Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45187 

El Paso CO redesignation request and 

the maintenance plan with its 

associated MVEBs as satisfying the 

requirements of the Federal Clean Air 

Act (CAA) as amended in 1990. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by September 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–8542; fax number 

214–665–7263; e-mail address 

riley.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why is EPA issuing this proposed 

rule? 

This document proposes to take 

action on SIP revisions pertaining to the 

El Paso area. We have published a direct 

final rule approving the State’s SIP 

revisions in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register because we view this as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. We have 

explained our reasons for this action in 

the preamble to the direct final rule. 

If we receive no relevant adverse 

comment, we will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. If we 

receive relevant adverse comment, we 

will withdraw the direct final rule and 

it will not take effect. We would address 

all public comments in any subsequent 

final rule based on this proposed rule. 

We do not intend to institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the information 

provided in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

Dated: July 18, 2008. 

Richard E. Greene, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. E8–17701 Filed 8–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 258 

[EPA–R09–RCRA–2008–0354; FRL–8700–3] 

Tentative Determination to Approve 

Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Request for the Salt 

River Landfill, and Proposed Finding of 

No Adverse Effect Under the National 

Historic Preservation Act; Opportunity 

for Public Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX is making a tentative 

determination to approve a research, 

development, and demonstration 

(RD&D) project at the Salt River 

Landfill, a commercial municipal solid 

waste landfill (MSWLF) owned and 

operated by the Salt River PimaMaricopa County Indian Community 

(SRPMIC) on the SRPMIC reservation in 

Arizona. EPA is seeking public 

comment on EPA’s tentative 

determination to approve SRPMIC’s 

RD&D project. Pursuant to the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), EPA 

is also seeking public comment on 

EPA’s proposed Area of Potential Effects 

(APE), the proposed finding that the 

Arizona Canal is the sole historic 

property within the APE, and the 

proposed finding that the RD&D project 

will not adversely affect the Arizona 

Canal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 30, 2008. If 

sufficient public interest is expressed, 

EPA will hold a public hearing at 11 

a.m. on September 30, 2008. If by 

September 18, 2008, EPA does not 

receive information indicating sufficient 

public interest for a public hearing, EPA 

may cancel the public hearing with no 

further notice. If you are interested in 

attending the public hearing, contact 

Karen Ueno at (415) 972–3317 to verify 

that a hearing will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–

RCRA–2008–0354 by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: ueno.karen@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (415) 947–3530 

• Mail: Karen Ueno, Environmental 

Protection Agency Region IX, Mailcode: 

WST–7, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

• Hand Delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket Facility’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–RCRA–2008–

0354. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Docket Facility located at the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California. A complete public 

portion of the administrative record for 

this rulemaking is also available for 

review at the Docket Facility upon 

request. The Docket Facility is open 

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
45188 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Thursday, excluding legal holidays, and 

is located in a secured building. To 

review docket materials at the Docket 

facility, it is recommended that the 

public make an appointment by calling 

the Docket Facility at (415) 947–4406 

during normal business hours. 

Submitting Comments to EPA: 

1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The Agency 

may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section 

number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

2. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

3. Docket Copying Costs. Copying 

arrangements will be made through the 

Docket Facility and billed directly to the 

recipient. Copying costs may be waived 

depending on the total number of pages 

copied. 

If sufficient public interest is 

expressed, EPA will hold a public 

hearing at 11 a.m. on September 30, 

2008 in Conference Room A of the 

offices of the U.S. Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, 400 North 5th Street, Phoenix, 

Arizona. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Ueno, Waste Management 

Division, WST–7, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901; 

telephone number: (415) 972–3317; fax 

number: (415) 947–3530; e-mail address: 

ueno.karen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Background 

Under sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 

4010 of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) as 

amended by the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 

EPA established revised minimum 

federal criteria for MSWLFs, including 

landfill location restrictions, operating 

standards, design standards and 

requirements for ground water 

monitoring, corrective action, closure 

and post-closure care, and financial 

assurance. Under RCRA section 4005, 

states are to develop permit programs 

for facilities that may receive household 

hazardous waste or waste from 

conditionally exempt small quantity 

generators, and EPA determines 

whether the program is adequate to 

ensure that facilities will comply with 

the revised criteria. 

The MSWLF criteria are in the Code 

of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR part 

258. These regulations are selfimplementing and apply directly to 

owners and operators of MSWLFs. For 

many of these criteria, 40 CFR part 258 

includes a flexible performance 

standard as an alternative to the selfimplementing regulation. The flexible 

standard is not self-implementing, and 

use of the alternative standard requires 

approval by the Director of an EPAapproved state. 

