Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0032-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Anne Arundel County Millersville Landfill, Severn, Maryland, Proposed Rule
Posted Date: 2003-05-13T04:00Z

25550
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
businesses
found
in
13
CFR
121.201;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
country,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
a
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
In
determining
whether
a
rule
has
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
the
impact
of
concern
is
any
significant
adverse
economic
impact
on
small
entities,
since
the
primary
purpose
of
the
regulatory
flexibility
analyses
is
to
identify
and
address
regulatory
alternatives
``
which
minimize
any
significant
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities'
(
5
U.
S.
C.
603
and
604).
Thus,
an
agency
may
certify
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
if
the
rule
relieves
regulatory
burden,
or
otherwise
has
a
positive
economic
effect
on
all
of
the
small
entities
subject
to
the
rule.
The
amendments
in
today's
proposed
rule
would
merely
defer
the
deadline
for
paying
permit
fees
for
sources
affected
by
the
proposed
rule,
thereby
giving
them
more
flexibility
and
reducing
the
burden
on
these
sources.
We
have
therefore
concluded
that
today's
proposed
rule
will
relieve
regulatory
burden
for
all
small
entities.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.
For
information
regarding
other
administrative
requirements
for
this
action,
please
see
the
direct
final
rule
action
that
is
located
in
the
Rules
and
Regulations
section
of
this
Federal
Register.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
71
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Intergovernmental
relations.

Dated:
May
7,
2003.

Christine
Todd
Whitman,

Administrator.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
11911
Filed
5
 
12
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
258
[
FR
 
7497
 
6]

RIN
2090
 
AA25
Project
XL
Site­
specific
Rulemaking
for
Anne
Arundel
County
Millersville
Landfill,
Severn,
MD
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
publishing
this
proposed
site­
specific
rule
to
implement
a
project
under
the
Project
eXcellence
and
Leadership
(
Project
XL)
program,
an
EPA
initiative
which
encourages
regulated
entities
to
achieve
better
environmental
results
at
decreased
costs
at
their
facilities.
Today's
proposal
would
provide
site
specific
regulatory
flexibility
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
for
the
Anne
Arundel
County
Millersville
Landfill
and
Resource
Recovery
Facility,
Severn,
Maryland
(
the
Landfill).
The
Landfill
is
owned
and
operated
by
Anne
Arundel
County
(
the
County).
The
County,
the
State
of
Maryland,
and
EPA
signed
a
Final
Project
Agreement
(
FPA)
for
this
project,
which
would
allow
for
the
addition
of
liquids
to
this
landfill.
The
addition
of
liquids
to
landfills
accelerates
the
biodegradation
of
landfill
waste
and
is
allowed
for
certain
prescribed
liner
designs
under
current
RCRA
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
(
MSWLF)
regulations.
The
principal
objective
of
this
XL
project
to
demonstrate
that
the
alternative
liner
design
at
the
Landfill
is
as
protective
as
the
liner
prescribed
in
current
RCRA
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
regulations
over
which
leachate
recirculation
is
allowed
under
existing
RCRA
regulations.
The
County
Landfill
is
one
of
several
landfills,
located
in
different
geographic
and
climatic
regions
across
the
country,
that
under
Project
XL
are
testing
this
bioreactor
technology
over
alternative
liner
designs.
In
order
to
carry
out
this
project,
the
Landfill
needs
relief
from
certain
requirements
in
EPA
regulations
which
set
forth
design
and
operating
criteria
for
MSWLFs,
requirements
which
would
otherwise
preclude
the
addition
of
liquids
at
this
landfill.
If
promulgated,
today's
proposed
rule
would
allow
the
addition
of
Landfill
leachate
and
onsite
storm
water
to
a
designated
(
approximately
160
by
200
foot)
portion
of
Cell
8.4
at
the
Landfill.
Expected
benefits
of
this
project
include
accelerated
biodegradation
of
the
Landfill
waste,
decreased
time
for
the
waste
to
reach
stabilization
and
improved
management
of
leachate
and
storm
water.
DATES:
Public
Comments:
Comments
on
this
proposal
must
be
received
on
or
before
June
12,
2003.
All
comments
should
be
submitted
according
to
the
detailed
directions
below
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.
Public
Hearing:
Commenters
may
request
a
public
hearing
on
or
before
May
27,
2003,
and
such
requests
should
specify
the
basis
for
their
request.
If
EPA
determines
that
there
is
sufficient
reason
to
hold
a
public
hearing,
it
will
do
so
by
June
3,
2003,
during
the
last
week
of
the
public
comment
period.
Requests
for
a
public
hearing
should
be
submitted
to
the
address
below.
ADDRESSES:
Written
comments
should
be
mailed
to
the
RCRA
Docket
Clerk
(
5305T),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Please
submit
an
original
and
two
copies
of
all
comments
and
refer
to
Docket
Number
RCRA
 
2002
 
0032.
A
copy
should
also
be
sent
to
Mr.
Steven
Donohue
at
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
3,
1650
Arch
Street,
Philadelphia,
PA
19103
 
2029.
More
detailed
instructions
for
submitting
comments
in
writing,
electronically,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier
are
provided
below
in
I.
B.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.
Request
for
a
Hearing:
Requests
for
a
hearing
should
be
mailed
to
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
RCRA
Docket
(
5305T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
Please
send
an
original
and
two
copies
of
all
comments,
and
refer
to
Docket
Number
RCRA
 
2002
 
0032.
A
copy
should
also
be
sent
to
Mr.
Steven
Donohue
at
the
U.
S.
EPA
Region
3
office.
Mr.
Donohue
may
be
contacted
at
the
following
address:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
3,
1650
Arch
Street,
Philadelphia,
PA
19103
 
2029,
(
215)
814
 
3215.
If
a
public
hearing
is
scheduled,
the
date,
time,
and
location
will
be
available
through
a
Federal
Register
notice
or
by
contacting
Mr.
Steven
Donohue
at
the
U.
S.
EPA
Region
3
office.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
Steven
Donohue
at
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
3,
(
3EI00),
1650
Arch
Street,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103
 
