[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19403-19413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-9359]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258

[FR-6964-9]


Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Buncombe County Landfill, 
Alexander, Buncombe County, North Carolina

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today proposing a 
site-specific rule to implement a project under the Project XL program, 
an EPA initiative to allow regulated entities to achieve better 
environmental results at decreased costs. Project XL (``eXcellence and 
Leadership'') was announced on March 16, 1995 as a central part of the 
National Performance Review and EPA's efforts to reinvent environmental 
protection. Today's proposal would provide regulatory flexibility under 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, for the 
Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility, Alexander, Buncombe 
County, North Carolina (``Buncombe County'').
    Buncombe County, the State of North Carolina, and EPA signed a 
Final Project Agreement (FPA) for a project under EPA's Project XL to 
use certain bioreactor techniques at its municipal solid waste landfill 
(MSWLF), specifically, the recirculation of landfill leachate, with the 
possible addition of water, to accelerate the biodegradation of 
landfill waste, to decrease the time it takes for the waste to reach 
stabilization in the landfill, and to promote recovery of landfill gas. 
The principal objective of this XL project is to demonstrate that 
leachate can safely be recirculated over a liner that differs from the 
liner prescribed in EPA MSWLF regulations. To implement this project, 
Buncombe County will need relief from certain regulatory requirements 
in EPA regulations which set forth the design and operating criteria 
for MSWLFs.
    Under existing regulations, leachate recirculation in Cells 1 and 2 
is authorized because those cells were constructed using the prescribed 
composite liner. The proposed rule to allow leachate recirculation over 
an alternative liner would apply to

[[Page 19404]]

Buncombe County landfill Cells 3 through 10. In all, Buncombe County is 
seeking to recirculate the leachate in Cells 1-10. The proposed rule 
would be conditional and depends on implementation of the design 
proposed in the rulemaking. Upon completion of this rulemaking, the 
landfill liner design would be enforceable in the same way that current 
RCRA standards for a landfill are enforceable to ensure that management 
of nonhazardous solid waste is performed in a manner protective of 
human health and the environment. Today's rulemaking would not in any 
way affect the provisions or applicability of any existing or future 
regulations. EPA retains its full range of enforcement options under 
this rule.
    There are several XL pilot projects involving MSWLF bioreactors 
throughout the country. These landfill projects will enable EPA to 
evaluate benefits of different alternative liners and leachate 
recirculation systems under various terrains and operating conditions. 
The terms of each XL project are contained in a Final Project Agreement 
(FPA) for that landfill. The Final Project Agreement for each landfill 
project is available for public review at the EPA Docket in Washington, 
D.C., in each EPA regional library in which the landfill is located, 
and on the worldwide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

DATES: Public Comments: Comments on the proposed rule must be received 
on or before May 16, 2001.
    Public Hearing: Commentors may request a public hearing by April 
30, 2001 during the public comment period. Commentors must state the 
basis for requesting the public hearing. If EPA determines there is 
sufficient reason to hold a public hearing, it will do so no later than 
May 7, 2001, during the last week of the public comment period. 
Requests for a public hearing should be submitted to the address listed 
below. If a public hearing is scheduled, the date, time, and location 
will be made available through a Federal Register notice or by 
contacting Sherri Walker at the EPA Headquarters office. If a public 
hearing is held, it will take place in Asheville, North Carolina.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Written comments should be mailed to the RCRA 
Information Center Docket Clerk (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please 
submit an original and 3 copies of written comments as well as an 
original and 3 copies of any attachments, enclosures, or other 
documents referenced in the comments and refer to Docket Number F-2000-
BCLP-FFFFF. A copy should also be sent to Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (1802) 
Washington DC 20460.
    Request to Speak at Hearing: Requests to speak at a hearing should 
be mailed to the RCRA Information Center Docket Clerk (5303G), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Please send an original and two copies of all 
comments and refer to Docket Number F-2000-BCLP-FFFFF. A copy should 
also be sent to Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (1802) Washington DC 20460.
    EPA will also accept comments electronically. Comments should be 
addressed to the following Internet address: [email protected]. 
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/6.1/
8 format file and avoid the use of special characters or any form of 
encryption. Electronic comments will be transferred into a paper 
version for the official record. EPA will attempt to clarify electronic 
comments if there is an apparent error in transmission.
    Viewing Project Materials: A docket containing the proposed rule, 
supporting materials and public comments is available for public 
inspection and copying at the RCRA Information Center (RIC) located at 
Crystal Gateway, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, 
Virginia. The RIC is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding federal holidays. The public is encouraged to phone 
in advance to review docket materials. Appointments can be scheduled by 
phoning the Docket Office at (703) 603-9230. Refer to RCRA Docket 
Number F-2000-BCLP-FFFFF. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages 
from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies are $0.15 
per page. Project materials are also available for review on the 
worldwide web at http://www.epa.gov.projectxl/ and in the regional 
office where the project is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. (1802), 
Washington DC 20460, (202) 260-4295, [email protected]. Further 
information on today's action may also be obtained on the worldwide web 
at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline of Today's Document

    The information presented in this preamble is arranged as 
follows:

I. Authority
II. Background
    A. What is Project XL?
    B. What Are Bioreactor Landfills?
III. Overview of the Buncombe County Landfill XL Project
    A. Description of the Project
    B. What Are the Environmental Benefits Anticipated Through 
Project XL?
    C. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project?
    D. How Will this Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork 
Reduction?
    IV. What Regulatory Changes Will Be Necessary to Implement this 
Project?
    A. Existing Liquid Restrictions for MSWLFS (40 CFR 258.28)
    B. Proposed Site-Specific Rule
    1. Design Specifications
    2. Operational Requirements
    3. Monitoring and Reporting
    4. Duration of Authority
V. Additional Information
    A. How to Request a Public Hearing
    B. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 12866: 
Regulatory Planning and Review?
    C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?
    D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for this 
Project Under the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    E. Does this Project Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act?
    F. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13045: 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks?
    G. How Does this Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132: 
Federalism
    H. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13175: 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments?
    I. How Does this Rule Comply with the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act?