Since EPA’s approval of a state 

program does not extend to Indian 

country, owners and operators of 

MSWLF units located in Indian country 

cannot take advantage of the flexibilities 

available to those facilities subject to an 

approved state program. However, the 

EPA has the authority under sections 

2002, 4004, and 4010 of RCRA to 

promulgate site-specific rules that may 

provide for use of alternative standards. 

See Yankton Sioux Tribe v. EPA, 950 F. 

Supp. 1471 (D.S.D. 1996); Backcountry 

Against Dumps v. EPA, 100 F.3d 147 

(D.C. Cir. 1996). EPA has developed 

draft guidance on preparing a sitespecific request to provide flexibility to 

owners or operators of MSWLFs in 

Indian country (Site-Specific Flexibility 

Requests for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills in Indian Country Draft 

Guidance, EPA530–R–97–016, August 

1997). 

On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a 

final rule at 40 CFR 258.4 amending the 

municipal solid waste landfill criteria to 

allow for RD&D permits. (69 FR 13242). 

This rule allows for variances from 

specified criteria for a limited period of 

time. Specifically, the rule allows for 

the Director of an approved state to 

issue a time-limited RD&D permit for a 

new MSWLF unit, existing MSWLF 

unit, or lateral expansion, for which the 

owner or operator proposes to use 

innovative and new methods which 

vary from either or both of the 

following: (1) The run-on control 

systems at 40 CFR 258.26(a)(1); and/or 

(2) the liquids restrictions at 40 CFR 

258.28(a), provided that the MSWLF 

unit has a leachate collection system 

designed and constructed to maintain 

less than a 30-cm depth of leachate on 

the liner. The rule also allows for the 

issuance of a time-limited RD&D permit 

for which the owner or operator 

proposes to use innovative and new 

methods that vary from the final cover 

criteria at 40 CFR 258.60(a)(1) and (2), 

and (b)(1), provided that the owner or 

operator demonstrates that the 

infiltration of liquid through the 

alternative cover system will not cause 

contamination to groundwater or 

surface water, or cause leachate depth 

on the liner to exceed 30 cm. RD&D 

permits must include such terms and 

conditions at least as protective as the 

criteria for MSWLFs to assure protection 

of human health and the environment. 

An RD&D permit cannot exceed three 

years and a renewal of an RD&D permit 

cannot exceed three years. Although 

multiple renewals of an RD&D permit 

can be issued, the current total term for 

an RD&D permit including renewals 

cannot exceed twelve years. In adopting 

the RD&D rule, EPA stated that RD&D 

facilities in Indian country could be 

approved in a site-specific rule. 

B. SRPMIC’s Site-Specific Flexibility 

Request 

The Salt River Landfill is a municipal 

solid waste landfill owned and operated 

by the SPRMIC on the SRPMIC’s 

reservation in Arizona. The landfill site 

is approximately 200 acres. The Salt 

River Landfill has been in operation 

since October 1993 and serves as a solid 

waste collection and disposal point for 

Maricopa County, Arizona. The landfill 

consists of 8 disposal cells within 6 

waste disposal areas. The latter are 

identified as Phases I—VI. Phase VI is 

divided into three cells: VIA, VIB, and 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45189 

VIC. Construction of Phase VI, which is 

the last below-grade excavation planned 

for the landfill, is complete. The landfill 

accepts approximately 2,200 tons of 

solid waste per day and has composting 

and material recovery facilities on-site. 

The Phases/cells relevant to this sitespecific flexibility request are Phases 

IIIB, IVA, VIA, VIB, and VIC. 

In January 2005, the SRPMIC 

submitted a site-specific flexibility 

application request to EPA for the Salt 

River Landfill. The request is twofold. It 

seeks EPA approval to use innovative 

and new methods which vary from the 

liquids restrictions at 40 CFR 258.28(a), 

as allowed by EPA’s RD&D regulations 

at 40 CFR 258.4. It also seeks approval 

to install an alternative bottom liner, as 

allowed by EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

258.40. Specifically, SRPMIC is seeking 

to install an alternative bottom liner 

system in and to operate Phase VI as a 

below grade anaerobic bioreactor. 

SRPMIC is also seeking to add certain 

liquids to two existing waste disposal 

cells within the landfill, Phase IIIB and 

Phase IVA, which were constructed 

with an alternative bottom liner system 

previously approved by EPA (63 FR 

68453, Dec. 11, 1998). 