2029
at
(
215)
814
 
3215
(
or
donohue.
steven@
epa.
gov).
Further
information
on
today's
action
may
also
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1
25551
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
be
obtained
on
the
world
wide
web
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl/.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Outline
of
Today's
Document
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
arranged
as
follows:

I.
General
Information
A.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
This
Document
and
other
Related
Information?
B.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
C.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
to
the
Agency?
D.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?
II.
Authority
III.
Background
A.
What
is
Project
XL?
B.
What
Are
Bioreactor
Landfills?
IV.
The
Anne
Arundel
County
Millersville
Landfill
and
Resource
Recovery
Facility
A.
Overview
B.
Description
of
the
XL
Project
C.
What
Kind
of
Liner
Is
Required
by
Current
EPA
Regulations?
D.
How
Were
the
Liners
at
the
Landfill
Constructed?
E.
What
Are
the
Environmental
Benefits
Expected
Through
This
XL
Project?
F.
How
Have
Various
Stakeholders
Been
Involved
in
this
Project?
G.
How
Long
Will
this
Project
Last
and
When
Will
it
Be
Complete?
H.
Will
This
Project
Result
in
Cost
Savings
and
Paperwork
Reduction?
V.
What
Regulatory
Changes
Are
Being
Proposed
to
Implement
this
Project?
A.
Existing
Liquid
Restrictions
for
MSWLFs
(
40
CFR
258.28)
B.
Proposed
Site­
Specific
Rule
VI.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
I.
General
Information
A.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

1.
Docket
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA
 
2002
 
0032.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
RCRA
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1742,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
RCRA
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
0270.
The
public
may
copy
a
maximum
of
100
pages
from
any
regulatory
docket
at
no
charge.
Additional
copies
cost
15
cents
per
page.

2.
Electronic
Access
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
CBI
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
I.
A
above.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
on
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
EPA's
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.
For
additional
information
about
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
visit
EPA
Dockets
online
or
see
a
description
of
the
EPA
Dockets
System
at
67
FR
38102,
May
31,
2002.

B.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
If
you
wish
to
submit
CBI
or
information
that
is
otherwise
protected
by
statute,
please
follow
the
instructions
in
I.
B.
2
and
I.
C.
below.
Do
not
use
EPA
Dockets
or
e­
mail
to
submit
CBI
or
information
protected
by
statute.

1.
Electronically
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1
25552
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
It
is
EPA's
policy
not
to
edit
comments,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
will
be
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
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.
A.
EPA
Dockets.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,
select
``
Information
Sources,''
``
Dockets,''
and
``
EPA
Dockets.''
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA
 
2002
 
0032.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
B.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
rcradocket
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA
 
2002
 
0032.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
email
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
C.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
below.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.

2.
By
Mail
Send
two
(
2)
copies
of
your
comments
to
the
RCRA
Docket,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mailcode:
5305T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA
 
2002
 
0032.

3.
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier
Deliver
your
comments
to:
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
Docket
Center,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20004,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA
 
2002
 
0032.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
A.
1
above.

4.
By
Facsimile
Fax
your
comments
to:
202
 
566
 
0272,
Attention
Docket
ID.
No.
RCRA
 
2002
 
0032.

C.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
to
the
Agency?

Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
RCRA
Docket,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20004,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
RCRA
 
2002
 
0032.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
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
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
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
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
identified
in
Summary
section
above.

D.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:
1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.
3.
Provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.
5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.
6.
Offer
alternatives.
7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.
8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
provided
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation
related
to
your
comments.

II.
Authority
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
6949a).

III.
Background
A.
What
Is
Project
XL?

Project
XL
is
an
EPA
initiative
developed
to
encourage
regulated
entities
to
achieve
better
environmental
results
at
less
cost.
Project
XL
 
`
`
eXcellence
and
Leadership''
 
was
announced
by
EPA
on
March
16,
1995
(
see
60
FR
27282,
May
23,
1995).
Detailed
descriptions
of
Project
XL
have
been
published
previously
in
numerous
public
documents
which
are
generally
available
electronically
via
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl/.
Briefly,
Project
XL
gives
a
limited
number
of
regulated
entities
the
opportunity
to
develop
their
own
pilot
projects
and
alternative
strategies
to
achieve
superior
environmental
performance
compared
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
new
or
pilot
projects
that
provide
alternative
approaches
to
regulatory
requirements,
to
assess
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1
25553
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
whether
these
alternative
approaches
provide
benefits
at
the
specific
facility
affected,
and
determine
whether
these
projects
should
be
considered
for
wider
application.
Such
pilot
projects
allow
EPA
to
proceed
more
quickly
than
would
be
possible
when
undertaking
changes
on
a
nationwide
basis.
EPA
may
modify
rules,
on
a
site­
or
Statespecific
basis,
that
represent
one
of
several
possible
policy
approaches
within
a
more
general
statutory
directive,
so
long
as
the
alternative
being
used
is
permissible
under
the
statute.
On
September
18,
2000,
EPA
published
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
requesting
comments
on
the
draft
Final
Project
Agreement
(
FPA)
for
the
Anne
Arundel
County
Millersville
Landfill
XL
project
(
65
FR
56308).
The
FPA
was
signed
by
EPA
on
December
7,
2000.
A
copy
of
the
FPA
is
available
in
the
docket
and
on
the
world
wide
web
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl/.
The
FPA
is
a
non­
binding
written
agreement
between
the
project
sponsor
and
regulatory
agencies
which
describes
the
project
in
detail,
discusses
criteria
to
be
met,
identifies
performance
goals
and
indicators,
and
outlines
how
the
agreement
will
be
managed.

