[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 219 (Friday, November 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70180-70183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28666]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0126; FRL-9936-10-OSWER]
RIN-2050-AG75
Revision to the Research, Development and Demonstration Permits
Rule for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise the maximum permit term for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
(MSWLF) units operating under Research, Development and Demonstration
(RD&D) permits. The RD&D permit program, which began in 2004, allows
landfill facilities to utilize innovative and new methods that vary
from the prescribed run-on control systems, liquids restrictions, and
final cover criteria if these systems are determined by the Director of
states with EPA-approved RD&D programs, as defined in 40 CFR 258.2, to
meet the criteria in 40 CFR 258.4. The current rule limits permits for
these units to 3 years each, renewable 3 times for a total permit term
of 12 years. If finalized, this rule will allow the Director of an
approved State to increase the number of permit renewals to 6, for a
total permit term of up to 21 years. The EPA is not proposing any other
changes to the existing MSWLF RD&D permit program at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
December 14, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2015-0126 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and
Waste Management Division of the Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery (mail code 5304P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-308-9037;
email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this proposal are public or
private owners or operators of MSWLFs. These entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Example of affected entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Governments...................... Regulatory agencies and
agencies operating landfills.
Industry............................... Owners or operators of
municipal solid waste
landfills.
Municipalities, including Tribal Owners or operators of
Governments. municipal solid waste
landfills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The affected entities may also fall under the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 924110, Sanitation
engineering agencies, government; or 562212, Solid Waste Landfill. This
list of sectors is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA believes
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 258 and
[[Page 70181]]
the Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills final rule published in the Federal Register at
69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004, (``2004 RD&D rule''). If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
B. What action is the agency taking?
The EPA is proposing to revise the maximum permit term for MSWLF
units operating under RD&D permits. In effect, this proposed rule, if
finalized, would allow the Directors of a states with EPA-approved RD&D
programs to increase the number of 3-year permit renewals from 3 to 6,
for a total permit term of 21 years.
The basis for the proposed extension of the permit period to up to
21 years is to provide more time to support research into the
performance of bioreactors, alternative covers and run-on systems. The
EPA believes the period of 21 years strikes a balance between providing
more time for projects to continue operations as research facilities,
while providing enough time for the EPA to consider making permanent
changes to the Part 258 MSWLF regulations.
C. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
The authority for this proposal is sections 1008, 2002(a), 4004,
4005(c), 4010 and 8001(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c),
6949a, 6981(a).
D. What are the anticipated effects and benefits of this action?
The anticipated effect of this proposed action, when final, is to
provide the Director of an approved State the ability to issue renewals
to existing RD&D permits, as well as new RD&D permits, for up to 21
years instead of 12 years. During this time, the EPA will continue to
evaluate data from these facilities. The universe of facilities
presently covered by this action is approximately 30 facilities
currently operating with RD&D permits, and one on tribal lands.
Additional facilities may also continue to seek an RD&D permit after
this action is finalized. The EPA has no information with which to
estimate whether or not, nor how many, new facilities will seek RD&D
permits. Owners/operators operating under existing RD&D permits are not
expected to incur any new costs as a result of this proposed rule. The
annual costs for ongoing recordkeeping and annual reporting
requirements are estimated at $2,410 per facility.
It is important to note that applying for a RD&D permit is
voluntary. This proposed action would merely allow the Director of an
approved State to increase the number of extensions of the permit
period for existing facilities, or offer more extensions of the permit
term for new facilities, for those owners and operators who choose to
participate in this research program; it would not impose any new
regulatory burden. Increasing the possible number of extensions of the
RD&D permit term may benefit current owners and operators of RD&D units
by providing additional time to recover their costs, if the Director of
an approved State chooses to extend existing permits. For example, data
from one RD&D permitted facility shows a projected increase of 3% in
the rate of return for 20 years compared to 12 years.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See docket # EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0126 for supporting
documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing the possible number of extensions of RD&D permit terms
will provide more time for the EPA to collect additional data on the
potential benefits of the approaches being taken under these RD&D
permits. These potential benefits include: Decreased costs for leachate
treatment due to leachate recirculation in bioreactors; increased
revenue from the sale of landfill gas for use as a renewable source of
fuel; decreased risk due to a reduction in the transportation of
leachate for treatment; accelerated production and capture of landfill
gas for use as a renewable fuel; and, accelerated stabilization, and
corresponding decreased post-closure care activities, for facilities as
a result of the accelerated decomposition of waste.
II. Background
Under Subchapter IV of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6941-6949a, the EPA has
promulgated minimum national standards for MSWLFs at 40 CFR part 258.
