[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 52 (Thursday, March 19, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11677-11681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5848]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2008-0354; FRL-8777-9]


Final Determination to Approve Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Request for the Salt River Landfill

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency Region IX is making a 
final determination to approve a research, development, and 
demonstration (RD&D) project at the Salt River Landfill, a commercial 
municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) owned and operated by the Salt 
River Pima-Maricopa County Indian Community (SRPMIC) on the SRPMIC 
reservation in Arizona. EPA is promulgating a site-specific rule 
proposed on August 4, 2008, that approves the RD&D project at the Salt 
River Landfill.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 19, 2009. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule 
have been approved by the Director of the Federal Register on March 19, 
2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2008-0354. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Docket Facility 
located at the Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California. The Docket Facility is open from 9 
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Thursday, excluding legal holidays, and 
is located in a secured building. To review docket materials at the 
Docket facility, it is recommended that the public make an appointment 
by calling the Docket Facility at (415) 947-4406 during normal business 
hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Ueno, Waste Management Division, 
WST-7, Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105-3901; telephone number: (415) 972-3317; fax number: 
(415) 947-3530; e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 11678]]

I. General Information

A. What Did EPA Propose?

    After completing a review of SRPMIC's final site-specific 
flexibility application request, dated September 27, 2007, and the 
amendments to that application, dated April 8, 2008, EPA proposed to 
approve in the Federal Register on August 4, 2008, (73 FR 45187) 
SRPMIC's site-specific flexibility request to: (1) Install an 
alternative bottom liner system in an area of the landfill known as 
Phase VI and to operate Phase VI as an anaerobic bioreactor by 
recirculating leachate and landfill gas condensate, and adding storm 
water and groundwater to the below grade portions of Phase VI; and (2) 
recirculate leachate and landfill gas condensate and add storm water 
and groundwater to the below grade portions of areas of the landfill 
known as Phases IIIB and IVA to increase the moisture content of the 
waste mass in these phases, both of which have alternative bottom liner 
systems, which were previously approved by EPA.

B. What Is a Site-Specific Flexibility Request?

    Under Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as amended by the 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), EPA established 
revised minimum federal criteria for MSWLFs, including landfill 
location restrictions, operating standards, design standards and 
requirements for ground water monitoring, corrective action, closure 
and post-closure care, and financial assurance. Under RCRA Section 
4005, states are to develop permit programs for facilities that may 
receive household hazardous waste or waste from conditionally exempt 
small quantity generators, and EPA determines whether the program is 
adequate to ensure that facilities will comply with the revised 
criteria.
    The MSWLF criteria are in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 
part 258. These regulations are self-implementing and apply directly to 
owners and operators of MSWLFs. For many of these criteria, 40 CFR part 
258 includes a flexible performance standard as an alternative to the 
self-implementing regulation. The flexible standard is not self-
implementing, and use of the alternative standard requires approval by 
the Director of an EPA-approved state.
    Since EPA's approval of the State of Arizona's program generally 
does not extend to Indian country, owners and operators of MSWLF units 
located in Indian country cannot take advantage of the flexibilities 
available to those facilities subject to the approved State program. 
However, the EPA has the authority under Sections 2002, 4004, and 4010 
of RCRA to promulgate site-specific rules that may provide for use of 
alternative standards. See Yankton Sioux Tribe v. EPA, 950 F. Supp. 
1471 (D.S.D. 1996); Backcountry Against Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147 
(D.C. Cir. 1996). EPA has developed draft guidance on preparing a site-
specific request to provide flexibility to owners or operators of 
MSWLFs in Indian country (Site-Specific Flexibility Requests for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country Draft Guidance, 
EPA530-R-97-016, August 1997).
    On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a final rule at 40 CFR 258.4 amending 
the municipal solid waste landfill criteria to allow for RD&D permits. 
(69 FR 13242). This rule allows for variances from specified criteria 
for a limited period of time. Specifically, the rule allows for the 
Director of an approved state to issue a time-limited RD&D permit for a 
new MSWLF unit, existing MSWLF unit, or lateral expansion, for which 
the owner or operator proposes to use innovative and new methods which 
vary from either or both of the following: (1) The run-on control 
systems at 40 CFR 258.26(a)(1); and/or (2) the liquids restrictions at 
40 CFR 258.28(a), provided that the MSWLF unit has a leachate 
collection system designed and constructed to maintain less than a 30-
cm depth of leachate on the liner. The rule also allows for the 
issuance of a time-limited RD&D permit for which the owner or operator 
proposes to use innovative and new methods that vary from the final 
cover criteria at 40 CFR 258.60(a)(1) and (2), and (b)(1), provided 
that the owner or operator demonstrates that the infiltration of liquid 
through the alternative cover system will not cause contamination to 
groundwater or surface water, or cause leachate depth on the liner to 
exceed 30 cm. RD&D permits must include such terms and conditions at 
least as protective as the criteria for MSWLFs to assure protection of 
human health and the environment. An RD&D permit cannot exceed three 
years and a renewal of an RD&D permit cannot exceed three years. 
Although multiple renewals of an RD&D permit can be issued, the current 
total term for an RD&D permit including renewals cannot exceed twelve 
years. In adopting the RD&D rule, EPA stated that RD&D facilities in 
Indian country could be approved in a site-specific rule. (69 FR 
13253).

