47310
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
138
/
Thursday,
July
18,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Commodity
Parts
per
million
Apple
....................................................................................................................................................................................
1.0
Apple,
wet
pomace
..............................................................................................................................................................
3.0
Brassica,
head
and
stem,
subgroup
....................................................................................................................................
5.0
Alfalfa,
forage
.......................................................................................................................................................................
10
Alfalfa,
hay
...........................................................................................................................................................................
50
Cattle,
fat
.............................................................................................................................................................................
1.5
Cattle,
meat
.........................................................................................................................................................................
0.05
Cattle,
meat
byproducts
.......................................................................................................................................................
0.03
Corn,
sweet,
forage
.............................................................................................................................................................
10
Corn,
sweet,
kernel
plus
cob
with
husk
removed
...............................................................................................................
0.02
Corn,
sweet,
stover
..............................................................................................................................................................
15
Cotton
gin
byproducts
..........................................................................................................................................................
15
Cotton,
undelinted
seed
.......................................................................................................................................................
2.0
Goat,
fat
...............................................................................................................................................................................
1.5
Goat,
meat
...........................................................................................................................................................................
0.05
Goat,
meat
byproducts
........................................................................................................................................................
0.03
Hog,
fat
................................................................................................................................................................................
1.5
Hog,
meat
............................................................................................................................................................................
0.05
Hog,
meat
byproducts
.........................................................................................................................................................
0.03
Horse,
fat
.............................................................................................................................................................................
1.5
Horse,
meat
.........................................................................................................................................................................
0.05
Horse,
meat
byproducts
......................................................................................................................................................
0.03
Lettuce,
head
.......................................................................................................................................................................
5.0
Lettuce,
leaf
.........................................................................................................................................................................
10
Milk
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
0.15
Milk,
fat
................................................................................................................................................................................
4.0
Pear
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
0.20
Peanut
..................................................................................................................................................................................
0.01
Peanut,
hay
..........................................................................................................................................................................
40
Potato
...................................................................................................................................................................................
0.01
Sheep,
fat
............................................................................................................................................................................
1.5
Sheep,
meat
........................................................................................................................................................................
0.05
Sheep,
meat
byproducts
......................................................................................................................................................
0.03
Soybean,
aspirated
grain
fractions
......................................................................................................................................
45
Soybean,
hulls
.....................................................................................................................................................................
4.0
Soybean,
seed
.....................................................................................................................................................................
0.80
Vegetable,
fruiting,
group
....................................................................................................................................................
0.50
*
*
*
*
*

[FR
Doc.
02Ð
18173
Filed
7Ð
17Ð
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
S
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
258
[FRN–
7247–
4]

RIN
2090–
AA30
Project
XL
Site­
Specific
Rulemaking
for
Implementing
Waste
Treatment
Systems
at
Two
Virginia
Landfills
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA).

ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
Today
EPA
is
promulgating
a
site­
specific
rule
proposed
on
December
28,
2001,
to
implement
a
project
under
the
EPA's
Project
eXcellence
and
Leadership
Program
(Project
XL).
The
rule
provides
site­
specific
regulatory
flexibility
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
for
two
Virginia
landfills
(
referred
to
collectively
as
the
``
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills''):
The
Maplewood
Recycling
and
Waste
Disposal
Facility,
located
in
Amelia
County,
Virginia
(Maplewood
Landfill);
and
the
King
George
County
Landfill
and
Recycling
Facility,
located
in
King
George
County,
Virginia
(King
George
Landfill).
On
September
29,
2000,
EPA,
USA
Waste
of
Virginia,
Inc.,
and
King
George
Landfills,
Inc.,
signed
the
Final
Project
Agreement
(FPA)
for
this
project,
which
would
allow
for
the
addition
of
liquids
to
these
landfills.
The
addition
of
liquids
to
landfills
accelerates
the
biodegradation
of
landfill
waste
and
is
allowed
for
certain
prescribed
liner
designs
under
current
RCRA
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
(MSWLF)
regulations.
The
principal
objectives
of
this
XL
project
are
twofold
To
demonstrate
that
the
alternative
liner
designs
at
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
will
also
safely
accelerate
the
biodegradation
of
landfill
waste
and
thereby
decrease
the
time
it
takes
for
the
waste
to
reach
stabilization
in
the
landfill,
facilitate
the
management
of
leachate
and
other
liquid
wastes,
and
promote
recovery
of
landfill
gas;
and
to
assess
the
effects
of
applying
differing
amounts
of
liquids
to
landfills.
The
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
comprise
two
of
several
landfills,
located
in
different
geographic
and
climactic
regions
across
the
country,
that
under
Project
XL
are
testing
this
bioreactor
technology
over
alternative
liner
designs.
In
order
to
carry
out
this
project,
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
need
relief
from
certain
requirements
in
EPA
regulations
which
set
forth
design
and
operating
criteria
for
MSWLFs,
requirements
which
would
otherwise
preclude
the
addition
of
liquids
at
these
landfills.
Today's
rule
will
allow
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
to
apply
collected,
non­
containerized
nonhazardous
bulk
liquids
(including
landfill
leachate)
to
the
landfills.

DATES:
This
regulation
is
effective
on
July
18,
2002.

ADDRESSES:
A
docket
containing
supporting
information
used
in
developing
this
final
rule
is
available
for
public
inspection
and
copying
at
EPA's
RCRA
docket
office
located
at
Crystal
Gateway,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
First
Floor,
Arlington,
Virginia.
The
public
is
encouraged
to
phone
in
advance
to
review
docket
materials.
Appointments
can
be
scheduled
by
VerDate
Jun<
13>
2002
10:
40
Jul
17,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00068
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
18JYR1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
18JYR1
47311
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
138
/
Thursday,
July
18,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
phoning
the
Docket
Office
at
(703)
603Ð
9230.
Refer
to
RCRA
Docket
Number
FÐ
2001Ð
WVLPÐ
FFFFF
and
FÐ
2002Ð
WVLFÐ
FFFFF
for
the
proposed
and
final
rule
dockets,
respectively.
The
public
may
copy
a
maximum
of
100
pages
from
any
regulatory
docket
at
no
charge.
Additional
copies
are
$0.15
per
page.
Project
materials
are
also
available
for
review
on
the
World
Wide
Web
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl/
virginialandfills/
index.
htm.
A
duplicate
copy
of
the
docket
is
available
for
inspection
and
copying
at
the
EPA
Region
3
Library
located
at
1650
Arch
Street,
Philadelphia,
PA
19103.
Appointments
can
be
scheduled
by
phoning
the
Library
at
(215)
814Ð
5254.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION,
CONTACT:
Mr.
Steven
J.
Donohue
at
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
3,
(3EI00),
1650
Arch
Street,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103.
Mr.
Donohue
may
be
contacted
at
(215)
814Ð
3215.
Further
information
on
today's
action
may
also
be
obtained
on
the
World
Wide
Web
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl/.
Questions
to
EPA
regarding
today's
action
can
be
directed
to
Mr.
Donohue
at
(215)
814Ð
3215
donohue.
steven@
epa.
gov.

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.
The
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
A.
Overview
B.
What
did
EPA
Propose
and
What
Comments
were
Received?
C.
Description
of
the
Project
D.
What
Kind
of
Liner
Is
Required
by
Current
Federal
Regulations?
E.
How
Are
the
Liners
at
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
Constructed?
F.
What
Are
the
Environmental
Benefits
Expected
Through
Project
XL?
G.
How
Have
Various
Stakeholders
Been
Involved
in
this
Project?
H.
Will
this
Project
Result
in
Cost
Savings
and
Paperwork
Reduction?
I.
How
Long
Will
this
Project
Last
and
When
Will
it
Be
Complete?
J.
Why
is
this
Rule
Immediately
Effective?
IV.
What
Regulatory
Changes
Are
Being
Made
to
Implement
this
Project?
A.
Existing
Liquid
Restrictions
for
MSWLFs
(40
CFR
258.28)
B.
Site­
Specific
Rule
V.
Regulatory
Assessment
Requirements
A.
How
Does
this
Rule
Comply
With
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review?
B.
Is
a
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
Required?
C.
Is
an
Information
Collection
Request
Required
for
this
Rule
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
?
D.
Does
This
Rule
Trigger
the
Requirements
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act?
E.
How
Does
the
Congressional
Review
Act
Apply
to
this
Rule?
F.
How
Does
this
Rule
Comply
with
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks?
G.
How
Does
this
Rule
Comply
With
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism?
H.
How
Does
this
Rule
Comply
with
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments?
I.
How
Does
this
Rule
Comply
with
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act?
J.
Does
this
Rule
Comply
with
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use?

I.
Authority
This
rule
is
being
promulgated
under
the
authority
of
Sections
1008,
2002,
4004,
and
4010
of
the
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act
of
1970,
as
amended
by
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
as
amended
(42
U.
S.
C.
6907,
6912,
6945,
and
6949a).

