23652 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. The proposed

rule does not include environmental

justice related issues that require

consideration under Executive Order

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

As required by section 3 of Executive

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7,

1996), in issuing this proposed rule,

EPA has taken the necessary steps to

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and

provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. The EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This proposed rule

does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: April 19, 2001.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 01–11563 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258

[FRL–6976–7]

RIN 2090–AA18

Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for

Yolo County Landfill, Davis, Yolo

County, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for comment on

proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is today proposing a sitespecific rule to implement a project

under the Project XL program, an EPA

initiative to allow regulated entities to

achieve better environmental results at

decreased costs. Today’s proposal

would provide regulatory flexibility

under the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, for

the Yolo County Landfill, Davis, Yolo

County, California.

Yolo County has proposed a project

under EPA’s Project XL to use certain

bioreactor techniques at its municipal

solid waste landfill (MSWLF),

specifically the addition of bulk or noncontainerized liquid wastes into the

landfill to accelerate the biodegradation

of landfill waste and decrease the time

it takes for the waste to stabilize in the

landfill. The principal objective of this

bioreactor XL project is to evaluate

waste decomposition rates when

leachate is supplemented with other

liquid additions. In order to carry out

this project, Yolo County would need

relief from certain requirements in EPA

regulations which set forth operating

criteria for MSWLFs and preclude the

addition of bulk or non-containerized

liquid wastes. To achieve the objectives

of the project, today’s proposed rule

would provide regulatory flexibility

from Liquid Restrictions, which

precludes the addition of bulk or noncontainerized liquid wastes. The Yolo

County bioreactor project is one of

several bioreactor XL projects currently

being considered by EPA.

DATES: Public Comments: Comments on

the proposed rule must be received on

or before June 8, 2001.

Public Hearing: Commentors may

request a public hearing by May 23,

2001 during the public comment period.

Commentors must state the basis for

requesting the public hearing. If EPA

determines there is sufficient reason to

hold a public hearing, it will do so no

later than May 30, 2001, during the last

week of the public comment period.

Requests for a public hearing should be

submitted to the address listed below. If

a public hearing is scheduled, the date,

time, and location will be made

available through a Federal Register

notice or by contacting Sherri Walker at

the EPA Headquarters office (see

ADDRESSES section).

ADDRESSES: Request to Speak at

Hearing: Requests to speak at a hearing

should be mailed to the RCRA

Information Center Docket Clerk

(5303G), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Please send an

original and two copies of all comments

and refer to Docket Number F–2000–

YCLP–FFFFF. A copy should also be

sent to Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. (1802),

Washington DC 20460.

Comments: Written comments should

be mailed to the RCRA Information

Center Docket Clerk (5305W), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington,

DC 20460. Please submit an original and

3 copies of written comments as well as

an original and 3 copies of any

attachments, enclosures, or other

documents referenced in the comments

and refer to Docket Number F–2000–

YCLP–FFFFF. A copy should also be

sent to Ms. Sherri Walker at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., (1802)

Washington DC 20460.

EPA will also accept comments

electronically. Comments should be

addressed to the following Internet

address: walker.sherri@epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be submitted

as an ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/6.1/8

format file and avoid the use of special

characters or any form of encryption.

Electronic comments will be transferred

into a paper version for the official

record. EPA will attempt to clarify

electronic comments if there is an

apparent error in transmission.

Viewing Project Materials: A docket

containing the proposed rule,

supporting materials, and public

comments is available for public

inspection and copying at the RCRA

Information Center (RIC) located at

Crystal Gateway, 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway, First Floor, Arlington,

Virginia. The RIC is open from 9:00 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding federal holidays. The public

is encouraged to phone in advance to

review docket materials. Appointments

can be scheduled by phoning the Docket

Office at (703) 603–9230. Refer to RCRA

Docket Number F–2000–YCLP–FFFFF.

The public may copy a maximum of 100

pages from any regulatory docket at no

charge. Additional copies are $0.15 per

page. Project materials are also available

for review for today’s action on the

world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/

projectxl/.

A duplicate copy of the docket is

available for inspection and copying at

the regional office in which the landfill

project is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Ms.

Sherri Walker at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave. N.W. (1802), Washington DC

20460, (202) 260–4295,

walker.sherri@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed rulemaking would amend 40

CFR 258.28(a) by adding a new 40 CFR

258.28(a)(3) and will create a new

section, 40 CFR 258.41. Section

258.28(a) currently prohibits application

of bulk or noncontainerized liquid

waste into a municipal solid waste

landfill unit unless: (1) The waste is

household waste other than septic

waste; or (2) leachate or gas condensate

derived from the landfill unit and the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 23653

unit is designed with a specific

composite liner meeting the

requirements of 40 CFR 258.40(b), as

incorporated by 40 CFR 258.40(a)(2).

The proposed rulemaking would create

a third exception to the prohibition

pertaining to the application of bulk or

noncontainerized liquid waste by

referring to the new section 40 CFR

258.41, pertaining to Project XL

Bioreactor Landfills.

This proposed rule will add new

section 40 CFR 258.41. Section

258.41(b) will apply only to Module D

of the Yolo County Landfill in Davis,

California. Currently, Module D of the

Yolo County Landfill, which otherwise

conforms to the requirements of 40 CFR

258.40(a)(2), has a composite liner

which not only meets, but exceeds the

requirements set forth at 40 CFR

258.40(b). Thus, Module D of this

Landfill can, under federal law, not only

currently add household liquid waste,

other than septic waste, but can also

recirculate leachate or condensate gas

derived from the landfill unit. Today’s

proposed rule would allow the owner/

operator of the Yolo County Landfill to

also add other types of liquid waste to

Module D of the Landfill. The proposed

rule will become effective only after

promulgation of the final rule in the

Federal Register.

