66210 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

would otherwise require the submittal 

of a CAA section 111(d)/129 plan. 

On March 21, 2011, EPA finalized 

emission guidelines for SSI units at 76 

FR 15372, (found at 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart MMMM). Following the 2011 

final rule, KDHE determined that there 

were two SSI units operating at a single 

facility in Kansas, but those units were 

permanently shut down on June 14, 

2014 and September 7, 2016. Prior to 

shutdown of the two units at the single 

facility in Kansas, the two units were 

regulated via the Federal plan under the 

enforcement oversight of EPA Region 7. 

In response and following the shutdown 

of the units, KDHE submitted a negative 

declaration for SSI units on April 30, 

2018. 

EPA is proposing to accept KDHE’s 

negative declaration submission made 

on April 30, 2018. This action applies 

to the state’s regulatory requirements for 

existing facilities and not new sources. 

III. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

In this proposed action the EPA 

proposes to amend 40 CFR part 62 to 

reflect receipt of the negative 

declaration letter from KDHE certifying 

that there are no existing SSI units 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

MMMM, in accordance with section 

111(d) of the CAA. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This 

proposed action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely proposes 

to approve the state’s negative 

declaration as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

rulemaking will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this proposed action 

does not impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments, 

and does not reduce or eliminate the 

amount of authorization of Federal 

appropriations, and because it contains 

no regulatory requirements applicable to 

small governments, this proposed action 

does not contain any unfunded mandate 

or significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This action is not approved to apply 

on any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

This action merely proposes to approve 

a state negative declaration submitted in 

response to a Federal standard and does 

not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This rulemaking 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 proposes to 

approve a state submission in response 

to a Federal standard. 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Administrative 

practice and procedure, Sewage sludge 

incineration units. 

Dated: December 14, 2018. 

James B. Gulliford, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 62 as set forth below: 

PART 62—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS 

FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES AND 

POLLUTANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 62 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart R—Kansas 

■ 2. Amend Subpart R by adding 

paragraph § 62.4183 to read as follows: 

Air Emissions From Existing Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units. 

§ 62.4183 Identification of plan—negative 

declaration. 

Letter from the Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment submitted 

April 30, 2018, certifying that there are 

no sewage sludge incineration units 

subject to 40 CFR 60, subpart MMMM. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27906 Filed 12–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 258 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0354; FRL–9988–41– 

OLEM] 

RIN 2050–AG86 

Revisions to the Criteria for Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills To Address 

Advances in Liquids Management 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is considering whether to 

propose revisions to the criteria for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

(MSWLFs) to support advances in 

effective liquids management. To this 

end, EPA is seeking information relating 

to: Removing the prohibition on the 

addition of bulk liquids to MSWLFs; 

defining a particular class of MSWLF 

units (i.e., bioreactor landfill units) to 

operate with increased moisture 

content; and establishing revised 

MSWLF criteria to address additional 

technical considerations associated with 

liquids management, including waste 

stability, subsurface reactions, and other 

important safety and operational issues. 

This Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) also discusses the 

results of related research conducted to 

date, describes EPA’s preliminary 

analysis of that research, and seeks 

additional scientific studies, data, and 

public input on issues that may inform 

a future proposed rule. The EPA is not 

reopening any existing regulations 

through this ANPRM. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 26, 2019. If necessary, 

EPA may convene a public meeting to 

collect more information on this issue 

after the close of the public comment 

period. The EPA would provide notice 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66211 

1 69 FR 13251, March 22, 2004, Research, 

Development and Demonstration Permits Rule for 

MSWLFs. 

and details of such a meeting on its 

website. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

RCRA–2015–0354 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. 

If you need to include CBI as part of 

your comment, please visit http://epa/ 

gov/dockets/comments.html for 

instructions. 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. For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policies, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www.epa.govdockets/ 

comments.html. 

The EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes profanity, threats, 

information claimed to be CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions regarding this ANPRM, 

contact Craig Dufficy or John Sager, 

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; 

Craig Dufficy telephone: 703–308–9037; 

email: dufficy.craig@epa.gov; John Sager 

telephone: 703–308–7256; email: 

sager.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

II. What action is EPA contemplating? 

III. Regulatory Background 

A. RCRA Subtitle D MSWLF Regulations 

B. RCRA MSWLF RD&D Rule 

C. Air Emissions Regulations 

IV. Bioreactor Landfill Research History 

A. Project XL and CRADAs 

B. Report: Bioreactor Landfills, State of the 

Practice Review 

C. Report: Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor 

Operations: Ten Years After the RD&D 

Rule 

D. RCRA MSWLF RD&D Annual Reports 

V. Potential Environmental Benefits, Cost 

Savings, and Environmental 

Considerations 

A. Potential Environmental Benefits 

B. Potential Cost Savings 

C. Environmental Considerations 

1. Groundwater Considerations 

2. Air Emissions Considerations 

VI. Additional Technical Considerations 

VII. Characteristics of Bioreactor Landfill 

Units and Wet Landfill Units 

VIII. Universe of MSWLFs Potentially 

Affected by This ANPRM 

IX. Relationship to Organics Diversion and 

Composting Programs 

X. What information is EPA seeking? 

A. Information on Benefits and Risks of 

Bioreactor Landfill Units and Wet 

Landfill Units 

B. Questions on Characteristics of 

Bioreactor Landfill Units and Wet 

Landfill Units 

C. Questions on Operations and PostClosure Care 

D. Questions on Potential Risks 

E. Questions on Potential Costs and 

Benefits 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

XII. Conclusion 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by a 

future rulemaking on liquids 

management in Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills (MSWLFs), including public 

or private owners or operators of 

MSWLF units, may be interested in 

commenting on this ANPRM. 

Potentially affected categories and 

entities include the following: 

TABLE 1—CATEGORIES OF POTENTIAL AFFECTED ENTITIES

Category Example of affected entities 

Federal Government ................................................................................. Agencies procuring waste services. 

State Governments ................................................................................... Regulatory agencies and agencies operating landfills. 

Industry ..................................................................................................... Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills. 

Municipalities, including Tribal Governments ........................................... Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills. 

The potentially affected entities may 

also fall under the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

code 924110, Sanitation engineering 

agencies, government; or 562212, Solid 

Waste Landfill. The industry sector(s) 

identified above may not be exhaustive; 

other types of entities not listed may 

also be affected. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

a future final rule to a particular entity, 

contact the person listed in the 

following section. 

II. What action is EPA contemplating? 

The EPA is considering whether to 

propose revisions to the criteria in 40 

CFR part 258 to support advances in 

effective liquids management. The 

purpose of this ANPRM is to solicit data 

and information to inform our thinking 

on this potential action. 

First, EPA is evaluating whether to 

propose easing current restrictions on 

the addition of liquids in order to 

promote accelerated biodegradation of 

the waste. Time-limited variances for 

liquids addition are currently allowed at 

facilities with Research, Development 

and Demonstration (RD&D) permits 

authorized under 40 CFR 258.4. The 

EPA is considering whether it would be 

appropriate to propose removing the 

prohibition on the addition of bulk (i.e., 

non-containerized) liquids and 

providing for the operation of bioreactor 

landfill units outside of the current 

RD&D program. 

Second, future revisions could also 

include defining a new class of MSWLF 

units with specific requirements for 

how liquids may be managed in such 

units. For example, bioreactor landfill 

units were described in the preamble to 

the 2004 RD&D rule as units in which 

the controlled addition of nonhazardous liquid wastes or water 

accelerates biodegradation and landfill 

gas (LFG) generation.1 A future 

proposed definition under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

could also be quantitative in nature, 

such as by employing a specified 

percentage of moisture content or more 

by weight as a threshold criterion. Any 

future proposed definition might also 

include other factors such as the average 

amount of annual precipitation in an 

area; whether liquids are added 

intentionally for any purpose other than 

cleaning, maintenance, and wetting of 

daily cover; whether leachate is 

recirculated; and the magnitude of the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66212 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

2The terms ‘‘wet,’’ ‘‘leachate recirculation,’’ and 

‘‘bioreactor’’ are sometimes used interchangeably in 

technical and popular literature to describe a 

landfill operated under conditions of elevated insitu moisture content. The EPA also defines 

bioreactor landfills under the Clean Air Act 

NESHAP for MSWLFs. Unless otherwise noted, in 

this ANPRM the term ‘‘bioreactor landfill unit’’ 

refers to those units meeting the description 

contained in the 2004 RD&D preamble, and ‘‘wet 

landfill unit’’ refers to MSWLFs with elevated 

moisture content under consideration for possible 

revisions to Part 258. 

3 56 FR 50978 (October 9, 1991), 40 CFR parts 257 

and 258, Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria, 

Final Rule. 4https://www.epa.gov/landfills/municipal-solidwaste-landfills. 5 56 FR 51055 (October 9, 1991), 40 CFR parts 257 

and 258, Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria, 

Final Rule. 

6See 53 FR 33356 (August 30, 1988), 40 CFR 

parts 257 and 258, Solid Waste Disposal Facility 

Criteria, Proposed Rule; the ‘‘bathtub’’ effect is an 

analogy used to describe filling up a landfill with 

liquids faster than the the leachate collection 

system can remove them. 

7 81 FR 28720, May 10, 2016, Revision to the 

Research, Development and Demonstration Permits 

Rule for MSWLFs. 

8 69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004, Research, 

Development and Demonstration Permits Rule for 

MSWLFs. 

first-order biodegradation constant (k) 

discussed later in this document. 

Relatedly, EPA also believes that there 

may be some MSWLFs operating at high 

levels of moisture content (so-called 

‘‘wet landfill units’’) that can be 

distinguished from bioreactor landfill 

units to which liquids are purposefully 

added. 2 Specific characteristics that 

may be considered in developing a 

RCRA definition for a bioreactor landfill 

unit or a wet landfill unit are discussed 

later in Section VII of this ANPRM. As 

in the 2004 RD&D rule preamble, 

bioreactor landfill units are generally 

characterized by the intentional 

addition of liquids to accelerate 

biodegradation, while the term wet 

landfill unit, which does not have a 

RCRA regulatory definition, is generally 

used to describe landfill units with a 

high moisture content, whether 

intentional or not. The intent of this 

ANPRM is to draw a distinction 

between these terms and consider 

possible revisions to Part 258. 

Third, EPA is also considering 

whether other revisions to Part 258 may 

be necessary for MSWLFs operating as 

bioreactor landfill units or wet landfill 

units. These issues include whether to 

revise the design and operating criteria 

under Part 258 to address important 

safety and operational issues related to 

leachate collection, waste stability, 

subsurface reactions, and other issues. 