II.
Background
A.
What
is
Project
XL?
Project
XL
is
an
EPA
initiative
developed
to
allow
regulated
entities
to
achieve
better
environmental
results
at
less
cost.
Project
XLÑ``
eXcellence
and
Leadership''Ñ
was
announced
on
March
16,
1995
(see
60
FR
27282,
May
23,
1995).
Detailed
descriptions
of
Project
XL
have
been
published
previously
in
numerous
public
documents
which
are
generally
available
electronically
via
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl/.
Briefly,
Project
XL
gives
a
limited
number
of
regulated
entities
the
opportunity
to
develop
their
own
pilot
projects
and
alternative
strategies
to
achieve
environmental
performance
that
is
superior
to
what
would
be
achieved
through
compliance
with
current
and
reasonably
anticipated
future
regulations.
These
efforts
are
crucial
to
the
Agency's
ability
to
test
new
regulatory
strategies
that
reduce
regulatory
burden
and
promote
economic
growth
while
achieving
better
environmental
and
public
health
protection.
The
Agency
intends
to
evaluate
the
results
of
this
and
other
XL
projects
to
determine
which
specific
elements
of
the
projects,
if
any,
should
be
more
broadly
applied
to
other
regulated
entities
for
the
benefit
of
both
the
economy
and
the
environment.
Project
XL
is
intended
to
allow
EPA
to
experiment
with
new
or
pilot
projects
that
provide
alternative
approaches
to
regulatory
requirements,
both
to
assess
whether
they
provide
benefits
at
the
specific
facility
affected,
and
whether
these
projects
should
be
considered
for
wider
application.
Such
pilot
projects
allow
EPA
to
proceed
more
quickly
than
would
be
possible
when
undertaking
changes
on
a
nationwide
basis.
EPA
may
modify
rules,
on
a
site­
or
Statespecific
basis,
that
represent
one
of
several
possible
policy
approaches
within
a
more
general
statutory
directive,
so
long
as
the
alternative
being
used
is
permissible
under
the
statute.
On
September
29,
2000,
EPA's
Region
3
and
Office
of
Solid
Waste,
joined
by
Virginia
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
and
USA
Waste
of
Virginia,
Inc.
signed
the
Final
Project
Agreement
(FPA)
for
the
project
(see
Docket
No.
FÐ
2001Ð
WVLPÐ
FFFFF,
Item
2.2,
or
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ProjectXL/
virginialandfills/
fpa.
pdf.)
The
FPA
is
a
non­
binding
written
agreement
between
the
project
sponsor
and
regulatory
agencies
which
describes
the
project
in
detail,
discusses
criteria
to
be
met,
identifies
performance
goals
and
indicators,
and
outlines
the
administration
of
the
agreement.

B.
What
Are
Bioreactor
Landfills?

A
bioreactor
landfill
is
generally
defined
as
a
landfill
operated
to
transform
and
stabilize
the
readily
and
moderately
decomposable
organic
constituents
of
the
waste
stream
by
purposeful
control
to
enhance
microbiological
processes.
Bioreactor
landfills
often
employ
addition
of
liquids
such
as
leachate.
A
byproduct
of
the
waste
decomposition
process
is
landfill
gas,
which
includes
methane,
carbon
dioxide,
hazardous
air
pollutants
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOC).
Landfill
gases
are
produced
sooner
in
a
bioreactor
than
in
a
conventional
landfill.
Therefore,
bioreactors
typically
incorporate
state­
of­
the­
art
landfill
gas
collection
systems
to
collect
and
control
landfill
gas
upon
start
up
of
the
liquid
addition
process.
On
April
6,
2000,
EPA
published
a
document
in
the
Federal
Register
requesting
information
on
bioreactor
landfills,
because
the
Agency
is
considering
whether
and
to
what
extent
the
Criteria
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills,
40
CFR
part
258,
should
be
revised
to
allow
for
leachate
recirculation
over
alternative
liners
in
MSWLFs
(65
FR
18015).
EPA
is
seeking
information
about
liquid
additions
and
leachate
recirculation
in
MSWLFs
to
the
extent
currently
allowed,
i.
e.,
in
MSWLFs
designed
and
constructed
with
VerDate
Jun<
13>
2002
10:
40
Jul
17,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00069
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
18JYR1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
18JYR1
47312
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
138
/
Thursday,
July
18,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
a
composite
liner
as
specified
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
2).
Proponents
of
bioreactor
technology
note
that
operating
MSWLFs
as
bioreactors
provides
a
number
of
environmental
benefits,
including
an
increased
rate
of
waste
decomposition,
which
in
turn
would
extend
the
operating
life
of
the
landfill
and
lessen
the
need
for
additional
landfill
space
or
other
disposal
options.
Bioreactors
also
decrease,
or
at
times
eliminate,
the
quantity
of
leachate
requiring
treatment
and
offsite
disposal.
Several
studies
have
shown
that
leachate
quality
improves
over
time
when
leachate
is
recirculated
on
a
regular
basis.
For
all
of
these
reasons,
bioreactors
are
expected
to
decrease
potential
environmental
risks
and
costs
associated
with
leachate
management,
treatment
and
offsite
disposal.
Additionally,
use
of
bioreactor
techniques
is
expected
to
shorten
the
length
of
time
the
liner
will
be
exposed
to
leachate
and
this
should
lower
the
long
term
potential
for
leachate
migration
into
the
subsurface
environment.
Bioreactors
are
also
expected
to
reduce
post­
closure
care
costs
and
risks,
due
to
the
accelerated,
controlled
settlement
of
the
solid
waste
during
landfill
operation.
Finally,
bioreactors
provide
for
greater
opportunity
for
recovery
of
methane
gas
for
energy
production
since
a
larger
quantity
of
methane
is
produced
earlier
than
in
a
normal
MSWLF.
Several
additional
related
XL
pilot
projects
involving
operation
of
landfills
as
bioreactors
are
being
implemented
throughout
the
country.
These
additional
bioreactor
projects
will
enable
EPA
to
evaluate
benefits
of
different
alternative
liners
and
leachate
recirculation
systems
under
various
climatic
and
operating
conditions.
As
expressed
in
the
above­
referenced
April
2000
Federal
Register
document,
EPA
is
interested
in
assessing
the
performance
of
landfills
operated
as
bioreactors,
and
these
XL
projects
are
expected
to
contribute
valuable
data.
The
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
and
other
XL
projects
will
provide
additional
information
on
the
performance
of
MSWLFs
when
liquids
are
added
to
the
landfill.
The
Agency
is
also
interested
in
assessing
how
different
types
of
alternative
liners
perform
when
liquids
are
added
to
the
landfill,
including
maintaining
a
hydraulic
head
at
acceptable
levels.

III.
The
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
A.
Overview
The
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
consists
of
the
Maplewood
Landfill
and
the
King
George
Landfill.
The
Maplewood
Landfill
is
located
in
Amelia
County,
Virginia,
approximately
30
miles
southwest
of
Richmond,
Virginia.
The
Maplewood
Landfill
will
cover
a
total
area
of
about
404
acres
upon
completion.
Construction
of
the
first
phases
started
in
1992.
Construction
of
the
most
recent
phase
was
completed
in
1997.
The
King
George
County
Landfill
is
located
in
King
George
County,
Virginia,
approximately
50
miles
north­
northeast
of
Richmond,
Virginia.
The
King
George
Landfill
will
cover
a
total
area
of
about
290
acres
upon
completion.
The
first
phase
of
liner
system
construction
began
in
1996.
Construction
of
additional
liner
system
areas
has
been
performed
every
year
since
1996.
The
Maplewood
Landfill
is
owned
and
operated
by
USA
Waste
of
Virginia,
Inc.,
and
the
King
George
Landfill
is
owned
by
King
George
County
and
operated
by
King
George
Landfills,
Inc.
USA
Waste
of
Virginia,
Inc.
and
King
George
Landfills,
Inc.
are
both
subsidiaries
of
Waste
Management,
Inc.,
and
will
be
referred
to
collectively
hereinafter
as
``
Waste
Management.
''
Maplewood
Landfill
and
King
George
Landfill,
both
of
which
are
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
(MSWLFs),
will
hereinafter
be
referred
to
collectively
as
the
``
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills.
''

B.
What
did
EPA
Propose
and
What
Comments
were
Received?
Today's
action
finalizes
the
sitespecific
rule
for
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
without
modification
of
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
proposed
adding
a
new
subsection
(c)
to
40
CFR
258.41
that
would
apply
only
to
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
and
allow
the
owner/
operator
to
add
non­
hazardous
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquids,
including
leachate,
to
Cell
3
of
the
King
George
Landfill
and
Phases
1
and
2
of
the
Maplewood
Landfill,
as
long
as
these
areas
meet
the
maintenance,
operational,
monitoring
and
other
requirements
set
forth
in
§
258.41(
c).
See
Section
IV
of
this
preamble
for
a
full
description
of
the
regulatory
relief
provided
for
this
project.
As
a
result
of
the
December
28,
2001,
proposed
rule
for
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills,
EPA
received
two
comments
from
two
national
organizations,
one
representing
the
solid
waste
management
industry
and
one
from
a
recycling
advocacy
group.
EPA's
Response
to
Comments
document
(``
Response'')
and
the
comment
letters
are
in
the
RCRA
Docket
No.
FÐ
2002Ð
WVLFÐ
FFFFF
for
this
final
rule.
The
solid
waste
management
trade
association
supported
this
Virginia
XL
Project
and
did
not
call
for
any
revisions.
The
recycling
advocacy
group
submitted
extensive
comments
critical
of
landfilling
solid
waste
and
bioreactor
technology
in
general,
and
the
VA
Landfills
XL
Project
and
site­
specific
rule
in
particular.
Generally,
some
of
the
recycling
advocacy
group
comments
addressed
the
legal
basis
or
adequacy
of
EPA's
existing
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
(MWSLF)
criteria,
40
CFR
part
258,
which
are
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
Other
comments
called
for
EPA
to
establish
uniform
design
and
operating
criteria
for
all
bioreactor
landfills.
These
comments
are
also
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking,
which
addresses
only
the
Maplewood
and
King
George
County
landfills.
This
commenter
also
addressed
the
adequacy
of
landfill
gas
monitoring,
collection,
control
and
reporting
requirements
for
the
XL
Project.
The
proposed
rule
did
not
include
any
flexibility
to
existing
regulations
addressing
these
requirements,
rather
requirements
pertaining
to
landfill
gas
are
governed
by
Clean
Air
Act
regulations
and
facility­
specific
permits
(see
Section
III.
C.,
below).
Finally,
the
comments
suggested
testing
changes
for
the
XL
Project.
As
explained
in
greater
detail
in
the
Response
and
in
Section
IV.
B.(
below),
EPA
believes
the
monitoring,
testing
and
reporting
requirements
contained
in
this
rule,
the
Final
Project
Agreement
and
State
solid
waste
and
air
permits
will
provide
sufficient
information
to
characterize
the
bioreactor
operations
at
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
and
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