Between January 2005 and April 

2008, the SRPMIC made revisions to its 

application request in response to 

concerns raised by EPA. EPA is basing 

its tentative determination and this 

proposed rule on the application, dated 

September 24, 2007, and the April 2008 

amendments to that application. The 

specific requests for EPA approval in 

SRPMIC’s application are discussed 

below. As set forth in more detail below, 

EPA is proposing to approve the request 

and allow SRPMIC to install an 

alternative bottom liner system in Phase 

VI, and to operate Phases VI, IIIB, and 

IVA using innovative and new methods 

which vary from the liquids restrictions 

at 40 CFR 258.28(a). This tentative 

determination is based on 40 CFR 

258.40 and 40 CFR 258.4, respectively. 

1. Phase VI: Approval to Install an 

Alternative Bottom Liner System in and 

to Add Certain Liquids to Phase VI 

The SRPMIC is seeking EPA approval 

to use an alternative bottom liner system 

in each of the Phase VI cells (Phase VIA, 

B, and C). SRPMIC proposes to replace 

the 24-inch compacted clay liner of the 

composite liner system with a 

geosynthetic clay liner. As provided in 

40 CFR 258.40(a)(1), SRPMIC must 

ensure that the alternative liner system 

does not allow the concentration of the 

chemicals listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR 

258.40 to be exceeded in the uppermost 

aquifer at the relevant point of 

compliance, as specified by EPA. 

To create bioreactor conditions in 

Phase VI, SRMPIC is also seeking EPA 

approval to recirculate leachate and 

landfill gas condensate, and to add 

storm water and groundwater. A 

bioreactor uses large amounts of liquids 

to accelerate the biodegradation of waste 

by increasing the moisture content of 

the waste. In turn, enhanced 

biodegradation is expected to increase 

the capacity of the cell and extend its 

operating life. Without approval as 

provided in the RD&D rule, MSWLFs 

are restricted from adding bulk or 

noncontanerized liquids to cells, and 

from recirculating leachate and landfill 

gas in cells designed with alternative 

liner systems. 

SRPMIC proposes to recirculate 

leachate and landfill gas condensate, 

and to add storm water and 

groundwater to the Phase VI cells. Only 

these types of liquids will be added to 

Phase VI, and only to the below grade 

portions of this Phase. SRPMIC will 

introduce these liquids into Phase VI 

using two methods: Moisture addition at 

the working face of the cells, and 

moisture addition through a series of 

below-grade horizontal pipe galleries. 

The horizontal pipe galleries will be 

constructed below-grade as landfilling 

progresses in Phase VI. Each horizontal 

pipe gallery will first be used to collect 

landfill gas before being converted to a 

liquids addition pipe gallery. The 

conversion to liquids addition will not 

occur until the pipe gallery above it is 

installed and collecting landfill gas. 

SRPMIC will install at least two layers 

of horizontal pipe galleries in the abovegrade portion of Phase VI. These aboveground horizontal pipe galleries will be 

for the sole purpose of collecting gas. 

SRPMIC will monitor for fugitive gas 

emissions at least annually using 

ground-based optical remote sensing in 

accordance with EPA’s approved 

method (EPA OTM–10). Increases to 

fugitive gas emission are a concern with 

bioreactor operations due to the 

enhanced biological degradation of the 

solid waste and the associated rise in 

the amount of gas generated. SRPMIC 

will monitor for fugitive emission and 

use this and other monitoring and 

operating information collected to better 

project the amount of landfill gas 

generated and the performance of the 

landfill gas collection system. 

In addition to increasing the amount 

of gas generated, bioreactors increase 

the amount of leachate produced. 

SRPMIC’s design for Phase VI includes 

a separate leachate collection and 

recovery system in each of the three 

cells to support the increase in leachate 

production associated with bioreactor 

operation. SRPMIC performed modeling 

to estimate peak leachate depth on the 

liner to help ensure that the federal 

regulatory limit of less than 30-cm 

would be maintained. The leachate 

collection system is equipped with an 

alarm that is triggered in response to 

any depth of leachate on the liner 

outside of the sump (for example, if the 

sump is not fully draining). 

SRPMIC will collect data and results 

related to the operation of Phase VI, 

including the quality and quantity of gas 

and leachate generated, and the 

efficiency of the landfill gas and 

leachate capture systems. As stated in 

SRPMIC’s application of September 24, 

2007, and the April 2008 amendments 

to that application, an overarching goal 

is to demonstrate that the proposed 

operation of Phase VI does not increase 

risk to human health and the 

environment over a standard MSWLF 

permit. 

2. Phase IIIB and IVA: Approval to Add 

Certain Liquids to Below Grade Portions 

of Cells With Previously EPA-Approved 

Alternative Bottom Liner Systems 

SRPMIC is seeking EPA approval to 

add certain liquids to below-grade 

portions of two existing cells, Phases 

IIIB and IVA, each of which were 

constructed using an alternative bottom 

liner system previously approved by 

EPA (63 FR 68453, December 11, 1998). 