These are discussed in Section VI 

below. For informational purposes, 

Section IV of this ANPRM also 

discusses the results of related research 

conducted to date and describes EPA’s 

preliminary analysis of that research. 

Any revisions to Part 258 in a 

subsequent, proposed rulemaking could 

be narrowly tailored to focus on 

facilities that choose to add bulk liquids 

or otherwise operate as bioreactor 

landfill units. Alternatively, such 

revisions could be broadly applicable to 

address liquids management practices at 

all facilities. The EPA is not making any 

specific proposal through this ANPRM 

and plans to evaluate the data and 

comments received in response to this 

ANPRM before proposing any specific 

action. 

With this notice, EPA is seeking 

public input on key issues at this 

preliminary stage to inform its thinking 

on any future proposed rulemaking. The 

EPA is not reopening any existing 

regulations through this ANPRM. The 

EPA anticipates that any revisions 

would be proposed under the authority 

of RCRA sections 1008, 2002, 4004, 

4005 and 4010, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912, 

6944, 6945, and 6949a. At that time, 

EPA would take public comment on 

those proposed revisions. 

III. Regulatory Background 

A. RCRA Subtitle D MSWLF Regulations 

Under RCRA Subtitle D, as amended 

by the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 6941– 

6949a, EPA promulgated minimum 

national standards in 1991 3 for owners 

and operators of MSWLFs at 40 CFR 

part 258, subparts A through G. The 

EPA has revised Part 258 on several 

occasions since 1991.4 The regulations 

specifically include seven subparts: (1) 

General provisions, including RD&D 

permits; (2) location restrictions; (3) 

operating criteria; (4) design criteria; (5) 

groundwater monitoring and corrective 

action; (6) closure and post-closure care; 

and (7) financial assurance. 

Under RCRA Subtitle D, approved 

states are to have permitting programs 

or other systems of prior approval to 

ensure that all MSWLFs in the state 

meet the federal minimum criteria. The 

EPA reviews and approves state permit 

programs in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 239. Upon EPA approval, a state 

program may provide flexibility for 

owners and operators of MSWLF units, 

as allowed by Part 258. For example, an 

approved state program may allow an 

owner/operator to use an alternative 

material or an alternative thickness for 

daily cover. 

When promulgated in 1991, EPA’s 

MSWLF regulations were intended to 

have the effect of keeping the contents 

of the unit as dry as possible. While 

EPA recognized at the time that 

moisture was necessary to promote 

biodegradation and waste stabilization,5

there was concern that the risk of liner 

leakage and groundwater contamination 

increased as the moisture content 

increased. Based on data available at 

that time, EPA believed that minimizing 

the amount of liquid in a landfill was 

necessary to reduce the possibility of 

groundwater contamination resulting 

from the leakage of leachate; reduce 

possible damage to the liner and final 

cover of the unit resulting from waste 

subsidence; and reduce the buildup of 

hydrostatic pressure on the liner due to 

the ‘‘bathtub’’ 6 effect, when the 

combined rate of liquids addition and 

infiltration outpaced the leachate 

removal rate. To address these risks, the 

regulations prohibit disposal of bulk 

liquids in MSWLFs and require low 

permeability final cover systems. The 

design criteria in 258.40 indicate that, 

unless an alternative is approved, new 

units and lateral expansions are to be 

operated with a composite liner and 

leachate collection system that is 

designed and constructed to maintain a 

maximum allowable hydraulic head on 

the liner of 30 cm. The resulting design 

has accordingly come to be referred to 

as a ‘‘dry-tomb landfill.’’ 7

B. RCRA MSWLF RD&D Rule 

In 2004, EPA promulgated the RD&D 

rule at 40 CFR 258.4 8 to expand 

research into liquids addition and other 

innovative landfill practices. The RD&D 

rule enables the director of an approved 

state waste management program to 

issue time-limited RD&D permits for the 

use of innovative methods that can vary 

the liquids restrictions in 40 CFR 

258.28(a) and the run-on/run-off control 

systems in 40 CFR 258.26(a)(1), 

provided that the MSWLF unit has a 

leachate collection system designed and 

constructed to maintain less than 30 cm 

of leachate on the liner. The RD&D 

permits can also vary the final cover 

criteria of § 258.60(a)(1), (a)(2) and 

(b)(1), provided that the owner/operator 

demonstrates that the infiltration of 

liquid through the alternative cover 

system will not cause contamination of 

groundwater or surface water, or cause 

leachate depth on the liner to exceed 30 

cm. All RD&D permits issued under 40 

CFR 258.4 are required to include terms 

and conditions as protective as the 

MSWLF criteria in Part 258 to assure 

protection of human health and the 

environment. After the initial permit 

term of three years, owner/operators 

may apply to the director of an 

approved state program to renew the 

RD&D permit for an additional threeVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:37 Dec 21, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM 26DEP1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66213 

9 81 FR 28720, May 10, 2016, Revision to the 

Research, Development and Demonstration Permits 

Rule for MSWLFs. 10 74 FR 11677, March 19, 2009, Final 

Determination to Approve Research, Development, 

and Demonstration Request for the Salt River 

Landfill. 

11 Date listed is when the state RD&D Program 

was approved. 

12 Date listed is most recent report available to 

EPA; ‘‘N/A’’ means that EPA is not aware of any 

permitted facility in a state that is approved to issue 

an RD&D permit. 

year term. The initial RD&D rule 

allowed three renewals for a maximum 

permit term of 12 years. In 2016, EPA 

amended the RD&D rule to extend the 

maximum permit term to 21 years.9

As shown in Table 2, 16 states have 

approved RCRA Subtitle D RD&D 

programs. Among these states, EPA 

believes there are 35 facilities operating 

bioreactor landfill units with RD&D 

permits providing variances allowing 

liquids additions. The EPA has also 

issued a site-specific rule for the Salt 

River Landfill facility in Indian Country 

that authorizes, in part, the operation of 

a research, development, and 

demonstration bioreactor landfill.10 All 

facilities with RD&D permits are 

required to submit annual performance 

reports to their state waste management 

programs demonstrating progress 

toward project goals. The EPA’s sitespecific rule for the Salt River Landfill 

also requires annual reports to EPA. The 

most recent annual reports available to 

EPA are shown in Table 2. The EPA 

provides information on its preliminary 

review of this information in Section 

IV.4 below. 

TABLE 2—RD&D PERMITTED FACILITIES

State 

Date program 

approved by 

EPA11

Listing of permitted facilities 

Date latest 

annual report 

available 12

Alaska ...................................... 2011 Anchorage Regional Landfill, Eagle River ........................................................ 2009 

Central Peninsula Landfill, Soldotna ................................................................. 2017 

Fairbanks North Star Borough Landfill, Fairbanks ............................................ 2018 

Palmer Central Landfill, Palmer ........................................................................ 2014 

California .................................. 2007 CWM Kettleman Hills Facility, Kettleman City .................................................. 2010 

Yolo County Central Landfill, Woodland ........................................................... 2005 

Illinois ....................................... 2006 River Ben Prairie Landfill, Cook County ........................................................... 2018 

Indiana ..................................... 2005 None .................................................................................................................. N/A 

Iowa ......................................... 2009 None .................................................................................................................. N/A 

Kansas ..................................... 2009 Barton County Landfill, Great Bend .................................................................. 2016 

Johnson County Landfill, Shawnee ................................................................... 2017 

Plumb Thicket Landfill, Harper .......................................................................... 2016 

Seward County Landfill, Liberal ........................................................................ 2015 

Western Plains Landfill, Finney County ............................................................ 2017 

Massachusetts ......................... 2013 None .................................................................................................................. N/A 

Michigan ................................... 2006 Midland City Landfill, Midland ........................................................................... 2016 

Smiths Creek Landfill, St. Clair ......................................................................... 2016 

Minnesota ................................ 2005 Spruce Ridge Landfill, Plymouth ....................................................................... 2015 

Missouri .................................... 2006 City of Columbia Landfill, Columbia .................................................................. 2017 

Nebraska .................................. 2008 None .................................................................................................................. N/A 

New Hampshire ....................... 2010 None .................................................................................................................. N/A 

Ohio ......................................... 2011 None .................................................................................................................. N/A 

Oregon ..................................... 2013 Columbia Ridge Landfill, Arlington .................................................................... 2018 

Finley Buttes Regional Landfill, Boardman ....................................................... 2016 

Virginia ..................................... 2009 Maplewood Landfill, Amelia County .................................................................. 2010 

Wisconsin ................................. 2006 Cranberry Creek Landfill, Wood County ........................................................... 2017 

Deer Track Park Landfill, Watertown ................................................................ 2017 

Emerald Park Landfill, Waukesha County ........................................................ 2017 

Glacier Ridge Landfill, Horicon ......................................................................... 2017 

Hickory Meadows Landfill, Hilbert ..................................................................... 2017 

La Crosse County Landfill, La Crosse County ................................................. 2017 

Lake Area Landfill, Sarona ................................................................................ 2017 

Mallard Ridge Landfill, Walworth County .......................................................... 2017 

Metro Landfill, Franklin ...................................................................................... 2017 

Orchard Ridge Landfill, Menomonee Falls ....................................................... 2017 

Pheasant Run Landfill, Paris ............................................................................. 2017 

Ridgeview Landfill, Whitelaw ............................................................................. 2017 

Seven Mile Creek Landfill, Eau Claire .............................................................. 2017 

Timberline Trail Landfill, Stubbs ........................................................................ 2017 

Valley Trail Landfill, Berlin .................................................................................

Salt River Pima-Marcopa Indian Community (Arizona).Site-specific 

rule 

Salt River landfill, Phoenix Metropolitan Area .................................................. 2011 

C. Air Emissions Regulations 

As will be seen in the discussion of 

bioreactor landfill research in the next 

section of this notice, one of the primary 

characteristics of bioreactor landfill 

units is that the rate of LFG generation 

is accelerated. Should EPA propose in a 

subsequent rulemaking to move 

bioreactor landfill operations outside of 

RD&D permits, EPA intends to evaluate 

changes to the RCRA regulations to 

ensure that LFG gas emissions are 

properly controlled in compliance with 

existing emissions regulations. Air 

emissions from MSWLFs are regulated 

under the RCRA Subtitle D regulations 

as well as EPA regulations issued 

pursuant to two Clean Air Act (CAA) 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66214 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

13 56 FR 51051–52. 

14See https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basicinformation-about-landfill-gas. 