See 56 FR 50978 (October 9, 1991). RCRA also directs the EPA to
encourage research and development for, among other things, the
development and application of new and improved methods of collecting
and disposing of solid waste. 42 U.S.C. 6981(a).
The initial MSWLF regulations addressed seven basic areas: Location
restrictions; operation; design; groundwater monitoring; corrective
action; closure and post-closure care; and financial assurance. These
MSWLF landfill regulations focused on dry-tomb landfills to minimize
the possibility of groundwater contamination from the production and
subsequent leakage of leachate. After the promulgation of those
standards, the EPA became aware that landfill technology had advanced
sufficiently that some alternative designs and operations could benefit
from further study through research and demonstration projects. For
example, some of these methods, particularly the addition of liquids
and leachate recirculation, could accelerate biodegradation and provide
additional potential benefits. These include:
--Acceleration of landfill gas generation which can be collected as a
source of renewable fuel.
--Minimization of leachate treatment requirements during the
operational life of the landfill.
--More rapid reduction in concentration of leachate constituents of
concern, thereby limiting the corresponding post-closure activities for
leachate control.
--An increase in the rate of landfill settlement resulting in the more
efficient use of permitted landfill capacity.
As a means to advance innovation in landfill design, in 2000 the
EPA selected four landfills to participate in its Project XL program.
The landfills are located in Buncombe County, North Carolina; Yolo
County, California; King George County, Virginia; and the Maplewood
facility in Amelia Country, Virginia.
In addition to Project XL, in 2001 the EPA began using Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) to promote collaborative
research between federal and non-federal scientists as an additional
means to explore the addition of liquids to landfills to promote faster
biodegradation and stabilization. Bioreactor landfill sites operating
with CRADAs include the Outer Loop landfill in Louisville, Kentucky;
and the Polk County landfill in Florida.
Subsequently, in 2004, the EPA amended 40 CFR part 258 MSWLF
regulations to create a broader RD&D research program. The 2004 RD&D
rule, which amended Sec. 258.4 enabled the Director of an approved
State to allow RD&D projects with variances to specific provisions of
the MSWLF criteria, including variances from operating criteria in part
258 subpart C with respect to run-on controls (Sec. 258.26(a)(1)) and
the liquids restrictions in Sec. 258.28(a). In addition, the rule
allows an additional variance for the final cover requirements set
forth in the closure criteria in Sec. Sec. 258.60(a)(1), (a)(2) and
(b)(1). The 2004 RD&D rule limits the duration of the initial permit to
3 years. The permit can be renewed for up to three additional 3-year
terms,
[[Page 70182]]
for a total of 12 years. More information on the RD&D rule can be found
in the final rule preamble. See 69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004.
As of March 2014, there were 30 active RD&D projects in 11 approved
states and one project on tribal lands.\2\ The maximum permit period
for the first of these bioreactors is coming to an end, and the EPA
proposes to allow the Director of an approved State to continue to
extend the permit period for up to a total of 21 years to allow for
continued research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten years
After the RD&D Rule, EPA document number EPA/600/R-14/335.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. What the EPA Is Proposing
The EPA is proposing to allow Directors of states with EPA-approved
RD&D programs to increase the maximum term for RD&D permits from 12 to
21 years at 40 CFR 258.4(e)(1), to provide more time to support
research into the performance of bioreactors, alternative covers and
run-on systems. In effect, this proposed rule, if finalized, would
allow the Director of an approved State to increase the number of
permit renewals from three to six. The EPA is not proposing any other
changes to the RD&D permit program at this time. The EPA is not
reopening, nor will it respond to comments on, any other provision of
the existing RD&D rule or MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR part 258.
Separately from this proposal, the EPA expects to publish an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on
revising other sections of the MSWLF (40 CFR part 258) criteria to
authorize bioreactor operation (and other changes to the national
criteria) on a permanent basis. Interested parties will have an
opportunity to comment on broader issues relating to bioreactor
operation during the public comment period on that ANPRM.
B. Basis for This Proposal
In the 2004 RD&D final rule, the EPA made clear its intention that
MSWLF RD&D permits be of limited duration, yet also provide data to
support future rulemaking. This proposal is intended to further these
dual goals. Although the EPA does not expect that all RD&D permits will
necessarily extend to the full permit term, the EPA has since learned
that the 12-year time limit may not be sufficient to realize potential
benefits in all cases. Thus, extending the permit period for up to 21
years will provide more time to collect data on potential benefits and
any problems without making the permit period so long as to be open-
ended.