As noted, above, without approval as 

provided in the RD&D rule, MSWLFs 

are restricted from adding bulk or 

noncontanerized liquids to cells, and 

from recirculating leachate and landfill 

gas condensate in cells designed with 

alternative liner systems. 

SRPMIC proposes to add liquids to 

Phases IIIB and IVA, but does not intend 

to increase the moisture content of the 

solid waste mass to a bioreactor level 

(40 CFR 63.1990 defines ‘‘bioreactor’’ as 

reaching a minimum average moisture 

content of at least 40% by weight). 

SRPMIC is seeking to add only 25% of 

the liquids volume that would be 

needed to increase moisture content to 

40%. SRPMIC proposes to increase the 

moisture content of the waste mass by 

recirculating leachate and landfill gas 

condensate, and by adding storm water 

and groundwater. Only these types of 

liquids will be added to Phases IIIB and 

IVA, and only to the below grade 

portions of these Phases. 

SRPMIC will add the liquids using the 

existing gas collection pipes in these 

cells. Field practice and research have 

shown that using the same pipe galleries 

to both collect gas and distribute liquids 

can negatively affect the gas collection 

efficiency of the pipes. SRPMIC will 

monitor the gas flow. If the gas flow rate 

drops below 50% of the pre-liquids 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
45190 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

injection rate, SRPMIC will suspend 

liquids injection until gas flow rebounds 

to 75% of the pre-liquids injection rate. 

As proposed for Phase VI, SRPMIC 

will monitor for fugitive gas emission 

and use this and other monitoring and 

operating information to better project 

the amount of landfill gas generated and 

the performance of the landfill gas 

collection system. SRPMIC will collect 

data and results related to the operation 

of Phases IIIB and IVA, including the 

quality and quantity of gas and leachate 

generated, and the efficiency of the 

landfill gas and leachate capture 

systems. 

SRPMIC has performed modeling to 

determine how much liquid can be 

added annually to Phases IIIB and IVA 

to, among other things, keep the depth 

of leachate on the liner to less than 30 

cm as required by the federal 

regulations. SRPMIC is required to 

suspend adding liquids to Phases IIIB 

and IVA if operating parameters are not 

being met, including depth of leachate 

on the liner at or over 30 cm, ponding, 

gas collection difficulty, and seeps. As 

stated in SRPMIC’s application of 

September 24, 2007, and the April 2008 

amendments to that application, an 

overarching goal is to demonstrate that 

the proposed operation of Phase IIIB 

and IVA does not increase risk to 

human health and the environment over 

a standard MSWLF permit. 

To further reduce the potential risk 

posed by increased liquids addition and 

leachate generation from Phases VI, IIIB, 

and IVA, SRPMIC will install a new 

groundwater monitoring network of 7 

wells. The network will be used to 

monitor the uppermost portion of the 

aquifer for changes to groundwater 

elevation and quality. SRPMIC shall 

maintain at least a 25-foot separation 

zone between the bottom of the landfill 

and groundwater. SRPMIC will also 

monitor liquids balance (how much 

liquid is being deposited into the 

landfill compared to how much is being 

collected), mass balance (the mass of the 

materials deposited into the landfill, 

compared to the mass of what is being 

collected), and waste volume and 

settlement. 

II. EPA’s Action 

A. Tentative Determination To Approve 

SRPMIC’s Site-Specific Flexibility 

Request 

After completing a review of 

SRPMIC’s final site-specific flexibility 

application request, dated September 

27, 2007, and the amendments to that 

application, dated April 2008, EPA is 

proposing to approve SRPMIC’s sitespecific flexibility request to: (1) Install 

an alternative bottom liner system in 

Phase VI and to operate Phase VI as an 

anaerobic bioreactor by recirclating 

leachate and landfill gas condensate, 

and adding storm water and 

groundwater to the below grade portions 

of Phase VI; and (2) recirculate leachate 

and landfill gas condensate and add 

storm water and groundwater to the 

below grade portions of Phases IIIB and 

IVA to increase the moisture content of 

the waste mass in these phases, both of 

which have previously EPA-approved 

alternative bottom liner systems. 

EPA is basing its tentative 

determination on a number of factors, 

including SRPMIC’s overarching goal to 

demonstrate protection of human health 

and the environment, and the 

requirement of today’s rule to maintain 

less than 30-cm depth of leachate on the 

liner. 