C.
Description
of
the
Project
This
rule
will
allow
for
the
addition
of
liquid
wastes
to
certain
areas
of
the
Maplewood
Landfill
and
the
King
George
Landfill.
The
goal
for
the
Maplewood
Landfill
is
to
recirculate
as
much
leachate
as
is
generated
at
the
facility.
Based
on
facility
records,
the
facility
generated
approximately
3,000,000
gallons
of
leachate
in
1999
(a
relatively
dry
year).
Under
this
XL
project,
between
3,000,000
and
4,000,000
gallons
of
liquid
will
be
applied
at
the
landfill
per
year.
The
liquid
application
rate
will
be
an
average
of
10,960
gallons
per
day,
based
on
an
application
rate
of
4,000,000
gallons
per
year.
In
order
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
rule
and
provide
the
appropriate
test
conditions
for
biodegradation
of
the
waste,
the
exact
liquid
application
rate
will
be
determined
by
Waste
Management
during
implementation
of
the
project.
The
project
area
in
the
Maplewood
Landfill
will
be
in
``
Phase
VerDate
Jun<
13>
2002
10:
40
Jul
17,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00070
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
18JYR1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
18JYR1
47313
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
138
/
Thursday,
July
18,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Development
Areas''
1
and
2
(leachate
recirculation
areas)
and
3,
4,
and
11
(monitored
control
areas
without
leachate
recirculation).
The
total
size
of
the
Phase
1,
2,
3,
4
and
11
Phase
Development
Areas
is
approximately
48
acres.
During
dry
periods
of
lower
or
no
leachate
generation,
liquids
other
than
leachate
could
also
be
added,
including
non­
hazardous
liquids
such
as
storm
water
and
truck
wash
water.
The
liquids
will
be
applied
in
trenches,
excavated
into
the
surface
of
the
landfill
in
the
Phases
1
and
2
areas
(approximately
10
acres
in
size).
Phases
3,
4,
and
11
will
be
used
as
control
cellsÑ
no
liquid
will
be
applied
to
these
areas,
only
rainwater
that
naturally
falls
and
percolates
beneath
the
landfill
surface
will
enter
the
waste
in
these
areas
or
phases.
The
goal
for
the
King
George
County
Landfill
is
to
recirculate
as
much
leachate
as
is
generated
at
the
facility
and
to
add
sufficient
additional
liquid
to
make
a
total
liquids
application
of
between
7,000,000
and
8,000,000
gallons
per
year.
Based
on
facility
records
for
the
past
three
years,
the
facility
generates
approximately
3,500,000
gallons
of
leachate
per
year.
Based
on
estimates
of
storm
water
runoff
quantities
and
the
storage
capacity
of
the
storm
water
management
ponds
at
the
site,
approximately
8,000,000
gallons
or
more
of
storm
water
is
expected
to
be
made
available
for
application
to
the
landfill
waste.
The
liquid
application
rate
will
be,
on
average,
about
22,000
gallons
per
day
based
on
an
estimated
application
rate
of
8,000,000
gallons
per
year.
In
order
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
the
rule
and
provide
the
appropriate
test
conditions
for
biodegradation
of
the
waste,
the
exact
liquid
application
rate
will
be
determined
by
Waste
Management
during
implementation
of
the
project.
The
overall
study
area
in
the
King
George
Landfill
will
be
established
within
the
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Cells
2,
3,
and
4.
The
total
size
of
Cells
2,
3,
and
4
is
approximately
59
acres.
Liquid
will
be
applied
only
in
Cell
3,
approximately
10
acres
in
size.
Cells
2
and
4
will
be
control
cells
in
which
no
liquids
will
be
applied.
Cell
1
was
being
filled
with
waste
in
July
2001.
As
stated
earlier,
the
bioreactor
program
that
will
be
implemented
at
the
King
George
County
Landfill
involves
application
to
the
waste
of
about
twice
the
quantity
of
liquid
that
is
applied
at
the
Maplewood
Landfill.
In
the
bioreactor
at
this
landfill,
conditions
will
be
established
that
are
intended
to
significantly
increase
the
rate
of
degradation
of
waste
during
the
operating
life
of
the
landfill
to
achieve
the
benefits
identified
in
the
FPA.
Although
the
process
of
recirculating
leachate
provides
much
of
the
moisture
needed
to
enhance
biological
degradation
of
waste,
research
reported
in
``
Active
Municipal
Waste
Landfill
Operations:
A
Biochemical
Reactor''
(Reinhart,
1995,
see
Docket
No.
FÐ
2001Ð
WVLPÐ
FFFFF,
Item
4.1)
found
that
the
quantity
of
liquid
needed
to
reach
water
holding
or
field
capacity
of
the
waste
to
potentially
maximize
the
rate
of
biodegradation
is
typically
much
greater
than
the
quantity
of
leachate
generated
at
a
MSWLF.
As
part
of
the
comparison
of
different
rates
of
liquid
addition
inherent
in
this
project,
sources
of
liquid
other
than
leachate
will
be
used
to
supply
the
additional
quantity
of
liquid
needed
at
the
King
George
Landfill.
These
sources
could
include
storm
water,
truck
wash
water
and
other
non­
hazardous
liquid
waste.
For
this
project,
these
liquids
may
be
discharged
into
the
landfill
leachate
storage
tanks
to
supplement
the
leachate
and
the
resulting
mixture
will
then
be
distributed
over
the
bioreactor
test
area.
The
liquids
application
system
at
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
will
be
constructed
using
typical
trench
construction
methods
and
may
include
other
methods
developed
during
the
implementation
of
the
program.
The
construction
methods
are
described
in
detail
in
the
Application
for
Project
XL
Landfill
Bioreactor
Systems
King
George
County
Landfill
and
Maplewood
Recycling
and
Waste
Disposal
Facility,
submitted
to
U.
S.
EPA,
prepared
by
GeoSyntec
Consultants,
May
30,
2000
(see
Docket
No.
FÐ
2001Ð
WVLPÐ
FFFFF,
Item
5.1).
The
liquids
infiltration
or
``
application
capacity''
of
each
landfill
is
the
amount
of
liquid
that
can
be
expected
to
flow
by
gravity
from
all
of
the
trenches.
This
quantity
has
been
estimated
using
the
methodology
described
in
``
Analysis
Procedures
for
Design
of
Leachate
Recirculation
Systems,
''
(T.
B.
Maier,
June
1998,
see
Docket
No.
FÐ
2001Ð
WVLPÐ
FFFFF,
Item
4.2).
This
method
involves
estimating
the
moisture
content
of
the
waste
(typically
15
to
25
percent
without
liquid
application),
the
hydraulic
properties
of
the
waste,
the
moisture
retention
capacity
(field
capacity)
of
the
waste
(typically
40
percent),
and
the
depth
of
liquid
in
the
trench.
Using
this
information,
the
infiltration
rate
of
liquid
into
the
waste
from
one
400
foot
long
trench
is
calculated;
the
total
application
capacity
equals
the
combined
infiltration
rate
of
all
six
trenches.
As
shown
in
the
May
2000,
GeoSyntec
Report,
the
total
application
capacity
of
the
group
of
six
trenches
is
calculated
to
be
about
110,000
gallons
per
day,
which
is
much
greater
than
the
average
application
rate
of
either
10,960
gallons
per
day
or
the
22,000
gallons
per
day
for
Maplewood
and
King
George
Landfills,
respectively.
The
exact
number
and
length
of
the
trenches
will
be
determined
during
the
implementation
of
the
project
but
at
a
minimum
will
be
adequate
to
provide
for
the
average
application
rates.
EPA's
RCRA
MSWLF
operating
criteria
require
that
MSWLFs
be
designed
and
constructed
with
a
leachate
collection
system
that
can
ensure
a
hydraulic
head
(leachate
layer)
above
the
liner
of
30
centimeters
(cm)
or
less,
i.
e.,
approximately
12
inches.
The
operator
must
monitor
the
depth
of
liquid
(or
thickness
of
``
head'')
and
ensure
no
more
than
30
cm
of
head
is
on
the
liner.
The
impact
of
the
liquid
application
activities
on
the
thickness
of
head
on
the
liner
systems
was
evaluated
using
the
Hydrologic
Evaluation
of
Landfill
Performance
(HELP)
model
(see
the
May
2000,
GeoSyntec
Report).
First,
the
hydrologic
evaluation
was
performed
assuming
that
no
liquid
is
applied;
then
the
evaluation
was
performed
for
the
liquid
application
condition
under
the
assumptions
that
4,000,000
and
8,000,000
gallons
per
year
will
be
recirculated
at
the
Maplewood
and
King
George
Landfills,
respectively.
These
calculations
show
that
a
head
of
30
cm
or
less
is
expected
on
both
the
Maplewood
and
the
King
George
liner.
The
King
George
Landfill
is
expected
to
maintain
a
lower
head
than
the
Maplewood
Landfill
because
the
drainage
layer
material
at
the
King
George
landfill
is
approximately
100
times
more
permeable
than
the
drainage
layer
material
at
the
Maplewood
landfill.
This
is
why
the
King
George
Landfill
was
selected
for
an
application
rate
of
twice
the
volume
of
liquids
that
will
be
applied
to
the
Maplewood
Landfill.
The
primary
liner
system
of
both
landfills
is
underlain
by
a
secondary
liner
and
leachate
collection
system.
Sumps
are
located
at
the
low
point
of
each
cell
in
each
system
and
will
be
monitored
for
the
depth
of
liquid
on
a
monthly
basis.
As
needed
and
required,
liquid
in
the
sumps
is
collected
and
controlled
as
leachate.
Samples
are
collected
to
evaluate
the
characteristics
of
the
liquids.
If
the
test
results
from
the
sampled
liquid
or
the
monitoring
of
the
leachate
level
indicate
that
there
is
a
potential
leak
in
the
primary
liner
system,
then
the
need
for
a
larger
pump
will
be
evaluated
and