C. Overview of SRPMIC's Site-Specific Flexibility Request and EPA's 
Action

    Today, EPA is making a final determination to approve SRPMIC's 
site-specific flexibility request to: (1) Install an alternative bottom 
liner system in Phase VI and to operate Phase VI as an anaerobic 
bioreactor by recirculating leachate and landfill gas condensate, and 
adding storm water and groundwater to the below grade portions of Phase 
VI; and (2) recirculate leachate and landfill gas condensate and add 
storm water and groundwater to the below grade portions of Phases IIIB 
and IVA to increase the moisture content of the waste mass in these 
phases, both of which have alternative bottom liner systems, which were 
previously approved by EPA. The Tribe's request is discussed in further 
detail in the August 4, 2008 proposal.
    EPA is basing its final determination on a number of factors, 
including SRPMIC's overarching goal to demonstrate protection of human 
health and the environment, and the requirement of today's final rule 
to maintain less than 30-cm depth of leachate on the liner. SRPMIC will 
also maintain a 25-foot or greater separation zone between the bottom 
of the landfill and the top of the groundwater aquifer, and will 
routinely monitor leachate quantity and quality, liquids balance, 
volume and settlement of the waste, and groundwater quality and levels.
    SRPMIC will ensure that each horizontal pipe gallery in Phase VI 
will be used to collect landfill gas before being converted for liquids 
addition to reduce the risk of negatively affecting the gas collection 
efficiency of the pipe gallery. No pipe gallery will be converted to 
liquids addition until the pipe gallery above it is installed and 
collecting landfill gas. SRPMIC also will install at least two layers 
of horizontal pipe galleries in the above-grade portion of Phase VI for 
the sole purpose of collecting gas. To further reduce the risk of 
increased landfill gas generation and fugitive emissions, SRPMIC will 
only add liquids to the below-grade portions of Phases VI, IIIB, and 
IVA. SRPMIC will monitor fugitive gas emissions annually or more 
frequently, as appropriate, using ground-based optical remote sensing 
(EPA OTM-10), and will routinely monitor landfill gas quantity and 
quality. Using information gained from the monitoring program, SRPMIC 
will propose site-specific input parameters to EPA that improve 
modeling calculations for the amount of landfill gas generated and the