EPA considered certain issues 

pertaining to the proposed RD&D 

project, including the potential for 

increased leachate production and 

increased landfill gas generation and 

fugitive emissions from operation of the 

bioreactor. With respect to the potential 

for increased leachate production, 

SRPMIC performed modeling to project 

the impact of liquids addition on the 

liner and peak leachate production 

rates, and to assess the adequacy of the 

leachate collection system design 

capacity. This modeling demonstrated 

that the leachate collection system is 

designed to appropriately handle the 

amount of anticipated leachate and that 

the increase in liquids should not 

adversely affect the performance of the 

liner system in protecting groundwater. 

SRPMIC will also maintain a 25-foot or 

greater separation zone between the 

bottom of the landfill and the top of the 

groundwater aquifer. SRPMIC will 

routinely monitor leachate quantity and 

quality, liquids balance, volume and 

settlement of the waste, and 

groundwater quality and levels. By 

monitoring, SRPMIC will be able to 

ensure effective and protective ongoing 

operations of these Phases of the landfill 

and provide data for EPA to use in its 

ongoing RD&D study. 

With respect to the potential for 

increased landfill gas generation and 

fugitive gas emissions, SRPMIC will 

ensure that each horizontal pipe gallery 

in Phase VI will be used to collect 

landfill gas before being converted for 

liquids addition to reduce the risk of 

negatively affecting the gas collection 

efficiency of the pipe gallery. No pipe 

gallery will be converted to liquids 

addition until the pipe gallery above it 

is installed and collecting landfill gas. 

SRPMIC also will install at least two 

layers of horizontal pipe galleries in the 

above-grade portion of Phase VI for the 

sole purpose of collecting gas. To 

further reduce the risk of increased 

landfill gas generation and fugitive 

emissions, SRPMIC will only add 

liquids to the below-grade portions of 

Phases VI, IIIB, and IVA. SRPMIC will 

monitor fugitive gas emissions annually 

or more frequently, as appropriate, 

using ground-based optical remote 

sensing (EPA OTM–10), and will 

routinely monitor landfill gas quantity 

and quality. Using information gained 

from the monitoring program, SRPMIC 

will propose site-specific input 

parameters to EPA that improve 

modeling calculations for the amount of 

landfill gas generated and the 

performance of landfill gas collection 

systems. 

In the event that EPA determines that 

the project goals are not being attained, 

including protecting human health and 

the environment, EPA may terminate 

SRPMIC’s authority to operate the RD&D 

project. 

As part of this tentative 

determination, and in accordance with 

40 CFR 258.4, EPA is proposing to 

require SRPMIC to maintain less than 30 

cm depth of leachate on the liner in 

Phases VI, IIIB, and IVA, and to ensure 

that the approved operation of these 

Phases is protective of human health 

and the environment. For purposes of 

the alternative liner system in Phase VI, 

the relevant point(s) of compliance 

pursuant to 40 CFR 258.40 will be 

determined by EPA and shall be no 

more than 150 meters from the waste 

management cell boundaries and 

located on land owned by the owner of 

the cells. 

In accordance with its application, 

SRPMIC will submit annual reports to 

EPA that summarize and show whether 

and to what extent RD&D project goals 

are being achieved. The annual report 

will include a summary of all 

monitoring and testing results. Any 

deviations from the September 27, 2007 

application, and the April 2008 

amendments to that application, must 

continue to conform to the standards set 

forth in 40 CFR 258.4 and require the 

prior approval of EPA. 

Also in accordance with its 

application, SRPMIC will arrange for 

independent, third party inspections of 

the RD&D operations on a quarterly 

basis throughout the term of the RD&D 

approval. Copies of the report will be 

submitted to EPA. 

The tentative determination would 

allow operation of the subject Phases of 

the landfill consistent with the RD&D 

rule for a total of 12 years. However, the 

owner or operator of the landfill must 

seek a renewal of this authority every 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45191 

three years. EPA is proposing to allow 

operation of the landfill cells in 

accordance with the RD&D rule for three 

years, but the operator may request a 

renewal of the authorization by 

submitting a request to the Director of 

the Waste Management Division. Each 

renewal request would be subject to 

public notice and comment. No renewal 

may be for greater than three years and 

the overall period of operation may not 

exceed twelve years. 

B. Proposed Finding of No Adverse 

Effect Under NHPA 

As part of the NHPA process, EPA is 

proposing a 1⁄2-mile radius around the 

Salt River Landfill as the area of 

potential effects (APE). An APE is the 

geographic area within which a project 

may directly or indirectly cause 

alterations in the character or use of 

historic properties, if any such 

properties exist. In proposing a 1⁄2-mile 

APE, EPA considered that SRPMIC’s 

request is of a limited nature at a 

landfill that already exists and has been 

operating since 1993. EPA’s proposed 

APE is consistent with the policy of the 

Archaeology Department of SRPMIC’s 

Environmental Protection and Natural 

Resources Division. SRPMIC does not 

have a Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer (THPO). 