the
liquid
level
in
the
primary
system
will
be
further
evaluated
and
monitored
to
minimize
the
liquid
depth
above
the
primary
VerDate
Jun<
13>
2002
10:
40
Jul
17,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00071
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
18JYR1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
18JYR1
47314
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
138
/
Thursday,
July
18,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
liner.
The
liner
leakage
rate
will
be
evaluated
and
the
leachate
injection
rate
may
be
reduced,
if
necessary,
to
control
the
rate
of
flow
into
the
secondary
leachate
collection
system.
Waste
Management
will
monitor
the
depth
of
liquid
on
the
liners
of
both
landfills
throughout
the
XL
project
period,
and
will
ensure
that
less
than
the
30
cm
maximum
head
is
maintained,
in
accordance
with
regulations.
This
rule
will
not
alter
Waste
Management's
obligation
to
maintain
less
than
30
cm
of
head
on
the
liners
at
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills.
It
is
necessary
that
the
on­
site
leachate
storage
structures
at
both
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
have
enough
capacity
to
store
the
leachate
needed
for
later
application
to
the
test
areas
in
the
landfills.
Liquid
will
be
collected
and
stored
for
application
when
conditions
are
relatively
dry.
The
storage
capacity
of
the
leachate
tanks
at
the
Maplewood
Landfill
is
approximately
500,000
gallons,
this
represents
approximately
a
two
months
supply
of
leachate
at
a
application
rate
of
4
million
gallons
per
year.
During
operation
of
the
bioreactor
system,
leachate
storage
structures
will
also
be
used
to
temporarily
store
leachate
at
times
when
it
is
not
or
cannot
be
recirculated.
At
a
minimum,
the
tanks
will
need
to
store
the
quantity
of
leachate
generated
over
a
period
of
several
days.
The
May
2000,
GeoSyntec
Report
states
that
the
Maplewood
Landfill
generated
approximately
3
million
gallons
of
leachate
in
1999.
The
500,000
gallon
storage
at
Maplewood
Landfill
represents
over
a
two
month
storage
capacity
of
leachate
at
a
generation
rate
of
3
million
gallons
per
year.
Therefore,
the
facility
has
adequate
leachate
storage
capacity
for
operation
of
the
bioreactor
system.
As
a
contingency,
when
leachate
generation
exceeds
the
rate
of
recirculation
in
and
storage
capacity,
leachate
can
be
hauled
off­
site
as
is
currently
being
done.
In
the
May
2000,
GeoSyntec
Report,
Waste
Management's
consultant
evaluated
the
physical
stability
of
the
waste
at
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
under
bioreactor
operating
conditions.
GeoSyntec
Consultants
submitted
this
engineering
evaluation
to
the
Virginia
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(VADEQ)
as
a
part
of
their
application
for
a
permit
modification
for
the
bioreactor
testing
at
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills.
A
static
stability
analysis
conducted
for
the
slopes
of
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
shows
a
factor
of
safety
(FOS)
of
greater
than
the
minimum
value
of
1.5
was
maintained
even
with
the
addition
of
the
liquid
application
trenches
and
a
phreatic
or
subsurface
leachate/
water
table
surface
in
the
landfill
cell
associated
with
the
addition
of
liquids
in
the
trench.
The
calculated
FOS
for
the
existing
conditions
and
under
the
leachate
recirculation
scenarios
remained
unchanged
in
both
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
since
the
critical
failure
surface
is
located
outside
the
areas
that
will
be
wetted
by
liquid
addition
during
the
bioreactor
testing
or
the
added
liquid
does
not
change
the
location
of
the
critical
surface.
The
GeoSyntec
stability
evaluation
can
be
found
in
the
rule
docket
(see
Docket
No.
FÐ
2001Ð
WVLPÐ
FFFFF,
Items
4.5
and
4.6).
EPA
and
Waste
Management
expect
that
the
addition
of
liquids
to
the
landfills
will
accelerate
the
production
of
landfill
gases;
indeed,
one
of
the
benefits
of
bioreactor
landfills
is
that
the
time
interval
during
which
landfill
gas
is
generated
should
be
compressed,
thereby
facilitating
its
collection
and
potential
conversion
to
a
useful
energy
source.
Landfill
gas
generation
will
start
sooner
and
end
sooner
in
landfills
where
liquids
are
recirculated.
EPA's
Standards
of
Performance
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills,
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW,
requires
large
landfills
that
meet
the
emissions
threshold
to
perform
landfill
gas
monitoring
and
install
a
collection
and
control
system
as
specified
in
the
regulation
in
areas
where
wastes
are
over
a
certain
age.
Effective
November
1999,
Waste
Management
installed,
and
is
operating,
an
active
(i.
e.,
vacuum
induced)
landfill
gas
collection
system
in
Phases
1,
2
and
3
at
the
Maplewood
Landfill.
An
active
gas
collection
system
became
operational
at
the
King
George
Landfill
on
December
10,
2000.
This
XL
project
will
comply
with
the
subpart
WWW
performance
standards
for
MSWLFs
under
the
Federal
Clean
Air
Act.
Waste
Management
will
continue
to
provide
subpart
WWWcompliant
landfill
gas
monitoring,
collection
and
control
during
and
following
the
application
of
liquids
at
the
landfills.
Waste
Management's
obligations
with
respect
to
landfill
gas
is
set
forth
in
a
Federally
Enforceable
State
Operating
Permit
(FESOP).
The
VADEQ
is
the
regulatory
agency
which,
under
the
Federal
Clean
Air
Act,
has
air
permitting
authority
for
both
landfills.
The
VADEQ
has
issued
a
New
Source
Review
(NSR)
permit
(9
VAC
5Ð
80Ð
10)
for
the
King
George
Landfill
which
contains
the
enforceable
parameters
and
requirements
reflecting
the
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(NSPS)Ñ
compliant
gas
collection,
control
and
monitoring.
In
addition,
on
July
31,
2001,
VADEQ
issued
a
Title
V
Operating
permit
(9
VAC
5Ð
80Ð
50
et.
seq.),
for
the
King
George
Landfill.
Both
the
Title
V
permit
and
the
underlying
NSR
permit
issued
by
VADEQ
are
considered
Federally
enforceable.
An
NSR
permit
for
the
Maplewood
Landfill
was
issued
on
March
29,
2002.
A
draft
Title
V
permit
is
currently
being
revised
by
VADEQ.
This
rule
is
conditional
upon
the
issuance
of
a
FESOP.
The
FPA
stated
that
the
landfill
gas
monitoring,
collection
and
control
include
at
least
the
following
provisions:
1.
Waste
Management
will
enhance
the
gas
collection
and
control
systems
at
the
landfills
(e.
g.,
using
additional
extraction
wells
or
trenches
or
by
enhancing
the
cover
over
affected
areas).
This
will
be
done
at
the
discretion
of
Waste
Management,
or
as
directed
by
VADEQ,
if
it
is
determined
that
there
is
a
potential
to
exceed
the
applicable
air
quality
permit
requirements
or
NSPS
during
evaluation
of
routine
monitoring
data
or
if
odor
problems
or
air
quality
problems
occur.
The
system
will
be
expanded
as
needed
(e.
g.,
using
additional
extraction
wells
or
trenches
or
by
placing
additional
cover
or
tarps
over
affected
areas)
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
applicable
air
quality
permit
requirements.
2.
The
performance
of
the
landfill
gas
extraction
systems
at
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
will
be
documented
and
assessed
by
obtaining
monitoring
data
from
the
gas
extraction
wells
and
the
landfill
surface
for
parameters
such
as
methane,
carbon
dioxide,
oxygen,
non­
methane
organic
compounds
(NMOCs)
and
other
constituent
concentrations,
in
accord
with
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW.
The
gas
temperature
at
the
well
heads
will
also
be
monitored
as
required
by
subpart
WWW.
3.
A
baseline
round
of
air
monitoring
at
each
landfill
will
be
completed
prior
to
the
introduction
of
liquids,
and
the
monitoring
will
continue
for
the
duration
of
the
project.
4.
Collected
landfill
gas
will
be
controlled
through
the
use
of
an
active
gas
control
system
at
both
sites.
The
site
stakeholders,
listed
in
Section
III.
G.
of
today's
rule
(below),
recognize
that
the
increased
production
of
landfill
gas
may
result
in
an
increase
in
the
flow
rate
of
NOX
emissions
from
any
flares
or
other
gas
processing
equipment
installed
as
part
of
the
project.
Air
quality
permits
for
these
emissions
may
need
to
be
amended
to
allow
the
implementation
of
the
XL
project.
In
the
FPA,
Waste
Management
committed
to
exploring
alternative
uses
for
the
collected
gas
other
than
flaring
and
on
September
1,
2001,
Waste
Management
signed
an
agreement
with
VerDate
Jun<
13>
2002
16:
33
Jul
17,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00072
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
18JYR1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
18JYR1
47315
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
138
/
Thursday,
July
18,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
a
private
energy
development
company
to
construct
a
9MW
power
plant
fueled
by
landfill
gas
at
the
Maplewood
Landfill.
Waste
Management
is
currently
negotiating
a
similar
agreement
for
the
King
George
Landfill.