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
generally
employ
the
addition
of
liquids
such
as
leachate.
A
byproduct
of
the
waste
decomposition
process
is
landfill
gas,
which
includes
methane,
carbon
dioxide,
hazardous
air
pollutants
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs).
Landfill
gases
are
produced
sooner
and
faster
in
a
bioreactor
than
in
a
conventional
landfill.
Therefore,
bioreactors
typically
incorporate
landfill
gas
collection
systems
to
collect
and
control
landfill
gas
upon
start
up
of
the
liquid
addition
process.
On
April
6,
2000,
EPA
published
a
document
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
(
MSWLFs),
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
believe
that
operating
MSWLFs
as
bioreactors
provides
a
number
of
environmental
benefits,
including
an
increased
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.
Bioreactors
are
also
believed
to
decrease,
or
at
times
eliminate,
the
quantity
of
leachate
requiring
treatment
and
offsite
disposal.
Several
studies
have
shown
that
leachate
quality
improves
over
time
when
leachate
is
recirculated
on
a
regular
basis.
Based
on
these
reasons,
bioreactors
are
expected
to
decrease
potential
environmental
risks
and
costs
associated
with
leachate
management,
treatment
and
offsite
disposal.
Additionally,
use
of
bioreactor
techniques
are
believed
to
shorten
the
length
of
time
the
liner
will
be
exposed
to
leachate
and
lower
the
long
term
potential
for
leachate
migration
into
the
subsurface
environment.
Bioreactors
may
reduce
post­
closure
care
costs
and
risks,
due
to
the
accelerated,
controlled
settlement
of
the
solid
waste
during
landfill
operation.
Several
additional
related
XL
pilot
projects
involving
operation
of
landfills
with
alternative
liners
as
bioreactors
are
being
implemented
throughout
the
country.
These
additional
bioreactor
projects
will
enable
EPA
to
evaluate
benefits
of
different
alternative
liners
and
leachate
recirculation
systems
under
various
climatic
and
operating
conditions.
As
expressed
in
the
above
referenced
April
2000
Federal
Register
document,
EPA
is
interested
in
assessing
the
performance
of
landfills
operated
as
bioreactors
with
alternative
liners,
and
these
XL
projects
are
expected
to
produce
valuable
data.
The
Anne
Arundel
County
Millersville
Landfill
XL
Project
and
the
other
related
XL
projects
will
provide
additional
information
on
the
performance
of
MSWLFs
when
liquids
are
added
to
the
landfill.
The
Agency
is
also
interested
in
assessing
how
different
types
of
alternative
liners
perform
when
liquids
are
added
to
the
landfill,
including
maintaining
a
hydraulic
head
at
acceptable
levels.
Additional
information
on
bioreactor
landfills
is
available
at
EPA's
Web
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
nonhw
muncpl/
landfill/
bioreactors.
htm.
IV.
The
Anne
Arundel
County
Millersville
Landfill
and
Resource
Recovery
Facility
A.
Overview
The
Landfill
is
located
approximately
15
miles
south
of
Baltimore
on
565
acres
in
Severn,
Maryland.
The
Landfill,
which
began
operations
in
1975,
is
owned
and
operated
by
the
County
and
is
the
only
active
MSWLF
in
the
County.
Since
1975,
Cells
1
through
7
at
the
Landfill
were
opened,
filled
and
closed.
Cells
1
through
7
were
constructed
before
the
current
solid
waste
disposal
laws
and
regulations
and
were
not
lined.
With
the
exception
of
Cell
1
West
and
Cell
3,
all
of
these
Cells
are
now
capped.
In
1995
and
1997
respectively,
Cell
3
and
Cell
1
West
were
``
mined''
by
the
County,
i.
e.,
all
the
waste
and
underlying
soil
was
excavated
and
either
recycled,
disposed
of
or
used
as
cover
in
Cell
8.
The
footprint
where
Cell
1
West
was
located
was
graded
and
seeded
and
the
footprint
where
Cell
3
was
located
is
now
a
storm
water
infiltration
basin.
Active
landfilling
is
occurring
in
portions
of
Cell
8
at
the
Landfill.
Cell
8
is
approximately
1200
feet
by
2400
feet
in
size
and
is
divided
into
8
subcells.
Subcells
8.1
through
8.6
have
been
constructed
with
a
geomembrane
double­
liner
system,
with
primary
leachate
collection
and
leak
detection
(
secondary
collection)
layers.
Subcells
8.7
and
8.8
have
not
been
constructed.
Subcell
8.4,
where
the
proposed
bioreactor
test
area
is
located,
has
not
received
any
waste
in
approximately
two
years.
Subcell
8.6,
where
the
proposed
control
area
is
located,
is
currently
receiving
waste.
In
2000
the
Landfill
accepted
approximately
390
tons
per
day
(
tpd)
of
municipal
solid
waste
(
MSW),
of
which
1/
3
(
approximately
130
tpd)
was
recovered
for
reuse
and
recycling
and
the
remaining
amount
(
approximately
260
tpd)
was
landfilled.
The
Landfill
serves
on
average
660
customers
(
residents
and
businesses
combined)
per
day,
7
days
per
week.
There
are
approximately
5,800
residents
within
a
1­
mile
radius
of
the
Landfill;
approximately
2,750
residents
within
a
0.5­
mile
radius;
and
approximately
900
residents
within
a
0.25­
mile
radius.
The
Landfill
presently
generates
approximately
8,000
gallons
of
leachate
per
day.
Leachate
is
collected
and
pumped
to
a
305,000
gallon
influent
tank.
The
leachate
then
flows
to
a
pretreatment
plant
at
the
Landfill
where
it
is
treated
in
controlled
batches.
From
there
it
is
discharged
into
a
305,000
gallon
effluent
tank
and
ultimately
discharged
to
the
sanitary
sewer
and
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1
25554
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
into
a
publicly
operated
wastewater
treatment
works.
The
leachate
collection
system
in
Subcell
8.4
of
the
Landfill
consists
of
a
two
foot
thick
sand
layer,
a
geonet
that
covers
the
entire
bottom
of
the
Subcell
and
a
system
of
perforated
high
density
polyethylene
(
HDPE)
pipes
placed
in
gravel
blankets
that
overlay
the
geonet.
Leachate
is
conveyed
by
the
geonet
and/
or
pipes
to
a
sump,
from
which
leachate
is
pumped
and
conveyed
to
an
on­
site
leachate
pretreatment
facility.
The
leachate
collection
system
in
Subcell
8.4
is
designed
specifically
to
keep
a
very
shallow
depth
of
liquid
on
the
top
liner,
and
in
any
event
less
than
the
maximum
30
cm
allowed
under
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
2)
at
all
locations
within
the
Subcell.
In
the
sump
areas,
the
liner
system
is
enhanced
by
the
addition
of
layers
of
geosynthetic
clay
liner
(
GCL)
below
both
top
and
bottom
geomembranes.
The
GCLs
have
saturated
hydraulic
conductivities
of
less
than
1
×
10
¥
9
cm/
s.
The
GCLs
together
with
the
other
liner
components
result
in
a
double
synthetic
liner
system
beneath
the
sump.
To
monitor
the
integrity
of
the
top
liner,
the
quantity
of
leachate
removed
from
the
subcell
sumps
above
the
bottom
liner
(
detection
zone)
is
monitored
on
a
continual
basis.
(
The
accumulation
of
some
liquid
due
to
condensation
is
expected
and
is
considered
a
normal
condition.)
The
number
calculated
and
established
as
a
``
not
to
exceed
guideline''
is
100
gallons
per
acre
of
subcell
floor
per
day.
Daily
monitoring
of
the
liquid
above
the
bottom
liner
will
continue
throughout
the
life
of
Subcell
8.4.
To
protect
the
drainage
and
liner
system,
the
initial
eight­
foot
lift
of
waste
in
Subcell
8.4
consisted
of
soft
trash.
Soft
trash
is
solid
waste
that
is
collected
from
residential
curbside
trash
pickups.
No
curbside
waste
may
exceed
four
feet
in
length.
Curbside
household
waste
in
general
is
softer
than
waste
streams
from
commercial
facilities
or
sources
from
homeowners
self­
hauling
materials
from
their
home
or
yard.
This
initial
eightfoot
lift
of
waste
was
compacted
to
six
feet
in
thickness.
Forty­
three
groundwater
and
29
Landfill
Gas
(
LFG)
monitoring
wells
are
installed
at
the
Landfill.
The
groundwater
monitoring
wells
are
installed
within
each
water­
bearing
zone
in
the
subsurface
beneath
the
Landfill.
The
groundwater
wells
are
sampled
semi­
annually,
and
the
LFG
monitoring
wells
are
monitored
quarterly.
The
County
submits
ground
water
sampling
data
to
the
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment
(
MDE)
for
their
review.
Starting
in
1995,
the
County
has
replaced
a
total
of
14
private
home
wells
to
address
the
detection
of
landfill
leachate
contaminants
in
the
upper
aquifer
or
water
bearing
zone.
The
County
replaced
these
wells
with
deeper
double
cased
wells
into
a
deeper
aquifer
when
they
had
confirmed
the
detection
of
landfill
contaminants
in
two
consecutive
sampling
rounds.
The
County
also
samples
8
other
private
home
wells
in
the
area
twice
a
year
to
check
for
possible
contamination.
The
groundwater
contamination
is
believed
to
have
originated
from
the
older
unlined
cells
at
the
Landfill
that
are
now
either
capped
or
have
been
mined
by
the
County.
The
County
has
proposed
to
MDE
that
monitoring
well
TW
 
