202
 
2733.
Texas
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Commission,
Office
of
Air
Quality,
12124
Park
35
Circle,
Austin,
Texas
78753.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
Alan
Shar,
P.
E.,
Air
Planning
Section
(
6PD
 
L),
EPA
Region
6,
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Dallas,
Texas
75202
 
2733,
telephone
(
214)
665
 
6691.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
This
document
concerns
Control
of
Air
Pollution
from
Vent
Gas
Control
(
bakery
oven
emissions)
and
offset
lithographic
printing
rules
in
the
D/
FW
ozone
nonattainment
area.
For
further
information,
please
see
the
information
provided
in
the
direct
final
action
that
is
located
in
the
``
Rules
and
Regulations''
section
of
this
Federal
Register
publication.

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.

Dated:
March
21,
2000.
Lynda
F.
Carroll,
Acting
Regional
Administrator,
Region
6.
[
FR
Doc.
00
 
7733
Filed
4
 
5
 
00;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
U
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
258
[
FRL
 
6571
 
3;
F
 
2000
 
ALPA
 
FFFFF]

Alternative
Liner
Performance,
Leachate
Recirculation,
and
Bioreactor
Landfills:
Request
for
Information
and
Data
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Request
for
information
and
data.

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
requesting
comments
and
information
on
two
issues
related
to
the
Criteria
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills.
First,
we
need
data
and
information
on
the
performance
of
alternative
liner
designs
compared
to
the
performance
of
composite
liners
VerDate
20<
MAR>
2000
09:
44
Apr
05,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
06APP1.
SGM
pfrm08
PsN:
06APP1
18015
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
67
/
Thursday,
April
6,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
when
leachate
is
recirculated.
Provisions
in
the
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
(
MSWLF)
criteria
prohibit
leachate
recirculation
at
an
MSWLF
unless
the
unit
has
a
composite
liner
as
described
in
these
regulations.
Recently,
various
stakeholder
groups
(
e.
g.,
States,
local
governments,
solid
waste
associations,
and
industry)
have
suggested
that
there
are
alternative
liner
designs
that
would
work
as
well
as,
if
not
better
than,
the
specific
liner
designs
currently
required
by
the
criteria.
Second,
EPA
is
also
requesting
data
and
information
on
the
design
and
performance
of
bioreactor
landfills.
In
recent
years,
bioreactor
landfills
have
gained
recognition
as
a
possible
innovation
in
solid
waste
management.
The
bioreactor
landfill
is
generally
defined
as
a
landfill
operated
to
transform
and
more
quickly
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,
alternative
cover
designs,
and
state­
ofthe
art
landfill
gas
collection
systems.
DATES:
EPA
must
receive
your
responses
on
leachate
recirculation
and
alternative
liner
performance
by
August
7,
2000.
EPA
must
receive
your
responses
on
bioreactors
by
October
6,
2000.
ADDRESSES:
See
section
I
of
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
below.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information:
Contact
the
RCRA
Hotline
at
800
424
 
9346
or
TDD
800
553
 
7672
(
hearing
impaired).
In
the
Washington,
DC,
metropolitan
area,
call
703
412
 
9810
or
TDD
703
412
 
3323.
For
information
on
specific
aspects
of
this
document:
Contact
Dwight
Hlustick,
Municipal
and
Industrial
Solid
Waste
Division
of
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
mail
code
5306W),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Headquarters
(
EPA,
HQ)
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460;
703/
308
 
8647
[
HLUSTICK.
DWIGHT@
EPAMAIL.
EPA.
GOV].

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
I.
Submitting
Responses
to
This
Document
How
May
I
Respond
to
This
Document?
What
Information
Should
I
Include
in
My
Response?
What
Will
EPA
Do
With
the
Information
You
Submit?
II.
What
Will
Be
the
Official
Record
for
This
Document?
How
May
I
See
Responses
to
This
Document?
Where
May
I
Find
Information
on
This
Action
on
the
Internet?
III.
What
Is
the
Authority
for
This
Request?
IV.
Description
of
EPA's
Current
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfill
Regulations
V.
Description
of
Current
Regulations
for
Landfill
Liners
Performance
Standard
Design
Standard
VI.
What
Are
Existing
Requirements
for
Leachate
Recirculation?
Description
of
Technical
Guidance
for
Landfill
Design
Description
of
Concerns
With
Respect
to
Leachate
Recirculation
VII.
What
Information
Would
EPA
Like
to
Have
About
Alternative
Liner
Performance
and
Leachate
Recirculation?
VIII.
Concerns
With
Respect
to
Bioreactors
Information
Needs
With
Respect
to
Bioreactors
IX.
Conclusion
I.
Submitting
Responses
on
This
Document
How
May
I
Respond
to
This
Document?