[[Page 11679]]

performance of landfill gas collection systems.
    In the event that EPA determines that the project goals are not 
being attained, including protecting human health and the environment, 
EPA may terminate SRPMIC's authority to operate the RD&D project.
    As part of this final determination and in accordance with 40 CFR 
258.4, EPA is requiring SRPMIC to maintain less than 30 cm depth of 
leachate on the liner in Phases VI, IIIB, and IVA, and to ensure that 
the approved operation of these Phases is protective of human health 
and the environment. For purposes of the alternative liner system in 
Phase VI, the relevant point(s) of compliance pursuant to 40 CFR 258.40 
will be determined by EPA and shall be no more than 150 meters from the 
waste management cell boundaries and located on land owned by the owner 
of the cells.
    In accordance with its application, which today's final rule 
incorporates by reference, SRPMIC will submit annual reports to EPA 
that summarize and show whether and to what extent RD&D project goals 
are being achieved. The annual report will include a summary of all 
monitoring and testing results. Any deviations from the September 27, 
2007 application, and the April 8, 2008 amendments to that application, 
must continue to conform to the standards set forth in 40 CFR 258.4 and 
require the prior approval of EPA.
    Also in accordance with its application, SRPMIC will arrange for 
independent, third party inspections of the RD&D operations on a 
quarterly basis throughout the term of the RD&D approval. Copies of the 
report will be submitted to EPA.
    EPA's final determination will allow operation of the subject 
Phases of the landfill consistent with the RD&D rule for a total of 12 
years. However, the owner or operator of the landfill must seek a 
renewal of this authority every three years. Each renewal request is 
subject to public notice and comment. No renewal may be for greater 
than three years and the overall period of operation may not exceed 
twelve years.

D. Summary of Public Comments Received and Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment on EPA's Tentative Determination. The 
commenter, the National Solid Wastes Management Association, expressed 
concern with the use of ground-based optical remote sensing (EPA OTM-
10). The commenter felt that the use of OTM-10 should not be required 
at this time, and indicated concern with the test method's 
applicability to municipal solid waste landfills and relatively high 
cost, and cited EPA's ongoing research on the test method. The 
commenter suggested that EPA use existing gas monitoring methods rather 
than OTM-10 until EPA's current research on OTM-10 is completed, and 
the method's applicability to landfills and cost-effectiveness are 
demonstrated.
    As indicated in EPA's ``Development of EPA OTM-10 for Landfill 
Applications Interim Report 2,'' (September 2008), due to the spatial 
extent and non-homogenous nature of many source areas, assessment of 
fugitive emissions using traditional point sampling techniques can be 
problematic. EPA posted OTM-10 in 2006 to help address this issue, and 
believes it is a valuable tool to supplement traditional monitoring 
approaches. OTM-10 is an ``other test method'' that has not been 
subject to Federal rulemaking, but which may be useful to the emission 
control community. EPA continues to study the application of OTM-10 
from both performance and implementation standpoints.
    For purposes of today's action, the use of OTM-10 is specific 
solely to the Salt River Landfill and the SRPMIC Research, Development, 
and Demonstration project. SPRMIC agreed to use OTM-10 to help address 
concerns with increases to fugitive gas emissions from bioreactor 
operations. OTM-10 data will supplement other landfill gas monitoring 
and operating information collected to better project the amount of 
landfill gas generated and the performance of the landfill gas 
collection system.
    The SRPMIC project is a research, development, and demonstration 
project, and EPA believes that the data collected by SRPMIC will help 
to characterize emissions from the bioreactor operations at the 
landfill and further the research and evaluation of the OTM-10 test 
method by providing additional information on actual use scenarios. EPA 
anticipates working closely with SRPMIC to help guide the 
implementation of OTM-10 and facilitate the quality and use of data 
collected. Any long-term use of OTM-10 at the Salt River Landfill will 
be assessed after EPA reviews the method's applicability at this 
landfill, and overall cost-effectiveness.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 
(NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of 
their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. 
In accordance with this provision, EPA first determined whether it has 
an undertaking that is a type of activity that could affect historic 
properties. Historic properties are properties that are included in the 
National Register of Historic Places or that meet the criteria for the 
National Register. EPA then identified the appropriate State Historic 
Preservation Officer (SHPO) to consult with during the process, the 
Arizona SHPO.
    The NHPA regulations, found at 36 CFR Part 800, place major 
emphasis on consultation with Indian tribes. Consultation with an 
Indian tribe must respect tribal sovereignty and the government-to-
government relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes. Even if an Indian tribe has not been certified by the National 
Park Service to have a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) who 
can act for the SHPO on its lands, it must be consulted about 
undertakings on or affecting its lands on the same basis and in 
addition to the SHPO.
    While there was no Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the 
Tribes which historically used the area around the Salt River Landfill, 
EPA consulted with the SRPMIC, as well as the Ak-Chin Indian Community, 
the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Gila River Indian Community, the 
Hopi Tribe, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the 
Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. No 
cultural or historic properties were identified by these Tribes, nor 
was any interest expressed in having further consultation on the NHPA 
process with EPA.
    Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, EPA reviewed SRPMIC's site-
specific flexibility request to take into account the effect of the 
proposed RD&D project on historic properties. EPA tentatively 
determined that there is a one-half mile area of potential effects, a 
finding that the Arizona Canal is the sole historic property within the 
APE, and that the action has no adverse effect.
    EPA received no public comments on the proposed Area of Potential 
Effects (APE), proposed finding that the Arizona Canal is the sole 
historic property within the APE, or proposed finding of no adverse 
effect under the NHPA. As a result, EPA is today also making a finding 
of no adverse effect under the NHPA, having determined that the RD&D 
project will not adversely affect the Arizona Canal, which is the sole 
historic property within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The 
Arizona SHPO concurs with EPA's finding.