This proposed rulemaking allowing

for addition of other types of liquid

waste into Module D of the Yolo County

Landfill requires compliance with each

of the design, monitoring,

recordkeeping, reporting, and

operational requirements proposed

under this rulemaking. It is also

‘‘conditional’’ on the issuance of a

permit executed by the local air quality

management district under the Clean

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., as set

forth in the proposed rule. Upon

completion of the rulemaking, these

requirements and conditions are

enforceable in the same way that current

RCRA standards for solid waste landfills

are enforceable to ensure that

management of nonhazardous solid

waste is performed in a manner that is

protective of human health and the

environment.

EPA is proposing to allow Yolo

County to undertake this XL Project

with the requested regulatory flexibility

to determine if the addition of other

types of liquid wastes will result in

superior environmental performance

and significant costs savings while

remaining protective of human health

and the environment.

Today’s proposed rulemaking will not

affect the provisions or applicability of

any other existing or future regulations.

EPA is soliciting comment on this

rulemaking. EPA will publish responses

to comments in a subsequent final rule.

The individual XL projects considered

under future rulemakings will enter the

implementation phase only when each

of the rules addressing these other

landfills have been promulgated. No

addition or recirculation of other types

of liquid waste beyond those currently

allowed in accordance with 40 CFR

258.28(a) will occur at any proposed

Project XL landfill until such time as a

final rule relating to such landfill has

been duly promulgated and all other

appropriate federal, state and/or local

permits and other applicable conditions

have been fully satisfied.

Outline of Today’s Document

The information presented in this

preamble is arranged as follows:

I. What is EPA’s Legal Authority for today’s

proposed rule?

II. Background

A. What is Project XL?

B. What are Bioreactor Landfills?

III. Overview of the Yolo County XL Project

Pilot

A. What kind of liner is required by current

federal regulations?

B. What Solutions are Proposed by the Yolo

County XL Project?

C. What Regulatory Changes will be

Necessary to Implement this Project?

1. Liquid Restrictions for MSWLFs (40 CFR

258.28)

2. Proposed Site-Specific Rule

D. How Have Various Stakeholders Been

Involved in this Project?

E. How Will this Project Result in Cost

Savings and Paperwork Reduction?

F. How Long Will this Project Last and When

Will it be Complete?

IV. Additional Information

A. How to Request a Public Hearing

B. How Does this Rule Comply With

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review?

C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required?

D. Is an Information Collection Request

Required for this Project Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act?

E. Does This Project Trigger the

Requirements of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act?

F. How Does this Rule Comply with

Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children from Environmental Health Risks

and Safety Risks?

G. Execute Order 13132: Federalism

H. How Does this Rule Comply with

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments ?

I. Does this Rule Comply with the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act?

I. What Is EPA’s Authority For Today’s

Proposed Rule?

This rule is proposed under the

authority of sections 1008, 2002, 4004,

and 4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal

Act of 1970, as amended by the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912,

6945, and 6949).

II. Background

A. What is Project XL?

Project XL is an EPA initiative to

allow regulated entities to achieve better

environmental results at less cost.

Project XL—‘‘eXcellence and

Leadership’’—was announced on March

16, 1995 as a central part of the National

Performance Review and EPA’s efforts

to reinvent environmental protection.

See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995).

Specifically, Project XL gives a limited

number of regulated entities the

opportunity to develop their own pilot

projects and alternative strategies to

achieve environmental performance that

is superior to what would be achieved

through compliance with current and

reasonably anticipated future

regulations. These efforts are crucial to

the Agency’s ability to test new

regulatory strategies that reduce

regulatory burden and promote

economic growth while achieving better

environmental and public health

protection. The Agency intends to

evaluate the results of this and other XL

projects to determine which specific

elements of the projects, if any, should

be more broadly applied to other

regulated entities for the benefit of both

the economy and the environment.

Project XL is intended to allow EPA

to experiment with untried, potentially

promising regulatory approaches, both

to assess whether they provide benefits

at the specific facility affected, and

whether they should be considered for

wider application. Such pilot projects

allow EPA to proceed more quickly than

would be possible when undertaking

changes on a nationwide basis. EPA

may modify rules, on a site- or statespecific basis, that represent one of

several possible policy approaches

within a more general statutory

directive, so long as the alternative

being used is permissible under the

statute.

Adoption of such alternative

approaches or interpretations in the

context of a given XL project is not an

indication that EPA plans to adopt that

interpretation as a general matter or

even in the context of other XL projects.

It would be inconsistent with the

forward-looking nature of these pilot

projects to adopt such innovative

23654 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

approaches prematurely on a

widespread basis without first

determining whether or not they are

viable in practice and successful for the

particular projects that embody them.

These pilot projects are not intended to

be a means for piecemeal revision of

entire programs.

EPA believes that adopting alternative

policy approaches and/or

interpretations, on a limited, site- or

state-specific basis and in connection

with a carefully selected pilot project, is

consistent with the expectations of

Congress about EPA’s role in

implementing the environmental

statutes (so long as EPA acts within the

discretion allowed by the statute).

Congress’ recognition that there is a

need for experimentation and research,

as well as ongoing reevaluation of

environmental programs, is reflected in

a variety of statutory provisions, e.g.,

Section 8001 of RCRA, (42 U.S.C. 6981).

Under Project XL, participants in four

categories (facilities, industry sectors,

governmental agencies, and

communities) are offered the

opportunity to develop common sense,

cost-effective strategies that will replace

or modify specific regulatory

requirements on the condition that they

produce and demonstrate superior

environmental performance. To

participate in Project XL, applicants

must develop alternative pollution

reduction strategies pursuant to eight

criteria: (1) Superior environmental

performance; (2) cost savings and

paperwork reduction; (3) stakeholder

involvement and support; (4) test of an

innovative strategy; (5) transferability;

(6) feasibility; (7) identification of

monitoring, reporting, and evaluation

methods; and (8) avoidance of shifting

risk burden. The project must have full

support of affected federal, state, and

tribal agencies to be selected. For more

information about the XL criteria,

readers should refer to two descriptive

documents published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 27282, published May

23, 1995 and 62 FR 19872, published

April 23, 1997) and the document

entitled ‘‘Principles for Development of

Project XL Final Project Agreements,’’

dated December 1, 1995.