You
may
submit
your
information
in
hard
copy
(
paper)
or
using
electronic
mail.
All
comments
must
reference
docket
number
F
 
2000­
ALPA­
FFFFF.
You
should
not
submit
electronically
any
confidential
business
information.
·
Mail:
Please
submit
an
original
and
two
copies
to:
RCRA
Docket
Information
Center,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
5305G),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Headquarters
(
EPA,
HQ)
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington
DC
20460.
·
Hand
Deliveries:
Please
submit
an
original
and
two
copies
of
information
to:
RCRA
Information
Center
(
RIC),
Crystal
Gateway
I,
First
Floor,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
Virginia.
·
Electronic
Submittals:
Please
submit
electronic
information
through
the
Internet
to:
rcra­
docket@
epa.
gov.
Your
responses
in
electronic
format
must
also
be
indentified
by
docket
number
F
 
2000
 
ALPA
 
FFFFF.
You
must
provide
your
electronic
submittals
as
ASCII
files
and
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
You
should
not
submit
electronically
any
confidential
business
information
(
CBI).
An
original
and
two
copies
of
CBI
must
be
submitted
under
separate
cover
to:
RCRA
CBI
Document
Control
Officer,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
5305W),
U.
S.
EPA,
1200
Pennsylvania
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460.

What
Information
Should
I
Include
in
My
Response?

Your
comments
will
be
most
effective
if
you
follow
the
suggestions
below:
·
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
·
Provide
solid
technical
data
to
support
your
views.
·
If
you
estimate
potential
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
the
estimate.
·
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.
·
Offer
specific
alternatives.
·
Refer
your
comments
to
specific
sections
of
this
notice
or
MSWLF
criteria.
·
Be
sure
to
submit
your
information
by
the
deadline
in
this
notice.
·
Be
sure
to
include
the
name,
date,
and
docket
number
with
your
submittals.

What
Will
EPA
Do
With
the
Information
You
Submit?

We
will
review
all
responses
to
this
action
as
well
as
additional
information
in
our
own
data
base
in
considering
whether
to
propose
to
revise
the
Criteria
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
(
40
CFR
part
258).
EPA
will
not
respond
directly
on
an
individual
basis
to
those
providing
information
to
the
Agency
as
a
result
of
this
action,
but
will
address
issues
raised
by
the
respondents
in
future
Federal
Register
notices.
In
addition,
all
responses
to
this
information
request
notice
will
be
incorporated
into
the
docket
for
any
rulemaking
proposals
on
the
subject
criteria.

II.
What
Will
Be
the
Official
Record
for
This
Document?

The
official
record
for
this
action
will
be
kept
in
paper
form.
Accordingly,
EPA
will
transfer
all
electronic
submittals
into
paper
form
and
place
them
in
the
official
record,
which
will
also
include
all
responses
submitted
directly
in
writing.
The
official
record
is
the
paper
record
maintained
at
the
RCRA
Information
Center
(
RIC),
Crystal
Gateway
I,
First
Floor,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
Virginia.

How
May
I
See
Responses
to
This
Document?

All
responses
to
this
document
are
available
for
viewing
in
the
RCRA
Information
Center
(
RIC),
located
at
Crystal
Gateway
I,
First
Floor,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA.
The
RIC
is
open
from
9
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
federal
holidays.
To
review
docket
materials,
we
recommend
that
the
public
make
an
appointment
by
calling
703
603
 
9230.
The
public
may
copy
a
maximum
of
100
pages
from
any
regulatory
docket
at
no
charge.
Additional
copies
cost
$
0.15/
page.

Where
May
I
Find
Information
on
This
Action
on
the
Internet?

Information
on
this
action,
consisting
of
this
notice
and
a
fact
sheet,
may
be
found
at
the
following
Internet
site:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
non­
hw/
muncpl/
landfill/
leachate.
htm.