D.
What
Kind
of
Liner
is
Required
by
Current
Federal
Regulations?
Currently,
the
Federal
regulations
outline
two
methods
for
complying
with
liner
requirements
for
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
The
first
method
is
a
performance
standard
set
out
under
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1).
This
standard
allows
installation
of
any
liner
configuration
provided
the
liner
design
is
approved
by
the
director
of
an
approved
State
(defined
in
§
258.2)
and
the
design
ensures
that
certain
constituent
concentrations
are
not
exceeded
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
underlying
the
landfill
facility
at
the
point
of
compliance.
The
second
method
is
set
out
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
2)
and
(b).
§
258.40(
b)
specifies
a
liner
design
which
consists
of
two
components:
(1)
An
upper
component
comprising
a
minimum
of
30
mil
flexible
membrane
liner
(60
mil
if
High
Density
Polyethylene
(HDPE)
is
used);
and
(2)
a
lower
component
comprising
at
least
two
feet
of
compacted
soil
with
a
hydraulic
conductivity
no
greater
than
1
10
¥
7
cm/
sec.

E.
How
Are
the
Liners
at
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
Constructed?
Both
the
Maplewood
Landfill
and
the
King
George
County
Landfill
were
constructed
to
meet
or
exceed
the
performance
standard
set
forth
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1).
The
liner
under
each
landfill
was
built
with
a
geomembrane
double
synthetic
liner
system,
with
primary
leachate
collection
and
leak
detection
(secondary
collection)
layers.
 
The
King
George
County
liner
and
leachate
collection
system
consists,
from
top
to
bottom,
1.5
feet
of
protective
cover,
leachate
drainage
material,
16
oz./
square
yard
nonwoven
geotextile,
60
mil
textured
HDPE
primary
geomembrane
liner,
a
geosynthetic
clay
liner,
geocomposite
drainage
layer,
60
mil
textured
HDPE
secondary
geomembrane
liner,
geosynthetic
clay
liner,
40
mil
textured
HDPE
tertiary
geomembrane
liner
and
1
foot
of
geologic
buffer
material
with
a
permeability
(k)
of
<
1
10
¥
5
cm/
sec.
 
The
Maplewood
Landfill
liner
and
leachate
collection
system
consists
of,
from
top
to
bottom,
1.5
feet
of
primary
granular
drainage
layer,
60
mil
HDPE
geomembrane,
geonet
layer,
60
mil
HDPE
geomembrane,
bentonite
geocomposite,
underlain
by
1.5
feet
of
a
clayey
soil
liner
with
a
permeability
(k)
of
<
1
10
¥
5
cm/
sec.
The
60
mil
HDPE
upper
liner
component
of
both
landfills'
liners
meets
the
specified
upper
membrane
liner
component
under
RCRA
(40
CFR
258.40(
b).
However,
instead
of
a
lower
liner
component
comprising
at
least
two
feet
of
compacted
soil
with
a
hydraulic
conductivity
no
greater
than
1
10
¥
7
cm/
sec,
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
were
built
with
a
second
geosynthetic
60
mil
HDPE
layer.
Additionally,
beneath
the
double
liner
system
at
the
King
George
County
is
a
third
40
mil
HDPE
liner,
underlain
by
one
foot
of
soil
compacted
to
a
permeability
(k)
of
<
1
10
¥
5
cm/
sec.,
and
the
double
liner
system
at
the
Maplewood
Landfill
is
underlain
by
18
inches
of
soil
compacted
to
a
permeability
(k)
of
<1
10
¥
5
cm/
sec.
The
liner
systems
for
the
two
landfills
are
illustrated
in
Figure
2
of
the
FPA.
While
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
do
not
have
a
composite
liner
as
specified
in
the
Design
Criteria
§
258.40(
b),
the
alternative
liner
systems
meet
or
exceed
the
performance
requirements
for
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
Indeed,
these
landfills'
doubleliner
systems
provide
a
high
level
of
protection
to
the
environment
against
potential
impacts
caused
by
leakage
of
leachate.

F.
What
Are
the
Environmental
Benefits
Expected
Through
Project
XL?

The
expected
superior
environmental
benefits
from
the
Virginia
Landfills
XL
Project
include:
(1)
Landfill
life
extension;
(2)
minimizing
the
potential
for
long­
term
leachate­
associated
groundwater
and
offsite
surface
water
concerns;
and
(3)
increasing
landfill
gas
control,
minimizing
fugitive
methane
and
VOC
emissions
and
minimizing
the
duration
of
gas
generation.

1.
Landfill
Life
Extension
The
life
of
a
landfill,
when
operated
as
a
bioreactor,
should
be
extended
by
the
biodegradation
of
the
waste.
The
accelerated
biodegradation
increases
the
apparent
density
and
decreases
the
volume
of
the
in­
place
waste
remaining
in
the
landfill.
Reducing
the
volume
of
waste
translates
into
either
longer
landfill
life
and/
or
less
need
for
additional
landfill
space.
Thus,
a
bioreactor
landfill
will
be
able
to
accept
more
waste
over
its
working
lifetime
(subject
to
applicable
State
regulatory
requirements)
and
less
landfill
space
may
be
needed
to
accommodate
the
same
amount
of
waste.
2.
Minimizing
Leachate/
GroundwaterAssociated
Concerns
Research
reported
in
``
Active
Municipal
Waste
Landfill
Operations:
A
Biochemical
Reactor''
(Reinhart,
1995,
see
Docket
No.
FÐ
2001Ð
WVLPÐ
FFFFF,
Item
4.1),
has
shown
that
bioreactor
processes
tend
to
reduce
the
concentration
of
many
pollutants
in
leachate,
including
organic
acids
and
other
soluble
organic
pollutants.
Bioreactor
operations
brings
pH
to
nearneutral
conditions
and
generally,
metals
are
much
less
mobile
under
these
condition.
Reinhart
found
that
metals
were
largely
precipitated
and
immobilized
in
the
waste
of
bioreactor
landfills.
Discussions
between
Waste
Management,
the
VADEQ,
and
the
host
communities
for
the
Maplewood
Landfill
and
the
King
George
County
Landfills,
indicated
that
groundwaterrelated
issues
are
of
primary
concern
to
the
stakeholders,
including
minimizing
the
long­
term
threat
to
groundwater
quality.
This
project
should
provide
for
accelerated
biodegradation
of
the
waste
in
the
landfills
and,
thereby,
minimize
the
potential
for
the
waste
to
present
a
long­
term
threat
to
groundwater
quality.
Routine
groundwater
monitoring
is,
and
will
continue
to
be,
performed
to
verify
containment.
Cleaner
leachate
also
translates
into
decreased
load
on
the
offsite
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(POTWs)
where
the
leachate
from
these
landfills
is
now
being
treated.
As
described
in
Section
1.2
of
the
FPA,
both
the
Maplewood
and
King
George
County
Landfills
were
constructed
with
double­
liner
systems,
which
are
highly
efficient
at
preventing
leakage
of
leachate
from
landfills.

3.
Maximizing
Landfill
Gas
Control
and
Minimizing
Fugitive
Methane
and
VOC
Emissions
Landfill
gas
contains
roughly
50%
methane,
a
potent
greenhouse
gas.
In
terms
of
climate
effects,
methane
is
second
in
importance
only
to
carbon
dioxide
as
a
greenhouse
gas.
Landfill
gas
also
contains
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOC's)
which
are
air
pollutants
of
local
concern.
While
the
rate
of
gas
generation
will
be
increased
by
adding
liquids
to
the
landfills,
the
period
of
post
closure
landfill
gas
generation
will
be
compressed.
The
existing,
active
gas
collection
systems
in
operation
at
both
landfills
are
expected
to
efficiently
collect
and
control
landfill
gas.
The
systems
will
be
maintained
and
monitored
in
accordance
with
the
terms
of
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW
and
all
applicable
permits.
In
addition,
as
noted
above,
Waste
Management
has
signed
an
agreement
with
a
private
VerDate
jun<
06>
2002
17:
32
Jul
17,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00073
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
18JYR1.
SGM
pfrm15
PsN:
18JYR1
47316
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
138
/
Thursday,
July
18,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
energy
development
company
to
construct
a
power
plant
fueled
by
landfill
gas
at
the
Maplewood
Landfill
and
is
negotiating
a
similar
gas/
energy
recovery
agreement
for
the
King
George
Landfill.
It
is
also
anticipated
that
the
information
obtained
from
this
XL
project
will
provide
the
EPA
and
the
waste
disposal
industry
with
data
concerning
the
use
of
bioreactor
techniques
at
MSWLF
sites
throughout
the
United
States,
in
accord
with
the
Agency's
April
6,
2000,
Request
for
Information
and
Data
regarding
Alternative
Liner
Performance,
Leachate
Recirculation,
and
Bioreactor
Landfills
(65
FR
18014,
April
6,
2000).

