[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23652-23660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11672]


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

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 
site-specific 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 non-containerized 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 non-
containerized 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6116000d0a04134f120904131308210411004f060e17"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8cfbede0e7e9fea2ffe4e9fefee5cce9fceda2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a>. 
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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f584e43444a5d015c474a5d5d466f4a5f4e01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e097818c8b8592ce938885929289a0859081ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 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 state-specific basis, that represent one of several possible 
policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, so long as 
the alternative being used is permissible under the statute.
    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

[[Page 23654]]

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-of-the-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

[[Page 23655]]

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 non-
hazardous 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 x 10<SUP>-7</SUP> 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 
(k6  x  10<SUP>-9</SUP> cm/sec), 3 feet of compacted earth fill (k 1 
x  10<SUP>-8</SUP> cm/sec), and a 40 mil HDPE vapor barrier layer.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Golder Associates, ``Final Report, Construction Quality 
Assurance, Yolo County Central Landfill, WMU 6, Module D, Phase 1 
Expansion'', December 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The permeability (k) of the clay liner, as constructed, is on the 
average about 6  x  10<SUP>-9</SUP> cm/sec and the earth fill averaged 
about 1  x  10<SUP>-8</SUP> 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  x  
10<SUP>-9</SUP> cm/sec), a secondary 60-mil HDPE liner, 2 feet of 
compacted clay (k 6  x  10<SUP>-9</SUP> cm/sec), a minimum of 0.5 feet 
of compacted earth fill (k 1  x  10<SUP>-8</SUP> 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

[[Page 23656]]

approximately 200 gpm (288,000 gallons per day) assuming there will be 
no preferred pathways within the waste mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Moore 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 post-closure 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

[[Page 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 
full-scale 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

[[Page 23658]]

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 site-
specific 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 cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of the EPA regulatory proposal with significant Federal 
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on 
compliance with the regulatory requirements. As used here, ``small 
government'' has the same meaning as that contained under 5 U.S.C. 
601(5), that is, governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of 
less than fifty thousand.
    As discussed above, this 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.

[[Page 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 258.28  Liquid restrictions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) The MSWLF unit is a Project XL MSWLF and meets the applicable 
requirements of Sec. 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 Sec. 258.41 to read as 
follows:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 258.40 
are not exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of 
compliance for the landfill as

[[Page 23660]]

specified by the State Director under Sec. 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 site-specific 
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 [``NH<INF>3</INF>''], 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>