VerDate
20<
MAR>
2000
15:
13
Apr
05,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
06APP1.
SGM
pfrm07
PsN:
06APP1
18016
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
67
/
Thursday,
April
6,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
III.
What
Is
the
Authority
for
This
Request?

Any
revisions
to
Criteria
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
(
40
CFR
part
258)
will
be
made
under
Sections
1008,
2002
(
general
rule
making
authority),
4004,
and
4010
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
of
1976,
as
amended.
Revisions
may
also
be
made
under
Section
405
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
which
addresses
the
disposal
of
sewage
sludge.

IV.
Description
of
EPA's
Current
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfill
Regulations
As
specified
in
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
the
federal
role
is
to
establish
overall
regulatory
direction
through
the
provision
of
minimum
nationwide
standards
for
MSWLFs.
On
October
9,
1991,
EPA
issued
revised
Criteria
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
(
40
CFR
part
258;
56
FR
50978).
These
criteria
establish
minimum
national
performance
standards
necessary
to
ensure
that
``
no
reasonable
probability
of
adverse
effects
on
health
or
the
environment''
will
result
from
solid
waste
disposal
facilities.
MSWLFs
typically
receive
household
waste,
nonhazardous
commercial,
institutional
and
industrial
waste,
household
hazardous
waste
and
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG)
hazardous
waste.
The
criteria
are
implemented
in
one
of
two
ways.
The
first,
and
preferred
alternative,
is
that
each
State
would
implement
the
criteria
after
receiving
approval
by
EPA
of
its
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
permit
program
or
other
system
of
prior
approval.
The
criteria
contain
provisions
that
allow
States
to
develop
and
rely
on
alternative
approaches
that
deal
with
site­
specific
conditions.
Therefore,
the
actual
planning
and
direct
implementation
of
solid
waste
programs
is
principally
a
function
of
State
governments
and
those
owners
and
operators,
including
local
governments,
of
MSWLFs,
not
the
federal
government.
The
second
alternative
is
that
the
program
would
be
self­
implementing
by
landfill
owners
and
operators
in
those
States
that
have
not
received
EPA
approval
of
their
MSWLF
permitting
programs.
In
this
case,
the
regulations
provide
less
flexibility
than
for
approved
States.
As
of
March
1,
2000,
49
states
and
territories
had
received
approval
of
their
programs
and
are
implementing
these
regulations.
V.
Description
of
Current
Regulations
for
Landfill
Liners
The
criteria
set
forth
two
methods
for
complying
with
liner
requirements
for
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
The
first
is
a
performance
standard
and
the
second
is
a
specific
design
standard.

Performance
Standard
The
performance
standard
is
set
forth
in
§
258.40(
a)(
1).
Under
this
standard,
a
landfill
owner
or
operator
may
rely
on
the
design
of
their
choice,
provided
the
design
ensures
that
the
concentration
values
for
the
constituents
listed
in
the
following
table
will
not
be
exceeded
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
at
the
relevant
point
of
compliance
as
determined
by
the
Director
of
an
approved
State.

TABLE
1.
 
CONCENTRATION
VALUES
NOT
TO
BE
EXCEEDED
AT
THE
POINT
OF
COMPLIANCE
Chemical
MCL
(
mg/
l)