20,
that
is
directly
down
gradient
from
Cell
8,
be
designated
as
the
groundwater
point
of
compliance
well
for
the
XL
Project.
Landfill
leachate
contaminants
have
not
been
detected
in
TW
 
20
(
acetone,
which
is
a
common
laboratory
reagent,
and
carbon
disulfide
have
been
detected
three
times
and
one
time
respectively
but
neither
has
been
detected
since
April
of
1999)
.
This
XL
project
is
part
of
Anne
Arundel
County's
larger
efforts
to
further
improve
the
management
of
its
solid
waste.
In
1995,
the
County
adopted
a
comprehensive
Solid
Waste
Management
Strategy
(
Strategy),
the
main
objective
of
which
is
to
extend
the
life
of
the
Landfill.
The
Strategy
comprises
an
integrated
system
involving
waste
reduction,
recycling,
reuse
and
innovative
technologies
that
provides
for
a
multi­
faceted
approach
for
meeting
the
County's
future
solid
waste
management
needs.
Thus
far,
this
Strategy
has
reduced
the
waste
entering
the
Landfill
from
800
tons/
day
in
1994
to
260
tons/
day
in
2000.
The
County
has
an
approximately
30%
recycling
rate.
The
County
operates
three
``
convenience
centers'',
including
one
at
the
Landfill,
where
residents
can
bring
in
and
drop
off,
at
no
cost,
a
wide
variety
of
materials
for
recycling
including:
Oil,
anti­
freeze,
lead­
acid
batteries,
appliances,
metal,
wood,
cardboard,
paper,
plastic
and
yard
waste.
The
County
manages
a
total
of
approximately
320,600
tons
of
waste
per
year.
Approximately
75%
of
this
total
is
either
exported
for
disposal
outside
the
County
or
recycled.
The
remaining
25%
is
disposed
of
at
the
Landfill.
When
the
Landfill
opened
in
1975
it
had
a
projected
life
of
25
years,
or
until
the
year
2000.
As
a
result
of
the
County's
Solid
Waste
Management
Strategy,
the
Landfill
is
now
projected
to
be
able
to
accept
waste
until
2063.