In accordance with the NHPA, EPA 

consulted with SRPMIC’s Archaeology 

Department, the Arizona State Historic 

Preservation Officer, the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, the Salt River Project, the 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and 

nearby certified local governments on 

SRPMIC’s RD&D request and reviewed 

the NHPA requirements. EPA provided 

the following tribes, who may have a 

cultural or historic interest within the 

proposed APE, with an opportunity to 

identify such cultural or historic 

properties: Ak-Chin Indian Community; 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation; Gila 

River Indian Community; Hopi Tribe; 

Pascua Yaqui Tribe; Tohono O’odham 

Nation; Yavapai-Apache Nation; 

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. No 

cultural or historic property was 

identified by these tribes, nor was any 

interest expressed to further consult 

with EPA. 

Only one historic property, the 

Arizona Canal, has been identified 

within the proposed APE. The Arizona 

Canal and associated access roads and 

banks are the property of the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation. Construction of 

the Arizona Canal began in 1883. It is 

a concrete-lined structure that continues 

to distribute water for domestic and 

irrigation uses in Maricopa County. The 

canal banks support a variety of nonmotorized recreation activities, such as 

hiking, bicycling, walking, and jogging. 

The northern border of the Salt River 

Landfill is adjacent to the Arizona 

Canal. An eight-foot fence separates the 

landfill and the canal, and at its closest 

proximity, the fence is approximately 50 

feet away from the canal. An additional 

10–30 feet separates the fence from the 

proposed locations of the new 

groundwater wells nearest to the canal. 

Recreational use of the canal is 

restricted and minimized in the vicinity 

of the SRPMIC border. 

The proposed SRPMIC RD&D project 

could potentially impact the Arizona 

Canal in three ways: (1) Off-site 

migration of leachate, (2) disturbance 

from the installation of the 7 new 

groundwater monitoring network wells, 

and (3) fugitive gas emissions. 

It is not likely that there would be offsite migration of leachate via the 

groundwater or surface water pathways. 

With respect to the groundwater 

pathway, SRPMIC will maintain a 25- 

foot or greater zone of separation 

between the bottom of the landfill and 

the top of the aquifer to prevent leachate 

from coming into contact with 

groundwater. Each waste cell is or will 

be equipped with a bottom liner and 

leachate collection system to further 

reduce the risk of off-site leachate 

migration. With respect to the surface 

water pathway, the leachate retention 

pond has the estimated capacity to 

accommodate the additional leachate 

projected to be generated from Phases 

VI, IIIA, and IVB, even when leachate is 

not being recirculated back into the 

landfill. Stormwater is retained on-site 

and stormwater retention capacity will 

continue to be increased by SRPMIC 

throughout the life of the landfill. The 

canal, itself, is protected by berms and 

is at a higher elevation than the landfill. 

Surface water from the landfill does not 

flow towards the canal. 

The installation of 7 new groundwater 

monitoring wells should not have an 

adverse impact on the canal. The noise, 

equipment, vehicles, and possible dust 

associated with installing wells should 

not affect recreation use of the canal 

because the installation process is shortterm, and recreation use is restricted 

and minimized along the SRPMIC 

border. In addition, the proposed well 

locations and the canal are separated by 

an eight-foot fence and a distance of 60 

feet or more. Because surface water does 

not move from the landfill towards the 

canal, and because storm water is 

retained on-site, it is not likely that 

loosened sediment from ground 

disturbance would find a ready pathway 

to the canal. 

Increased gas generation and 

emissions should not negatively impact 

the canal, as the canal is made of 

concrete, an inert building material. As 

required by EPA approval of the 

proposed RD&D project, each of the 

waste cells have or will have a gas 

collection and control system, and 

SRPMIC will routinely monitor the 

quality and quantity of landfill gas and 

fugitive emissions, and assess collection 

efficiency. The gas that is collected will 

be destroyed at the landfill’s flare 

station or converted into energy. To the 

extent there are increased fugitive 

emissions, recreational use of the canal 

should not be adversely affected since 

there are few, if any, such uses along the 

SRPMIC border of the canal. 

Pursuant to section 106 of the NHPA, 

EPA has reviewed SRPMIC’s sitespecific flexibility request to take into 

account the effect of the proposed RD&D 

project on historic properties. EPA 

requests public comment on its 

proposed 1⁄2-mile area of potential 

effects, its proposed finding that the 

Arizona Canal is the sole historic 

property within the APE, and its 

proposed finding of no adverse effect. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is 

not of general applicability and 

therefore is not a regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

because it applies to a particular facility 

only. 