Arsenic
............................................
0.05
Barium
............................................
1.0
Benzene
..........................................
0.005
Cadmium
........................................
0.01
Carbon
tetrachloride
.......................
0.005
Chromium
(
hexavalent)
..................
0.05
2,4­
Dichlorophenoxy
acetic
acid
....
0.1
1,4­
Dichlorobenzene
.......................
0.075
1,2­
Dichloroethane
.........................
0.005
1,2­
Dichloroethylene
.......................
0.007
Endrin
.............................................
0.0002
Fluoride
...........................................
4
Lindane
...........................................
0.004
Lead
................................................
0.05
Mercury
...........................................
0.002
Methoxychlor
..................................
0.1
Nitrate
.............................................
10
Selenium
.........................................
0.01
Silver
...............................................
0.05
Toxaphene
......................................
0.005
1,1,1­
Trichoromethane
...................
0.2
Trichloroethylene
............................
0.005
2,4,5­
Trichlorophenoxy
acetic
acid
0.01
Vinyl
Chloride
.................................
0.002
The
point
of
compliance
can
be
no
more
than
150
meters
from
the
waste
management
unit
boundary
and
must
be
on
land
owned
by
the
owner
of
the
MSWLF
(
see
40
CFR
258.40(
d)).
The
criteria
require
that
in
determining
whether
the
performance
standard
is
met,
the
Director
of
the
approved
State
program
shall
consider
the
following
factors
in
his/
her
determination:
1.
The
hydrogeologic
characteristics
of
the
facility
and
the
surrounding
land;
2.
The
volume
and
the
physical
and
chemical
characteristics
of
the
leachate;
3.
The
quantity,
quality,
and
direction
of
flow
of
ground
water;
4.
The
proximity
of
and
withdrawal
rate
of
the
groundwater
users;
5.
The
availability
of
alternative
drinking
water
supplies;
6.
The
existing
quality
of
the
ground
water,
including
other
sources
of
contamination
and
their
cumulative
impacts
on
the
ground
water,
and
whether
the
ground
water
is
currently
used
or
reasonably
expected
to
be
used
for
drinking
water;
7.
Public
health,
safety,
and
welfare
effects;
and
8.
Practical
capability
of
the
owner
or
operator.

Design
Standard
The
second
method
for
compliance
with
the
criteria
is
to
install
a
liner
system
that
meets
the
specific
design
criteria
described
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
2)
and
set
forth
in
40
CFR
258.40(
b).
Section
258.40(
a)(
2)
states
that
the
liner
system
must
contain
a
composite
liner
and
Section
258.40(
b)
defines
a
composite
liner
as
a
system
comprised
of
two
components:
1.
An
upper
component
consisting
of
a
minimum
of
30
mil
flexible
membrane
liner
(
60
mil
if
high
density
polyethylene
(
HDPE)
is
used);
and
2.
a
lower
component
consisting
of
compacted
soil
at
least
two
feet
deep
with
a
hydraulic
conductivity
of
no
more
than
1x
10
¥
7
cm/
sec.
We
based
this
decision
on
a
desire
to
ensure
that
leachate
reaching
the
liner
would
be
efficiently
collected
(
56
FR
51056).
The
design
standards
require
that
the
leachate
collection
system
be
capable
of
maintaining
a
hydraulic
head
within
the
landfill
of
30
cm
or
less.

VI.
What
Are
the
Existing
Requirements
for
Leachate
Recirculation?

The
liquid
restrictions
in
Subpart
C
of
Part
258
only
allow
leachate
recirculation
in
MSWLFs
that
are
constructed
with
a
composite
liner
and
leachate
recirculation
system
as
described
in
40
CFR
258.28(
a)(
2).
The
recirculation
of
leachate
is
not
allowed
in
landfills
which
have
an
alternative
liner
design
even
if
the
design
meets
the
performance
standard
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1).
At
the
time
these
regulations
were
promulgated,
we
believed
MSWLFs
needed
a
composite
liner
and
leachate
control
system
as
described
at
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
2)
to
ensure
that
ground
water
would
be
protected.

Description
of
Technical
Guidance
for
Landfill
Design
EPA
published
a
technical
manual
entitled
``
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Criteria''
(
EPA530
 
R
 
93
 
017,
NTIS
PB94
 
100
 
450,
Internet
site:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
non­
hw/
muncpl/
landfill/
techman/)
in
1993.
Chapter
4
of
this
manual
entitled
``
Design
Criteria''
sets
forth
additional
guidance
in
the
VerDate
20<
MAR>
2000
15:
16
Apr
05,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
06APP1.
SGM
pfrm07
PsN:
06APP1
18017
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
67
/
Thursday,
April
6,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
following
areas:
(
1)
Design
concepts,
(
2)
design
calculations,
(
3)
physical
properties,
and
(
4)
construction
methods.
This
chapter
of
the
guidance
document
also
addresses
the
following:
Designs
Based
on
the
Performance
Standard
·
Leachate
characterization
and
leakage
assessment;
·
Leachate
migration
in
the
subsurface;
·
Leachate
migration
models;
·
Relevant
point
of
compliance
assessment.