B.
Description
of
the
XL
Project
The
County's
bioreactor
pilot
project
will
involve
injecting
a
controlled
amount
of
liquids
through
injection
devices
into
a
160
foot
by
200
foot
(
approximately
3/
4
of
an
acre)
test
area
located
within
the
southwestern
portion
of
Subcell
8.4.
The
XL
project
will
last
for
up
to
a
seven­
year
period
(
depending
on
effectiveness),
and
will
involve
the
monitoring
of
settlement,
production
of
LFG
and
improvement
of
leachate
quality.
The
objectives
of
the
project
are
as
follows:
To
design
and
construct
a
bioreactor
test
area
in
Subcell
8.4
of
the
Landfill;
perform
liquid
injection
in
a
controlled
manner
using
different
injection
methods;
monitor
surface
settlement,
injection
rates
and
related
parameters
over
a
period
of
time;
evaluate
results
and
ultimately
identify
the
method
that
will
most
effectively
increase
the
Landfill's
waste
capacity;
and
evaluate
cost
effectiveness
of
bioreactor
techniques
as
a
method
of
capacity
creation.
The
following
discussion
provides
information
on
the
proposed
pilot
design.
The
drawings
of
the
test
area
location,
proposed
system
layout,
and
details
of
the
supplemental
LFG
collection
system
(
if
required)
were
provided
in
the
FPA
Attachments
IV,
V,
and
VIII.

1.
Proposed
Test
Area
The
proposed
test
area
measures
160
feet
by
200
feet
and
is
located
within
the
southwestern
portion
of
Subcell
8.4.
The
test
area
is
centered
in
a
trapezoidal
shaped
plateau
that
gradually
slopes
to
the
northwest
at
an
approximately
2
percent
slope.
Subcell
8.4
is
bounded
on
three
sides
by
other
existing
subcells.
The
fourth
side
is
adjacent
to
the
side
slope
of
the
cell.
The
distance
from
the
test
area
to
the
side
slope
varies
from
approximately
50
to
100
feet.
The
side
slopes
in
Cell
8
are
constructed
at
a
3:
1
slope.
The
test
area
is
adjacent
to
an
existing
haul
road
which
makes
it
accessible
to
tank
trucks
for
easier
liquid
injection.
The
waste
volume
in
this
area
is
approximately
95,500
cubic
yards
(
waste
depth
from
surface
to
liner
is
approximately
80
to
85
feet).
Subcell
8.4
began
accepting
MSW
in
October
1992.
Subcell
8.4
has
accepted
only
small
quantities
of
curbside
MSW
since
1997;
it
last
accepted
primarily
construction
debris
about
two
years
ago.
Thus,
the
lowermost
portion
of
the
waste
in
Subcell
8.4
contains
typical
MSW,
while
the
uppermost
portion
contains
waste
that
is
proportionately
higher
in
construction
debris
and
lower
in
decomposable
organic
materials.
Several
lifts
of
typical
MSW
in
the
lowermost
portion
of
the
Subcell
8.4
were
involved
in
a
County
``
mauler''
project.
The
mauler
was
used
to
grind
the
waste
into
a
relatively
homogeneous
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1
25555
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
and
small
particle
size
that
has
an
increased
surface
area.
In
1999,
the
County
completed
a
waste
composition
study
to
provide
more
detailed
information
about
recent
waste
placement
in
the
area
of
the
proposed
test.
Additional
information
is
in
a
March
1995
County
waste
sort
report.
The
County
used
soil
as
a
daily
cover
at
the
site
until
March
1993.
Since
then,
the
County
has
primarily
used
removable
and
reusable
tarpaulins
(
tarps)
throughout
Cell
8
as
the
cover
(
approximately
97
percent
of
the
time,
depending
on
weather
conditions).
Previous
use
of
tarps
(
rather
than
soil
cover,
for
example)
presents
good
conditions
for
a
bioreactor
study,
as
there
is
less
potential
for
the
creation
of
barriers
(
e.
g.,
compacted
soil
cover)
to
limit
vertical
penetration
of
liquid
into
the
waste
mass.
Subcell
8.4
currently
has
an
interim
soil
cover
and
an
approximately
12
inch
thick
layer
of
shredded
wood
mulch
generated
from
tree
and
yard
waste.

2.
Liquid
Injection
To
improve
the
evaluation
of
different
infiltration
systems,
the
proposed
test
area
will
include
two
vertical
injection
wells
and
two
horizontal
injection
trenches.
The
two
trenches
are
proposed
to
be
constructed
parallel
to
the
nearest
side
slope
and
excavated
so
that
they
slope
back
toward
the
middle
of
the
Cell
8.4
(
southeast)
at
a
1
percent
grade
in
order
to
minimize
excavation
depths,
promote
gravity
drainage,
and
eliminate
possible
(
landfill)
side­
slope
seepage.
The
horizontal
trenches
would
consist
of
6­
inch
diameter
perforated
or
slotted
pipe
centered
in
a
2
x
1.5­
foot
trench,
backfilled
with
high
permeability
stone
or
gravel.
Proprietary
leachate
pipe
products
that
are
relatively
new
to
the
waste
industry
may
also
be
considered.
Plans
for
the
two
vertical
wells
consist
of
slotted
or
perforated
6­
inch
diameter
pipe
centered
in
a
3­
foot
diameter
borehole
and
backfilled
with
high
permeability
stone.
The
well
depths
would
be
selected
to
penetrate
between
one­
third
and
one­
half
the
overall
waste
depth.
Design
spacing
for
the
wells
and
trenches
minimizes
overlapping
areas
of
influence
and
will
reduce
uncertainties
that
may
be
introduced
by
overlapping
influences.
The
injection
devices
are
designed
to
maximize
the
amount
of
liquid
that
can
be
injected;
however,
actual
injection
rates
will
be
varied
in
response
to
information
learned
from
the
degree
of
infiltration
and
resulting
settlement.
Design
details
of
the
proposed
vertical
wells
and
horizontal
trenches
are
shown
in
Attachment
V
of
the
FPA
and
were
submitted
by
the
County
to
MDE
and
EPA
in
an
April
17,
2001
letter
with
enclosed
drawings.