Development of a Project has four

basic phases: the initial pre-proposal

phase where the project sponsor comes

up with an innovative concept that it

would like EPA to consider as an XL

pilot; the second phase where the

project sponsor works with EPA and

interested stakeholders in developing its

XL proposal; the third phase where

EPA, local regulatory agencies, and

other interested stakeholders review the

XL proposal; and the fourth phase

where the project sponsor works with

EPA, local regulatory agencies, and

interested stakeholders in developing

the Final Project Agreement and legal

mechanisms. The XL pilot proceeds into

the implementation phase and

evaluation phase after promulgation of

the required federal, state and local legal

mechanisms and after the designated

participants sign the FPA.

The FPA is a non-binding written

agreement between the project sponsor

and regulatory agencies. The FPA

contains a detailed description of the

proposed pilot project. It addresses the

eight Project XL criteria and discusses

how EPA expects the project to meet

that criteria. The FPA identifies

performance goals and indicators which

will enable the project sponsor to

demonstrate superior environmental

benefits. The FPA also discusses

administration of the agreement,

including dispute resolution and

conditions for termination of the

agreement. On August 29, 2000, EPA

published a notice in the Federal

Register requesting comments on the

FPA for the Yolo County bioreactor

landfill XL Project. EPA received no

comments on the FPA during the 14 day

public comment period. In the event

that Yolo County, EPA Region 9’s

Regional Administrator and the state of

California agree to extend this proposed

rule beyond Phase I of Module D,

another Final Project Agreement will be

entered into.

B. What are Bioreactor Landfills?

A bioreactor landfill is generally

defined as a landfill operated to

transform and stabilize the readily and

moderately decomposable organic

constituents of the waste stream by

purposeful control to enhance

microbiological processes. Bioreactor

landfills often employ liquid addition

including leachate recirculation. A

byproduct of the decomposition process

is landfill gas, which includes methane,

carbon dioxide, and volatile organic

compounds (VOC’s). Landfill gases are

produced sooner in a bioreactor than in

a conventional landfill. Therefore,

bioreactors often incorporate state-ofthe-art landfill gas collection systems.

On April 6, 2000, EPA published a

notice in the Federal Register

requesting information on bioreactor

landfills, because the Agency is

considering whether and to what extent

the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills, 40 CFR Part 258, should be

revised to allow for leachate

recirculation over alternative liners in

MSWLFs. (65 FR 18015). EPA is seeking

information about liquid additions and

leachate recirculation in MSWLFs to the

extent currently allowed, i.e., in

MSWLFs designed and constructed with

a composite liner as specified in 40 CFR

258.40(a)(2).

Proponents of bioreactor technology

note that operation of MSWLFs as

bioreactors provide a number of

environmental benefits, including (1)

Increasing the rate of waste

decomposition, which in turn would

extend the operating life of the landfill

and lessen the need for additional

landfill space or other disposal options,

(2) decreasing, or even eliminating, the

quantity, and increasing the quality, of

leachate requiring treatment and offsite

disposal, leading to decreased risks and

costs associated with leachate

management, treatment and disposal, (3)

reduced post-closure care costs and

risks, due to the accelerated, controlled

settlement of the solid waste during

landfill operation, (4) lower long term

potential for leachate migration into the

subsurface environment, and (5)

opportunity for recovery of methane gas

for energy production.

EPA is also considering several XL

pilot projects involving operation of

landfills as bioreactors throughout the

country. These landfill projects will

enable EPA to evaluate benefits of

different alternative liners and leachate

recirculation systems under various

terrains and operating conditions. As

expressed in the above-referenced April

2000 Federal Register notice, EPA is

interested in assessing the performance

of landfills operated as bioreactors, and

these XL projects could contribute

valuable data.

The Yolo Country XL project and

other XL projects would provide

additional information on the

performance of MSWLFs when liquids

are added to the landfill. The Agency is

also interested in determining whether

and which types of alternative liners are

capable of meeting the design

performance standard including

maintaining a hydraulic head at

acceptable levels.

The terms of the Yolo County

bioreactor project are contained in a

Final Project Agreement (FPA). EPA

sought public comment on the draft

FPA on August 29, 2000. The Final

Project Agreement is available to the

public at the EPA Docket in

Washington, DC., in the EPA Region 9

library, and on the world wide web at

http://www.epa.gv/projectxl/.

III. Overview of the Yolo County

Landfill XL Project

The Yolo County Central Landfill

(YCCL) is an existing non-hazardous

municipal waste landfill with two

surface impoundments for disposal of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 23655

1 Golder Associates, ‘‘Final Report, Construction

Quality Assurance, Yolo County Central Landfill,

WMU 6, Module D, Phase 1 Expansion’’, December

1999.

2Moore et al., ‘‘Hydraulic Characteristics of

Municipal Solid Waste Findings of the Yolo County

Bioreactor Landfill Project’’, Thirteenth

International Conference on Solid Waste

Technology and Management, Philadelphia, PA,

November 1997.

selected non-hazardous liquid wastes.

This site encompasses 722 acres and is

owned and operated by Yolo County. It

is located at the intersection of Road 104

and Road 28H, 2 miles northeast of the

City of Davis, California. The YCCL was

opened in 1975 for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste, construction

debris, and non-hazardous liquid waste.

Existing on-site operations include an

eleven-year old landfill methane gas

recovery and energy generation facility,

a drop-off area for recyclables, a metal

recovery facility, wood and yard waste

recovery and processing area, and a

concrete recycling area.

Adjacent land uses include the City of

Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant

lagoons located immediately east and

south of the landfill and the Willow

Slough By-pass which runs parallel to

the southern boundary of the site. The

remainder of land uses adjacent to the

site are agricultural (row crops).