I. Authority

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

II. Background

A. What Is Project XL?

    Project XL is an EPA initiative to allow regulated entities to 
achieve better environmental results at less costs. Project XL--
``eXcellence and Leadership''--was announced on March 16, 1995 as a 
central part of the National Performance Review and EPA's efforts to 
reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995).

[[Page 19405]]

Specifically, Project XL gives a limited number of regulated entities 
the opportunity to develop their own pilot projects and alternative 
strategies to achieve environmental performance that is superior to 
what would be achieved through compliance with current and reasonably 
anticipated future regulations. These efforts are crucial to the 
Agency's ability to test new regulatory strategies that reduce 
regulatory burden and promote economic growth while achieving better 
environmental and public health protection. The Agency intends to 
evaluate the results of this and other XL projects to determine which 
specific elements of the projects, if any, should be more broadly 
applied to other regulated entities for the benefit of both the economy 
and the environment.
    Project XL is intended to allow EPA to experiment with untried, 
potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess whether 
they provide benefits at the specific facility affected, and whether 
they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot projects 
allow EPA to proceed more quickly than would be possible when 
undertaking changes on a nationwide basis. EPA may modify rules, on a 
site specific or state specific basis, that represent one of several 
possible policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, 
so long as the alternative being used is permissible under the statute.
    Adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the 
context of a given XL project is not an indication that EPA plans to 
adopt that interpretation as a general matter or even in the context of 
other XL projects. It would be inconsistent with the forward looking 
nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative approaches 
prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining whether 
they are viable in practice and successful for the particular project 
that embody them. These pilot projects are not intended to be a means 
for piecemeal revision of entire programs.
    EPA believes that adopting alternative policy approaches and/or 
interpretations, on a limited site specific or state specific basis and 
in connection with a carefully selected pilot project is consistent 
with the expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the 
environmental statutes (so long as EPA acts within the discretion 
allowed by the statute). Congress' recognition that there is a need for 
experimentation and research, as well as ongoing reevaluation of 
environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of statutory 
provisions (e.g., section 8001 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6981).
    Under Project XL, participants in four categories (facilities, 
industry sectors, governmental agencies, and communities) are offered 
the opportunity to develop common sense, cost-effective strategies that 
will replace or modify specific regulatory requirements on the 
condition that they produce and demonstrate superior environmental 
performance. To participate in Project XL, applicants must develop 
alternative pollution reduction strategies pursuant to eight criteria: 
(1) Superior environmental performance; (2) cost savings and paperwork 
reduction; (3) stakeholder involvement and support; (4) test of an 
innovative strategy; (5) transferability; (6) feasibility; (7) 
identification of monitoring, reporting, and evaluation methods; and 
(8) avoidance of shifting risk burden. The project must have full 
support of affected federal, state, and tribal agencies to be selected. 
For more information about the XL criteria, readers should refer to two 
descriptive documents published in the Federal Register (60 FR 27282, 
published May 23, 1995 and 62 FR 19872, published April 23, 1997) and 
the document entitled ``Principles for Development of Project XL Final 
Project Agreements,'' dated December 1, 1995.
    Development of a Project has four basic phases: the initial pre-
proposal phase where the project sponsor comes up with an innovative 
concept that it would like EPA to consider as an XL pilot; the second 
phase where the project sponsor works with EPA and interested 
stakeholders in developing its XL proposal; the third phase where EPA, 
local regulatory agencies, and other interested stakeholders review the 
XL proposal; and the fourth phase where the project sponsor works with 
EPA, local regulatory agencies, and interested stakeholders in 
developing the FPA and legal mechanism. The XL pilot proceeds into the 
implementation phase and evaluation phase after promulgation of the 
required federal, state and local legal mechanisms and after the 
designated participants sign the FPA.
    The Final Project Agreement (FPA) is a written agreement between 
the project sponsor and regulatory agencies. The FPA contains a 
detailed description of the proposed pilot project. It addresses the 
eight Project XL criteria and discusses how EPA expects the project to 
meet that criteria. The FPA identifies performance goals and indicators 
which will enable the project sponsor to demonstrate superior 
environmental benefits. The FPA also discusses administration of the 
agreement, including dispute resolution and conditions for termination 
of the agreement. On July 28, 2000, EPA published a notice in the 
Federal Register requesting comments on the draft FPA for Buncombe 
County bioreactor landfill XL project (65 FR 46456). The FPA was signed 
on September 18, 2000. A copy of the FPA is available in the docket and 
on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

B. What Are Bioreactor Landfills?

    A bioreactor landfill is generally defined as a landfill operated 
to transform and stabilize the readily and moderately decomposable 
organic constituents of the waste stream by purposeful control to 
enhance the microbiological process. Bioreactor landfills often employ 
liquid addition to supplement leachate for recirculation. A byproduct 
of the decomposition process is landfill gas, which includes methane, 
carbon dioxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Landfill gases 
are produced sooner in a bioreactor landfill than in a conventional 
landfill. Therefore, bioreactors often incorporate state of the art 
landfill gas collection.
    On April 6, 2000, EPA published a document in the Federal Register 
(65 FR 18015) requesting information on bioreactor landfills because 
the Agency is considering whether and to what extent the Criteria for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 CFR part 258, should be revised to 
allow for leachate recirculation over alternative liners in MSWLF. EPA 
requested information about liquid additions and leachate recirculation 
in MSWLFs to the extent currently allowed, i.e., in MSWLFs designed and 
constructed with a composite liner as specified in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2).
    Proponents of bioreactor technology note that operation of MSWLFs 
as bioreactors provide a number of environmental benefits including: 
(1) Increasing the rate of waste decomposition which in turn extends 
the operating life of the landfill and lessens the need for additional 
landfill space or other disposal options; (2) decreasing or even 
eliminating the quantity, and increasing the quality of leachate 
requiring treatment and offsite disposal, leading to decreased risks 
and costs associated with leachate management, treatment and disposal; 
(3) reduced post-closure care costs and risks, due to the accelerated, 
controlled settlement of the solid waste during