3.
Settlement
Plates
Prior
to
system
startup,
the
County
will
install
monuments
(
settlement
plates)
to
monitor
settlement
caused
by
the
degradation
of
the
waste.
These
settlement
plates
will
be
strategically
located
around
wells
and
trenches
to
measure
surface
movements
during
the
study.
The
top
elevation
of
each
plate
will
be
surveyed
prior
to
liquid
injection.
The
County
plans
to
monitor
these
settlement
plates
at
least
monthly,
but
will
do
so
more
frequently
if
information
suggests
that
settlement
is
occurring
at
a
rapid
rate.
At
least
one
plate
will
be
located
in
a
control
area
that
is
adjacent
to
the
test
area
and
outside
the
zone
of
influence
for
the
liquid
injection
system.
This
control
area
will
measure
normal
settlement
rates
as
a
comparison.
Additionally,
a
stable
elevation
benchmark
will
be
established
to
ensure
that
all
readings
are
based
on
the
same
baseline
elevation.
Annual
aerial
topographic
surveys
will
also
be
performed
to
aid
in
the
evaluation
of
settlement
and
the
effectiveness
of
the
leachate
recirculation.

4.
Landfill
Gas
The
design
capacity
of
the
entire
Landfill
exceeds
the
New
Source
Performance
Standard
(
NSPS)
thresholds,
and
thus
the
Landfill
must
comply
with
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW.
Cell
8
currently
operates
under
an
Alternate
Operating
Scenario
(
AOS)
approved
by
the
State
of
Maryland
under
its
NSPS
Program,
and
the
County
has
included
the
AOS
in
its
application
for
a
Part
70
Permit
(
also
known
as
a
Title
V
permit)
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
The
Title
V
Permit
for
the
Landfill
was
signed
on
August
29,
2001.
The
AOS
provides
that
at
Cell
8
LFG
is
collected
via
existing
leachate
collection
system
components,
rather
than
from
separate
LFG
extraction
wells
and/
or
trenches.
The
AOS
also
postpones
the
requirement
for
quarterly
measurement
of
surface
methane
emissions
under
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW.
The
AOS
applies
to
Cell
8
only.
Each
of
the
other
Cells
is
part
of
an
active
LFG
collection
system
comprising
separate
extraction
wells
and/
or
trenches,
and
are
monitored
quarterly
for
LFG.
Recognizing
that
the
addition
of
liquids
enhances
the
generation
of
LFG,
the
County
has
agreed
to
take
all
necessary
steps
to
control
and
monitor
LFG
in
the
area
of
the
bioreactor
experiment.
To
accomplish
these
steps,
and
as
further
detailed
below,
the
County
has:
(
1)
Requested
an
amendment
to
its
AOS
under
which
it
will
be
required
to
conduct
quarterly
surface
methane
emissions
monitoring,
beginning
with
a
baseline
measurement
taken
prior
to
the
first
introduction
of
liquids,
and
(
2)
in
accord
with
the
requested
amendment,
as
the
project
progresses,
evaluate
the
need
to
install
supplemental
LFG
control
devices,
in
the
area
of
the
bioreactor
project
in
accordance
with
the
NSPS
for
municipal
landfills,
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW.
A
copy
of
the
County's
proposed
requested
amendment
was
included
in
the
FPA
as
Attachment
IV.
The
County
will
undertake
supplemental
LFG
response
measures
in
accord
with
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW
if
methane
surface
emissions
exceed
500
ppm
or
if
significant
odors
from
the
test
area
are
observed.
The
potential
for
surface
emissions
is
likely
to
be
greatest
in
the
immediate
area
of
liquids
injection.
In
addition,
the
County
believes
that
there
would
be
a
reduced
potential
for
LFG
emissions
at
the
landfill
side
slope
because
the
slope
is
covered
with
an
intermediate
cap
that
consists
of
a
vegetative
layer
over
a
two
foot
soil
layer
that
has
a
permeability
ranging
from
10
¥
4
to
10
¥
5
centimeters
per
second.
The
existing
LFG
collection
system
for
Cell
8
is
designed
to
apply
a
continuous
vacuum
to
the
leachate
collection
pipe
network
under
the
waste
in
order
to
induce
a
pressure
gradient
to
draw
the
LFG
toward
the
collection
network.
Collected
LFG
is
piped
to
an
enclosed
flare
for
destruction.
If
necessary,
supplemental
LFG
collection
and
control
may
be
implemented
in
the
test
area,
based
on
results
of
quarterly
methane
surface
emissions
monitoring
and
observations
of
odors.
A.
LFG
Monitoring.
Monitoring,
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
LFG
agreed
to
in
the
FPA
signed
by
the
County,
EPA
and
MDE
are
contained
in
the
Title
V
permit
for
the
Landfill
issued
on
August
29,
2001
pursuant
to
the
CAA,
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.
The
Title
V
permit
specifies
that
the
LFG
monitoring
and
reporting
in
the
test
area
will
be
done
according
to
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW.
The
County
will
perform
quarterly
monitoring
for
surface
emissions
over
the
entire
plateau
area
that
includes
the
test
area
of
Subcell
8.4.
The
plateau
area
measures
approximately
180
feet
by
300
feet
and
the
test
area
is
essentially
centered
on
the
plateau.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
quarterly
monitoring
for
surface
emissions
supplemental
LFG
monitoring
and
control
may
be
required
by
the
County's
Title
V
permit,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1
25556
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
including
semi­
annual
testing
for
nonmethane
organic
compounds
and
weekly
testing
at
the
well
heads
for
methane,
carbon
dioxide,
carbon
monoxide,
oxygen
and
nitrogen.
Also,
if
the
County
undertakes
such
supplemental
LFG
collection
measures,
the
County
will
continuously
collect
the
LFG
flow
rate
from
Cell
8
and
on
a
weekly
basis
determine
the
LFG
flow
rate
in
the
plateau
area
of
Subcell
8.4.
B.
LFG
Control.
If
any
quarterly
surface
monitoring
shows
a
surface
methane
concentration
that
exceeds
500
ppm
over
the
test
area
plateau
or
if
significant
odors
are
found
to
be
emanating
from
the
test
area,
the
County
will
take
corrective
actions
(
which
may
include
installation
and
operation
of
supplemental
LFG
collection
and
control
technology)
as
provided
in
40
CFR
60.755.
Such
supplemental
LFG
collection
and
control
technology
may
include
either
passive
LFG
collection
technology
(
i.
e.
using
candlestick
flares
independent
of
the
existing
active
LFG
collection
system)
or
active
LFG
collection
technology
(
i.
e.
connected
to
the
existing
active
LFG
collection
system).
In
any
event,
the
LFG
collection
and
control
measures
(
including
any
supplemental
measures
undertaken
in
the
area
of
the
Test
Area)
will
be
run
continuously
if
sufficient
gas
is
present
to
sustain
combustion,
and
shall
otherwise
be
operated
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW.
If
and
when
the
County
undertakes
such
supplemental
LFG
collection
measures,
the
County
will
continuously
collect
the
LFG
flow
rate
from
Cell
8
and
on
a
weekly
basis
determine
the
LFG
flow
rate
in
the
plateau
area
of
Subcell
8.4.