Because this rule is of particular 

applicability relating to a particular 

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this 

rule will affect only a particular facility, 

it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as specified in 

section 203 of UMRA. 

Because this rule will affect only a 

particular facility, this proposed rule 

does not have federalism implications. 

It will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, 

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


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
45192 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this rule. 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. The 

basis for this belief is EPA’s 

conservative analysis of the potential 

risks posed by SRPMIC’s proposal and 

the controls and standards set forth in 

the application. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

As required by section 3 of Executive 

Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 

steps to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments,’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), calls for EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ EPA has concluded that 

this action may have tribal implications 

because it is directly applicable to the 

owner and/or operator of the landfill, 

which is currently the Tribe. However, 

this tentative determination, if made 

final, will neither impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on tribal 

governments, nor preempt Tribal law. 

This tentative determination to approve 

the SRPMIC’s application will affect 

only the SRPMIC’s operation of their 

landfill on their own land. 

EPA consulted with the SRPMIC early 

in the process of making this tentative 

determination to approve the Tribe’s 

RD&D project so as to give them 

meaningful and timely input into the 

determination. In 2005, SRPMIC 

submitted its site-specific RD&D 

flexibility request. Between 2005 and 

2008, many technical issues were raised 

and addressed concerning SRPMIC’s 

proposal. EPA’s consultation with the 

Tribe culminated in the SRPMIC 

submitting an RD&D application 

amendment in April of 2008. 

With respect to the type of flexibility 

being afforded to SRPMIC under this 

proposed rule, Executive Order 13175 

does provide for agencies to review 

applications for flexibility ‘‘with a 

general view toward increasing 

opportunities for utilizing flexible 

policy approaches at the Indian tribal 

level in cases in which the proposed 

waiver is consistent with the applicable 

Federal policy objectives and is 

otherwise appropriate.’’ In formulating 

this tentative determination and 

proposed rule, the Region has been 

guided by the fundamental principles 

set forth in Executive Order 13175 and 

has granted the SRPMIC the ‘‘maximum 

administrative discretion possible’’

within the standards set forth under the 

RD&D rule in accordance with 

Executive Order 13175. 

EPA specifically solicits any 

additional comment on this tentative 

determination from tribal officials of the 

SRPMIC. 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards, (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The technical standards included in 

the application were proposed by 

SRPMIC. Given EPA’s obligations under 

Executive Order 13175 (see above), the 

Agency has, to the extent appropriate, 

applied the standards established by the 

Tribe. In addition, the Agency 

considered the Interstate Technology 

and Regulatory Council’s February 2006 

technical and regulatory guideline 

‘‘Characterization, Design, Construction, 

and Monitoring of Bioreactor Landfills.’’

Authority: Sections 1008, 2002, 4004, and 

4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912, 6944, and 

6949a. Temporary Delegation of Authority to 

Promulgate Site-Specific Rules to Respond to 

Requests for Flexibility from Owners/ 

Operators of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill 

Facilities in Indian Country, February 26, 

2008, Incorporation by Reference. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258 

Environmental protection, Municipal 

landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 

Dated: July 23, 2008. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 258 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL 

SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

1. The authority citation for part 258 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

and 6949a(c), 6981(a). 

2. Amend subpart D by adding 

§ 258.42 to read as follows: 

§ 258.42 Approval of Site-specific 

Flexibility Requests in Indian Country. 

(a) Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community (SRPMIC), Salt River 

Landfill Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Project Requirements. 

Paragraph (a) of this section applies to 

the Salt River Landfill, a municipal 

solid waste landfill owned and operated 

by the SPRMIC on the SRPMIC’s 

reservation in Arizona, which includes 

waste disposal areas identified as 

‘‘Phases I–VI.’’ The Research, 

Development, and Demonstration 

Permit Application Salt River Landfill, 

submitted by SRPMIC and dated 

September 24, 2007 and amended in 

April 2008 is hereby incorporated into 

this provision by this reference. The 

facility owner and/or operator may 

operate the facility in accordance with 

this application, including the following 

activities more generally described as 

follows: 

(1) The owner and/or operator may 

install a geosynthetic clay liner as an 

alternative bottom liner system in Phase 

VI. 

(2) The owner and/or operator may 

operate Phase VI as a bioreactor by 

recirculating leachate and landfill gas 

condensate, and by adding storm water 

and groundwater, to the below grade 

portions of Phase VI. 