[[Page 19406]]

landfill operation; (4) lower long term potential for leachate 
migration into the subsurface environment; and (5) opportunity for 
recovery of methane gas for energy production.
    There are several XL projects involving operation of landfills as 
bioreactors throughout the country. These landfill projects will enable 
EPA to evaluate benefits of different alternative liners and leachate 
recirculation systems under various terrains and operating conditions. 
As expressed in the above referenced April 2000 Federal Register 
document, EPA is interested in assessing the performance of landfills 
operated as bioreactors and these XL projects could contribute valuable 
data.
    The Buncombe County project and other XL projects would provide 
additional information on the performance of MSWLFs when liquids are 
added to a landfill constructed with an alternative liner system. The 
Agency is also interested in assessing the performance of various types 
of alternative liners and how they meet the design performance standard 
under bioreactor conditions.
    The terms of the Buncombe County bioreactor project are contained 
in a Final Project Agreement. EPA sought public comment on the draft 
FPA through August 29, 2000. The Final Project Agreement is available 
to the public at the EPA Docket in Washington, DC, from the Region 4 XL 
Coordinator, and on the worldwide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

III. Overview of the Buncombe County Landfill XL Project

    The Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility operates a RCRA 
Subtitle D municipal solid waste landfill in an area north of Asheville 
in Buncombe County, western North Carolina. The landfill began 
operation in 1997. The landfill facility encompasses approximately 600 
acres although only a portion of that acreage is used for landfilling 
operations at this time. The French Broad River traces the south and 
west border of the landfill facility acreage. To date three cells of 
the planned 10 cells for the facility have been constructed and are in 
operation.
    Cells 1 and 2 of the landfill facility were constructed in 1997 
with the standard composite liner system prescribed in EPA regulations 
implementing RCRA Subtitle D for MSWLFs. The standard liner consists of 
24 inches of compacted clay with a hydraulic conductivity of no more 
than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec overlain by a 60 millimeter High 
Density Polyethylene (HDPE) membrane. Cell 3 was constructed with an 
alternative liner system consisting of 18 inches of compacted clay with 
a hydraulic conductivity of no greater than 1 x 10-5 cm/sec 
overlain by a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) with a hydraulic 
conductivity of no greater than 5 x 10-9 cm/sec and a 60-mil 
HDPE liner.
    Cells 1, 2, and 3 were constructed with a leachate collection/
drainage system consisting of two feet of crushed stone. A 28 oz. 
fabric cushion protects the underlying synthetic liner from penetration 
or abrasion from the stone. Interior walls of each cell (lift) slope to 
a collection sump where leachate is pumped out over the cell wall 
(i.e., no liner penetration). A central leachate collection line was 
also installed in Cell 3 to improve leachate collection due to the 
lesser interior slopes. Leachate is pumped from each of the cells to a 
1.5 million gallon composite lined leachate holding pond. A tanker 
truck pumps leachate from the holding pond and hauls it to a wastewater 
treatment plant located seven miles from the landfill facility.

A. Description of the Project

    Buncombe County intends to construct and operate a combined 
leachate recirculation and gas recovery system in prototype Cells 4 and 
5 for which construction began in August, 2000. Cells 4 and 5 would be 
constructed with the same alternative liner system as was installed in 
Cell 3. If operation of these prototype cells is successful, Buncombe 
County will construct the remaining Cells 6-10 with the same 
alternative liner system and combined leachate recirculation and gas 
recovery system. Buncombe also intends to begin recirculation of 
leachate in Cell 3 if the proposed rule is finalized. Recirculation of 
leachate would not be permitted under the current federal regulations 
using the alternative liner proposed by Buncombe County.
    Prior to adding any supplemental liquids to the facility, Buncombe 
County will prepare a comprehensive landfill stability analysis under 
recirculation conditions with supplemental liquids. Buncombe County 
will submit this analysis to three university professors who are 
recognized as experienced in the field of geotechnical engineering in 
general and landfill slope stability. The County will incorporate 
comments from these professors into a final stability analysis for 
their review. The County will forward the analysis along with letters 
from the reviewing professors stating that the landfill should remain 
stable under the operating plan developed by the County, to the USEPA 
and the State of North Carolina for concurrence prior to adding any 
supplemental liquids.
    As is the case with Cells 1, 2, and 3, Buncombe County will install 
an automatic submersible pump at the collection point at the bottom of 
each landfill cell with appurtenant piping to pump the leachate 
collected to the leachate holding pond. The pump engages automatically 
when the leachate reaches a certain depth above the pump. A new pump 
system and dedicated force main will be constructed at the leachate 
holding pond to direct leachate back to the landfill cells for 
recirculation.
    During operation, solid waste will be added and compacted in layers 
above the landfill liner and leachate collection system. Additional 
piping will be installed in a horizontal configuration as the solid 
waste layers build. The piping will be used to redistribute leachate 
pumped from the leachate holding pond and to collect landfill gas.
    As further protection against liner leakage, performance of the 
liner system will be monitored by an adjunct leak detection system 
underlying the compacted soil layer of the sump portion of each 
landfill cell. The leak detection system will consist of 60-mil HDPE 
liner placed on a prepared subgrade. Any leakage through the primary 
composite liner system would be captured on the 60 mil HDPE liner and 
fed to a sump. A 4-inch capped pipe will drain leachate collected in 
the sump out beyond the footprint of the landfill cell. The capped pipe 
will be sampled semi-annually to determine whether any leachate escaped 
the composite liner.
    As required by 40 CFR 258.51, Buncombe County installed groundwater 
monitoring wells to monitor whether landfill operations impact 
groundwater. Two upgradient groundwater monitoring wells were installed 
and sampled prior to construction of the first cell to determine true 
background groundwater quality in the absence of any landfill 
construction or operation. Additional downgradient monitoring wells 
will continue to be installed with the construction of each landfill 
unit. These wells will continue to be sampled semi-annually for 
constituents listed in Appendix I of the North Carolina Solid Waste 
Management Rules.
    Moisture content of the landfill waste will be monitored throughout 
the life of the project through a network of moisture sensors installed 
as waste is placed. Final design of the moisture detection system will 
occur with preparation of the permitting application.

[[Page 19407]]

    Surface water quality is currently monitored at three stations 
around the facility. All surface water runoff from the site flows north 
through erosion control structures to Blevin Branch. Blevin Branch will 
continue to be monitored at the eastern end of the site where it 
originates and at the western end where it exits the landfill facility.
    Leachate would be applied to landfill waste during operations to 
provide enhanced conditions for rapid waste decomposition. If 
additional water is needed to achieve optimal moisture level, this 
water would be drawn from the French Broad River.
    Leachate would be injected below the landfill surface to prevent 
contact with employees or users of the landfill. In addition, the 
County may apply leachate to the working face after the landfill has 
stopped receiving customers and just before the day's waste is covered. 
At that time, the only people nearby would be the driver of the 
leachate spray truck and the heavy equipment operators placing the soil 
cover. These persons should not come in contact with the leachate. If 
supplemental river water is used, it will first be discharged to the 
leachate collection pond before application to the landfill or the 
river water will be applied directly to the working face of the 
landfill by tanker truck. The recirculation system will be designed and 
operated to allow application of leachate in small, discreet areas as 
needed to maintain an optimum moisture level.
    The volume of leachate and supplemental water added back to the 
landfill will be monitored throughout the life of the project. 
Recirculation quantities will be quantified using flow sensors 
installed on the leachate discharge line at the leachate holding pond 
and on the delivery lines to each cell. The objective is to determine 
the amount of leachate returned to each cell individually and determine 
an optimum moisture content and application rate.
    Proponents of leachate recirculation claim that there is an 
improvement in leachate quality due to the aerobic and anaerobic 
decomposition of constituents which serve as a food source to the 
bacteria. Improved leachate quality is an indicator of a stabilized 
waste mass that poses a decreased threat to groundwater supplies should 
the containment system breach at some future date. Buncombe County will 
sample leachate from each cell semi-annually to determine whether 
leachate quality is improving.
    Since effective degradation of the waste mass and gas production 
depend on optimizing the temperature within the landfill cell, 
temperature gauges will be installed along with the moisture sensors as 
waste is added to the landfill. As each cell reaches design grade, 
monuments will be installed to monitor settlement of the waste. 
Monument settlement will be evaluated semi-annually. Additionally, 
annual aerial topographic surveys will be conducted to evaluate 
settlement and the effectiveness of the leachate recirculation system.

B. What Are the Environmental Benefits Anticipated Through Project XL?

    Under the FPA for the Buncombe County bioreactor project, the 
expected superior environmental benefits include: (1) maximizing 
landfill gas control and minimizing fugitive methane and VOC emissions; 
(2) greater recovery of landfill gas; (3) landfill life extension and/
or reduced landfill use; and (4) minimizing leachate associated 
groundwater concerns.
1. Maximizing Landfill Gas Control and Minimizing Fugitive Methane and 
VOC Emissions
    Landfill gas contains roughly 50% methane, a potent greenhouse gas. 
In terms of climate effects, methane is second in importance only to 
carbon dioxide. Landfill gas also contains volatile organic compounds 
(VOC's) that are air pollutants of local concern. Buncombe County will 
immediately begin collecting landfill gas by installing a gas 
collection system consisting of a surface permeable gas collection 
layer overlain by a cover of soil with an embedded membrane. Gas will 
be withdrawn such that this permeable layer beneath surface containment 
will be at a slight vacuum. This system will minimize the amount of 
landfill gas emitted to the environment. Buncombe County will 
immediately begin collecting landfill gas once recirculation operations 
begin.
2. Expedited Methane Generation/Recovery
    If the landfill were operated as a conventional landfill, the 
County would likely not have to install a gas collection system at this 
facility under New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for several 
years. However, in the Buncombe bioreactor, the majority of the methane 
will be generated over a much earlier and shorter time period than a 
conventional landfill. The County has committed to installing the 
system and collecting gas as soon as recirculation begins which should 
make the total amount of gas collected at this site greater than if it 
operated conventionally and only complied with NSPS. This is expected 
to minimize the long-term low-rate methane generation often lost in 
conventional landfill practices.
3. Landfill Life Extension And/or Reduced Landfill Use
    The more rapid conversion of greater quantities of solid waste to 
gas reduces the volume of the waste. Volume reduction translates into 
either landfill life extension and/or less landfill use. Thus, this 
bioreactor landfill will be able to accept more waste over its working 
lifetime, subject to applicable State regulatory requirements. 
Additionally, fewer landfills may be needed to accommodate the same 
inflows of waste from a given population.
4. Minimizing Leachate-Associated Concerns
    Research has shown that bioreactor processes can reduce the 
concentration of many pollutants in leachate. These include organic 
acids and other soluble organic pollutants. Since a bioreactor 
operation brings pH to near-neutral conditions, metals of concern are 
largely precipitated and immobilized in the waste.

C. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project?

    Buncombe County encouraged stakeholder involvement during the 
project development stage in several ways. The methods included 
communicating through the media (newspaper, e-mails, and XL website); 
directly contacting interested parties; and offering an educational 
program regarding the regulatory requirements impacted by the XL 
project. Buncombe County has continued to keep stakeholders informed on 
the project status via mailing lists, newspaper articles, and public 
meetings; and EPA has posted information on the website at URL: http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/buncombe/index.htm. In addition, Buncombe County 
has initiated stakeholder involvement by televising a presentation of 
the issues associated with the landfill originally presented to the 
Buncombe County Commissioners' Annual Retreat. The State of North 
Carolina and EPA are kept informed of issues as they arise.
    Representatives from the local community and the Blue Ridge 
Environmental Defense League participated in conference calls and 
meetings with the Project XL team and provided comments during the 
development of the Final Project Agreement.
    Few local stakeholders other than immediate residents have 
expressed interest in actively participating in the