15Ham & Bookter, 1982; Barlaz et al., 1987 as 

referenced in ‘‘Bioreactor Landfills State-Of-The 

Practice Review,’’ U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/071. 

16Pohland, 1975; Pohland & Harper, 1986 as 

referenced in ‘‘Bioreactor Landfills State-Of-The 

Practice Review,’’ pages iv–vi, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R– 

09/071. 

17As used in this ANPRM, the term ‘‘EPA 

research’’ is used to describe EPA cooperative 

efforts with and analysis of data from facilities with 

variances for liquids addition granted through the 

Project XL, CRADA, and RD&D programs. Variances 

were granted with the understanding that 

performance data would be shared with EPA and 

the states. The EPA is not the owner/operator of 

these facilities where full-scale landfill operations 

are taking place. 

18See EPA Docket # EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0354 

for summaries of the Outer Loop, Buncomb County, 

and Yolo County landfills. 

19These reports and other citations for this 

ANPRM are accessible via http://

www.regulations.gov (Federal eRulemaking Portal) 

using ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2015–0354. 

programs, the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP), and the New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS). The 

RCRA rules impose standards to limit 

methane generation to a level below the 

Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) to prevent 

landfill fires and explosions that can kill 

or injure and damage containment 

structures and thereby cause emissions 

of toxic fumes.13 By contrast, the CAA 

regulations for air emissions principally 

address hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

and LFG, and they do not explicitly 

address methane. Yet, methane 

comprises close to 50% of LFG 14 on 

average, and EPA understands that 

adding liquids increases the rate of LFG 

generation. Thus, EPA plans to examine 

whether an increase in methane surface 

emissions may also result in 

exceedances of the current explosive gas 

limits in Part 258. Consequently, in any 

proposal to amend the RCRA rules to 

allow bulk liquids addition, EPA 

expects the need to consider the 

implications of enhanced methane 

generation at such units. 

As mentioned, the RCRA Subtitle D 

standards for MSWLFs address 

explosive gas control. Section 258.23 of 

those rules specifies that the 

concentration of methane generated by 

a MSWLF must not exceed 25% of the 

lower explosive limit (LEL) in facility 

structures, and it must not exceed the 

LEL for methane at the property 

boundary. The rules also require a 

routine methane monitoring program to 

ensure those standards are met. (40 CFR 

258.23(b).) If methane levels exceed the 

standards, the owner or operator must 

immediately take all necessary steps to 

ensure protection of human health and 

safety and notify the regulatory 

authority; place in the operating record 

information on the gas levels detected 

and steps taken to protect human 

health; and implement a remediation 

plan. (40 CFR 258.23(c)) 

The MSWLF NESHAP was 

promulgated in 2003 and is scheduled 

for a Residual Risk and Technology 

Review (RTR) due in 2020. Bioreactor 

landfill units are defined in the 

NESHAP to be a MSWLF or portion of 

a MSWLF to which any liquid other 

than leachate (leachate includes LFG 

condensate) is added in a controlled 

fashion into the waste mass (often in 

combination with recirculating leachate) 

to reach a minimum average moisture 

content of 40% by weight to accelerate 

or enhance the anaerobic (without 

oxygen) biodegradation of the waste. 

The NESHAP requires bioreactor 

landfill units to install and operate LFG 

collection systems within six months of 

reaching the 40% moisture content 

threshold. The MSWLF NSPS and 

Emission Guidelines (EG) were 

promulgated in 1996, followed by a 

revised NSPS/EG in 2016. The NSPS/EG 

rules, currently under reconsideration, 

require LFG collection 30 months after 

emissions reach a threshold of 34 metric 

tons (revised from a 50 metric ton 

threshold in the 1996 rules) of nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs) 

or more per year. 

IV. Bioreactor Landfill Research 

History 

After promulgation of the Part 258 

standards in 1991, EPA increasingly 

became aware that landfill technology 

was evolving and that alternative 

designs and operations could benefit 

from further study through research and 

demonstration projects. Research 

initiated in the 1970s and 1980s by the 

University of Wisconsin—Madison 15

and Georgia Institute of Technology 16

contributed to EPA’s understanding of 

the potential benefits of liquids 

addition. The EPA has been 

researching 17 bioreactor landfill units 

and liquids addition since 2001. 

That year, EPA’s Office of Research 

and Development (ORD) began 

conducting research through EPA’s 

Project XL program and the use of 

Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreements (CRADAs). Project XL, 

which stands for ‘‘eXcellence and 

Leadership,’’ was a national pilot 

program that allowed state and local 

governments, businesses and federal 

facilities to work with EPA to develop 

innovative technologies and more costeffective ways of achieving 

environmental and public health 

protection. As part of these 

partnerships, EPA issued regulatory, 

program, policy, or procedural 

flexibilities to conduct the work. 

Beginning in 2001, four bioreactor 

landfills were accepted into Project XL, 

including those in Buncombe County, 

North Carolina; Yolo County, California; 

King George County, Virginia; and the 

Maplewood facility in Amelia Country, 

Virginia. 

The use of CRADAs was a means for 

EPA to promote collaborative research 

between EPA’s ORD and external 

parties. Bioreactor landfill units 

operating with CRADAs 18 included the 

Outer Loop Landfill in Louisville, 

Kentucky, and the Polk County Landfill 

in Florida. The purpose of the research 

conducted at these Project XL and 

CRADA sites was to allow the landfills 

to add non-hazardous and noncontainerized liquids and investigate 

the impact on waste biodegradation and 

stabilization. 

In 2004, EPA promulgated the RD&D 

rule as described in Section III.2 above. 

The EPA believes there are 35 facilities 

with RD&D permits involving variances 

for liquids management including the 

addition of bulk liquids. The EPA has 

also issued a site-specific rule for the 

Salt River Landfill facility in Indian 

Country that in part authorizes 

operation of a research, development, 

and demonstration bioreactor landfill. 

In preparing this ANPRM, EPA has 

reviewed and made a preliminary 

analysis of data from approximately 41 

landfill facilities with variances for 

liquids addition granted through the 

Project XL, CRADA and RD&D research 

programs. Data analysis from the Project 

XL and CRADA facilities draws 

extensively from the 2007 ‘‘Bioreactor 

Landfills State-Of-The Practice Review’’ 

published by ORD. Data analysis from 

the 35 RD&D-permitted facilities, along 

with additional data analysis from the 

Project XL and CRADA facilities, draws 

extensively from the 2014 ORD report 

‘‘Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor 

Operations: Ten Years after the RD&D 

Rule.’’ The EPA also compiled and 

reviewed the most recent annual reports 

available from the facilities identified in 

Table 2 above.19 The EPA presents 

examples of these data in the subsections below. Later, in Section V, EPA 

discusses potential benefits and 

environmental considerations 

associated with bioreactor landfill units 

based on preliminary analysis of the 

data now available to it. Should EPA 

determine after further analysis to 

proceed with a rulemaking proposal, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66215 

20 ‘‘Landfill Bioreactor Performance: Second 

Interim Report Outer Loop Recycling and Disposal 

Facility,’’ EPA/600/R–07/060, September, 2006. 

21The ‘‘k’’ value is a biodegradation constant; the 

higher the k value, the higher the rate of 

biodegradation. See https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/ap42/ch02/index.html for further discussion 

of k values. Also see ‘‘Impact of Accelerated 

Biodegradation’’ in a memo to the docket for this 

ANPRM by John Sager, USEPA, September 24. 

22 ‘‘Full Scale Landfill Bioreactor Project at the 

Yolo County Central Landfill,’’ Yazdani, Kieffer, 

Akau, 2002; ‘‘Full Scale Bioreactor Landfill for 

Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Control, Final Technical Progress Report,’’ Yazdani, 

Kieffer, Sananikone, Augenstein, March 2006, 

D.O.E. Award Number DE–FC26–01NT41152; and 

‘‘Controlled Bioreactor Landfill Program at the Yolo 

County Central Landfill,’’ Yazdanie, Kieffer, 

Sananikone, Methane to Markets Partnership Expo, 

Beijing, China, November, 2007. 

23USEPA PROJECT XL Buncombe County 

Bioreactor Project, 2011 and 2014 Progress Reports, 

CDM Smith. 

that proposal will be based on 

additional risk evaluation. 

A. Project XL and CRADAs 

Summary data from the Outer Loop 

facility in Kentucky, the Yolo County 

landfill in California, and the Buncombe 

County facility in North Carolina are 

presented below. The data as presented 

are intended to be illustrative but not a 

comprehensive summary of the 

operation and performance of these 

facilities. 

1. Outer Loop Landfill 

The Outer Loop Landfill Bioreactor 

(OLLB) project in Louisville, KY 20

studies solid waste decomposition, 

moisture balance, LFG generation, and 

leachate quality to evaluate the effect of 

bioreactor landfill operations on 

municipal solid waste (MSW) 

decomposition. 

Operations 

The OLLB study evaluates three types 

of landfill cells: (i) Control cells, in 

which no liquids were added; (ii) cells 

in which liquids were added after the 

cell had been completely filled with 

waste (the Retrofit cells); and (iii) cells 

in which liquids and air were added as 

the waste was placed in the landfill (the 

As-Built cells). 

Reported Results 

• The results of the moisture balance 

calculations indicate an increase in 

moisture content of six to seven percent 

in the As-Built cells, an increase of 

approximately one percent in the 

Retrofit cells and a slight decrease in the 

Control cells during the 2000–2005 

study period. 

• Data regarding leachate head in the 

sump, which was used as an indirect 

indicator of leachate head on the liner, 

indicated that operating a landfill as a 

bioreactor caused an overall increase in 

leachate head in the sump compared to 

the Control cells. However, in all three 

cases, the average leachate level on the 

liner was well below the 30 cm 

maximum allowable head. 

• Based on data evaluated in the 2006 

Outer Loop Second Interim Report, 

there is no indication that the bottom 

liner system of the test cells was 

compromised while installing liquid 

application features, or while applying 

liquid through those features. 

• While variable, the rate of LFG 

generation in the As-Built bioreactor 

landfill cell was greater than that of the 

Control cell, potentially providing a 

greater rate of energy production if 

collection occurred early and 

consistently. 

• The LFG decay constant (k value 21) 

for As-Built bioreactor landfill cells was 

evaluated to be 0.16 yr-1 while the 

Retrofit cells and the Control cells had 

a k valueof approximately 0.061 yr-1. 

Although the concentration (ppmv) of 

non-methane organic carbon (NMOC) in 

the collected LFG did not appear to be 

higher in the bioreactor landfill cells 

compared to the Control cells, the 

overallproduction was higher because of 

the higher gas flow rate. 

• Evaluation of the biochemical 

oxygen demand to chemical oxygen 

demand ratio (which is generally an 

indicator of organic solids 

decomposition) revealed that waste 

decomposition in the As-Built 

bioreactor landfill cells may have been 

accelerated compared to the Control 

cells. 

• Overall, the analysis of the data 

collected during the first five years 

indicate that the addition of liquids 

accelerated waste degradation based on 

leachate quality and solid waste 

decomposition data. The LFG quantity 

data indicate that the decay rate was 

highest in the As-Built cell and lowest 

in the Control cell. 

2. Yolo County Central Landfill, 

California 

The goal of the Yolo County Central 

landfill project 22 is to manage landfill 

solid waste for rapid waste 

decomposition, maximum LFG 

generation and capture, and minimum 

long-term environmental consequences. 

Operations 

• Waste decomposition is accelerated 

by improving conditions for either the 

aerobic or anaerobic biological 

processes and involves circulating 

controlled quantities of liquid (leachate, 

groundwater, gray water, etc.), and, in 

the aerobic process, large volumes of air. 

• Cover cells with surface membrane 

for high-efficiency gas capture; and 

liquid addition to the first (enhanced) 

cell, but not the second (control) cell. 

• The gas capture cover system was 

installed before liquid addition was 

initiated. 

Reported Results 

• Over five-fold acceleration of 

methane production. 

• Reduction of fugitive methane 

emissions to <5% of generated LFG. 

• Rapid and extensive volume 

reduction in the enhanced cell 

compared to the control cell. 

• Waste stabilization (indicated by 

methane recovery, air-space volume loss 

and other indicators) compared to the 

dry-tomb control. 

• Observed leachate head over the 

base liner was 2 inches, and less than 

20% of the 30 cm maximum hydraulic 

head allowed under Part 258. 

• Settlement in the 3.5-acre study 

enhanced cell averaged 8.5% of the 

waste mass, and settlement in the 6-acre 

control cell averaged 4% of the waste 

mass. 

• Landfill stabilization and 

completed LFG generation are estimated 

to be complete at 15 years for full-scale 

cells. 

3. Buncombe County, North Carolina 

Landfill 

The Buncombe County bioreactor 

landfill 23 is a full-scale implementation 

of a bioreactor landfill system 

performed in two phases. 

Operations 

• Phase 1 is a retro-fit system; the 

trenches were installed after the landfill 

cells were filled to capacity. The Phase 

1 Retrofit System was installed in Cells 

1–5 and has been in operation since 

April 2007. 

• Phase 2 is a build-as-you-go, fullscale bioreactor landfill system; the 

infrastructure was installed in stages as 

the waste was being placed. The buildas-you-go approach provides more 

extensive wetting of the waste and 

earlier capture of LFG. 

• This project was granted regulatory 

flexibility to apply liquids other than 

leachate to the waste. As of 2011, only 

leachate had been used since there was 

adequate leachate available onsite to 

meet the needs of the project. 

• In 2011, the County completed 

construction of a 1.4 MW landfill gas-toenergy project at the site. Part of the 

project included the installation of 25 

vertical gas wells in Cells 1-5 in the 

Retrofit System, and the gas collection 

component of the Phase 1 Retrofit 

System was removed. It was decided 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66216 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

24The ‘‘2017 Environmental Monitoring and 

Reporting Form’’ submitted to the North Carolina 

Department of Environmental Quality suggested 

possible groundwater exceedances; these were 

identified as background contamination in 

telephone communication November 20, 2017, 

USEPA and NCDEQ. 

25C. Benson, M. Barlaz, and T. M. Tolaymat. 

‘‘Bioreactor Landfills State-Of-The Practice 

Review,’’ pages iv–vi, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R– 

09/071. 

26Tolaymat, T. AND J. Morris. ‘‘Permitting of 

Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten Years after the 

RD&D Rule.’’ U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–14/335, 2014. 

27 2016 RD&D Annual Report, City of Midland, 

Michigan MSWLF; CTI and Associates, Novi, 

Michigan; June, 2017. 

that dedicating the bioreactor landfill 

cell trenches to leachate recirculation 

and using the vertical wells for gas 

collection would be simpler to operate 

and provide a more consistent flow of 

LFG to the generator. 

Reported Results 

• Cumulatively, 4 million gallons of 

leachate were recirculated, resulting in 

an estimated 803 fewer truck trips to the 

wastewater treatment plant and 

$306,758 in hauling cost savings. 

• Significant settlement occurred in 

the closed landfill cells receiving 

leachate recirculation, leading to a more 

stable ground surface layer, while 

adding the equivalent of 5 months of 

capacity valued at nearly $2 million. 

• Landfill stabilization and 

completed LFG generation are estimated 

to be complete at 15 years for the fullscale cells. 

• A surface cover geomembrane was 

used as a temporary cover (when no cell 

activity) to prevent gas emissions to the 

atmosphere and confine gas to the 

conductive layer just below the surface. 

• No downgradient groundwater 

contamination has been identified 

through 2017 from groundwater 

monitoring.24

B. Report: Bioreactor Landfills, State of 

the Practice Review 

In 2009, ORD published the report 

‘‘Bioreactor Landfills, State of the 

Practice Review’’ (State of the Practice 

report) 25. The State of the Practice 

report includes the following summary 

conclusions: 

• Conventional containment systems 

(liners, covers, and leachate collection 

systems) employed for conventional 

landfills function effectively for 

bioreactor landfills. 

• Action leakage rates were never 

exceeded and flow rates were similar 

between conventional and bioreactor 

landfill cells where comparisons were 

possible. 

• Concentrations of heavy metals and 

organic compounds are similar in 

bioreactor landfills and conventional 

landfills, and leakage rates for 

conventional and bioreactor landfills are 

comparable. 

• Bioreactor landfill operations 

employing conventional containment 

technologies (including alternative 

liners) do not impose greater risk to 

groundwater than conventional 

landfills. 

• Methane generation at bioreactor 

landfills is accelerated relative to 

predicted rates. 

• There is no indication that gas 

production increases appreciably as the 

moisture content increases above 40%. 

In addition to these findings, another 

finding of the study was that 

insufficient data were being collected at 

commercial and municipal landfills to 

fully evaluate whether bioreactor 

landfill methods used in practice are 

effective in enhancing waste 

degradation, stabilization, and gas 

generation. Future studies should 

include more detailed monitoring and 

evaluation schemes that can be used to 

form definitive conclusions regarding 

the effectiveness of bioreactor landfill 

operational methods. 

C. Report: Permitting of Landfill 

Bioreactor Operations: Ten Years After 

the RD&D Rule 

In 2014, ORD published ‘‘Permitting 

of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten 

Years After the RD&D Rule.’’ 26 The 

report found that, since promulgation of 

EPA’s MSWLF criteria in 1991, a 

growing number of landfill sites have 

practiced leachate recirculation as well 

as addition of bulk free liquids, 

generally under ad hoc state-level 

research and development programs 

(e.g., the Florida Bioreactor 

Demonstration Project) or site-specific 

permitting mechanisms administered in 

association with EPA, such as described 

above. The report identifies a number of 

associated economic and environmental 

benefits, including: The acceleration of 

LFG generation; minimization of the 

need for leachate treatment and offsite 

disposal; more rapid reduction in 

concentration of leachate constituents of 

concern; and an increase in the rate of 

landfill settlement. The report also 

concludes that bioreactor landfill unit 

operations require increased levels of 

engineering design, operational control, 

and monitoring to safely achieve the 

benefits of accelerated LFG generation 

and meet EPA’s goals for protection of 

human health and the environment. 

Additional challenges for bioreactor 

landfill management that are identified 

in the report include issues with 

temperature control and increased LFG 

collection and associated control. The 

study also identified that buildup of 

saturated conditions and rapid waste 

settlement from accelerated waste 

decomposition can compromise the 

structural stability of the waste mass. 

D. RCRA MSWLF RD&D Annual Reports 

Research at MSWLFs with RD&D 

permits is ongoing, and as discussed 

above, facilities with RD&D permits are 

required to submit annual performance 

reports to their state waste management 

programs demonstrating progress 

toward project goals. The EPA 

conducted a preliminary review of these 

reports in 2018 looking specifically for 

evidence of exceedances of groundwater 

protection standards, and we found no 

evidence of significant exceedances 

resulting from bioreactor landfill unit 

operations. For example, we found 

evidence of exceedances of state action 

limits and other parameters that were 

attributed in the reports we examined to 

background concentrations, activities at 

non-bioreactor landfill cells, and normal 

variations. 

The EPA presents the following data 

from one 2016 annual report 27 as 

illustrative of the information and data 

in the reports. The data as presented are 

not intended to be a comprehensive 

summary of the operation and 

performance of this facility. In that 

report, the report authors state the 

following: 

• A total of 865,800 gallons has been 

added to the bioreactor landfill unit 

since sludge acceptance began in 

August, 2014. 

• The sludge application did not 

result in any odor issues during the 

reporting period. 

• The overall quality of leachate 

generated by the bioreactor landfill unit 

does not appear to have been impacted 

by sludge addition during the reporting 

period. Some of the components, such 

as organic and suspended solids, were 

adequately treated by the bioreactor 

landfill unit. 

• Temperature of the waste mass was 

within a suitable range for the 

development of microbial activity, 

therefore indicating the addition of 

sludge did not have a negative impact 

on waste temperature. 

• The predicted gas generation 

volume was in general agreement with 

the measured data using the selected 

methane generation parameters, 

including the relationship between the 

sludge addition and the first order decay 

coefficient. 

• The overall results of this analysis 

show that wastewater digested sludge 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66217 

28C. Benson, M. Barlaz, and T. M. Tolaymat. 

‘‘Bioreactor Landfills State-Of-The Practice 

Review,’’ pages iv–vi, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R– 

09/071. 

can be safely received, transported, and 

applied to accelerate solid waste 

decomposition. 

The EPA continues to analyze these 

reports and additional data and 

information that are provided to the 

agency. As it does so, EPA will consider 

questions such as those presented in 

Section X. Interested stakeholders may 

thus use those questions as a guide in 

submitting data and information in 

response to this ANPRM. The EPA notes 

that the following questions are of 

particular importance in the evaluation 

of site data to distinguish the potential 

risks of bioreactor landfill units as 

compared to landfill units with lower 

moisture content, including whether the 

addition of some kinds of bulk liquids 

may pose greater risk than other kinds 

of bulk liquids: 

(1) What type and what quantity of 

bulk liquids were added to the waste 

mass? 