G.
How
Have
Various
Stakeholders
Been
Involved
in
This
Project?
Initial
public
meetings
were
held
on
August
1,
2000
(King
George
County)
and
August
2,
2000
(Amelia
County)
to
solicit
comments
from
the
public
on
the
intent
of
the
sponsors
to
participate
in
Project
XL.
Additional
public
meetings
were
also
held
during
the
week
of
September
4,
2000
in
King
George
and
Amelia
Counties
to
discuss
the
draft
FPA
with
the
citizens
from
these
localities.
Since
both
landfills
have
valid
State
operating
permits,
the
VADEQ
intends
to
amend
the
permits
to
allow
the
construction
and
operation
of
the
bioreactor
systems
as
an
experimental
process.
Before
VADEQ
issues
a
permit
amendment,
a
local
public
hearing
will
be
held
to
solicit
comments
on
the
draft
permit
amendments
from
concerned
citizens.
The
details
of
the
permit
amendments
for
each
landfill
are
outlined
in
advertisements
along
with
contact
information
and
document
viewing
locations.
The
public
hearing
is
also
advertised
in
a
local
paper.
The
VADEQ
has
a
standardized
mailing
list
of
State
agencies
to
whom
a
draft
permit
or
notice
of
permit
amendment
can
be
sent
to
solicit
comments.
Conditions
may
be
imposed
due
to
additional
State
requirements
or
as
a
result
of
public
comment.
In
accord
with
VADEQ
regulatory
requirements,
Virginia
will
hold
public
meetings
and
hearings
on
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
solid
waste
construction
and
operating
permits
for
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills.
If
requested,
these
public
hearings
will
be
supplemented
with
additional
stakeholder
meetings.
A
stakeholder
mailing
list
maintained
by
Waste
Management
will
be
updated
as
necessary
to
include
private
citizens
and
other
interested
parties.
Periodically,
progress
reports
and
other
relevant
information
will
be
distributed.
If
requested,
Waste
Management
has
also
agreed
to
provide
site
tours
and
briefings
to
better
educate
any
interested
citizens
or
stakeholders.
Transcripts
and
video
tape
recordings
of
all
public
meetings
and
hearings
will
be
maintained
at
the
repositories.
A
repository
for
the
project
will
be
maintained
by
VADEQ
at
629
East
Main
Street,
Richmond,
VA,
23219
c/
o
Paul
Farrell,
(804)
698Ð
4214.
Additional
copies
of
the
repository
records
will
be
maintained
in
the
James
Hamner
Memorial
Library,
16351
Dunn
Street
Amelia,
Virginia
23002
and
in
the
L.
F.
Smoot
Lewis
Memorial
Library,
9533
Kings
Highway,
King
George,
Virginia
22485.
An
Internet
Web
site
for
this
XL
project
is
also
maintained
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ProjectXL/
virginialandfills/
index.
htm.
Throughout
project
development,
EPA
will
continue
to
update
the
website
as
the
project
is
implemented.
The
FPA
also
includes
a
detailed
description
of
stakeholder
involvement
with
this
XL
project
(see
Docket
No.
FÐ
2001Ð
WVLPÐ
FFFFF,
Item
2.2,
or
on
the
Web
site).
Waste
Management
will
periodically
meet
with
a
representative
from
each
local
landfill
advisory
committee
or
the
entire
stakeholder
group
to
discuss
issues
of
concern
and
to
disseminate
information.
To
solicit
additional
stakeholder
involvement,
Waste
Management
may
perform
its
own
outreach
including
contacting
nationwide
professional
and
citizen
groups
that
may
have
an
interest
in
bioreactor
technology
and
will
attempt
to
disseminate
information
to
its
members,
as
well
as,
attend
national
workshops
or
seminars.
The
following
have
been
identified
as
VA
Project
XL
Landfill
stakeholders:
Direct
Participants:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Virginia
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Waste
Management,
Inc.
King
George
County
Landfill
Maplewood
Landfill
Maplewood
Recycling
Waste
Disposal
Facility
Commentors:
Members
of
Local
Landfill
Advisory
Committees
H.
Will
This
Project
Result
in
Cost
Savings
and
Paperwork
Reduction?

EPA
did
not
prepare
an
economic
assessment
of
the
impacts
of
today's
rule.
EPA
notes,
however,
that
Waste
Management
volunteered
for
this
pilot
project
which
will
affect
only
two
facilities
and
is
expected
to
result
in
an
overall
cost
savings
by:
 
accelerating
the
rate
of
decomposition
of
the
waste
placed
in
certain
areas
of
the
two
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills,
which
is
expected
to
extend
the
life
of
the
landfill;
 
improving
the
quality
of
leachate
generated
in
those
specific
areas
of
the
landfills,
which
is
expected
to
decrease
leachate
treatment
and
disposal
costs;
and
 
increasing
methane
generation
and
recovery
efficiency,
which
is
expected
to
facilitate
the
use
of
the
methane
for
energy
generation.
No
appreciable
direct
reduction
in
paperwork
is
anticipated
at
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills.

I.
How
Long
Will
This
Project
Last
and
When
Will
It
Be
Complete?
As
with
all
XL
projects
testing
alternative
environmental
protection
strategies,
the
term
of
this
XL
project
is
limited.
Today's
rule
will
be
in
effect
for
ten
(10)
years.
In
the
event
that
EPA
determines
that
this
project
should
be
terminated
before
the
end
of
the
ten
year
period
and
that
the
site­
specific
rule
should
be
rescinded,
the
Agency
may
withdraw
this
rule
through
a
subsequent
rulemaking.
This
will
allow
all
interested
persons
and
entities
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposed
termination
and
withdrawal
of
regulatory
authority.
In
the
event
of
an
early
termination
of
the
project
term,
EPA
or
the
State
will
establish
an
interim
compliance
period,
not
to
exceed
six
months,
such
that
Waste
Management
will
be
returned
to
full
compliance
with
the
existing
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
258.
In
accordance
with
9
VAC
20Ð
80Ð
480.
G,
VADEQ
expects
to
utilize
an
experimental
permit
to
provide
for
operation
of
the
VA
Project
XL
Landfills
as
bioreactors.
If
the
XL
project
proves
to
be
feasible,
VADEQ
expects
to
modify
the
permit
for
the
facility
to
provide
for
the
ten
year
XL
project
term.
The
FPA
allows
any
party
to
the
agreement
to
withdraw
from
the
agreement
at
any
time
before
the
end
of
the
ten
year
period.
It
also
sets
forth
several
conditions
that
could
trigger
an
early
termination
of
the
project,
as
well
as
procedures
to
follow
in
the
event
that
EPA,
the
State
or
local
agency
seeks
to
terminate
the
project
(FPA,
section
11).
For
example,
an
early
conclusion
will
be
warranted
if
the
project's
environmental
benefits
do
not
meet
the
Project
XL
requirement
for
the
achievement
of
superior
environmental
results.
In
addition,
new
laws
or
regulations
may
become
applicable
during
the
project
term
which
might
render
the
project
impractical,
or
might
contain
regulatory
requirements
that
VerDate
Jun<
13>
2002
16:
33
Jul
17,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00074
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
18JYR1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
18JYR1
47317
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
138
/
Thursday,
July
18,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
supersede
the
superior
environmental
benefits
that
are
being
achieved
under
this
XL
project.
Or,
during
the
project
duration,
EPA
may
decide
to
change
the
Federal
rule
allowing
recirculation
over
alternative
liners
and
the
addition
of
outside
bulk
liquids
for
all
Subtitle
D
landfills.
In
that
event,
the
FPA
and
sitespecific
rule
for
this
project
will
no
longer
be
needed.

J.
Why
is
this
Rule
Immediately
Effective?
Under
5.
U.
S.
C.
553(
d),
the
rulemaking
section
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
EPA
is
making
this
rule
effective
upon
publication.
Under
5
U.
S.
C.
553(
d)(
1),
EPA
is
making
this
rule
immediately
effective
because
the
rule
relieves
a
restriction
in
that
it
allows
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
to
add
liquids
to
the
landfills
that
are
currently
not
allowed
under
40
258.28(
a)
(1)
and
(2)
and
§
258.40(
b).
In
addition,
under
5
U.
S.
C.
553(
d)(
3),
EPA
finds
good
cause
exists
to
make
this
rule
effective
immediately
because
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
are
the
only
regulated
entity
affected
by
the
rule,
sought
the
conditional
relief
provided
in
this
rule,
and
have
had
full
notice
of
the
rule.
Making
the
rule
immediately
effective
will
allow
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
to
proceed
sooner
with
the
bioreactor
project.

IV.
What
Regulatory
Changes
Are
Being
Made
To
Implement
this
Project?

A.
Existing
Liquid
Restrictions
for
MSWLFs
(40
CFR
258.28)
This
site
specific
rule
grants
regulatory
relief
from
certain
requirements
of
RCRA
that
restrict
application
of
liquids
in
these
MSWLFs,
because
as
previously
described,
both
the
Maplewood
and
King
George
landfills
were
constructed
with
alternative
liners
pursuant
to
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1).
When
the
FPA
for
this
project
was
signed,
RCRA
regulations,
40
CFR
258.28(
a)
allowed
bulk
or
noncontainerized
liquid
waste
to
be
added
to
a
MSWLF
only
if
the
following
two
conditions
were
met:
ÑThe
liquids
comprise
household
waste
(other
than
septic
waste),
or
leachate
from
the
landfill
itself,
or
gas
condensate
derived
from
the
landfill,
and
ÑThe
MSWLF
has
been
built
with
a
liner
designed
as
prescribed
in
the
design
standard
set
forth
in
40
CFR
258.40
(a)(
2)
(i.
e.,
not
the
performance
standard
set
forth
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1)).
Since
then,
EPA
promulgated
a
sitespecific
rule
for
the
Yolo
County,
CA,
bioreactor
landfill
project
under
Project
XL,
which
amended
§
258.28(
a).
The
amendment
allows
bulk
liquid
wastes
to
be
added
to
a
MSWLF
if
``
the
MSWLF
unit
is
a
Project
XL
MSWLF
and
meets
the
applicable
requirements
of
§
258.41''
(66
FR
42441Ð
42449,
August
13,
2001).
Therefore,
the
regulatory
relief
needed
for
the
VA
Project
XL
Landfills
is
a
sitespecific
amendment
to
40
CFR
258.41.