Groundwater levels at the facility

fluctuate 8 to 10 feet during the year,

rising from the lowest in September to

the highest around March. Water level

data indicate that the water level table

is typically 4 to 10 feet below ground

surface during the winter and spring

months. During the summer and fall

months, the water table is typically 5 to

15 feet below ground surface. In January

1989, the County of Yolo constructed a

soil/bentonite slurry cutoff wall to

retard groundwater flow to the landfill

site from the north. The cutoff wall was

constructed along portions of the

northern and western boundaries of the

site to a maximum depth of 44 feet and

has a total length of 3,680 feet, 2,880

feet along the north side and 800 feet

along the west. In the fall of 1990,

irrigation practices to the north of the

landfill site were altered to minimize

the infiltration of water. Additionally,

sixteen groundwater extraction wells

were installed south of the cutoff wall

in order to lower the water table south

and east of the wall. The purpose was

to depress the water table to provide

vertical separation between the base of

the landfill and the groundwater.

Yolo County proposes to operate the

next phase of its landfill module

(Module D) as both an anaerobic and

aerobic bioreactor. Twelve acres of the

20-acre module have been constructed

(Phase I). Ten acres would be operated

as a full scale anaerobic bioreactor,

while the remaining two acres would be

operated as an aerobic pilot

demonstration cell.

A. What Kind of Liner is Required by

Current Federal Regulations?

Currently, the federal regulations

outline two methods for complying with

liner requirements for municipal solid

waste landfills. The first method is a

performance standard set out under 40

CFR 258.40(a)(1). This standard allows

installation of any liner configuration

provided the liner design is approved by

an EPA approved state and the design

ensures that certain constituent

concentrations are not exceeded in the

uppermost aquifer underlying the

landfill facility at the point of

compliance.

The second method is set out in 40

CFR 258.40(a)(2) and (b). Section

258.40(b) specifies a specific liner

design which consists of two

components: (1) An upper component

comprising a minimum of 30 mil

flexible membrane liner (60 mil if High

Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is used);

and (2) a lower component comprising

at least two feet of compacted soil with

a hydraulic conductivity no greater than

1×10¥7 cm/sec.

B. What Solutions are Proposed by the

Yolo County XL Project?

The bottom liner system of Module D

was designed to exceed the

requirements of Subtitle D of the

Federal guidelines and was upgraded

from other liner systems used

previously at the site. The County

believes that, given the constructed

configuration and the stringent

monitoring and operational

requirements proposed for Module D,

the proposed liner system will be

suitable for use in the bioreactor

operations.

The Module D liner and leachate

collection system consists, from top to

bottom, of a 2 foot thick chipped tire

operations/drainage layer (k> 1 cm/sec),

a blanket geocomposite drainage layer, a

60-milliliter (mil) High Density

Polyethylene (HDPE) liner, 2 feet of

compacted clay (k<6 × 10¥9 cm/sec), 3

feet of compacted earth fill (k< 1 × 10¥8

cm/sec), and a 40 mil HDPE vapor

barrier layer.1

The permeability (k) of the clay liner,

as constructed, is on the average about

6 × 10¥9 cm/sec and the earth fill

averaged about 1 × 10¥8 cm/sec. These

two layers in effect provide a 5 foot

thick composite liner. It is anticipated

that this liner system, coupled with the

lower permeability, will result in a

significantly more effective barrier to

leachate migration than the prescriptive

liner system.

The liner system within the collection

trenches and sump areas was upgraded

further to a double composite liner to

account for infringement on the 5 foot

groundwater offset and to minimize

potential leakage in these critical

collection areas where head on the

primary liner will be at its greatest.

Specifically, the liner and leachate

collection system in the collection

trenches and sumps consists, from top

to bottom, of a minimum of 2 feet of

gravel drainage material, a protective

geotextile layer, a blanket geocomposite

drainage layer, a primary 60-mil HDPE

liner, a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) (k<

5 × 10¥9 cm/sec), a secondary 60-mil

HDPE liner, 2 feet of compacted clay (k<

6 × 10¥9 cm/sec), a minimum of 0.5 feet

of compacted earth fill (k< 1 × 10¥8 cm/

sec), and a 40-mil HDPE vapor barrier

layer. The thickness of the compacted

earth fill actually varies from a

minimum at the south end of the trench

of 0.5 feet to a maximum of about 2.5

feet at the upper, north end of the

leachate collection trench. Leachate

collection pipes were also placed in the

collection trench and at other locations

on top of the primary liner to transport

leachate immediately to the sumps for

recovery, removal, and recirculation, as

needed.

As described above, the more rigorous

Module D leachate collection and

recovery system (LCRS) and liner

system is expected to outperform the

Subtitle D liner design requirements.

The LCRS has been designed and

constructed to be free-draining

throughout the life of the module and

will maintain less head over the primary

liner system than the type of liner

prescribed by Subtitle D.

For the anaerobic operation, it is

estimated that during peak liquid

additions, up to 10 gallons per minute

(gpm) of liquid per 10,000 square feet (.1

gpm per 100 square feet) of disposal

area will typically be delivered to the

waste once the module has reached its

design height. Based on a previous

smaller scale demonstration cell, the

amount of liquid added would be in the

range of 30 to 50 gallons per ton of

waste. According to results of the

bioreactor demonstration project by

Moore et al.,2 the average leachate

generated during liquid introduction

peaked at about 47% of the liquid

delivery rate, which would equate to

approximately 20 gpm per acre for the

proposed program. Given a 10 acre

drainage area, the total anticipated flow

into any given sump would be

23656 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

approximately 200 gpm (288,000 gallons

per day) assuming there will be no

preferred pathways within the waste

mass.

For the aerobic operation, liquid will

be added to waste at a faster rate since

the aerobic reaction causes much of the

water to evaporate. It is estimated that

the range of water used will be 200 to

400 gallons of water per ton of waste.

Liquid will be applied during

strategic periods to temporarily raise the

moisture content of the waste to provide

optimum conditions for rapid

degradation and improved gas

production. This liquid will initially

consist of a mixture of leachate and

condensate from other Waste

Management Units and ground water

(from the extraction wells) delivered

through a series of pipes, drip irrigation,

or other application systems either after

the landfill reaches its design height or

after an interim cover and gas collection

system has been constructed to control

the landfill gases generated. The water

will continually be introduced (as

needed) to raise the moisture content

within the waste to near its field

capacity. The liquid application system

will be constructed such that the

solution can be applied or discontinued

at designated locations to raise and

lower the moisture within the waste.

Yolo County will monitor moisture

content throughout the life of the

module through the use of a network of

moisture sensors to be installed during

waste placement. A moisture sensor

system used during a bioreactor

demonstration project in Module B

proved to be very effective and will be

the basis for the layout in Module D.

Specifically, the moisture sensors will

be installed at 20-foot increments of

depth at a spacing of about 100 feet on

center. Using these sensors, the County

can determine where liquid application

can be increased or decreased to

optimize the effectiveness of the system

and to prevent build-up of head over the

liner.

The County will measure the quantity

of leachate and applied liquid

throughout the life of the module. Once

leachate is produced, it will supplement

the system and be re-circulated, thereby

reducing the amount of clean water

used. Liquid will be quantified using

flow sensors installed on the leachate

discharge line, re-circulation line, and

liquid application line. These sensors

will provide direct flow readout for

determining flow rates in the pipelines

and the total flow of all the liquid used

and leachate produced.

The County will also monitor the

head over the liner after waste

placement using a network of pressure

transducers and sensors. These devices

will be installed on the primary liner,

immediately before waste placement, to

provide measurements of the leachate

depth. Several of these transducers were

installed in the LCRS during the Module

D construction.

In the event that the transducers

indicate that the head is going to exceed

the allowable value, the system will

automatically start pumps to reduce the

liquid level and shut-off valves to

reduce the liquid application rate. These

measures would be used to reduce the

liquid application rate across the entire

module or specifically, in the area of

head build-up. Generally, the County

will only continue to apply the liquid

until the gas generation phase of the

unit is complete, at which time leachate

production is anticipated to continually

decrease until conclusion of the postclosure period. The County will also

closely monitor the quality of the

leachate to evaluate the system,

determine the methods for future

leachate treatment, and provide a basis

for future use of similar bioreactors at

the site or elsewhere.

Finally, the degradation and gas

production of the waste is also related

to the temperature within the

decomposing waste. The effectiveness of

both aerobic and anaerobic bioreactors

is dependent on keeping within an

optimum temperature range; therefore,

the County will install temperature

gauges to aid in the operation of the

system. The temperature gauge network

will be placed in a similar pattern to the

moisture sensors at designated intervals

throughout the waste mass.

For the Yolo County bioreactor

landfill proposal, the superior

environmental benefits include: (a)

Maximizing landfill gas control and

minimizing fugitive methane and VOC

emissions; (b) greater recovery of

landfill methane; (c) landfill life

extension and/or reduced landfill use;

and (d) minimizing leachate-associated

concerns.

a. Maximizing landfill gas control and

minimizing fugitive methane and VOC

emissions. Landfill gas contains roughly

50% methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

In terms of climate effects, methane is

second in importance only to carbon

dioxide. Landfill gas also contains

volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) that

are air pollutants of local concern. Yolo

County will immediately begin

collecting landfill gas by installing a gas

collection system consisting of a surface

permeable gas collection layer overlain

by a cover of soil with an embedded

membrane. Gas will be withdrawn such

that this permeable layer beneath

surface containment will be at a slight

vacuum. This system will minimize the

amount of landfill gas emitted to the

environment.

b. Expedited methane generation/

recovery. In the Yolo bioreactor, the

majority of the methane will be

generated over a much earlier and

shorter time period than a conventional

landfill. This is expected to minimize

the long-term low-rate methane

generation often lost in conventional

landfill practices.

c. Landfill life extension and/or

reduced landfill use. The more rapid

conversion of greater quantities of solid

waste to gas reduces the volume of the

waste. Settlement in the Yolo test cell is

already over 18% in three years.

Volume reduction translates into either

landfill life extension and/or less

landfill use. Thus, this bioreactor

landfill will be able to accept more

waste over its working lifetime.

Additionally, fewer landfills may be

needed to accommodate the same

inflows of waste from a given

population.

d. Minimizing leachate-associated

concerns. The bioreactor processes, both

anaerobic and aerobic, have been shown

in studies at many scales to reduce the

concentration of many leachate

pollutants. These include organic acids

and other soluble organic pollutants.

Since a bioreactor operation brings pH

to near-neutral conditions, metals of

concern are largely precipitated and

immobilized in the waste.

C. What Regulatory Changes will be

Necessary to Implement this Project?

1. Liquids Restriction for MSWLFs (40

CFR 258.28)

EPA is proposing a site-specific rule

to grant regulatory flexibility from 40

CFR 258.28 Liquid Restrictions, which

precludes the addition of bulk or

noncontainerized liquid waste. In its XL

project, the County is proposing to add

ground water from its extraction wells

as a liquid amendment, as well as other

liquids such as gray-water from the local

waste water treatment plant, septic

waste, and food-processing waste that is

currently being land applied. Liquid

wastes such as these, which normally

have no beneficial use, may beneficially

enhance the biodegradation of solid

waste in the landfill which is the subject

of this project.

2. Proposed Site-Specific Rule

Today’s proposal would amend

258.28(a) by adding a new paragraph

258.28(a)(3) to refer to a new section of

the rules, section 258.41. The new

section 258.41(b) would specifically

apply to the Yolo County Landfill in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 23657

Davis, California only and would allow

Module D of that landfill to receive bulk

or non-containerized liquid wastes as

long as that module met the design

criteria set forth in Section 258.41(b).

Additionally, the proposed rule would

impose certain minimum monitoring

and reporting requirements on Yolo

County, which, among other things, will

facilitate EPA’s evaluation of the

project.

The reason that the existing regulation

requires a leachate collection system

and a composite liner design as

specified section 258.40(a)(2) is to

ensure that contaminant migration to

the aquifer is controlled. (56 FR 50978,

51056 (Oct. 9, 1991)). The proposed rule

would not change the requirement in

section 258.28(a)(2) that a leachate

collection system as described in U.S.C.

258.40(a)(2) be in place in order for

leachate to be recirculated in the landfill

unit. These requirements would be

requirements of new section 258.41(b)

and Yolo County’s proposed Module D

would still be required to have leachate

collection systems designed to maintain

leachate over the liner at a depth of less

than 30 cm. In addition, since Yolo

County’s design of its liner goes beyond

the requirements of Subtitle D of the

Federal Regulations, EPA believes that

adding additional liquid wastes into

Module D would not result in any

increased leakage to groundwater from

the bioreactor cells.

D. How Have Various Stakeholders Been

Involved in this Project?

Stakeholder involvement and support

for this concept has already been

demonstrated by previous federal, state,

and local support of this bioreactor

concept. For example, in 1994, the Yolo

County Planning and Public Works

Department, initiated a demonstration

project (Module B) to evaluate the

Bioreactor Landfill concept for its

Central Landfill near Davis, California.

The construction phase of the project

was funded by Yolo and Sacramento

Counties ($125,000 each), the California

Energy Commission ($250,000), and the

California Integrated Waste Management

Board ($63,000). More recent grant

funding for the monitoring phase of the

project has been received from the U. S.

Department of Energy through the

Urban Consortium Energy Task Force

($110,000), and the Western Regional

Biomass Energy Program ($50,000).

Greenhouse gas and emission abatement

cost-effectiveness studies have recently

been completed with $48,000 in support

from the Federal Energy Technology

Center/National Energy Technology

Laboratory (hereafter, NETL). Further

support, $462,000 recently committed

by NETL, is enabling operation of the

test cells for approximately 2 more years

as well as helping prepare for the larger

module operation. Furthermore, on

January 26, 2000, the California

Integrated Waste Management Board

granted Yolo County $400,000 for the

construction and testing of this fullscale bioreactor demonstration project.

Concerning local involvement for this

XL project, Yolo County held a

stakeholder meeting on June 5th, 2000

for the full-scale demonstration project.

Other informational meetings have been

held during the regular Waste Advisory

Committee meetings to keep the

community informed on the project.

The County will also convene periodic

meetings of the stakeholder group to

provide updates on the project’s

progress during the duration of the XL

agreement. A public file on this XL

project has been maintained at the

website throughout project

development, and the EPA will

continue to update it as the project is

implemented. Additional information is

available at EPA’s website at http://

www.epa.gov/projectxl. 

A detailed description of this program

and the stakeholder support for this

project is included in the Final Project

Agreement, which is available through

the docket or through EPA’s Project XL

site on the Internet (see ADDRESSES

section of this preamble).

Yolo County has preliminarily

identified the following stakeholders:

Direct Participants

U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency

Solid Waste Association of North

America (SWANA)

Institute for Environmental

Management (IEM)

California State Regional Water

Quality Control Board, Central

Valley Region 5

Yolo County Department of

Environmental Health

Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management

District

Commentors

California Integrated Waste

Management Board

California State Water Resources

Control Board

California Air Resources Board

National Energy Technology

Laboratory (NETL, previously

FETC), U.S. Department of Energy

SWANA—California Gold Rush

Chapter and Southern California

Chapter

Yolo County Waste Advisory

Committee

University of California at Davis

Geosynthetic Institute, Drexel

University

Members of the General Public

Yolo County Citizens

Natural Resources Commission

Sacramento County Public Works

Department, Solid Waste

Management Division

California Energy Commission

E. How Will this Project Result in Cost

Savings and Paperwork Reduction?

As stated earlier, this project is

expected to result in cost savings by

virtue of assisting in an increased rate

of decomposition of the waste placed in

Module D of the landfill. The increased

decomposition rate is, in turn, expected

to extend the life of the landfill, and,

potentially, result in direct cost savings

to Yolo County. In addition, the

methane generation and recovery

operations are expected to yield

increased methane recovery over a

shorter time period, thereby resulting in

increased energy generation for Yolo

County beyond what would otherwise

occur in a conventional landfill. Finally,

no appreciable reduction in paperwork

is anticipated.

F. How Long Will this Project Last and

When Will it be Complete?

As with all XL projects testing

alternative environmental protection

strategies, the term of this XL Project is

one of limited duration. Today’s

proposed rule would be in effect for five

years. In the event that EPA determines

that this project should be terminated

before the end of the five year period

and that the site-specific rule should be

rescinded, the Agency would withdraw

this rule through a subsequent

rulemaking. This will afford all

interested persons and entities the

opportunity to comment on the

proposed early termination and

withdrawal of regulatory authority, and

the proposed termination would also

include any proposal for an interim

compliance period while Yolo County

returned to full compliance with the

existing requirements of 40 CFR part

258.

The FPA allows any party to the

agreement to withdraw from the

agreement at any time before the end of

the five year period. It also sets forth

several conditions that could trigger an

early termination of the project, as well

as procedures to follow in the event that

EPA, the State or local agency seeks to

terminate the project.

For example, an early conclusion

would be warranted if the project’s

environmental benefits do not meet the

Project XL requirement for the

23658 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

achievement of superior environmental

results. In addition, new laws or

regulations may become applicable

during the project term which might

render the project impractical, or might

contain regulatory requirements that

supersede the superior environmental

benefits that are being achieved under

this XL Project. Or, during the project

duration, EPA may decide to change the

federal rule allowing recirculation over

alternative liners and the addition of

outside bulk liquids for all Subtitle D

landfills. In that event, the FPA and sitespecific rule for this project would no

longer be needed.

IV. Additional Information

A. How to Request a Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to provide opportunity for

interested persons to make oral

presentations regarding this proposed

rulemaking, in accordance with 40 CFR

Part 25. Persons wishing to make an oral

presentation on the proposed site

specific rule at the Yolo County Landfill

should contact Sherri Walker at the

address given in the ADDRESSES section

of this document. Any member of the

public may file a written statement

before the hearing or after the hearing to

be received by EPA no later than

fourteen days after publication of this

proposed rulemaking. Written

statements should be sent to EPA at the

addresses given in the ADDRESSES

section of this document. If a public

hearing is held, a verbatim transcript of

the hearing and written statements

provided at the hearing will be available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours at the EPA

addresses for docket inspection given in

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

B. How Does this Rule Comply With

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review?

Because this rule affects only one

facility, it is not a rule of general

applicability and therefore not subject to

OMB review and Executive Order

12866. In addition, OMB has agreed that

review of site specific rules under

Project XL is not necessary.

C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required?

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,

generally requires an agency to prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and public

comment rulemaking requirements

unless the agency certifies that the rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. Only the definition of

‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ is

relevant here. 5 U.S.C. 601(5) defines

‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ to

mean governments of cities, counties,

towns, townships, villages, school

districts, or special districts, with a

population of less than fifty thousand.

According to Yolo County officials, the

county population in 1990 exceeded

150,000; thus, Yolo County does not

qualify as ‘‘small governmental

jurisdiction’’ within the meaning of 5

U.S.C. 601(5). Therefore, I certify that

this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Is an Information Collection Request

Required for this Project Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act?

This action does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. It is exempt

from OMB review under the Paperwork

Reduction Act because it is a site

specific rule, directed to fewer than ten

persons. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), (10); 5 CFR

1320.3(c), 1320.4 and 1320.5.

E. Does This Project Trigger the

Requirements of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act?

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including cost benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments in the aggregate

or to the private sector of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, Section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation of why that

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under Section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying affected small

governments, enabling officials of

affected small governments to have

meaningful and timely input in the

development of the EPA regulatory

proposal with significant Federal

mandates, and informing, educating,

and advising small governments on

compliance with the regulatory

requirements. As used here, ‘‘small

government’’ has the same meaning as

that contained under 5 U.S.C. 601(5),

that is, governments of cities, counties,

towns, townships, villages, school

districts, or special districts, with a

population of less than fifty thousand.

As discussed above, this proposed

rule would have limited application. It

applies only to the Yolo County landfill.

If adopted, this proposed rule would

result in a cost savings for Yolo County

when compared with the costs it would

have had to incur if required to adhere

to the requirements contained in the

current rule. EPA has determined that

this proposed rule does not contain a

Federal mandate that may result in

expenditures of $100 million or more

for state, local, or tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or the private sector in

any one year. Thus, today’s, proposal is

not subject to the requirements of

section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA

has also determined that this proposed

rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments.

F. How Does this Rule Comply with

Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks?

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant,’’ as defined in Executive

Order 12886; and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to potentially effective and

feasible alternatives considered by the

Agency.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 23659

This proposed rule is not subject to

the Executive Order because it is not

economically significant as defined in

Executive Order 12866, and because the

Agency does not have reason to believe

the environmental health or safety risks

addressed by this action present a

disproportionate risk to children. This

proposed rule would allow for the

addition of bulk or non-containerized

liquid amendments over a liner that not

only meets but exceeds the design

requirements in 40 CFR 258.40(b).

Modeling results predict that this liner

is more protective than the prescribed

composite liner. Therefore, no

additional risk to public health,

including children’s health, is expected

to result from this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ The phrase, ‘‘Policies

that have federalism implications’’ is

defined in the Executive Order to

include regulations that have

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.’’

This proposed rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. This proposal

would only affect one local

governmental entity and state, and

would provide regulatory flexibility for

the state and local governmental entity

concerned. Thus, Executive Order

13132 does not apply to this rule.

H. How does this Proposed Rule Comply

with Executive Order 13175:

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments?

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal

implications’’ is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes.’’

This proposed rule does not have

tribal implications within the meaning

of Executive Order 13175. It will not

have substantial direct effects on tribal

governments, on the relationship

between the Federal government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal government and Indian tribes,

as specified in Executive Order 13175.

The proposed rule would impose no

new requirements or costs on tribal

governments, nor does it alter the

relationship or distribution of power or

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes. Thus,

Executive Order 13175 does not apply

to this rule.

However, EPA identified two Native

American communities in the vicinity

of the Yolo County Landfill, the Rumsey

and Cortina Rancherias. EPA notified

the governments of both tribes of this

project and proposed site-specific rule,

and both tribes expressed interest in

being kept informed of the project as it

progresses.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13175,

and consistent with EPA policy to

promote communications between EPA

and tribal governments, EPA

specifically solicits additional comment

on this proposed rule from tribal

officials.

I. Does this Rule Comply with the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act?

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless such practice is

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (for example, material

specifications, test methods, sampling

procedures, and business practices)

developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA

directs EPA to provide Congress,

through OMB, explanations when the

Agency decides not to use available and

applicable voluntary consensus

standards. This proposed rulemaking

however, does not involve any

voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258

Environmental protection, Landfill,

Solid waste.

Dated: May 3, 2001.

Christine Todd Whitman,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth, part 258 of

title 40 Chapter I of the Code of Federal

Regulations is proposed to be amended

as follows:

PART 258—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 258

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42

U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c)

and 6949a(c).

Subpart C—Operating Criteria

2. Amend § 258.28 to remove the

period and add ‘‘; or’’ in its place at the

end of paragraph (a)(2) and to add

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

§ 258.28 Liquid restrictions.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(3) The MSWLF unit is a Project XL

MSWLF and meets the applicable

requirements of § 258.41. The owner or

operator must place documentation of

the landfill design in the operating

record and notify the State Director that

it has been placed in the operating

record.

* * * * *

Subpart D—Design Criteria

3. Subpart D is amended by adding a

new § 258.41 to read as follows:

§ 258.41 Project XL Bioreactor Landfill

Projects.