(2) Is there evidence of groundwater 

contamination, air emissions violations 

or other liquids management problems? 

(3) Was LFG collection required in the 

RD&D permit, and if so, when was gas 

collection required in relation to the 

timing of liquids addition? 

(4) Was gas collection infrastructure 

required to be installed early in the 

construction of new cells, or were 

vertical wells inserted at some point 

after cells were being filled? 

V. Potential Environmental Benefits, 

Cost Savings, and Environmental 

Considerations 

A. Potential Environmental Benefits 

Based on research conducted at 

facilities with RD&D, Project XL and 

CRADA-based permits discussed in 

Section IV above, the data from these 

facilities and EPA analysis of the data 

suggest the following potential 

environmental benefits from controlled 

liquids addition to MSWLFs: 

• Acceleration of LFG generation rate, 

thereby decreasing the duration of LFG 

generation potential and limiting the 

post-closure care period during which 

air emissions can occur; 

• Acceleration of LFG generation rate, 

thereby decreasing the duration of LFG 

generation potential and limiting the 

post-closure care period during which 

air emissions can occur; 

• Minimization and potentially 

elimination of the need for leachate 

treatment and offsite disposal, thereby 

decreasing the risk of spills during 

transport and decreasing potential 

releases to the environment during offsite treatment and disposal; 

• More rapid reduction in 

concentrations of biodegradable organic 

compounds, potentially limiting the 

post-closure care period required for 

leachate control and decreasing the risk 

of releases of contaminants to the air 

and groundwater during post-closure 

care; 

• An increase in the rate of waste 

settlement and compaction, thereby 

promoting more efficient utilization of 

permitted landfill capacity; 

• Enhanced opportunities for 

beneficial reuse of the landfill property. 

The available data also suggest that 

bioreactor landfill units, when 

compared to conventional dry-tomb 

MSWLF units, may offer the potential 

for reduced long-term risk through 

decreased release of gas emissions to the 

environment, faster waste subsidence 

and stabilization, decreased transport 

and treatment of leachate, and 

potentially a shorter period of time for 

post-closure care. The economic 

benefits that may accrue include 

decreased costs for leachate treatment 

and increased revenue from the use or 

sale of captured LFG and acceptance of 

bulk liquid wastes. The EPA requests 

public comment on our analysis of these 

potential benefits and on the related 

questions found in Section X. 

B. Potential Cost Savings 

Based on research conducted at 

facilities with RD&D, Project XL and 

CRADA-based permits, the data from 

these facilities and EPA analysis of the 

data suggest the following potential cost 

savings to owners and operators of 

MSWLFs: 

• Acceleration of LFG generation rate 

thereby: Increasing opportunities for 

economically viable energy utilization 

options, such as on-site co-generation of 

electricity or sale of LFG for use off-site; 

extending the period over which 

capture of LFG is economically viable; 

and limiting the post-closure period 

required for LFG control and associated 

costs; 

• Decrease in transport costs and the 

need to rely on publicly owned 

treatment works (POTWs) due to 

minimizing or eliminating the need for 

leachate treatment and offsite disposal; 

• Reduction in post-closure care costs 

associated with maintenance and 

emission monitoring due to more rapid 

reduction in concentrations of 

biodegradable organic compounds; 

• Increased utilization of permitted 

landfill capacity resulting from 

increased waste settlement and 

compaction; 

• Reductions in the scope, duration, 

and associated costs for post-closure 

care. 

C. Environmental Considerations 

Due to the nature of bioreactor landfill 

operations, which are based on adding 

liquids to accelerate biodegradation, 

EPA is particularly interested in further 

examination of three categories of 

potential adverse effects to human 

health and the environment: (1) The 

potential for release of contaminants to 

the groundwater due to increased 

moisture content and the potential for 

increased hydrostatic pressure on the 

liner; (2) the potential for release of 

contaminants to the air resulting from 

accelerated biodegradation and LFG 

generation; and (3) the potential for 

liquids management practices within 

the current regulatory framework to 

magnify any potentially adverse impact 

of bioreactor landfill operations, 

including releases to the environment 

due to the presence of additional 

liquids, resultant subsurface heating 

events, or waste stability issues. The 

EPA thus expects to consider, among 

other things, the following factors as it 

considers proposed design and 

operating criteria including whether: 

• Increased engineering design 

requirements and more complex 

construction would be necessary; 

• Higher levels of oversight and 

operator skill would be necessary due to 

increased complexity of conducting 

day-to-day operations; 

• Issues with temperature control, 

particularly in aerobic bioreactor 

landfill units, may be present; 

• There are potential waste 

compatibility issues associated with 

adding liquids to unknown MSW 

constituents; and 

• There are potential waste stability 

issues and the potential for lateral 

leachate seeps. 

1. Groundwater Considerations 

The EPA intends to carefully examine 

the potential for increased risk of 

groundwater contamination from 

liquids addition and bioreactor landfill 

units as part of its evaluation of the 

existing liquids restrictions. The 

information available to EPA to date has 

not identified evidence of significant 

differences between groundwater 

contamination at bioreactor landfill 

units compared to conventional units. 

The ORD ‘‘State of the Practice’’ 

report,28 for example, provides a 

summary of data comparing the impact 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66218 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

29See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factorsand-quantification/ap-42-compilation-airemissions-factors. 

30For a comprehensive discussion of design and 

operating characteristics associated with bioreactor 

landfill units, see ‘‘Sustainable Practices for 

Landfill Design and Operation,’’ by Townsend, 

Powell, Jain, Xu, Tolaymat (USEPA/ORD) and 

Reinhart, Springer Science and Business Media, 

New York, 2015. 

of bioreactor landfill and conventional 

units, including that: 

• Conventional containment systems 

(liners, covers, and leachate collection 

systems) employed for conventional 

landfills function effectively for 

bioreactor landfills. 

• Liner leakage rates for conventional 

and bioreactor landfills are comparable. 

• For the landfills evaluated, the 

action leakage rates (i.e., the rates at 

which remedial action should be taken) 

were not exceeded and flow rates were 

similar between conventional and 

bioreactor cells where comparisons 

were possible. 

• The evaluated bioreactor landfill 

unit operations employing conventional 

containment technologies do not impose 

greater risk to groundwater than 

conventional landfills. 

The EPA requests any monitoring data 

that may demonstrate an increased risk 

of groundwater contamination resulting 

from the operation of bioreactor landfill 

units or from liquids addition as 

compared to conventional landfill units. 

See Section X for additional questions. 

2. Air Emissions Considerations 

The EPA also expects to carefully 

consider the potential for releases of 

LFG and other non-methane organic 

compound air emissions associated with 

liquids addition to MSWLF units. The 

information available to EPA described 

above indicates strongly that the rate of 

LFG generation is accelerated with the 

addition of liquids, and that the 

potential exists for methane and other 

HAPs to be released if LFG is not 

properly controlled. Accelerated 

emission of odors may also begin after 

liquids addition due to the possible 

formation of sulfur compounds, 

terpenes and aldehydes. Again, as 

described above, the ‘‘State of the 

Practice’’ report indicates: 

• Methane generation at bioreactor 

landfill units is accelerated relative to 

rates predicted using AP–42 default 

values 29 for conventional bioreactor 

landfill units. Accordingly, gas 

collection should be initiated as soon as 

possible after waste burial or potentially 

prior to liquid introduction. Design and 

analysis of gas collection systems 

should also account for the higher rate 

of LFG produced over a shorter 

duration. 

• There is no indication that gas 

production increases appreciably when 

the wet weight water content of a 

bioreactor landfill reaches 40%, which 

is the metric for the current bioreactor 

landfill regulatory framework under the 

2003 CAA NESHAP regulations. Metrics 

other than wet weight water content, 

such as those described in Section VII, 

should be considered as thresholds to 

require installation of gas collection 

systems. 

The EPA thus requests data and 

information concerning the risk of air 

emissions from bioreactor landfill units, 

including data concerning the 

correlation between moisture content 

and LFG generation rates. The EPA also 

intends to examine LFG collection 

requirements in RD&D permits and 

requests information about additional 

LFG collection requirements in those 

permits, including early gas collection, 

over and above requirements for nonbioreactor landfill units. Examples of 

data that may be helpful include the 

results of air emissions testing and other 

operations reports that correlate LFG 

emissions with moisture content. See 

Section X for additional questions. 

VI. Additional Technical 

Considerations 

In addition to considerations 

associated with potential releases to 

groundwater and air, EPA is interested 

in evaluating the following design and 

operating characteristics 30 as they 

pertain to effective liquids management 

in bioreactor landfill units: 

• Leachate collection and removal 

systems (LCRS); 

• Waste stability; 

• Waste compatibility; 

• Cumulative loading of constituents 

of concern; and 

• Elevated temperature landfills 

(ETLFs). 

Foremost among these issues is that 

bioreactor landfill units need to be 

designed and operated to handle high 

moisture content and high leachate 

volume. For landfills with elevated 

moisture content, either as result of 

purposeful liquids addition, stormwater 

management practices, or incoming 

waste properties, the LCRS must be 

designed and operated to handle higher 

volumes of leachate. The use of liquids 

addition or leachate recirculation at a 

site can influence LCRS design in three 

primary ways. First, the leachate 

impingement rate (flow of leachate 

intercepted by the liner and LCRS) 

requires more flow removal capacity. 

Second, the increased unit weight of the 

waste, as a result of the elevated 

moisture levels, results in greater 

overburden stress being placed on the 

landfill foundation, which can in turn 

result in greater differential settlement 

over the sloped base of the landfill. 

Third, the potential for clogging the 

LCRS must be considered. While it is 

possible to retrofit a landfill unit to 

become a bioreactor landfill unit, 

ideally liquids addition infrastructure is 

installed at the outset, with similar 

infrastructure also in place to collect 

LFG. 

The impact of high moisture content 

on waste stability is another important 

factor for consideration. If the LCRS is 

insufficiently designed or improperly 

operated, liquids can mound on the 

bottom liner, resulting in the 

development of increased pore-water 

pressures at the base of the landfill and 

raising concerns about slope stability. 

The key design and operational 

challenge to minimizing potential slope 

concerns is to avoid excessive buildup 

of pore pressure. This can be 

accomplished by maintaining and 

monitoring the LCRS, avoiding the 

creation of low permeability zones 

within the landfill where leachate can 

become perched, and allowing 

appropriate time in between large 

pressure liquids addition events. 