[[Page 19408]]

development of the project. Copies of all comment letters, as well as 
EPA's response to comment letters, are available on the website.
    As this XL project is implemented, the stakeholder involvement 
program will shift its focus to ensure that: (1) Stakeholders are 
apprized of the status of project implementation; and, (2) stakeholders 
have access to information sufficient to judge the success of this 
Project XL initiative. Anticipated stakeholder involvement during the 
term of the project will likely include other general public meetings 
to present periodic status reports, availability of data and other 
information generated. Buncombe County will convene periodic meetings 
for interested stakeholders to brief them on progress during the 
duration of the XL Agreement. In addition to the reporting requirements 
of today's proposed rule, the FPA includes provisions whereby the 
County will make copies of project reports available to all interested 
parties. A public file on this XL project has been maintained at the 
website throughout project development, and the EPA will continue to 
update it as the project is implemented. Additional information is 
available at EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl.
    A detailed description of this program and the stakeholder support 
for this project is included in the Final Project Agreement, which is 
available through the docket or through EPA's Project XL site on the 
Internet (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    Buncombe County has preliminarily identified the following 
stakeholders, and additional stakeholders may be added over time:

--Buncombe County General Services Department
--Buncombe County Citizens, as represented by the Buncombe County Board 
of Commissioners
--Buncombe County Environmental Affairs Board, representing citizens of 
Buncombe County
--The North Carolina Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North 
America (NCSWANA)
--The Western North Carolina Regional Air Pollution Control Agency 
(which has authority to issue a Title V Permit under the Clean Air Act)
--Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
--Counsel of Independent Business Owners
--Nearby residents

D. How Will This Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork 
Reduction?

    With respect to Cell 3, the alternative liner system saved Buncombe 
County nearly $400,000 as compared with the standard composite system. 
It is estimated that the County will save a total of $5 million through 
build-out of the facility if the alternative liner system is used. 
Other potential cost savings from the project include:
    1. $5-$10 million in reduced construction costs for additional 
landfill capacity if an increase of 20%-30% in additional waste volume 
can be achieved due to rapid waste decomposition during operations; 
and,
    2. $9 million if leachate hauling and off-site treatment can be 
eliminated. No appreciable reduction in paperwork is anticipated.

IV. What Regulatory Changes Will Be Necessary To Implement This 
Project?

A. Existing Liquids Restriction for MSWLFs (40 CFR 258.28)

    EPA is proposing a site-specific rule to grant regulatory 
flexibility from 40 CFR 258.28 Liquid Restrictions, which restricts 
placement of liquid wastes in a MSWLF. Under the existing rule, bulk or 
noncontainerized liquid waste is not allowed to be placed in a MSWLF 
unit unless (1) the waste is household waste other than septic waste, 
or (2) the waste is leachate or gas condensate derived from the MSWLF 
unit and the MSWLF unit is designed with a composite liner and leachate 
collection system as described in Sec. 258.40(a)(2). As stated above, 
Buncombe County seeks to recirculate leachate derived from the 
landfill, possibly supplemented with river water, to Cell 3 and future 
cells, all of which have or are expected to have a liner system that 
differs from the liner prescribed in 40 CFR 258.41(a)(2). Cells 1 and 2 
were constructed with the prescribed liner, and therefore would be 
allowed to receive leachate and gas condensate under 40 CFR 
258.28(a)(2).
    EPA has entered into Final Project Agreements for several 
bioreactor pilot projects. Each of these projects will require a site-
specific rulemaking in order to be implemented. EPA is proposing to 
amend 40 CFR 258.28(a) by adding a new subsection (3) to allow liquids 
to be added to municipal solid waste landfills that are subject to 
site-specific provisions set forth in a new 40 CFR 258.41. This 
amendment to Sec. 258.28(a) would apply to all Project XL MSWLF 
bioreactor projects. Until such an amendment is promulgated, EPA is 
including this amendment in each site specific rule proposal, to ensure 
that this provision can be promulgated with the first site specific 
rule. Therefore, the amendment to Sec. 258.28(a) is included in today's 
proposal.

B. Proposed Site-Specific Rule

    Today's proposal would amend 40 CFR 258.28(a) by adding a new 
paragraph Sec. 258.28(a)(3) to refer to a new section of the rules, 
Sec. 258.41. The new Sec. 258.41(a) would specifically apply to the 
Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility in Buncombe County, 
North Carolina and would allow Cells 1-10 of the landfill to utilize 
recirculation of leachate supplemented with river water, as long as 
each cells meets the design criteria and other requirements set forth 
in Sec. 258.41(a).
1. Design Specifications
    Currently, federal regulations outline two methods for complying 
with liner requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. The first 
method is a performance standard under 40 CFR 258.40(a)(1). This 
standard allows installation of any liner configuration provided the 
liner design is approved by an EPA approved state and the design 
ensures that certain constituent concentrations are not exceeded in the 
uppermost aquifer underlying the landfill facility at the point of 
compliance.
    The second method is set out in 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) and (b). 
Section 258.40(b) sets forth a specific liner design which consists of 
two components: (1) An upper component comprising a minimum of 30 mil 
flexible membrane liner (60 mil if High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is 
used); and (2) a lower component comprising at least two feet of 
compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity no greater than 
1 x 10-7 cm/sec.
    As stated earlier, leachate recirculation in municipal landfills is 
allowed under 40 CFR 258.28(a)(2) but only if the liner system complies 
with the design standard set out under 40 CFR 258.40(b) and a leachate 
collection system as described in Sec. 258.40(a)(2). The reason that 
the existing regulation requires a leachate collection system and a 
composite liner design as specified Sec. 258.40(a)(2) is to ensure that 
contaminant migration to the aquifer is controlled. (56 FR 50978, 51056 
(Oct. 9, 1991)).
    Under today's proposal, 40 CFR 258.41(a) would specifically address 
Buncombe County Landfill in Alexander, North Carolina and would allow 
Cells 3 -10 of that landfill to recirculate leachate over an 
alternative liner as long as those cells met the