5.
Liquids
Monitoring
Each
injection
device
will
be
fed
from
a
centrally
located
6,500
gallon
tank
truck
through
a
single
hose
connection.
A
flow
meter
will
be
installed
to
allow
measurement
of
liquid
flow
to
each
injection
device.
Four
control
valves
will
be
installed
to
allow
independent
flow
regulation
to
each
of
the
injection
ports.
A
central
feed
location
will
be
used
to
ease
system
operations
and
reduce
truck
traffic
that
may
affect
settlement
rates.
Finally,
precipitation
will
be
recorded
via
a
rain
gauge
to
allow
for
adjustments
to
the
injection
rate.
As
noted
above,
at
no
time
will
more
than
30
centimeters
(
cm)
of
leachate
be
permitted
to
collect
over
the
liner.
The
quantity
of
leachate,
and
supplemental
storm
water
(
if
required),
added
back
to
the
landfill
will
be
measured
throughout
the
life
of
the
project.
The
County
expects
to
measure
recirculation
quantities
using
flow
meters
installed
on
the
leachate
receptacle
just
prior
to
the
distribution
system
piping
and
valves.
The
leachate
collection/
drainage
layer
constructed
in
each
subcell
consists
of
two
feet
of
high
permeability
sand
over
a
geonet
drainage
layer.
Due
to
the
internal
subcell
slopes
and
high
permeability
of
the
drainage
layer,
the
County
expects
that
there
will
be
very
little
pressure
or
``
head''
buildup
on
the
liner
notwithstanding
the
increased
levels
of
liquids.
As
noted
above,
the
leachate
collection
system
is
designed
to
maintain
a
depth
of
leachate
over
the
liner
at
all
locations
within
a
subcell,
significantly
less
than
the
prescribed
maximum
30
cm
depth
in
a
MSWLF
constructed
with
a
composite
liner
under
40
CFR
258.28(
a)(
2)).
Leachate
recirculation
will
be
suspended
if
there
appears
to
be
head
build­
up,
and
in
any
event
the
head
would
not
be
allowed
to
exceed
30
cm
under
today's
proposed
rule.
The
primary
liner
system
of
the
Landfill
is
underlain
by
a
secondary
liner
and
leachate
collection
system.
Sumps
are
located
at
the
low
point
of
each
subcell
and
are
monitored
for
the
depth
of
liquid
on
a
continual
basis.
There
are
double
risers
extending
about
200
feet
from
the
sump
in
the
primary
leachate
collection
layer
up
to
the
toe
of
the
side
slopes
of
the
Landfill.
The
double
risers
provide
redundant
access
to
the
leachate
collection
layer.
As
needed
and
required,
liquid
in
the
sumps
is
collected
and
controlled
as
leachate.
Samples
are
collected
to
evaluate
the
characteristics
of
the
liquids.
If
the
test
results
from
the
sampled
liquid
or
the
monitoring
of
the
leachate
level
indicate
that
there
is
a
potential
leak
in
the
primary
liner
system,
then
the
need
for
a
larger
pump
will
be
evaluated
and
the
liquid
level
in
the
primary
system
will
be
further
evaluated
and
monitored
to
minimize
the
liquid
depth
above
the
primary
liner.
The
liner
leakage
rate
will
be
evaluated
and
the
leachate
injection
rate
may
be
reduced,
if
necessary,
to
control
the
rate
of
flow
into
the
secondary
leachate
collection
system.
Since
leachate
is
pumped
from
each
subcell
individually,
during
the
proposed
project
the
County
intends
to
sample
the
leachate
from
Subcells
8.4
(
test
cell)
and
8.6
(
control
cell)
semiannually
for
parameters
that
will
help
establish
whether
or
not
leachate
quality
is
improving
in
Subcell
8.4.

6.
Protection
Against
Landfill
Fires
Fires
in
landfills
are
usually
caused
by
poorly
designed
or
operated
active
LFG
collection
systems
that
allow
ambient
air
into
the
waste.
For
this
project,
the
LFG
collection
system
will
be
carefully
operated
to
handle
excess
gas
generated
while
minimizing
the
potential
for
landfill
fires.
The
potential
for
landfill
fires
will
also
be
minimized
for
this
project
since
it
is
based
on
the
anaerobic
bioreactor
concept.
If
quarterly
monitoring
for
surface
methane
emissions
triggers
supplemental
LFG
controls,
the
County
will
test
any
Landfill
gas
extraction
wells
installed
in
the
test
area
on
a
weekly
basis
for
gases
including:
methane,
carbon
dioxide,
carbon
monoxide,
oxygen
and
nitrogen.
The
County
will
carefully
monitor
for
and
manage
the
oxygen
concentration
in
the
LFG
to
reduce
the
potential
occurrence
of
a
landfill
fire.
The
County,
MDE
and
EPA
acknowledge
that
a
portion
of
the
closed
and
capped
Cell
5
 
6
 
7
has
had
a
landfill
fire
in
the
past
and
have
agreed
to
monitor
and
control
the
anaerobic
bioreactor
testing
to
ensure
this
does
not
occur
as
a
result
of
this
project.