Waste compatibility and the potential 

for cumulative loading from the 

application of liquid industrial wastes 

are additional factors that EPA intends 

to consider in association with any 

change to the current prohibition on the 

addition of bulk liquids. The EPA is 

interested in examining the potential for 

application of such wastes to introduce 

constituents that would not otherwise 

be in the unit. The potential risk could 

be due to constituents in those liquid 

wastes impacting biodegradation or 

forming products of concern in the unit. 

With respect to cumulative loading, the 

potential risk could arise from the 

presence of constituents in liquid 

industrial wastes at concentrations that, 

while below toxicity characteristic 

leaching procedure (TCLP) thresholds 

for hazardous wastes at the time of 

application, could nevertheless build up 

over time within the unit. For example, 

if the constituents are at concentrations 

just below the TCLP (e.g., mercurybearing liquid wastes with [Hg] = 0.19 

mg/L; and lead-bearing liquid waste 

with [Pb] = 4.9 mg/L), EPA is interested 

in the potential to exceed the TCLP once 

introduced to the landfill unit. The EPA 

requests comment to identify specific 

bulk liquids that have the potential to 

cause waste compatibility problems or 

could pose problems due to cumulative 

loading. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66219 

31Ohio EPA (2011). Subsurface Heating Events at 

Solid Waste and Construction and Demolition 

Debris Landfills: Best Management Practices. 

Guidance Document #1009. October 14, 2011. 

(http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/34/document/ 

guidance/subsurface%20heating%20events.10

09.pdf). 

Ohio EPA (2016). Higher Operating Value 

Demonstrations. Division of Air Pollution Control 

Engineering Guide #78. Division of Materials and 

Waste Management Guidance Document #1002. 

(http://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/34/document/ 

guidance/gd_1002.pdf). 

Palmiotto, M., Fattore, E., Paiano, V., Celeste, G., 

Colombo, A., & Davoli, E. (2014). Influence of a 

municipal solid waste landfill in the surrounding 

environment: Toxicological risk and odor nuisance 

effects. Environment international, 68, 16–24. DOI: 

10.1016/j.envint.2014.03.004. 

West Lake landfill, https://www.epa.gov/mo/westlake-landfill; Stony Hollow landfill, http://

stonyhollowlandfill.com/; and Rumpke landfill, 

http://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/47/pic/Rumpke%

20Landfill%20factsheet.pdf?ver=2014-07-08-103

928-983. 

32See EPA–456/R–05–004, ‘‘Example Moisture 

Balance Calculations for Bioreactor Landfills’’ for a 

discussion of methods to calculate moisture 

content. 

33Solid Waste Association of North America, 

‘‘Manager of Landfill Operations Training Manual,’’ 

page 1–12, January, 2003. 

The possibility of subsurface reactions 

or heating events (known as elevated 

temperature landfills (ETLFs)) is also 

present in landfill units with increased 

levels of liquids. ETLFs pose significant 

challenges including (1) changes in gas 

and leachate quality and quantity which 

adversely impact the ability to manage 

these emissions effectively; (2) rapid 

waste settlement with implications for 

slope stability; and (3) recorded gas and 

waste temperatures as high as 300 °C, 

which can compromise parts of the 

internal landfill infrastructure. 

While current research and data 31

suggest that ETLFs may be caused by 

many factors, one factor that EPA 

believes contributes to their 

development is high moisture content, 

possibly due in some instances to either 

perched water tables or large volumes of 

leachate head buildup on the bottom 

landfill liner in ETLF-affected areas. 

While it is not clear at this time if the 

abundance of liquids is the cause or the 

result of these subsurface heating 

reactions, it is important to recognize 

that the head on liners (HOL) is a 

regulatory requirement (see 40 CFR 

258.40(a)(2)) which provides an upper 

limit for the head on the bottom liner 

and which EPA is not considering 

altering at this time. In the context of 

bioreactor landfill units, proper leachate 

drainage and conveyance from the waste 

mass are needed to prevent exceedances 

of the HOL limit. 

To address concerns from ETLFs, EPA 

expects that particular attention will 

need to be given to landfill units that are 

proposed to be retrofitted for leachate 

injection to enhance waste stabilization. 

Retrofitting landfill cells to handle 

increased moisture content is 

complicated by the need to install the 

necessary infrastructure with the waste 

mass already in place, and because of 

the reduced hydraulic conductivity of 

aged wastes and soils with high 

overburden pressures. The EPA requests 

comment on the possibility of 

establishing different regulatory 

requirements for new vs. retrofitted 

bioreactor landfill units. 

VII. Characteristics of Bioreactor 

Landfill Units and Wet Landfill Units 

If it proceeds to a future proposed 

rule, EPA will need to identify those 

units which are subject to revised 

requirements. The EPA is therefore also 

seeking public input on how it most 

appropriately may define a ‘‘bioreactor 

landfill unit.’’ The EPA has identified 

and is seeking public comment on two 

possible approaches to defining these 

units that reflect EPA’s understanding of 

the information it has assembled to date. 

One approach to define a bioreactor 

landfill unit in RCRA regulations is by 

moisture content.32 Should EPA take 

such an approach, EPA is considering 

whether a 30% moisture threshold may 

be appropriate as a quantitative 

characteristic of a bioreactor landfill 

unit. Thirty percent represents a point 

above the 20–25%33 moisture content 

range in which MSWLFs typically 

operate, and at which biodegradation 

may be accelerated on as a consequence 

of the addition of liquids. 

Alternatively, a bioreactor landfill 

unit may be characterized qualitatively, 

as a MSWLF unit to which liquids have 

been intentionally added for any 

purpose other than cleaning, 

maintenance, and wetting of daily 

cover. This qualitative approach to 

defining a bioreactor landfill unit is 

consistent with the understanding that 

liquids need to be added for normal 

maintenance, including cleaning and 

wetting of daily cover, while additional 

liquids may serve only to accelerate 

biodegradation. The EPA solicits 

comment on the impact of increased 

moisture content in the range of 25– 

40% and above, and whether there are 

factors governing moisture content for 

which EPA should account, other than 

normal maintenance and accelerated 

biodegradation. 

The EPA is also interested in 

obtaining public comment on whether 

to regulate wet landfill units as a 

distinct group under the RCRA 

regulations and as a possible alternative 

to defining and regulating bioreactor 

landfill units. Increased moisture 

content has a similar effect on 

biodegradation whether it is added 

intentionally (as in bioreactor landfill 

research projects) or not, and thus EPA 

is exploring whether increased moisture 

content from any or all sources may 

pose similar technical issues that 

warrant special regulatory treatment. 

The EPA therefore solicits comment 

on the following characteristics which it 

is considering to identify which 

MSWLF units may be appropriately 

identified as ‘‘wet landfill units.’’ The 

EPA also requests comment on whether 

these factors should be considered 

individually or in combination with one 

another to identify such units, including 

whether: 

• Liquids are recirculated or added 

for any purpose other than cleaning, 

maintenance, and wetting of daily 

cover; 

• The unit is located in a region with 

40 inches or more of annual 

precipitation; 

• The unit has a k value of 0.057 or 

more; 

• Precipitation plus leachate 

recirculation is greater than 55 inches 

per year; or 

• The unit is a bioreactor landfill 

unit. 

Another measure that may be 

appropriate to identify a bioreactor 

landfill unit or a wet landfill unit is the 

rate of leachate collection. Leachate 

collection data are generally available at 

MSWLFs, and these data could be used 

as a surrogate measure of the amount of 

liquid in a unit. 

In considering the merits of defining 

a new class of bioreactor landfill units 

or wet landfill units, EPA is motivated 

to improve the management of liquids at 

MSWLFs based on advances since the 

Part 258 standards were promulgated in 

1991. As currently used, EPA believes 

the term bioreactor landfill may 

unnecessarily connote a small class of 

research facilities, the benefits of which 

may not be recognized as practicable in 

wider use. The EPA solicits input on the 

options for defining bioreactor landfill 

units or wet landfill units presented 

here and whether a new RCRA 

definition for one or the other may 

contribute to the advancement of liquids 

management practices at MSWLFs. 

VIII. Universe of MSWLFs Potentially 

Affected by This ANPRM 

In addition to potentially defining a 

new RCRA class of bioreactor landfill 

units or wet landfill units, EPA is also 

considering how to address existing 

bioreactor landfill units, such as those 

with RD&D permits, in future proposed 

rules. As discussed previously, EPA is 

aware of 35 facilities with RD&D 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66220 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

34USEPA, Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

(LMOP) Database. Data from the LMOP Database are 

current as of September 2018. For information on 

the LMOP Database including its sources, please see 

the LMOP website https://www.epa.gov/lmop. 

35USEPA, Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

(LMOP) Database. Data from the LMOP Database are 

current as of September 2018. For information on 

the LMOP Database including its sources, please see 

the LMOP website https://www.epa.gov/lmop. 

36www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainablematerials-management-facts-and-figures. 

37 ‘‘Residential Food Waste Collection Access in 

the U.S.,’’ Virginia Streeter and Brenda Platt, 

Biocycle, December 2017, Vol. 58, No. 11, p. 20. 

permits. Because the RD&D 

authorization is time-limited, bioreactor 

landfill units operating under RD&D 

permits will have to suspend operations 

authorized under their RD&D permit no 

later than 21 years after they began, 

unless EPA makes nationwide 

regulatory changes or issues a sitespecific rule to authorize the unit’s 

continued operation. The EPA 

understands some RD&D permits may 

reach the end of the 21-year maximum 

permit term as soon as 2024. 

The EPA believes that regulatory 

changes to allow the addition of bulk 

liquids to MSWLF units as a revised 

minimum criterion in 40 CFR 258, or as 

a variance under which state directors 

could approve bulk liquids addition on 

a site-specific basis, would enable a 

larger group of facilities to pursue 

bioreactor landfill operations or liquids 

addition practices. Anecdotally, EPA 

has learned that some facilities would 

like to develop bioreactor landfill units, 

but only if EPA were to allow bulk 

liquid addition outside of the temporary 

RD&D permit process. The 35 facilities 

with RD&D permits are a small portion 

of the open MSWLFs in the US. 

As discussed in Section V, there are 

many potential environmental and 

economic benefits that may motivate a 

landfill owner or operate to pursue 

construction and operation of a 

bioreactor landfill unit. Due to the 

significant impact on LFG generation 

from the addition of liquids, EPA 

believes that information in its Landfill 

Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) 

database may serve as a good predictor 

for the potential impact of developing a 

RCRA definition and regulations for 

bioreactor landfill units or wet landfill 

units. Of the estimated 1,221 open 

MSWLFs 34 in the EPA Landfill Methane 

Outreach Program (LMOP) database, 

there are approximately 565 MSWLFs 

that currently provide LFG to one or 

more or more operational LFG energy 

projects (LFG electricity projects, LFG 

direct-use projects, and upgraded LFG 

projects) for a total of 623 operational 

LFG projects. The EPA plans to explore 

whether some of these 565 MSWLFs 

may be able to achieve better 

environmental and economic results if 

EPA were to remove the prohibition on 

the addition of bulk liquids and define 

bioreactor landfill units or wet landfill 

units as a class of facilities that can get 

standard RCRA Subtitle D permits in 

approved states. 

In addition to those 565 MSWLFs, 

EPA estimates that there are 

approximately 470 additional 

MSWLFs 35 that may be good candidates 

for development of an LFG energy 

project. These 470 MSWLFs are those 

that are currently accepting waste or 

have been closed for five years or less, 

have at least one million tons of waste, 

and do not currently have an 

operational, under-construction, or 

planned LFG project. The EPA intends 

to explore whether some of these 470 

MSWLFs may be able to achieve better 

environmental and economic results if 

EPA were to remove the prohibition on 

the addition of bulk liquids and define 

bioreactor landfill units or wet landfill 

units as a class of facilities that can get 

standard RCRA permits in approved 

states. Some of these 470 facilities may 

ultimately be candidates for developing 

bioreactor landfill units upon changes to 

the RCRA regulations. 

In considering the number of facilities 

that may be affected, it is important to 

note that the primary intent of this 

ANPRM is to explore whether 

regulatory flexibility is warranted for 

those facilities that want to add liquids 

for the purpose of accelerating 

biodegradation in the manner of a 

bioreactor landfill unit. The EPA 

believes that bioreactor landfill units 

may reduce the overall risk to the 

environment and have significant 

economic benefits. 

IX. Relationship to Organics Diversion 

and Composting Programs 

Apart from any future changes to the 

MSWLF regulations, EPA is considering 

how such changes fit into the Agency’s 

broader Sustainable Materials 

Management (SMM) approach. 

Sustainable materials management is a 

systemic approach to using and reusing 

materials more productively over their 

entire life cycles. It represents a change 

in how our society thinks about the use 

of natural resources and environmental 

protection. As part of this effort, EPA 

has developed a non-hazardous 

materials and waste management 

hierarchy that recognizes that no single 

waste management approach is suitable 

for managing all materials and waste 

streams in all circumstances. The 

hierarchy ranks the various management 

strategies from most to least 

environmentally preferred. The 

hierarchy places emphasis on reducing, 

reusing, and recycling as key to 

sustainable materials management. 

Consistent with the hierarchy, EPA 

supports reducing the landfilling of 

organic waste through a variety of 

policies and programs. While not 

directly under EPA’s SMM approach, 

various state and local initiatives 

described in this section have also been 

emerging to divert organics from 

landfilling operations. As discussed 

above, effective bioreactor landfill units 

depend upon the performance of 

biodegredation processes of organic 

materials in the unit. As a policy matter, 

EPA sees the development of 

appropriately-regulated bioreactor 

landfill units or wet landfill units as a 

potential complement to diversion 

programs, with both reducing the 

environmental impacts from organics 

management, albeit under different 

management scenarios. 

The EPA data 36 indicate that organic 

materials are historically the largest 

component of materials landfilled in the 

MSW stream, constituting about 51 

percent of landfilled material in 2015. 

Food waste is the largest component of 

the organic materials waste stream, 

followed by paper and paperboard, 

wood wastes and yard trimmings. 

Recycling and composting have been 

increasing over time for organic 

materials (except rubber and leather). 

For example, the percentage of paper 

and paperboard that is recycled has 

increased from 16.9 percent in 1960 to 

66.6 percent in 2015. The amount of 

composted yard trimmings has 

increased from a negligible amount in 

1960 to 61.3 percent in 2015. 

Composted food waste has increased 

less significantly from negligible 

amounts in 1960 to 5.3 percent in 2015. 

Information available to EPA further 

indicates that states and cities with 

robust recycling and composting 

programs may realize an even greater 

percentage of recycling and composting. 

Such organic waste diversion 

programs are in effect in multiple U.S. 

states and cities. These programs also 

appear to be growing in number. The 

EPA expects that as the numbers of 

households covered by such programs 

grows, so will the quantities of materials 

diverted from landfilling operations. A 

survey conducted by BioCycle in fall 

2017 37 identified 198 curbside 

collection programs and 67 drop-off 

programs. This represented significant 

growth compared to 42 communities 

with curbside collection of food waste 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66221 

38 ‘‘Source Separated Residential Composting,’’ 

Biocycle, December 2007. 

39www.chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ 

Food-Waste-Toolkit_Oct-2016_smaller.pdf. 

in 2007 38 representing 752,000 

households. In addition, numerous 

communities encourage residents to 

compost food in their backyards. In 

some cities, private companies offer 

food scrap pick-up services for a fee. 

Additionally, several states and cities 

have statutes, ordinances, and/or 

mandates that require organics 

diversion from landfills.39 The EPA 

expects that these laws will have an 

effect on the amount of organic waste 

that would otherwise be available for 

management in bioreactor landfill units 

and wet landfill units, at least within 

the jurisdictions in which the diversion 

laws apply. As of 2018, four states— 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont —have adopted 

bans on organic waste, going to 

landfills, while one state—California 

—has instituted a waste recycling law 

requiring commercial generators of 

organic waste to either compost or 

anaerobically digest organic waste. All 

five of these states prohibit certain 

entities that generate specified amounts 

of food waste from sending this waste to 

landfills, subject to exceptions. Each 

state’s ban varies in how it applies to 

various entities, how much organic 

waste an entity must produce in order 

to be covered, and whether exceptions 

exist for entities located far from a 

certified recycling or composting facility 

that accepts food scraps. For example, 

as of 2020, Vermont’s law will cover 

anyone, including residents that 

generate any amount of food waste, 

while the other states’ bans cover only 

certain commercial, industrial, and 

institutional entities. City ordinances in 

New York City and Portland, Oregon, 

mandate materials separation from 

commercial generators. Ordinances in 

Seattle and San Francisco extend the 

separation mandate to single family 

dwellings. An ordinance in Austin, 

Texas requires restaurants of a certain 

size to compost food scraps. 

Other surveys and data also suggest 

that state- and local-level organics 

diversion programs are gaining 

momentum. The EPA’s State 

Measurement Program (Program) 

estimates that, for 2016, 27 states have 

reported having 2,666 organics materials 

management systems, and 11 of those 

states have systems that include 

anaerobic digestion. The Program also 

reports that 21 states have yard waste 

landfill bans. Finally, Program data 

indicate that five states have 

implemented composting goals, 

including Arkansas, California, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, and 

Washington. 

The EPA seeks data and information 

on how organics diversion and 

composting programs may interact with, 

complement, or enhance the policy goal 

of reducing the environmental impact of 

organics management across 

management scenarios. In addition, EPA 

is also interested in obtaining data and 

information on how such programs may 

otherwise affect the operation or 

geographic distribution of bioreactor 

and wet landfill units. 

X. What information is EPA seeking? 

A. Information on Benefits and Risks of 

Bioreactor Landfill Units and Wet 

Landfill Units 

The EPA requests information and 

data on the benefits and risks to human 

health and the environment that may 

result from the addition of bulk liquids 

and the construction, operation, and 

post-closure care of bioreactor landfill 

units and/or wet landfill units. This 

includes risks that have concerned the 

EPA in the past such as potential 

contamination of groundwater from 

liner leakage; potential contamination of 

the air from accelerated LFG emissions; 

the impact of higher temperatures and 

potential for fire under various landfill 

conditions; and any other potential risks 

EPA has not yet identified. (See Section 

V for a discussion of potential benefits 

and environmental considerations.) For 

information about where to submit 

information and comments on the 

following questions, please see the 

‘‘Addresses’’ section at the beginning of 

this document. In responding to any 

questions in this document, please 

identify the question(s) to which you are 

responding before each response. 

B. Questions on Characteristics of 

Bioreactor Landfill Units and Wet 

Landfill Units 

The EPA requests comments and 

supporting information on the following 

questions concerning characteristics 

that may be used to define the universe 

of bioreactor landfill units or wet 

landfill units. (See section VII for 

additional discussion.) 

(1) If EPA should adopt a definition 

of a new RCRA class of MSWLFs 

outside of RD&D permits, is the 

qualitative definition in Section VII, i.e., 

that a bioreactor landfill unit is defined 

by the intentional addition of liquids for 

any purpose other than cleaning, 

maintenance, and wetting of daily 

cover, an appropriate to definition? Or 

is a quantitative definition based on 

moisture content more appropriate? 

(2) If EPA should adopt a quantitative 

definition of a bioreactor landfill unit 

based on moisture content, what is the 

appropriate threshold for moisture 

content? 

(3) Are there factors other than 

moisture content that should be used to 

define a bioreactor landfill unit in a 

quantitative manner? 

(4) Should EPA include the use of 

leachate recirculation, run-on and runoff systems, and alternative cover 

designs in any new definition of a 

bioreactor landfill unit or wet landfill 

unit? 

(5) If EPA should determine that it is 

more appropriate to define and regulate 

wet landfill units instead of bioreactor 

landfill units, what factors should be 

considered in such a definition? 

C. Questions on Operations and PostClosure Care 

The EPA requests comments, data and 

supporting information on appropriate 

operational requirements associated 

with the addition of bulk liquids and 

the construction, operation, and postclosure care of bioreactor landfill units 

and wet landfill units. (See section VI 

for additional discussion.) 

(1) Are there any additional facilities 

with RD&D permit applications in the 

process of state approval, of which EPA 

is not yet aware (i.e., are not listed in 

Table 2 above)? If so, please identify 

them. 

(2) What other changes to the part 258 

criteria may be warranted if EPA were 

to regulate bioreactor landfill units or 

wet landfill units as a subset of MSWLF 

units? For example, if EPA were to make 

changes to the existing criteria for 

liquids restrictions, run-on and run-off 

control systems, and alternative cover 

designs for such units, should EPA 

consider changes to other 258 criteria to 

complement those changes? 

(3) Did state permitting authorities 

impose any additional groundwater 

protection or air emission controls in 

the initial RD&D permits as a precondition for allowing the addition of 

bulk liquids? The EPA is aware that 

Wisconsin, for example, required LFG 

collection from the beginning of 

operations for MSWLFs granted 

variances to add bulk liquids. 