[[Page 19409]]

requirements set forth in that subsection. Section 258.41(a)(4) would 
provide an alternative to the landfill liner design requirements set 
forth at 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2) and (b). These design criteria would be 
identical to the liner design described in 40 CFR 258.40(b), except 
that the upper component would include a 60 mil HDPE liner overlying a 
GCL with a hydraulic conductivity of no greater than 
1 x 10-9 cm/sec. The lower component of the composite liner 
would consist of 18 inches of compacted soil with a hydraulic 
conductivity of not more than 1 x 10-5 cm/sec. The GCL will 
overlay and be in direct contact with the compacted soil layer.
    The State of North Carolina reviewed the alternative liner system 
proposed for Cell 3 prior to approval and authorization for 
construction. The state's alternative liner design showed a leakage 
rate through the standard Subtitle D liner system and compared that 
figure against rates calculated for the alternative liner system 
proposed for Cell 3. The standard liner calculations produced a leakage 
rate of 1.12 gallons/acre/day while the alternative liner calculations 
produced a leakage rate of only 0.53 gallons/acre/day (North Carolina 
Permitting Guidance for Alternative Composite Liner Systems, June 1, 
1998). The alternative liner's leakage rate is expected to be less than 
half that of the standard prescribed liner. The modeling performed to 
complete the demonstration of the acceptability (and superiority) of 
the alternative liner involves inputting the leakage rates into EPA's 
MULTIMED model, which simulates the movement of contaminants leaching 
from a landfill. The output of the MULTIMED model reflects the fact 
that the alternative liner is more protective than the standard 
regulatory liner. Based on this information, EPA is satisfied that the 
liner design will afford as much, if not more, protection to 
groundwater as the standard composite liner specified in 40 CFR 
258.41(a).
    As further protection against liner leakage, the proposed rule 
would require cells 3 -10 to be constructed with an adjunct leak 
detection system underlying the compacted soil layer of the sump 
portion of each landfill cell. The leak detection system would be 
required to consist of 60-mil HDPE liner placed on a prepared subgrade. 
Any leakage through the primary composite liner system would be 
captured on the 60 mil HDPE liner and fed to a sump. The design 
specifications would also require a 4-inch capped pipe to drain 
leachate collected in the sump out beyond the footprint of the landfill 
cell.
    Based on the modeling for the alternative liner, in conjunction 
with the leak detection system, EPA believes that the addition of 
landfill leachate into cells 3-10 will not result in any increased 
leakage to groundwater from the bioreactor cells. EPA seeks comment on 
allowing the addition of liquids to cells 3-10 if constructed with the 
proposed alternative liner.
    The proposed rule would not change the requirement in 40 CFR 
258.28(a)(2) that a leachate collection system as described in 40 CFR 
258.40(a)(2) be in place in order for leachate to be recirculated in 
the landfill unit. Buncombe County's proposed design for Cells 3-10 
would still be required to have leachate collection systems designed to 
maintain leachate over the liner to a depth of no more than 30 cm.
2. Operational Requirements
    The proposed rule would only allow certain liquid waste to be added 
to the Buncombe County facility. Section 258.41(a)(2) would authorize 
only leachate or gas condensate derived from the MSWLF, which may be 
supplemented with water from the French Broad River. Buncombe County 
would also be required to control liquids addition in order to assure 
that the average moisture content of the landfill does not exceed 50% 
by weight. EPA is proposing a moisture content of 50% by weight because 
this is in the middle of the 40%-70% range commonly accepted as needed 
for biological reaction to go forward in a bioreactor landfill.\1\ The 
proposal allows the State Director to establish a different maximum 
limit on landfill unit moisture content if the State Director 
determines that a different limit is either necessary to maintain the 
integrity of the landfill and its liner system or to increase the 
reaction rate, provided landfill and liner system integrity are 
maintained. As previously stated, prior to adding any supplemental 
liquids to the facility, Buncombe County will prepare a comprehensive 
landfill stability analysis under recirculation conditions with 
supplemental liquids and will submit this analysis to three university 
professors who are recognized as experienced in the field of 
geotechnical engineering in general, and landfill slope stability. The 
proposed rule also includes, as a prerequisite to adding liquids, the 
requirement that Buncombe County receive an air quality permit from the 
Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency incorporating 
requirements for Buncombe County Landfill XL project. The air quality 
permit is also referred to as the Federally-Enforceable State-Operating 
Permit (FESOP). The air permit addressing the potential for earlier gas 
generation was issued on November 13, 2000 and would be required to be 
in effect during the entire period of leachate recirculation and post 
closure period. As described above in section III.B., Expected Superior 
Environmental Performance, one result of adding liquids to a landfill 
is that landfill gases will be generated earlier and over a shorter 
period than in a conventional landfill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Reinhart, Debra R. and Townsend, Timothy G., Landfill Design 
and Operation (Lewis Pub. 1998), p. 140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Monitoring and Reporting
    As discussed above in section III.A., Description of the Project, 
an important element of the project is the information about bioreactor 
operation, alternative liner performance, waste decomposition 
efficiency, and potential environmental impacts. The proposed rule 
would require Buncombe County to monitor certain parameters which are 
not required for conventional MSWLFs under 40 CFR part 258. Some of 
this data, for example, moisture content, would be required in order to 
assess the physical stability of the landfill unit. The proposed rule 
would also require Buncombe County to report data obtained from the 
required monitoring to the State and EPA on an annual basis.
4. Duration of Authority
    The FPA calls for the project to continue for 25 years in order to 
take into account the bioreactor process in all 10 cells of the 
facility. Therefore, today's proposal would provide that 40 CFR 
258.41(a) be in effect for 25 years from the effective date of the 
rule.
    The proposal also includes an early termination provision in the 
event of noncompliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 258.41(a). The 
EPA Regional Administrator for Region 4 would be authorized to issue a 
notice of termination, stating the reason for the decision to terminate 
the authority under 40 CFR 258.41(a). The Regional Administrator could 
terminate the rule with respect to all or part of the landfill cells 
for which the site-specific authority to add liquids would be required 
(Cells 3-10). Termination would take effect 60 days from the date of 
the notice, unless the Regional Administrator determined, in writing, 
to rescind the termination. In the event of termination, all the 
applicable regulatory requirements of 40 CFR part 258 that would have 
applied to the Buncombe County facility in the absence of 40 CFR 
258.41(a) would be

[[Page 19410]]

applicable. However, the Regional Administrator could establish an 
interim compliance period if deemed necessary to complete the 
transition from bioreactor operation to conventional ``dry tomb'' 
operation.
    This provision for early termination of the rule is not exclusive. 
In addition to termination for noncompliance, the FPA allows any party 
to the agreement to terminate the project before the end of 25 years, 
for any reason. In the event that EPA determines that this project and 
site-specific rule should be terminated for reasons other than 
noncompliance before the end of the 25 year period and that the site-
specific rule should be rescinded, the Agency would withdraw this rule 
through a subsequent rulemaking. This will afford all interested 
persons and entities the opportunity to comment on the proposed early 
termination and withdrawal of regulatory authority, and the proposed 
termination would also include any proposal for an interim compliance 
period while Buncombe County returned to full compliance with the 
existing requirements of 40 CFR part 258.
    In addition, new laws or regulations may become applicable during 
the project term which might render the project impractical, or might 
contain regulatory requirements that supersede this XL Project. Or, 
during the project duration, EPA may decide to change the federal rule 
allowing recirculation over alternative liners and the addition of 
outside bulk liquids for all Subtitle D landfills. In that event, the 
FPA and site-specific rule for this project would no longer be needed.

V. Additional Information

A. How To Request a Public Hearing

    If requested, a public hearing will be held to provide opportunity 
for interested persons to make oral presentations regarding this 
proposed rulemaking, in accordance with 40 CFR part 25. Persons wishing 
to make an oral presentation on the proposed site specific rule to 
implement a leachate recirculation system with an alternative liner at 
the Buncombe County Landfill should contact Sherri Walker at the 
address given in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Any member of 
the public may file a written statement before the hearing or after the 
hearing to be received by EPA no later than fourteen days after 
publication of this proposed rulemaking. Written statements should be 
sent to EPA at the addresses given in the ADDRESSES section of this 
document. If a public hearing is held, a verbatim transcript of the 
hearing and written statements provided at the hearing will be 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours at 
the EPA addresses for docket inspection given in the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble.

B. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 
Planning and Review?

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

C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility 
analysis of any rule subject to notice and public comment rulemaking 
requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. Only the definition 
of ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is relevant here. 5 U.S.C. 
601(5) defines ``small governmental jurisdiction'' to mean governments 
of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand. 
According to Buncombe County officials, the county population in 1990 
exceeded 150,000; thus, Buncombe County does not qualify as ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601(5). 
Consequently, EPA can certify that this proposed rulemaking will not 
have an significant impact on a small governmental jurisdiction and is 
not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for This Project Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act?

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 4 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq. The requirements of this proposed rule would not apply to 10 or 
more entities, therefore the PRA does not apply.

E. Does This Project Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act?

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments in 
the aggregate or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of the EPA regulatory proposal with significant Federal 
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on 
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    As discussed above, this proposed rulemaking has limited 
application. It applies only to the Buncombe County Solid Waste 
Management Facility. If adopted, this proposed rule would result in a 
cost savings for Buncombe County when compared with the costs it would 
have had to incur if required to adhere to the requirements contained 
in the current rule. As such, this proposed rule would not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any one year. While this proposed rule would have a 
unique affect for Buncombe County, the population of Buncombe County 
exceeds that which would qualify it as a ``small government,'' 
therefore, EPA is not required under section 203 of UMRA to develop a 
small government plan.

[[Page 19411]]

However, EPA has worked with and continues to work with Buncombe 
County, affected citizens, and other stakeholders in seeking meaningful 
and timely input into the development of the Final Project Agreement 
and this proposed rule. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

F. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13045: Protection of 
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks?

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically 
significant,'' as defined in Executive Order 12886; and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to potentially effective and feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, 
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children. The proposed rule does not involve 
decisions based on environmental health or safety risks because it is 
limited to modifying a regulatory construction standard for a municipal 
solid waste liner that is expected to result in a liner which performs 
at least as well as the liner design specified in the current 
regulations and for a lesser construction cost.

G. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial and 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of powers and responsibilities among various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rulemaking will only 
affect one local governmental entity and state and would provide 
regulatory flexibility for each entity concerned. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.

H. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13175: Consultation 
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments?

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
EPA is currently unaware of any Indian tribes located in the vicinity 
of the landfill or Buncombe County. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does 
not apply to this rule.

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

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, requires that EPA use 
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless such 
practice is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (for example, 
material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standard bodies. If EPA elects not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards, EPA must provide an explanation to 
Congress, through OMB, as to why EPA is not using the standard.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. This rule 
complies with the requirements of the NTTAA because it utilizes 
existing voluntary consensus standards developed by the American 
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). The ASTM is a voluntary 
consensus standards-setting body under the NTTAA. EPA proposes to use 
ASTM D5261 and ASTM D2216 as standards for the geosynthetic liner 
specified in proposed 40 CFR 258.41(a)(4)(iii). These standards assure 
the proper standards of production for geotextiles and geosynthetic 
clay liners addressed in today's proposed rule. Both standards were 
approved on June 15, 1992. They are available from ASTM through their 
website, http://www.astm.org/, or by contacting them at ASTM, 100 Barr 
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 19428-2959. In addition, 
EPA asks the public to identify potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standards not addressed by EPA and explain why this standard 
is applicable and how it should be applied in this regulation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258

    Environmental protection, Solid waste, Landfill.

    Dated: April 3, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 258 of title 40 
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 
6912(a), 6944, 6945(c), and 6949a(c).

Subpart C--Operating Criteria

    2. Amend Sec. 258.28 by:
    a. Removing ``or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(1).
    b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(2) and adding in 
it's place ``; or'.
    c. Adding paragraph (a)(3).
    The addition reads as follows:

[[Page 19412]]

Sec. 258.28  Liquids restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The MSWLF unit is a Project XL MSWLF and meets the applicable 
requirements in Sec. 258.41. The owner or operator must place 
documentation of the landfill design in the operating record and notify 
the State Director that it has been placed in the operating record.
* * * * *

Subpart D--Design Criteria

    3. Section 258.41 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 258.41  Project XL bioreactor landfill projects.

    (a) Buncombe County, North Carolina Project XL Bioreactor Landfill 
Requirements. Paragraph (a) of this section applies to Cells 1, 2, 3, 
4, and 5 of the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility located 
in the County of Buncombe, North Carolina, owned and operated by the 
Buncombe County Solid Waste Authority, or its successors. This 
subsection will also apply to Cells 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, provided that 
the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 4 and the State Director 
determine that the pilot project in Cells 3, 4, and 5 is performing as 
expected and that the pilot project has not exhibited detrimental 
environmental results.
    (1) The Buncombe County Solid Waste Authority is allowed to place 
liquid waste in the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility, 
provided that the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2) through (9) of this 
section are met.
    (2) The only liquid waste allowed under this section is leachate or 
gas condensate derived from the MSWLF, which may be supplemented with 
water from the French Broad River. The owner or operator shall control 
any liquids to the landfill to assure that the average moisture content 
of the landfill does not exceed 50% by weight. Liquid addition and 
recirculation is allowed only to the extent that the integrity of the 
landfill including its liner system is maintained, as determined by the 
State Director.
    (3) The MSWLF unit shall be designed and constructed with a liner 
and leachate collection system as described in Sec. 258.40(a)(2) or 
paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this section. The owner or operator must 
place documentation of the landfill design in the operating record and 
notify the State Director that it has been placed in operating record;
    (4) Cells 3-10 shall be constructed with a liner system consisting 
of the components described in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (v) of this 
section, or an equivalent or superior liner system as determined by the 
State Director:
    (i) A lower component consisting of at least 18 inches of compacted 
soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1  x  
10-5 cm/sec., and
    (ii) An upper component consisting of a minimum 30-millimeter 
(``mil'') flexible membrane liner (FML) or 60-mil if High Density 
Polyethylene (``HDPE'') is used, and
    (iii) A geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) overlaying and in direct 
contact with the 18 inches of compacted soil in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of 
this section and having the following properties:
    (A) The GCL shall be formulated and manufactured from polypropylene 
geotextiles and high swelling containment resistant sodium bentonite. 
The bentonite-geotextile liner shall be manufactured using a minimum of 
one pound per square foot as determined using ASTM D5261 test method, 
of a high swelling sodium montmorillonite clay at 12% moisture content 
as determined by the ASTM D2216 test method.
    (B) The encapsulating geotextile shall be polypropylene and shall 
have a minimum weight of 6 oz./square yard.
    (iv) The upper component shall be installed in direct and uniform 
contact with an overlaying soil cushioning component.
    (v) Underlying the above liner system, there shall also be 
installed a leak detection system consisting of a 60-mil HDPE liner 
placed on a prepared subgrade.
    (A) A 4 inch capped pipe will drain liquid collected in the sump 
out beyond the footprint of the landfill cell.
    (B) Water collected on the leak detection liner shall be monitored 
at least semi-annually as directed by the State Director to determine 
whether any leachate escaped the liner system.
    (5) Cells 3-10 shall be designed and constructed with a leachate 
collection system to maintain less than 30 centimeters depth of 
leachate is present at the sump location. The leachate collection 
system shall include a continuous monitoring system to monitor depth of 
leachate.
    (6) The owner/operator shall keep the Federally Enforceable State 
Operating Permit (FESOP) issued the by the Western North Carolina Air 
Quality Agency for the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility 
in effect, and shall comply with the provisions of the FESOP, during 
the entire period of leachate recirculation and the post closure 
period. The FESOP was issued on November 13, 2000 and contains the air 
quality requirements for the Buncombe County Landfill XL project.
    (7) Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. The owner or operator of 
the Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility shall monitor for 
the parameters listed in paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (xiii) of this 
section and submit an annual report on the XL project to the EPA 
Regional Administrator for Region 4 and the State Director. The first 
report is due coincident with the October 2001 report to the state. The 
report should state what progress has been made toward the superior 
environmental performance and other commitments as stated in the Final 
Project Agreement. The report shall include, at a minimum, the 
following data:
    (i) Amount of landfill gas generated;
    (ii) Percent capture of landfill gas, if known;
    (iii) Quality of the landfill gas, amount and type of liquids 
applied to the landfill;
    (iv) Method of liquids application to the landfill;
    (v) Quantity of waste placed in the landfill;
    (vi) Quantity and quality of leachate collected;
    (vii) Quantity of leachate recirculated back into the landfill;
    (viii) Information on the pretreatment of waste applied to the 
landfill;
    (ix) Data collected on landfill temperature and moisture content;
    (x) Data on the leachate pressure (head) on the liner;
    (xi) Observations, information, and studies made on the physical 
stability of the MSWLF units that are developed during the project 
term, if any.
    (xii) The above data may be summarized, and, at a minimum shall 
contain, the minimum, maximum, median, and average data points as well 
as the frequency of monitoring as applicable.
    (xiii) The method and frequency of monitoring shall be specified by 
the State Director.
    (8) Termination and Withdrawal.
    (i) Paragraph (a) of this section will terminate 25 years from its 
effective date, unless a subsequent rulemaking is issued or terminated 
earlier pursuant to paragraph (a)(8)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) In the event of noncompliance with paragraph (a) of this 
section, EPA may terminate the authority under paragraph (a) of this 
section and the authority to add liquid wastes to all or part of cells 
3-10 under Sec. 258.28(a)(3). The EPA Regional Administrator will 
provide written notice of intent to terminate to the Buncombe County 
Solid Waste Authority with a copy to

[[Page 19413]]

the State Director. The notice will state EPA's intent to terminate 
under the rules and will include a brief statement of EPA's reasons for 
its action. The termination will take effect 60 days from the date of 
the notice, unless the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 4 issues a 
written notice rescinding the termination.
    (9) Compliance Requirements in the Event of Termination or 
Withdrawal. The Buncombe County Solid Waste Management Facility will be 
subject to all regulatory provisions applicable to MSWLFs upon 
termination of authority under this section. In the event of early 
termination of this section, the EPA Regional Administrator for Region 
4 may provide an interim period of compliance to allow Buncombe County 
a reasonable period of time for transition following cessation of 
liquids addition.
    (b) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 01-9359 Filed 4-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P