(a) [Reserved]

(b) This section applies solely to

Module D of the Yolo County Central

Landfill owned and operated by the

County of Yolo, California, or its

successors. It allows the Yolo County

Central Landfill to add bulk or

noncontainerized liquid wastes to

Module D under the following

conditions:

(1) Module D shall be designed and

constructed with a composite liner as

defined in § 258.40(b) and a leachate

collection system that functions and

continuously monitors to ensure that

less than 30 centimeters depth of

leachate is maintained over the liner.

(2) The owner or operator of the Yolo

County Central Landfill must ensure

that the concentration values listed in

Table 1 of § 258.40 are not exceeded in

the uppermost aquifer at the relevant

point of compliance for the landfill as

23660 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

specified by the State Director under

§ 258.40(d).

(3) The owner or operator of the Yolo

County Central Landfill shall

demonstrate that the addition of any

liquids to Module D does not result in

an increased leakage rate, and does not

result in liner slippage, or otherwise

compromise the integrity of the landfill

and its liner system, as determined by

the State Director.

(4) The owner or operator of the Yolo

County Central Landfill must ensure

that Module D is operated in such a

manner so as to prevent any landfill

fires from occurring.

(5) The owner or operator of the Yolo

County Central Landfill shall submit an

annual report to the EPA Regional

Administrator and the State Director.

The first report is due within 18 months

after the effective date of this rule. The

report shall state what progress the

Project XL is making towards the

superior environmental performance as

stated in the Final Project Agreement.

The data in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through

(xvi) of this section may be summarized,

but, at a minimum, shall contain the

minimum, maximum, median, and

average data points as well as the

frequency of monitoring, as applicable.

These reporting provisions shall remain

in effect for as long as the owner or

operator of the Yolo County Central

Landfill continues to add liquid waste

to Module D. Additional monitoring,

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements related to landfill gas will

be contained in a permit executed by

the local air quality management district

pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

7401 et seq. Application of this sitespecific rule to the Yolo County Central

Landfill is conditioned upon the

issuance of such permit. The annual

report will include, at a minimum, the

following data:

(i) Amount of landfill gas generated;

(ii) Percent capture of landfill gas;

(iii) Quality of the landfill gas;

(iv) Amount and type of liquids

applied to the landfill;

(v) Method of liquids application to

the landfill;

(vi) Quantity of waste placed in the

landfill;

(vii) Quantity and quality of leachate

collected, including at least the

following parameters, monitored, at a

minimum, on an annual basis:

(A) pH;

(B) Conductivity;

(C) Dissolved oxygen;

(D) Dissolved solids;

(E) Biochemical oxygen demand;

(F) Chemical oxygen demand;

(G) Organic carbon;

(H) Nutrients, (including ammonia

[‘‘NH3’’], total kjeldahl nitrogen

[‘‘TKN’’], and total phosphorus

[‘‘TP’’]);

(I) Common ions;

(J) Heavy metals;

(K) Organic priority pollutants; and

(L) Flow rate;

(viii) Quantity of leachate recirculated

back into the landfill;

(ix) Information on the pretreatment

of solid and liquid waste applied to the

landfill;

(x) Landfill temperature;

(xi) Landfill moisture content;

(xii) Data on the leachate pressure

(head) on the liner;

(xiii) The amount of aeration of the

waste;

(xiv) Data on landfill settlement;

(xv) Any information on the

performance of the landfill cover; and

(xvi) Observations, information, or

studies made on the physical stability of

the landfill.

(6) This section will remain in effect

until [five years after the effective date

of the final rule]. By [insert 5 years from

the date of publication of the final rule],

Yolo County Central Landfill shall

return to compliance with the regulatory

requirements which would have been in

effect absent the flexibility provided

through this Project XL site-specific

rule. This section applies to Phase I of

Module D. This Section also will apply

to any phase of Module D beyond Phase

I only if a second Final Project

Agreement that describes the additional

phase has been signed by

representatives of EPA Region 9, Yolo

County, and the State of California.

Phase I of Module D is defined as the

operation of twelve acres of the twenty

acre Module D.

[FR Doc. 01–11672 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[I.D. 050101D]

RIN 0648–Al50

Fisheries off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery; Amendment 14

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of an

amendment to a fishery management

plan; request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the

Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Council) has submitted Amendment 14

to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

Management Plan (FMP) for Secretarial

review. Amendment 14 would

implement a permit stacking program

for limited entry permits with sablefish

endorsements. This permit stacking

program would lengthen the limited

entry, fixed gear primary sablefish

fishery. It is intended to increase safety

in that fishery and provide flexibility to

participants. The permit stacking

program would also associate sablefish

cumulative limits with permits, rather

than with vessels, so that a single vessel

could carry multiple permits and

harvest multiple sablefish cumulative

limits during the primary sablefish

fishery.

DATES: Comments on Amendment 14

must be received on or before July 9,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on Amendment

14 or supporting documents should be

sent to Donna Darm, Acting

Administrator, Northwest Region,

NMFS, Sand Point Way NE., BIN

C15700, Seattle, WA 98115–0070; or to

Rebecca Lent, Administrator, Southwest

Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean

Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA

90802–4213.

Copies of Amendment 14 and the

environmental assessment/ regulatory

impact review (EA/RIR) are available

from Donald McIsaac, Executive

Director, Pacific Fishery Management

Council, 2130 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 224,

Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvonne deReynier or Becky Renko

(Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206–

526–6140; fax: 206–526–6736 and; email: yvonne.dereynier@noaa.gov,

becky.renko@noaa.gov or Svein Fougner

(Southwest Region, NMFS) phone: 562–

980–4000; fax: 562–980–4047 and; email: svein.fougner@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

This Federal Register document is

also accessible via the Internet at the

website of the Office of the Federal

Register: <<http://www.access.gpo.gov/

su-docs/aces/aces140.html.≤≤

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that

each regional fishery management

council submit any FMP or plan

amendment it prepares to NMFS for

review and approval, disapproval, or

partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens

Act also requires that NMFS, upon

receiving an FMP or amendment,