[[Page 11680]]

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability 
and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility only.
    Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a 
particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 
to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a 
particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA.
    Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this 
proposed 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, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
rule.
    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, 
``Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 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 basis for this belief is EPA's conservative analysis of 
the potential risks posed by SRPMIC's proposal and the controls and 
standards set forth in the application.
    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.
    As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice 
Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has 
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct.
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
With Indian Tribal Governments,'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
calls for 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.'' EPA has concluded that this 
action may have tribal implications because it is directly applicable 
to the owner and/or operator of the landfill, which is currently the 
Tribe. However, this tentative determination, if made final, will 
neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal 
governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This tentative determination to 
approve the SRPMIC's application will affect only the SRPMIC's 
operation of their landfill on their own land.
    EPA consulted with the SRPMIC early in the process of making this 
tentative determination to approve the Tribe's RD&D project so as to 
give them meaningful and timely input into the determination. In 2005, 
SRPMIC submitted its site-specific RD&D flexibility request. Between 
2005 and 2008, many technical issues were raised and addressed 
concerning SRPMIC's proposal. EPA's consultation with the Tribe 
culminated in the SRPMIC submitting an RD&D application amendment in 
April of 2008.
    With respect to the type of flexibility being afforded to SRPMIC 
under this proposed rule, EO 13175 does provide for agencies to review 
applications for flexibility ``with a general view toward increasing 
opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the Indian 
tribal level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with 
the applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise 
appropriate.'' In formulating this tentative determination and proposed 
rule, the Region has been guided by the fundamental principles set 
forth in EO 13175 and has granted the SRPMIC the ``maximum 
administrative discretion possible'' within the standards set forth 
under the RD&D rule in accordance with EO 13175.
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards, (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The technical standards included in the application were proposed 
by SRPMIC. Given EPA's obligations under EO 13175 (see above), the 
Agency has, to the extent appropriate, applied the standards 
established by the Tribe. In addition, the Agency considered the 
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council's February 2006 technical 
and regulatory guideline ``Characterization, Design, Construction, and 
Monitoring of Bioreactor Landfills.''

    Authority: Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 4010 of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6907, 6912, 6944, 
and 6949a. Temporary Delegation of Authority to Promulgate Site-
Specific Rules to Respond to Requests for Flexibility from Owners/
Operators of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities in Indian 
Country, February 26, 2008, Incorporation by Reference.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Municipal 
landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment 
and disposal.

    Dated: February 19, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 258 is amended as 
follows:

PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS

Subpart D--[Amended]

0
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), 6981(a).


0
2. Amend Subpart D to add Sec.  258.42 to read as follows:


Sec.  258.42  Approval of Site-specific Flexibility Requests in Indian 
Country.