(4) What design and operating 

changes, if any, should be considered to 

manage accelerated waste settlement in 

bioreactor landfill units and minimize 

waste instability issues? 

(5) Should the prospect of increased 

leachate and accelerated LFG generation 

require that a Professional Engineer 

certify that any or all MSWLF 

components and subsystems (e.g., 

leachate collection and storage, LFG 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
66222 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

40See https://www.epa.gov/landfills/bioreactorlandfills for a description of aerobic, anaerobic and 

hybrid bioreactor landfill units. 

collection and control) be designed 

properly to handle the increased 

demands at a bioreactor landfill unit or 

wet landfill unit? 

(6) Are there alternative cover design 

modifications using RD&D permits or in 

other settings that have demonstrated 

the ability to optimize biodegradation? 

(7) If the variances contained in the 

current RD&D rule were to be made 

allowable outside of RD&D permits (see 

Section II), what additional performance 

and prescriptive standards, if any, 

would be necessary to demonstrate 

protection of human health and the 

environment? 

D. Questions on Potential Risks 

The EPA requests comments, data and 

other supporting information on the 

risks to human health and the 

environment that may result from the 

addition of bulk liquids and the 

construction, operation, and postclosure care of bioreactor landfill units 

and wet landfill units. (See Sections V 

and VI for additional discussion.) 

(1) Are there current scientific studies 

or other data available pertaining to the 

impact of moisture content on the 

frequency and rate of leachate leakage or 

other types of environmental releases 

from landfills? 

(2) Is there evidence of increased 

groundwater contamination from 

bioreactor landfill units as compared to 

dry-tomb landfill units? 

(3) Should EPA remove or modify the 

bulk liquids restriction in 40 CFR 

258.28? For example, should the 

addition of liquids be limited to offspecification consumable liquids or be 

open to all non-hazardous liquid waste? 

(4) What specific bulk liquids and in 

what quantity were added at RD&D rule 

bioreactor landfill units? 

(5) Are there restrictions or conditions 

on liquid waste acceptance that EPA 

should consider? For example, are there 

any properties (e.g., pH, ionic strength, 

biological activity) of specific kinds of 

liquid waste (e.g., sewage sludge, grey 

water, animal feedlot waste) that may 

exacerbate releases from co-managed 

wastes and should be considered for 

possible restrictions on liquid waste 

acceptance? Are there any properties of 

the residual solids from these liquids 

that may pose risk when managed at the 

lower water content within the landfill? 

(6) Could increasing the moisture 

content of the landfill increase the risk 

of fire through exothermic chemical 

reactions? Are there specific waste types 

that are appropriately managed in drytomb MSWLFs but could be 

incompatible with bioreactor landfill 

units and/or wet landfill units? 

(7) How might overall leachate quality 

be affected by: 

a. Management under aerobic, 

anaerobic, or hybrid conditions? 

b. Saturation of waste and/or 

recirculation of leachate? 

(8) At what point should LFG 

collection and control systems be 

installed and operating before allowing 

the addition of liquids in order to 

minimize odors, reduce fugitive LFG 

emissions, and prevent accumulation of 

gasses above the lower explosive limit 

(LEL)? 

(9) When was LFG collection required 

to be initiated at bioreactor landfill units 

as specified in the initial RD&D permit 

that allowed the addition of bulk 

liquids? 

(10) Are there any changes to the part 

258 criteria that the EPA should 

consider to better ensure the 

protectiveness of bioreactor landfill 

units and wet landfill units in closure 

and post-closure? 

(11) Are there special types of 

containment systems or other 

preventative measures that should be 

considered to mitigate risk from spills or 

increased leachate circulation? 

E. Questions on Potential Costs, Cost 

Savings and Benefits 

The EPA requests comments, data and 

supporting information on the following 

questions related to the potential costs, 

cost savings and benefits associated 

with the addition of bulk liquids and 

the construction, operation, and postclosure care of bioreactor landfill units 

and/or wet landfill units. 

(1) The EPA requests information 

pertaining to the costs or estimated costs 

of construction, operation, closure, and 

post-closure care of bioreactor landfill 

units and wet landfill units. How do 

these costs compare with the costs 

associated with dry-tomb MSWLFs? 

(2) How do costs differ for units 

managed under aerobic, anaerobic, and 

hybrid conditions? 40

(3) What are the costs associated with 

early installation of LFG collection 

systems? 

(4) What are the benefits associated 

with increased LFG generation and 

capture? 

(5) What are the costs, cost savings 

and benefits associated with faster 

settling of waste in bioreactor landfill 

units and wet landfill units? 

(6) How might tipping fees (the 

charges levied for a given quantity of 

waste delivered to a landfill) change in 

response to any additional costs 

incurred during the operation and 

closure of bioreactor landfill units and 

wet landfill units (e.g., updated design 

criteria, waste handling requirements)? 

(7) How does managing organic waste 

in bioreactor landfill units compare, in 

terms of the cost, cost savings and 

benefits, to managing segregated organic 

wastes through composting or anaerobic 

digestion? 

(8) For MSWLFs in areas with organic 

waste diversion programs, have owners 

and operators of such units documented 

reductions in the proportion of organics 

received at the unit? Have any such 

documented reductions been shown to 

affect the performance or environmental 

risks associated with bioreactor landfill 

units? 

(9) Are there cost savings associated 

with the ability to add bulk liquids to 

bioreactor landfill units as compared to 

other treatment, storage and disposal 

methods? Please provide the cost 

savings or the estimated cost savings 

associated with the above mentioned 

methods. 

(10) Would changes to part 258 to 

provide national operating and design 

criteria for bioreactor landfill units or 

wet landfill units create an incentive or 

disincentive to state and local food 

waste diversion programs? 

(11) Are there cost savings associated 

with the ability to add bulk liquids to 

bioreactor landfill units as compared to 

other treatment, storage and disposal 

methods? 

(12) What are the capital costs and 

operation and maintenance costs 

associated with operating a bioreactor 

landfill unit? How do these costs 

compare to those of landfills that do not 

have bioreactors landfill units? 

(13) In addition to the standard 

bioreactor landfill unit infrastructure 

and practices, are there any bundled 

engineering practices (e.g., 

complimentary requirements for 

leachate recirculation, LFG collection, 

and leak detection) that landfills 

operating bioreactor landfill units are 

likely to invest in? What are the 

additional or complementary benefits or 

risks of these investments? 

(14) Are there any existing bioreactor 

landfill facilities operating under RD&D 

permits, that would cease operations 

due to financial and/or operational 

difficulties without continued operation 

as a bioreactor landfill unit? 

(15) Has the temporary status of 

permits under the RD&D rule 

discouraged any owner/operators from 

otherwise investing in bioreactor 

landfill units? 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules 66223 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

because it relates to a novel approach to 

nationwide landfill management. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Order 12866 

and any changes made in response to 

OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

Because this document does not 

impose or propose any requirements, 

and instead seeks comments and 

suggestions for the Agency to consider 

in possibly developing a subsequent 

proposed rule, the various other review 

requirements that apply when an agency 

imposes requirements do not apply to 

this action. Nevertheless, as part of your 

comments on this ANPRM, you may 

include any comments or information 

that could help the Agency: To assess 

the potential impact of a subsequent 

regulatory action on small entities 

pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider 

voluntary consensus standards pursuant 

to section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note); to consider 

environmental health or safety effects 

on children pursuant to Executive Order 

13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997); to consider human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations pursuant to 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994); or to consider potential impacts 

to state and local governments or tribal 

governments. 

XII. Conclusion 

The information available to EPA to 

date suggests that liquids addition in 

well-managed bioreactor landfill units 

and/or wet landfill units may provide 

reductions in long-term risk and 

operational costs in comparison to drytomb landfills as a result of accelerated 

waste biodegradation. The EPA 

continues to gather information on this 

issue, including the information 

received in response to this ANPRM. 

This information will assist EPA in 

making a determination concerning 

what actions, if any, to take to revise the 

MSWLF criteria. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258 

Environmental protection, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Waste 

treatment and disposal, Water pollution 

control. 

Dated: December 14, 2018. 

Andrew R. Wheeler, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27748 Filed 12–21–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 3, 31, and 52 

[FAR Case 2017–005; Docket No. 2017– 

0005, Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 9000–AN32 

Federal Acquisition Regulation: 

Whistleblower Protection for 

Contractor Employees 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

implement an act to enhance 

whistleblower protection for contractor 

employees. The rule would make 

permanent the protection for disclosure 

of certain information. It also would 

clarify that the prohibition on 

reimbursement for certain legal costs 

applies to subcontractors, as well as 

contractors. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

comments to the Regulatory Secretariat 

Division at one of the addresses shown 

below on or before February 25, 2019 to 

be considered in the formulation of a 

final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FAR Case 2017–005 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘FAR Case 2017–005’’ under 

the heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and 

selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the link 

‘‘Comment Now’’ that corresponds with 

‘‘FAR Case 2017–005.’’ Follow the 

instructions provided on the screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘FAR Case 2017– 

005’’ on your attached document. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory-Secretariat 

Division (MVCB), ATTN: Lois Mandell, 

1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, 

Washington, DC 20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite ‘‘FAR case 2017–005’’ in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Ms. 

Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, 

at 202–219–0202. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division at 202–501–4755. 

Please cite ‘‘FAR Case 2017–005.’’ 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing 

to amend the FAR to implement an act 

to enhance whistleblower protection for 

contractor and grantee employees (Pub. 

L. 114–261), enacted December 14, 

2016. Although the statute addresses 

both contractor and grantee employees, 

the FAR only covers contracts and 

contractors. Grants are covered in title 2 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

This statute amends 41 U.S.C. 4712 to 

make permanent the pilot program for 

enhancement of contractor protection 

from reprisal for sharing certain 

information. The four-year pilot 

program was enacted on January 2, 

2013, by section 828 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239), 

with an effective period of four years 

from the date of enactment (i.e., January 

2, 2013, through January 1, 2017). 

Section 1091(e) of the NDAA for FY 

2014 (Pub. L. 113–66) modified the 

effective period of the pilot program to 

be four years from the date that is 180 

days after the date of enactment (i.e., 

July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2017). 

However, the program did not expire as 

it became permanent on December 14, 

2016, before either of those expiration 

dates. This program does not apply to 

DoD, NASA, or the Coast Guard. 

This statute also clarifies that the cost 

principles at 10 U.S.C. 2324(k) and 41 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1