Description
of
Concerns
With
Respect
to
Leachate
Recirculation
Many
MSWLF
stakeholders
(
e.
g.,
States,
local
governments,
solid
waste
associations,
and
industry)
believe
that
under
certain
conditions,
leachate
recirculation
should
be
allowed
when
alternative
liners
are
used.
In
fact,
some
believe
that
alternative
liner
technologies
can
be
superior
to
the
composite
liner
design
specified
in
the
criteria.
We
are
trying
to
determine
if
it
is
possible
to
design
and
operate
MSWLFs
safely
when
alternative
liner
designs
are
used
and
leachate
is
recirculated.
As
required
by
the
regulations,
such
an
alternative
liner
design
must
assure
that
the
performance
standard
specified
at
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1)
and
the
requirement
to
maintain
a
hydraulic
head
within
the
landfill
of
30
cm.
or
less
are
met.

VII.
What
Information
Would
EPA
Like
to
Have
About
Alternative
Liner
Performance
and
Leachate
Recirculation?

We
are
interested
in
determining
whether
and
which
types
of
alternative
liners
are
capable
of
meeting
the
design
performance
standard
described
above
including
maintaining
a
hydraulic
head
at
acceptable
levels.
More
specifically
we
are
seeking
data
and
information
on
the
following
issues
and
questions:
·
Should
EPA
revise
the
MSWLF
regulations
to
allow
leachate
recirculation
when
alternative
liners
are
used,
and
under
what
conditions
should
leachate
recirculation
be
allowed?
·
Should
only
specified
alternative
liner
designs
be
allowed
if
leachate
is
recirculated?
·
When
alternative
liners
are
used,
what
would
be
the
impact
of
leachate
recirculation
on
leachate
quality
and
quantity
and
attainment
of
the
concentration
values
specified
in
Table
1
in
ground
water
at
the
point
of
compliance?
·
Does
EPA
need
to
specify
other
requirements
in
the
MSWLF
Criteria
to
ensure
that
landfills
that
recirculate
leachate
when
using
alternative
liners
protect
ground
water
and
maintain
the
hydraulic
head
with
the
landfill
at
30
cm.
or
less?
·
To
what
degree
does
leachate
recirculation
accelerate
the
stability
of
the
leachate
and
the
remaining
decomposable
solids
in
a
landfill?
How
can
EPA
make
a
determination
when
a
landfill
is
sufficiently
stabilized?
·
Should
EPA
revise
the
technical
manual?
If
so,
how?
We
are
particularly
interested
in
information
on
how
to
advise
owners
and
operators
to
characterize
leachate
and
leachate
leakage
rates
properly
when
conducting
leakage
migration
modeling
to
demonstrate
that
a
landfill
which
recirculates
leachate
meets
the
performance
standard
specified
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1).
For
example,
should
we
be
suggesting
different
methodologies
to
quantify
input
parameters?
Are
there
non­
steady
state
situations
that
we
should
be
addressing
in
the
guidance?
What
are
the
effects
of
leachate
recirculation
on
heavy
metals
in
the
leachate,
and
subsequently
in
the
ground
water?
Should
the
groundwater
models
identified
in
this
guidance
be
updated?
If
so,
what
models
are
appropriate?

VIII.
Concerns
With
Respect
to
Bioreactors
Recent
communications
from
MSWLF
stakeholders
indicate
that
there
is
a
growing
interest
in
bioreactor
landfills.
Bioreactor
landfills
represent
a
potential
new
approach
to
solid
waste
management.
A
bioreactor
landfill
can
be
generally
defined
as
a
sanitary
landfill
operated
to
transform
and
stabilize
the
readily
and
moderately
decomposable
organic
constituents
of
the
waste
stream
by
purposeful
control
to
enhance
microbiological
processes.
While
categorizations
of
bioreactor
landfills
vary,
operational
parameters
often
employ
leachate
recirculation,
alternative
cover
designs,
liquids
addition
to
optimize
moisture
content
in
the
waste,
and
state­
of­
the­
art
landfill
gas
collection
systems.
Bioreactor
landfills
have
been
operated
under
both
anaerobic
and
aerobic
conditions.
Thus,
the
term
bioreactor
landfill
is
a
management
concept
for
MSWLFs
encompassing
a
variety
of
MSWLF
practices.