B.
Site­
Specific
Rule
Today's
rule
will
allow
the
owner/
operator
of
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
to
add
non­
hazardous
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquids,
including:
leachate,
storm
water
and
truck
wash
water
(``
liquids'')
to
Cell
3
of
the
King
George
Landfill
and
Phases
1
and
2
of
the
Maplewood
Landfill,
as
long
as
these
areas
meet
the
maintenance,
operational,
monitoring
and
other
requirements
set
forth
in
§
258.41(
c).
The
owner/
operator
of
the
Maplewood
Landfill
will
add
liquids
primarily
consisting
of
leachate
from
the
landfill,
while
the
owner/
operator
of
the
King
George
Landfill
will
add
leachate
generated
at
this
facility
plus
other
liquids,
including
non­
containerized
liquids
such
as
storm
water,
truck
wash
water
and
other
non­
hazardous
liquid
waste.
Further
information
on
the
liquids
that
will
be
added
to
the
Maplewood
and
King
George
Landfills
can
be
found
in
the
FPA
in
Section
2.2.2.1
and
2.2.2.2,
respectively.
Today's
rule
will
add
a
new
subsection
to
the
rules
in
§
258.41.
New
§
258.41(
c)
will
specifically
apply
to
the
Maplewood
Landfill,
in
Amelia
County,
Virginia,
and
the
King
George
Landfill,
in
King
George
County,
Virginia,
and
will
allow
liquids
to
be
applied
to
these
two
landfills.
This
rule
imposes
certain
minimum
monitoring,
reporting,
and
control
requirements
on
Waste
Management,
which,
among
other
things,
will
ensure
that
the
project
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and
facilitate
EPA's
evaluation
of
the
project.
The
project
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
are
listed
in
the
FPA
(sections
2.2.1.4,
2.2.1.5,
2.2.2.4,
and
2.2.2.5,
Table
6
and
6A)
and
specify
that
Waste
Management
provide
semiannual
reporting
of
the
monitoring
data
to
stakeholders
and
regulators
in
order
to
facilitate
project
evaluation.
Existing
regulation
also
requires
a
leachate
collection
system
as
specified
in
§
258.40(
a)(
2)
to
ensure
that
contaminant
migration
to
the
aquifer
is
controlled.
(56
FR
50978Ð
51056,
Oct.
9,
1991).
This
rule
will
not
change
the
requirement
in
§
258.28(
a)(
2)
that
a
leachate
collection
system
(as
described
in
§
258.40(
a)(
2))
be
in
place
in
order
for
leachate
to
be
recirculated
in
the
landfill
unit,
and
Waste
Management
will
still
be
required
to
ensure
that
leachate
collection
systems
at
the
landfills
maintain
the
leachate
head
over
the
liner
at
a
depth
of
less
than
30
cm.
Today's
rule
does
not
provide
any
regulatory
flexibility
with
respect
to
monitoring
requirements,
rather
it
adds
monitoring
to
that
which
would
be
required
for
these
landfills
if
they
continued
operating
as
conventional
MSWLFs.
In
addition
to
the
monitoring
required
in
part
258,
for
example,
the
Virginia
Project
XL
Landfills
must
monitor
and
report
whether
surface
seeps
are
occurring
and
determine
whether
they
are
attributable
to
operation
of
the
liquid
application
system;
perform
a
monthly
analysis
of
leachate
quality
in
both
test
and
control
areas;
and
at
least
monthly,
monitor
the
gas
temperature
at
well
heads.
EPA
believes
this
additional
information
will
provide
the
necessary
indicators
of
any
increased
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
in
a
timely
manner
and
will
enable
Waste
Management,
VADEQ
and/
or
EPA
to
take
whatever
steps
are
necessary,
including
suspension
or
termination
of
the
project.
to
reduce
or
eliminate
any
such
risk.
EPA
also
believes
that
this
additional
information
will
be
valuable
in
assessing
the
benefits
of
bioreactor
operation.

V.
Regulatory
Assessment
Requirements
A.
How
Does
This
Rule
Comply
With
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review?

Because
this
rule
affects
only
two
facilities,
it
is
not
a
rule
of
general
applicability
and
therefore
not
subject
to
OMB
review
under
Executive
Order
12866.
In
addition,
OMB
has
agreed
that
review
of
site
specific
rules
under
Project
XL
is
not
necessary.

B.
Is
a
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
Required?

The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.,
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
public
comment
rulemaking
requirements
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
not­
for­
profit
enterprises,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
The
project
sponsor,
Waste
Management
Inc.,
is
the
regulated
entity
for
this
pilot
project.
They
are
not
VerDate
Jun<
13>
2002
10:
40
Jul
17,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00075
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
18JYR1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
18JYR1
47318
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
138
/
Thursday,
July
18,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
a
small
business.
This
rule
does
not
apply
to
small
businesses,
small
not­
forprofit
enterprises,
nor
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
Further,
it
is
a
site­
specific
rule
with
limited
applicability
to
only
two
landfills
in
the
nation.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
final
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

C.
Is
an
Information
Collection
Request
Required
for
This
Rule
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act?
This
action
does
not
impose
an
information
collection
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
It
is
exempt
from
OMB
review
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
because
it
is
a
site
specific
rule,
directed
to
fewer
than
ten
persons.
44
U.
S.
C.
3502(
3),
(10);
5
CFR
1320.3(
c),
1320.4
and
1320.5.

D.
Does
This
Rule
Trigger
the
Requirements
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act?
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(UMRA),
Public
Law
104Ð
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
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
of
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
Tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
the
EPA
regulatory
proposal
with
significant
Federal
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
As
used
here,
``
small
government''
has
the
same
meaning
as
that
contained
under
5
U.
S.
C.
601(
5),
that
is,
governments
of
cities,
counties,
towns,
townships,
villages,
school
districts,
or
special
districts,
with
a
population
of
less
than
fifty
thousand.
As
discussed
above,
this
rule
will
have
limited
application.
It
applies
only
to
the
Maplewood
and
King
George
County
Landfills.
This
rule
will
result
in
a
cost
savings
for
Waste
Management
when
compared
with
the
costs
it
would
have
had
to
incur
if
required
to
adhere
to
the
requirements
contained
in
the
current
rule.
EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
or
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year.
Thus,
this
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
EPA
has
also
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.

E.
How
Does
the
Congressional
Review
Act
Apply
to
This
Rule?
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
Section
804
exempts
from
section
801
the
following
types
of
rules
(1)
rules
of
particular
applicability;
(2)
rules
relating
to
agency
management
or
personnel;
and
(3)
rules
of
agency
organization,
procedure,
or
practice
that
do
not
substantially
affect
the
rights
or
obligations
of
non­
agency
parties.
EPA
is
not
required
to
submit
a
rule
report
regarding
today's
action
under
section
801
because
this
is
a
rule
of
particular
applicability.

F.
How
Does
This
Rule
Comply
With
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks?
Executive
Order
13045,
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant,
''
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
12886;
and
(2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
potentially
effective
and
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
12866,
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.
This
rule
will
allow
for
the
addition
of
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
amendments
over
a
liner
that
does
not
meet
the
design
requirements
in
40
CFR.
258.40(
b),
however,
the
liner
systems
meet
or
exceed
the
performance
requirements
for
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
Indeed,
these
landfills'
doubleliner
systems
provide
a
high
level
of
protection
to
the
environment
against
potential
impacts
caused
by
leakage
of
leachate.
Therefore,
no
additional
risk
to
public
health,
including
children's
health,
is
expected
to
result
from
this
rule.

G.
How
Does
This
Rule
Comply
With
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism?
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.
''
The
phrase,
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.
''
This
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
This
rule
will
only
affect
two
local
governmental
entities
and
a
State,
and
will
provide
regulatory
flexibility
for
the
State
and
local
governmental
entities
concerned.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

VerDate
Jun<
13>
2002
10:
40
Jul
17,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00076
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
18JYR1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
18JYR1
47319
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
138
/
Thursday,
July
18,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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
rule
does
not
have
Tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
Tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

I.
How
Does
This
Rule
Comply
With
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act?

Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(``
NTTAA''),
Public
Law
104Ð
113,
Section
12(
d)
(15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
such
practice
is
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(for
example,
material
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standard
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
rulemaking
however,
does
not
involve
any
technical
standards;
therefore
EPA
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.
J.
Does
This
Rule
Comply
With
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use?
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
258
Environmental
protection,
Landfill,
Solid
waste.

Dated:
July
12,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
forth,
part
258
of
Chapter
I
of
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
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
D—
Design
Criteria
2.
Amend
258.41
to
add
a
new
paragraph
(c)
to
read
as
follows:

§
258.41
Project
XL
Bioreactor
Landfill
Projects.