    (a) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), Salt River 
Landfill Research, Development, and Demonstration Project Requirements. 
Paragraph (a) of this section applies to the Salt River Landfill, a 
municipal solid waste landfill owned and operated by the SPRMIC on the 
SRPMIC's reservation in Arizona, which includes waste disposal areas 
identified as ``Phases I-VI.'' The application submitted by SRPMIC, 
``Research, Development, and Demonstration Permit Application Salt 
River Landfill,'' dated September 24, 2007 and amended

[[Page 11681]]

on April 8, 2008 is hereby incorporated by reference. The Director of 
the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may inspect or 
obtain a copy at the Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, or by calling the Docket Facility 
at (415) 947-4406, or go to http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. 
EPA-R09-RCRA-2008-0354. You may also inspect a copy at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the 
availability at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. The facility owner and/or operator may operate the 
facility in accordance with this application, including the following 
activities more generally described as follows:
    (1) The owner and/or operator may install a geosynthetic clay liner 
as an alternative bottom liner system in Phase VI.
    (2) The owner and/or operator may operate Phase VI as a bioreactor 
by recirculating leachate and landfill gas condensate, and by adding 
storm water and groundwater, to the below grade portions of Phase VI.
    (3) The owner and/or operator may increase the moisture content of 
the waste mass in Phases IIIB and IVA by recirculating leachate and 
landfill gas condensate, and by adding storm water and groundwater, to 
the below grade portions of Phases IIIB and IVA.
    (4) The owner and/or operator shall maintain less than a 30-cm 
depth of leachate on the liner.
    (5) The owner and/or operator shall submit reports to the Director 
of the Waste Management Division at EPA Region 9 as specified in 
``Research, Development, and Demonstration Permit Application Salt 
River Landfill,'' dated September 24, 2007 and amended on April 8, 2008 
including an annual report showing whether and to what extent the site 
is progressing in attaining project goals. The annual report will also 
include a summary of all monitoring and testing results, as specified 
in the application.
    (6) The owner and/or operator may not operate the facility pursuant 
to the authority granted by this section if there is any deviation from 
the terms, conditions, and requirements of this section unless the 
operation of the facility will continue to conform to the standards set 
forth in Sec.  258.4 of this chapter and the owner and/or operator has 
obtained the prior written approval of the Director of the Waste 
Management Division at EPA Region 9 or his or her designee to implement 
corrective measures or otherwise operate the facility subject to such 
deviation. The Director of the Waste Management Division or designee 
shall provide an opportunity for the public to comment on any 
significant deviation prior to providing his or her written approval of 
the deviation.
    (7) Paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and (9) of this section will 
terminate 36 months after date of publication in the Federal Register 
unless the Director of the Waste Management Division at EPA Region 9 or 
his or her designee renews this authority in writing. Any such renewal 
may extend the authority granted under paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) 
and (9) of this section for up to an additional three years, and 
multiple renewals (up to a total of 12 years) may be provided. The 
Director of the Waste Management Division or designee shall provide an 
opportunity for the public to comment on any renewal request prior to 
providing his or her written approval or disapproval of such request.
    (8) In no event will the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), 
(6) or (9) of this section remain in effect after 12 years after date 
of publication in the Federal Register. Upon termination of paragraphs 
(a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and (9) of this section, and except with respect 
to paragraphs (a)(1) and (4) of this section, the owner and/or operator 
shall return to compliance with the regulatory requirements which would 
have been in effect absent the flexibility provided through this site-
specific rule.
    (9) In seeking any renewal of the authority granted under or other 
requirements of paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5) and (6) of this section, 
the owner and/or operator shall provide a detailed assessment of the 
project showing the status with respect to achieving project goals, a 
list of problems and status with respect to problem resolutions, and 
any other requirements that the Director of the Waste Management 
Division at EPA Region 9 or his or her designee has determined are 
necessary for the approval of any renewal and has communicated in 
writing to the owner and operator.
    (10) The owner and/or operator's authority to operate the landfill 
in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and (9) of this 
section shall terminate if the Director of the Waste Management 
Division at EPA Region 9 or his or her designee determines that the 
overall goals of the project are not being attained, including 
protection of human health or the environment. Any such determination 
shall be communicated in writing to the owner and operator.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. E9-5848 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P