Information
Needs
With
Respect
to
Bioreactors
At
this
time,
EPA
lacks
adequate
data
and
information
on
the
design,
operation,
and
performance
of
bioreactor
landfills
to
evaluate
this
technology.
We
are
unsure
about
the
appropriateness
of
revising
the
MSWLF
Criteria,
as
some
stakeholders
have
suggested
to
the
Agency,
to
allow
for
design
and
operation
of
bioreactor
landfills
(
e.
g.,
allowing
the
addition
of
additional
liquids
to
municipal
landfills
to
optimize
waste
degradation).
Therefore,
we
are
today
seeking
data
and
other
information
on
the
design,
operation,
and
performance
of
bioreactor
landfills.
We
are
specifically
requesting
comment
and
data
in
the
following
areas.
·
The
nature
and
scope
of
current
bioreactor
landfill
projects
both
within
the
U.
S.
and
abroad.
·
The
impact
(
advantages
and
disadvantages)
of
leachate
recirculation
and
liquids
addition
(
with
or
without
the
addition
of
air)
on
leachate
quality,
waste
settlement,
waste
slope
and
stability,
and
landfill
gas
yield.
·
Modifications
that
have
been
made
to
daily
cover
to
optimize
biodegradation.
·
Changes
to
final
cover
that
have
been
made
to
optimize
biodegradation
or
to
incorporate
materials
which
convert
landfill
gas
to
carbon
dioxide
and
water.
See,
for
example
``
Approaching
Sustainable
Landfilling,''
Alexander
Zach,
et
al.;
and
``
Biological
Pretreatment
of
MSW
as
a
Measure
to
Save
Landfill
Volume
and
Deter
Birds,''
Florian
Koelsch
and
Richard
T.
Reynolds,
Proceedings
of
Fifteenth
International
Conference
on
Solid
Waste
Technology
and
Management,
December
12
 
15,
1999,
Philadelphia,
PA.
Proceedings
published
by
Widener
University
School
of
Engineering
and
the
University
of
Pennsylvania.
·
Additional
monitoring
requirements
necessary
to
ensure
that
a
bioreactor
(
with
or
without
air
addition)
is
functioning
properly
over
the
life
of
the
landfill.
·
Approaches
that
have
been
taken
to
close
bioreactor
landfills
and
to
care
for
the
landfill
during
the
post­
closure
care
period
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
·
The
potential
public
health,
environmental,
and
economic
impacts
of
adding
liquid
wastes,
such
as
sewage
sludge,
grey
water
or
animal
feedlot
liquid
wastes
to
the
MSWLF.
·
For
bioreactors
which
have
been
operating
in
the
aerobic
mode,
what
methods
have
been
used
to
provide
for
aeration
and
how
to
control
temperature
in
the
waste
mass.
·
The
appropriateness
of
liner
designs
different
from
the
specific
design
described
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
2)
when
liquids
are
added
to
a
MSWLF
to
enhance
biodegradation.
·
Project
economics
for
the
design,
construction,
and
operation
of
VerDate
20<
MAR>
2000
15:
13
Apr
05,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
06APP1.
SGM
pfrm07
PsN:
06APP1
18018
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
67
/
Thursday,
April
6,
2000
/
Proposed
Rules
bioreactor
landfills
(
with
or
without
air
addition).

·
The
Clean
Air
Act
Section
111(
d)
and
greenhouse
gas
emissions
impact
of
operating
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
as
a
bioreactor
landfill,
i.
e.,
will
the
addition
of
air
or
liquids
affect
the
ability
of
a
landfill
to
comply
with
air
regulations?

·
The
comparative
cost
effectiveness
and
environmental
benefits
of
the
bioreactor
landfill
relative
to
managing
segregated
organic
wastes
through
composting
and
placing
noncompostable
waste
in
a
standard
municipal
landfill
(
i.
e.,
one
not
operated
as
a
bioreactor).

·
Are
there
management
and
safety
issues
associated
with
landfill
gas
generation
and
control
at
bioreactor
landfills
that
need
to
be
addressed
in
regulations
or
guidance?

·
Are
there
relevant
patent
issues
associated
with
anaerobic,
aerobic,
or
other
bioreactor
landfills
of
which
EPA
should
be
aware?