(3) The owner and/or operator may 

increase the moisture content of the 

waste mass in Phases IIIB and IVA by 

recirculating leachate and landfill gas 

condensate, and by adding storm water 

and groundwater, to the below grade 

portions of Phases IIIB and IVA. 

(4) The owner and/or operator shall 

maintain less than a 30-cm depth of 

leachate on the liner. 

(5) The owner and/or operator shall 

submit reports to the Director of the 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45193 

Waste Management Division at EPA 

Region 9 as specified in the September 

24, 2007 application, as amended in 

April of 2008, including an annual 

report showing whether and to what 

extent the site is progressing in attaining 

project goals. The annual report will 

also include a summary of all 

monitoring and testing results, as 

specified in the application. 

(6) The owner and/or operator may 

not operate the facility pursuant to the 

authority granted by this section if there 

is any deviation from the terms, 

conditions, and requirements of this 

section unless the operation of the 

facility will continue to conform to the 

standards set forth in § 258.4 of this 

chapter and the owner and/or operator 

has obtained the prior written approval 

of the Director of the Waste 

Management Division at EPA Region 9 

or his or her designee to implement 

corrective measures or otherwise 

operate the facility subject to such 

deviation. The Director of the Waste 

Management Division or designee shall 

provide an opportunity for the public to 

comment on any significant deviation 

prior to providing his or her written 

approval of the deviation. 

(7) Paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and 

(9) of this section will terminate August 

4, 2011 unless the Director of the Waste 

Management Division at EPA Region 9 

or his or her designee renews this 

authority in writing. Any such renewal 

may extend the authority granted under 

paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and (9) of 

this section for up to an additional three 

years, and multiple renewals (up to a 

total of 12 years) may be provided. The 

Director of the Waste Management 

Division or designee shall provide an 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on any renewal request prior to 

providing his or her written approval or 

disapproval of such request. 

(8) In no event will the provisions of 

paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (5), (6) or (9) of 

this section remain in effect after August 

4, 2020. Upon termination of paragraphs 

(a)(2), (3), (5), (6) and (9) of this section, 

and except with respect to paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (4) of this section, the owner 

and/or operator shall return to 

compliance with the regulatory 

requirements which would have been in 

effect absent the flexibility provided 

through this site-specific rule. 

(9) In seeking any renewal of the 

authority granted under or other 

requirements of paragraphs (a)(2), (3), 

(5) and (6) of this section, the owner 

and/or operator shall provide a detailed 

assessment of the project showing the 

status with respect to achieving project 

goals, a list of problems and status with 

respect to problem resolutions, and any 

other requirements that the Director of 

the Waste Management Division at EPA 

Region 9 or his or her designee has 

determined are necessary for the 

approval of any renewal and has 

communicated in writing to the owner 

and operator. 

(10) The owner and/or operator’s 

authority to operate the landfill in 

accordance with paragraphs (a)(2), (3), 

(5), (6) and (9) of this section shall 

terminate if the Director of the Waste 

Management Division at EPA Region 9 

or his or her designee determines that 

the overall goals of the project are not 

being attained, including protection of 

human health or the environment. Any 

such determination shall be 

communicated in writing to the owner 

and operator. 

(b) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. E8–17828 Filed 8–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R04–RCRA–2007–1185; FRL–8699–8] 

Mississippi: Proposed Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Mississippi has applied to 

EPA for Final authorization of the 

changes to its hazardous waste program 

under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to 

grant final authorization to Mississippi. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of this Federal Register, EPA is 

authorizing the changes by an 

immediate final rule. EPA did not make 

a proposal prior to the immediate final 

rule because we believe this action is 

not controversial and do not expect 

comments that oppose it. We have 

explained the reasons for this 

authorization in the preamble of the 

immediate final rule. Unless we get 

written comments which oppose this 

authorization during the comment 

period, the immediate final rule will 

become effective on the date it 

establishes, and we will not take further 

action on this proposal. If we receive 

comments that oppose this action, we 

will withdraw the immediate final rule 

and it will not take effect. We will 

respond to public comments in a later 

final rule based on this proposal. You 

may not have another opportunity for 

comment. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–

RCRA–2007–1185 by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: johnson.otis@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (404) 562–9964 (prior to 

faxing, please notify the EPA contact 

listed below). 

• Mail: Send written comments to 

Otis Johnson, Permits and State 

Programs Section, RCRA Programs and 

Materials Management Branch, RCRA 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, The Sam Nunn Federal Center, 

61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960. 

• Hand Delivery: Otis Johnson, 

Permits and State Programs, RCRA 

Programs and Materials Management 

Branch, RCRA Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, The 

Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 

Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–

8960. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–RCRA–2007–

1185. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS