[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47310-47320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18175]


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

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 two-fold: 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 
non-hazardous 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

[[Page 47311]]

phoning the Docket Office at (703) 603-9230. Refer to RCRA Docket 
Number F-2001-WVLP-FFFFF and F-2002-WVLF-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) 814-5254.

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) 
814-3215. 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) 814-
3215 [email protected].

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 
XL--``eXcellence and Leadership''--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 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.
    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. F-2001-WVLP-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

[[Page 47312]]

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 site-specific 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 
Sec. 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. F-2002-WVLF-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

[[Page 47313]]

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 cells--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. F-2001-WVLP-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. F-2001-WVLP-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. F-2001-WVLP-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

[[Page 47314]]

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. F-2001-WVLP-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 WWW-compliant 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 5-80-10) 
for the King George Landfill which contains the enforceable parameters 
and requirements reflecting the New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS)--compliant gas collection, control and monitoring. In addition, 
on July 31, 2001, VADEQ issued a Title V Operating permit (9 VAC 5-80-
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

[[Page 47315]]

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 Sec. 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). 
Sec. 258.40(b) specifies a liner design which consists of two 
components: (1) An upper component comprising a minimum of 30 mil 
flexible membrane liner (60 mil if High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is 
used); and (2) a lower component comprising at least two feet of 
compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity no greater than 
1x10-\7\ cm/sec.

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 < 1x10-\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 < 1x10-\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 1x10-\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 < 1x10-\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 < 1x10-\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 Sec. 258.40(b), the 
alternative liner systems meet or exceed the performance requirements 
for municipal solid waste landfills. Indeed, these landfills' double-
liner 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/Groundwater-Associated Concerns
    Research reported in ``Active Municipal Waste Landfill Operations: 
A Biochemical Reactor'' (Reinhart, 1995, see Docket No. F-2001-WVLP-
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 near-neutral 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 groundwater-related 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

[[Page 47316]]

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) 698-4214. 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. F-2001-
WVLP-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 20-80-480.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

[[Page 47317]]

supersede the superior environmental benefits that are being achieved 
under this XL project. Or, during the project duration, EPA may decide 
to change the Federal rule allowing recirculation over alternative 
liners and the addition of outside bulk liquids for all Subtitle D 
landfills. In that event, the FPA and site-specific rule for this 
project 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 Sec. 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:

--The liquids comprise household waste (other than septic waste), or 
leachate from the landfill itself, or gas condensate derived from the 
landfill, and
--The 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 site-specific rule for the Yolo 
County, CA, bioreactor landfill project under Project XL, which amended 
Sec. 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 Sec. 258.41'' (66 FR 42441-42449, August 13, 
2001). Therefore, the regulatory relief needed for the VA Project XL 
Landfills is a site-specific 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 258.41. New Sec. 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 semi-annual 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 Sec. 258.40(a)(2) to ensure that contaminant migration to 
the aquifer is controlled. (56 FR 50978-51056, Oct. 9, 1991). This rule 
will not change the requirement in Sec. 258.28(a)(2) that a leachate 
collection system (as described in Sec. 258.40(a)(2)) be in place in 
order for leachate to be recirculated in the landfill unit, 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

[[Page 47318]]

a small business. This rule does not apply to small businesses, small 
not-for-profit 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 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments in 
the aggregate or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of the EPA regulatory proposal with significant Federal 
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on 
compliance with the regulatory requirements. As used here, ``small 
government'' has the same meaning as that contained under 5 U.S.C. 
601(5), that is, governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of 
less than fifty thousand.
    As discussed above, this rule 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' double-
liner 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.

[[Page 47319]]

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 104-113, 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:


Sec. 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 
non-hazardous 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 258.40 are not exceeded 
in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of compliance for the 
landfill, as specified by the State Director, under Sec. 258.40(d).
    (3) The 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

[[Page 47320]]

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 
Sec. 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. 02-18175 Filed 7-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P