IX.
Conclusion
After
reviewing
the
literature
on
leachate
recirculation,
alternative
liner
designs,
and
bioreactor
landfills
and
information
and
data
received
during
this
comment
period,
the
Agency
will
make
a
determination
concerning
what
future
actions,
if
any,
we
will
take
on
the
issues
discussed
in
this
document.

Dated:
March
22,
2000.

Elizabeth
Cotsworth,

Director,
Office
of
Solid
Waste.
[
FR
Doc.
00
 
8400
Filed
4
 
5
 
00;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
761
[
OPPTS
 
66009G;
FRL
 
6553
 
6]

RIN
2070
 
AD27
Use
Authorization
for,
and
Distribution
in
Commerce
of,
Non­
liquid
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls,
Notice
of
Availability;
Partial
Reopening
of
Comment
Period;
Extension
of
Comment
Period
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule;
extension
of
comment
period.

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
extending
the
comment
period
for
the
proposed
rule
which
published
in
the
Federal
Register
of
December
10,
1999.
That
action
solicited
additional
information
on
the
use
and
concentration
of
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(
PCBs)
found
in
certain
non­
liquid
PCB
(
NLPCB)
applications.
It
also
announced
the
availability,
for
comment,
of
data
that
were
submitted
to
EPA
after
the
comment
period
closed
for
the
December
6,
1994
proposal.
In
addition
to
authorizing
certain
NLPCB
uses,
the
proposed
provision
(
§
761.30(
q))
would
have
required
compliance
with
several
conditions
(
e.
g.,
notification,
marking,
air
monitoring
and
standard
wipe
tests,
remediation,
repair
and/
or
removal,
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements).
EPA
is
extending
the
120
 
day
data
submission
period,
as
well
as
the
90
 
day
comment
period
on
existing
and
new
data
submissions.
In
response
to
a
request
for
more
time
to
develop
the
requested
data,
EPA
is
extending
the
comment
periods
to
obtain
data
that
may
support
an
authorization
which
would
require
few,
if
any,
conditions
but
is
protective
of
health
and
the
environment.
DATES:
Data
submissions,
identified
by
docket
control
number
OPPTS
 
66009G,
must
be
received
on
or
before
October
10,
2000.
Comments
on
any
of
the
data
submissions
and/
or
relevant
docket
materials,
identified
by
docket
control
number
OPPTS
 
66009G,
must
be
received
on
or
before
January
10,
2001.
ADDRESSES:
Submit
data
and
comments
by
mail,
electronically,
or
in
person.
Please
follow
the
detailed
instructions
for
each
method
as
provided
in
Unit
III.
of
the
``
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.''
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
it
is
imperative
that
you
identify
docket
control
number
OPPTS
 
66009G
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information
contact:
Barbara
Cunningham,
Director,
Office
of
Program
Management
and
Evaluation,
(
7401),
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Ariel
Rios
Bldg.,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
telephone
numbers:
(
202)
554
 
1404;
e­
mail
address:
TSCAHotline
epa.
gov.
For
technical
information
contact:
Peggy
Reynolds,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
National
Program
Chemicals
Division,
(
7404),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Ariel
Rios
Bldg.,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
telephone
number:
(
202)
260
 
3965;
e­
mail
address:
reynolds.
peggy@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?

You
may
be
affected
by
this
supplemental
action
if
you
own,
use,
process,
or
distribute
PCBs
in
commerce.
Affected
categories
and
entities
include:

Categories
NAICS
Codes
Examples
of
Potentially
Affected
Entities
Industry
31­
33,
211,
5133
Electroindustry
manufacturers,
oil
and
gas
extraction,
endusers
of
electricity,
telecommunications
and
general
contractors
Utilities
and
rural
electric
cooperatives
2211
Electric
power
and
light
companies
Individuals,
Federal,
State
Municipal
Governments
hospitals
and
colleges
921,
622,
6113
Individuals
and
agencies
which
own,
use,
process
and
distribute
PCBs
in
commerce
This
listing
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
the
table
in
this
unit
could
also
be
affected.
The
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
have
been
provided
to
assist
you
and
others
in
determining
whether
or
not
this
action
applies
to
certain
entities.
To
determine
whether
you
or
your
business
is
affected
VerDate
20<
MAR>
2000
09:
44
Apr
05,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
06APP1.
SGM
pfrm08
PsN:
06APP1