*
*
*
*
*
(c)
Virginia
Landfills
XL
Project
Requirements.
Paragraph
(c)
of
this
section
applies
solely
to
two
Virginia
landfills
operated
by
the
Waste
Management,
Inc.
or
its
successors:
The
Maplewood
Recycling
and
Waste
Disposal
Facility,
located
in
Amelia
County,
Virginia
(``
Maplewood
Landfill'');
and
the
King
George
County
Landfill
and
Recycling
Facility,
located
in
King
George
County,
Virginia
(``
King
George
Landfill'')
collectively
hereinafter,
``
the
VA
Project
XL
Landfills
or
landfill.
''
The
VA
Project
XL
Landfills
are
allowed
to
add
nonhazardous
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquids
including,
leachate,
storm
water
and
truck
wash
water,
hereinafter,
``
liquid
or
liquids'',
to
Cell
3
of
the
King
George
Landfill
(hereinafter
``
Cell
3'')
and
Phases
1
and
2
of
the
Maplewood
Landfill
(hereinafter
``
Phases
1
and
2'')
under
the
following
conditions:
(1)
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
maintain
the
liners
underlying
Cell
3
and
Phases
1
and
2,
which
were
designed
and
constructed
with
an
alternative
liner
as
defined
in
§
258.40(
a)(
1)
in
accord
with
their
current
installed
design
in
order
to
maintain
the
integrity
of
the
liner
system
and
keep
it
and
the
leachate
collection
system
in
good
operating
order.
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
ensure
that
the
addition
of
any
liquids
does
not
result
in
an
increased
leakage
rate,
and
does
not
result
in
liner
slippage,
or
otherwise
compromise
the
integrity
of
the
landfill
and
its
liner
system,
as
determined
by
the
State
Director.
In
addition,
the
leachate
collection
system
shall
be
operated,
monitored
and
maintained
to
ensure
that
less
than
30
cm
depth
of
leachate
is
maintained
over
the
liner.
(2)
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
ensure
that
the
concentration
values
listed
in
Table
1
of
§
258.40
are
not
exceeded
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
at
the
relevant
point
of
compliance
for
the
landfill,
as
specified
by
the
State
Director,
under
§
258.40(
d).
(3)
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
monitor
and
report
whether
surface
seeps
are
occurring
and
determine
whether
they
are
attributable
to
operation
of
the
liquid
application
system.
EPA
and
VADEQ
shall
be
notified
in
the
semi­
annual
report
of
the
occurrence
of
any
seeps.
(4)
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
determine
on
a
monthly
basis
the
leachate
quality
in
test
and
control
areas
with
and
without
liquid
addition.
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
collect
monthly
samples
of
the
landfill
leachate
and
analyze
them
for
the
following
parameters:
pH,
Conductivity,
Dissolved
Oxygen,
Dissolved
Solids,
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand,
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand,
Organic
Carbon,
Nutrients
(ammonia,
total
kjeldahl
nitrogen,
total
phosphorus),
Common
Ions,
Heavy
Metals
and
Organic
Priority
Pollutants.
(5)
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
determine
on
a
semi­
annual
basis
the
total
quantity
of
leachate
collected
in
test
and
control
areas;
the
total
quantity
of
liquids
applied
in
the
test
areas
and
determination
of
any
changes
in
this
quantity
over
time;
the
total
quantity
of
leachate
in
on­
site
storage
structures
and
any
leachate
taken
for
offsite
disposal.
(6)
Prior
to
the
addition
of
any
liquid
to
the
landfill,
the
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
perform
an
initial
characterization
of
the
liquid
and
notify
EPA
and
VADEQ
of
the
liquid
proposed
to
be
added.
The
parameters
for
the
initial
characterization
of
liquids
shall
be
the
same
as
the
monthly
parameters
for
the
landfill
leachate
specified
in
paragraph
(c)(
4)
of
this
section.
The
operator
shall
annually
test
all
liquids
VerDate
Jun<
13>
2002
16:
33
Jul
17,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00077
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
18JYR1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
18JYR1
47320
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
138
/
Thursday,
July
18,
2002
/
Rules
and
Regulations
added
to
the
landfill
and
compare
these
results
to
the
initial
characterization.
(7)
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
ensure
that
Cell
3
and
Phases
1
and
2
are
operated
in
such
a
manner
so
as
to
prevent
any
landfill
fires
from
occurring.
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
monitor
the
gas
temperature
at
well
heads,
at
a
minimum,
on
a
monthly
basis.
(8)
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
perform
an
annual
surface
topographic
survey
to
determine
the
rate
of
the
settlement
of
the
waste
in
the
test
and
control
areas.
(9)
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
monitor
and
record
the
frequency
of
odor
complaints
during
and
after
liquid
application
events.
EPA
and
VADEQ
shall
be
notified
of
the
occurrence
of
any
odor
complaints
in
the
semi­
annual
report.
(10)
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
collect
representative
samples
of
the
landfill
waste
in
the
test
areas
on
an
annual
basis
and
analyze
the
samples
for
the
following
solid
waste
stabilization
and
decomposition
parameters:
Moisture
Content,
Biochemical
Methane
Potential,
Cellulose,
Lignin,
Hemi­
cellulose,
Volatile
Solids
and
pH.
(11)
The
operator
of
the
landfill
shall
report
to
the
EPA
Regional
Administrator
and
the
State
Director
on
the
information
described
in
paragraphs
(c)(
1)
through
(10)
of
this
section
on
a
semi­
annual
basis.
The
first
report
is
due
within
6
months
after
the
effective
date
of
this
section.
These
reporting
provisions
shall
remain
in
effect
for
the
duration
of
the
project
term.
(12)
Additional
monitoring,
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
related
to
landfill
gas
will
be
contained
in
a
Federally
Enforceable
State
Operating
Permit
(``
FESOP'')
for
the
VA
Project
XL
Landfills
issued
pursuant
to
the
Clean
Air
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.
Application
of
this
site­
specific
rule
to
the
VA
Project
XL
Landfills
is
conditioned
upon
the
issuance
of
such
a
FESOP.
(13)
This
section
applies
until
July
18,
2012.
By
July
18,
2012,
the
VA
Project
XL
Landfills
must
return
to
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements
which
would
have
been
in
effect
absent
the
flexibility
provided
through
this
section.
If
EPA
Region
3's
Regional
Administrator,
the
Commonwealth
of
Virginia
and
Waste
Management
agree
to
an
amendment
of
the
project
term,
the
parties
must
enter
into
an
amended
or
new
Final
Project
Agreement
for
any
such
amendment.
(14)
The
authority
provided
by
this
section
may
be
terminated
before
the
end
of
the
10
year
period
in
the
event
of
noncompliance
with
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section,
the
determination
by
the
EPA
Region
3's
Regional
Administrator
that
the
project
has
failed
to
achieve
the
expected
level
of
environmental
performance,
or
the
promulgation
of
generally
applicable
requirements
that
would
apply
to
all
landfills
that
meet
or
exceed
the
performance
standard
set
forth
in
§
258.40(
a)(
1).
In
the
event
of
early
termination
EPA
in
consultation
with
the
Commonwealth
of
Virginia
will
determine
an
interim
compliance
period
to
provide
sufficient
time
for
the
operator
to
return
the
landfills
to
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements
which
would
have
been
in
effect
absent
the
authority
provided
by
this
section.
The
interim
compliance
period
shall
not
exceed
six
months.

[FR
Doc.
02Ð
18175
Filed
7Ð
17Ð
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
300
[FRL–
7246–
2]

National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substance
Pollution
Contingency
Plan;
National
Priorities
List
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

ACTION:
Notice
of
deletion
of
the
Compass
Industries
Landfill
Superfund
Site
from
the
National
Priorities
List.

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA)
Region
6
is
publishing
a
Notice
of
Deletion
of
the
Compass
Industries
Landfill
Superfund
Site
(Site),
located
in
the
Chandler
Park
area
west
of
Tulsa,
Tulsa
County,
Oklahoma,
from
the
National
Priorities
List
(NPL).
The
NPL,
promulgated
pursuant
to
section
105
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(CERCLA)
of
1980,
as
amended,
is
found
at
Appendix
B
of
40
CFR
part
300
which
is
the
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
(NCP).
The
EPA
and
the
State
of
Oklahoma,
through
the
Oklahoma
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(ODEQ),
have
determined
that
all
appropriate
response
actions
under
CERCLA,
other
than
operation
and
maintenance
and
five­
year
reviews,
have
been
completed.
EFFECTIVE
DATE:
July
18,
2002.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Katrina
Coltrain,
Remedial
Project
Manager
(RPM),
U.
S.
EPA
Region
6
(6SFÐ
LP),
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Dallas,
TX
75202Ð
2733,
(214)
665Ð
8143
or
1Ð
800Ð
533Ð
3508
(coltrain.
katrina@
epa.
gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
A
Notice
of
intent
to
Delete
for
this
Site
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
May
16,
2002
(67
FR
34886).
The
closing
date
for
comments
on
the
Notice
of
Intent
to
Delete
was
June
17,
2002.
No
comments
were
received,
therefore
EPA
has
not
prepared
a
Responsiveness
Summary.

The
EPA
identifies
sites
that
appear
to
present
a
significant
risk
to
public
health
or
the
environment
and
maintains
the
NPL
as
the
list
of
those
sites.
As
described
in
§
300.425(
e)(
3)
of
the
NCP,
sites
deleted
from
the
NPL
remain
eligible
for
remedial
actions
if
conditions
at
a
deleted
site
warrant
such
action.
Deletion
of
a
site
from
the
NPL
does
not
affect
responsible
party
liability
or
impede
agency
efforts
to
recover
costs
associated
with
response
efforts.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
300
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Chemicals,
Hazardous
waste,
Hazardous
substances,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Penalties,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Superfund,
Water
pollution
control,
Water
supply.

Dated:
June
28,
2002.

Gregg
A.
Cooke,

Regional
Administrator,
Region
6.

For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
40
CFR
part
300
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
300—[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
300
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
33
U.
S.
C.
1321(
e)(
2);
42
U.
S.
C.
9601Ð
9657;
E.
O.
12777,
56
FR
54757,
3
CFR,
1991
Comp.,
p.
351;
E.
O.
12580,
52
FR
2923,
3
CFR,
1987
Comp.,
p.
193.

Appendix
B—
[Amended]

2.
Table
1
of
Appendix
B
to
Part
300
is
amended
under
Oklahoma
(``
OK'')
by
removing
the
site
entry
for
``
Compass
Industries
Landfill
(Avery
Drive),
Tulsa.
''

[FR
Doc.
02Ð
17983
Filed
7Ð
17Ð
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
P
VerDate
Jun<
13>
2002
16:
33
Jul
17,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00078
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
18JYR1.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
18JYR1