Extending the maximum permit term will help continuing efforts to
collect data at existing RD&D units. If the EPA does not take this
action, owners and operators using existing RD&D permits would need to
make significant modifications to their disposal units or cease
operation altogether, before reaching the end of their normal
operations or closure. Because of the potential environmental benefits
that may be derived from bioreactors, alternative cover designs, and
run-on systems, the EPA believes that it is important to extend the
maximum permit period to 21 years to provide more time to characterize
the performance of RD&D projects without making the permit period so
long as to be open-ended.
The EPA also wishes to enhance the economic feasibility to build
and operate bioreactors or final cover variances in the future, and to
thereby provide additional sources of data. In addition, the EPA has
heard from stakeholders that the current 12-year maximum permit period
is an insufficient length of time for potential owners and operators of
bioreactors to recoup their initial investment. These stakeholders have
indicated limiting the permit period to 12 years has the unintended
consequence of discouraging the development of bioreactors.
C. Implementation of This Proposal
This proposal does not require states with EPA-approved RD&D
programs to modify their solid waste permit programs. Since this
proposed change to the RD&D rule provides more flexibility than
existing federal criteria, states are not required to amend existing
solid waste permit programs that have been determined by the EPA to be
adequate under 40 CFR part 239. States will have the option to amend
their programs once this proposal is finalized. At the same time, the
RD&D rule (including this proposed revision of the maximum permit term)
is not self-implementing and states are required to adopt the RD&D rule
and obtain EPA approval for their RD&D program in order to issue a RD&D
permit. States previously approved to issue RD&D permits that wish to
increase the total length of time for which RD&D permits can be issued
will need to notify the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 239. States
with EPA-approved solid waste permit programs that have not previously
sought approval for an RD&D program and now wish to do so will need to
apply to EPA for approval of an RD&D program, including approval of the
longer time period allowed by this proposal. Any state without an EPA-
approved solid waste permit program may submit an application to the
EPA for a determination of adequacy under 40 CFR part 239 and may
include a request for approval of the RD&D permit provisions reflecting
the longer time period allowed by this proposal. For municipal solid
waste landfill units located in Indian Country, the EPA intends to
consider the longer maximum permit term in this proposal when issuing
or modifying any site-specific RD&D rule. The EPA has previously issued
draft guidance on the site-specific flexibility request process in
Indian Country. See Site-specific Flexibility Requests for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country, EPA 530-R-97-016, August 1997.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new Information Collection Request
(ICR) burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information
collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has
assigned OMB control numbers 2050-0152 and 2050-0122. The purpose of
this action is to extend the maximum allowable permit period for this
program and this change to the RD&D program itself does not impose any
additional reporting requirements. The OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities contained in the existing regulations
in two different, applicable ICRs. The ICRs affected by this proposal
are for 40 CFR part 239, Requirements for State Permit Program
Determination of Adequacy and part 258, MSWLF Criteria. The OMB has
reviewed the ICR for part 239 (ICR# 1608.07, OMB# 2050-0152.) The EPA
will request comments under the ICR review process from states that
plan to make these revisions so that the EPA can better understand the
expected burden that would be incurred by states who wish to make these
changes. In addition, the EPA will also be requesting information from
MSWLF owners/operators on the reporting burden that they would incur
under an extended permit term
[[Page 70183]]
provided in accordance with this proposal under the part 258, MSWLF
criteria ICR (ICR# 1381.09, OMB# 2050-0122) when that review process
begins. This process is scheduled to be completed in June 2016.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule will not create any
additional burden for small entities. Small entities are not required
to take any action as a consequence of this proposed rule, and this
action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. We have therefore concluded that this action will have
no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector. The costs involved
in this action are imposed only by voluntary participation in a federal
program.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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. Although
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposal, the EPA has
consulted with states through the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials during the development of this
proposal.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA has concluded that this proposal will
have no new tribal implications, nor would it present any additional
burden on the tribes. It will neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations.
The underlying RD&D rule requires any RD&D permit to include such
terms and conditions at least as protective as the criteria for
municipal solid waste landfills to assure protection of human health
and the environment, and this proposal does not reopen or otherwise
change that requirement. Therefore, the EPA finds that the human health
or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection, Municipal landfills, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: October 30, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 258 as follows:
PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
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).
Subpart A--General
0
2. Revise Sec. 258.4(e)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 258.4 Research, development, and demonstration permits.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) The total term for a permit for a project including renewals
may not exceed twenty-one (21) years; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-28666 Filed 11-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P