C.
What
Kind
of
Liner
Is
Required
by
Current
EPA
Regulations?
Currently,
the
EPA's
regulations
outline
two
methods
for
complying
with
liner
requirements
for
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
The
first
method
is
a
performance
standard
set
forth
at
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1).
This
standard
allows
installation
of
any
liner
configuration
provided
the
liner
design
is
approved
by
the
director
of
an
approved
State
(
defined
in
40
CFR
258.2)
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
forth
at
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
2)
and
(
b).
40
CFR
258.40(
b)
specifies
a
liner
design
which
consists
of
two
components:
(
1)
An
upper
component
comprising
a
minimum
of
30
mil
flexible
membrane
liner
(
60
mil
if
High
Density
Polyethylene
(
HDPE)
is
used),
and
(
2)
a
lower
component
comprising
at
least
two
feet
of
compacted
soil
with
a
hydraulic
conductivity
no
greater
than
1
×
10
¥
7
cm/
sec.

D.
How
Were
the
Liners
at
the
Landfill
Constructed?
The
liner
in
the
test
area
at
the
Landfill
was
constructed
to
meet
or
exceed
the
performance
standard
set
forth
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1).
The
base
liner
system
for
each
constructed
Subcell
in
Cell
8
is
a
double
synthetic
system
consisting
of
the
following,
from
top
to
bottom:
1.
2­
foot
protective
sand
cover
over
geotextile
filter;

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1
25557
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
2.
Leachate
collection
geonet
drainage
layer;
3.
60­
mil
high
density
polyethylene
(
HDPE)
geomembrane
top
liner;
4.
Leakage
detection
geonet
drainage
layer;
5.
60­
mil
HDPE
geomembrane
bottom
liner;
and
6.
1.5­
foot
low
permeability
(
1
×
10
¥
7,
cm/
s,
demonstrated
by
construction
QA/
QC)
soil
subbase.
Attachment
VI
in
the
FPA
contains
a
detailed
drawing
of
the
base
liner
system
currently
constructed
in
the
subcells
in
Cell
8.
This
liner
system
exceeds
the
performance
requirements
of
MDE
and
EPA
for
MSW
landfills,
and
incorporates
two
geomembranes
providing
for
leak
detection,
features
typically
associated
with
stricter
hazardous
waste
landfill
designs.

E.
What
Are
the
Environmental
Benefits
Expected
Through
This
XL
Project?
The
expected
environmental
benefits
of
this
XL
project
include:
(
1)
Accelerated
biodegradation
of
waste,
resulting
in
increased
space
for
new
waste
in
the
Landfill
(
air
space)
and
therefore
longer
Landfill
life;
(
2)
decreased
concentration
of
most
leachate
constituents;
(
3)
reduced
amount
of
leachate
requiring
pretreatment;
(
4)
reduced
amount
of
leachate
that
the
Landfill
discharges
to
the
local
wastewater
treatment
plant,
with
subsequent
discharge
of
effluent
to
the
Patuxent
River,
and
(
5)
reduced
post­
closure
care,
maintenance
and
risk
(
since
the
controlled
settlement
of
the
solid
waste
will
occur
during
Landfill
operation,
there
will
be
lower
potential
for
leachate
migration
into
the
subsurface
environment,
and
more
LFG
will
be
produced
during
operation).
Additional
information
on
the
potential
environmental
benefits
of
bioreactor
landfills
is
discussed
in
Section
III.
B.
and
is
available
on
EPA's
Web
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
non­
hw/
muncpl/
landfill/
bioreactors.
htm
and
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ProjectXL/.
To
adequately
measure
the
environmental
and
other
benefits
of
the
proposed
bioreactor
pilot
project,
the
County
will
establish
a
baseline
that
records
the
environmental
impacts
of
the
Landfill
without
the
proposed
bioreactor
project.
Without
the
project,
Subcell
8.4
would
be
filled
until
it
reaches
its
capacity,
and
then
covered.
The
remainder
of
the
subcells
in
Cell
8
would
also
be
filled
until
they
reach
capacity
and
Cell
8
will
be
closed
and
the
County
would
develop
Cell
9.
Without
this
project,
it
is
assumed,
Cell
8
would
also
continue
to
generate
the
same
levels
of
leachate
for
disposal
to
the
local
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
(
POTW).
Treatment
of
leachate
outside
the
Landfill
necessitates
the
use
of
equipment,
chemicals
and
ultimately
results
in
the
discharge
of
effluent
to
surface
water.
If
all
the
leachate
is
managed
inside
the
Landfill
there
will
be
no
discharge
to
surface
water
and
it
is
expected
to
result
in
cost
savings
to
the
County.
The
superior
environmental
performance
for
this
XL
Project
would
be
measured
using
the
baseline
against
the
actual
results
of
the
project
for
the
following
areas:
The
amount
of
landfill
settlement,
the
additional
air
space
created
in
the
Cell
8.4
and
the
amount
and
concentration
of
leachate
disposed
at
the
local
POTW.
Specific
monitoring
parameters
are
listed
in
the
proposed
rule
following
this
preamble.

F.
How
Have
Various
Stakeholders
Been
Involved
in
This
Project?

The
County
has
a
history
of
involving
stakeholders
in
projects
at
its
solid
waste
acceptance
or
disposal
facilities.
This
philosophy
has
proved
to
be
beneficial
to
all
involved
parties.
The
County
has
divided
the
stakeholders
into
three
groups.
The
groups
are
identified
as
primary
stakeholders,
potential
interested
parties,
and
members
of
the
general
public.
The
primary
stakeholders
are
the
regulatory
agencies
involved
with
solid
waste
disposal
facilities
or
other
activities
at
the
Landfill.
The
primary
stakeholders
include:
 
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
 
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment,
Solid
Waste
Program
 
Anne
Arundel
County
Health
Department,
Environmental
Health
Bureau
 
Anne
Arundel
County,
Planning
and
Code
Enforcement
 
Anne
Arundel
County,
Soil
Conservation
District
Other
potentially
interested
stakeholders
have
expressed
an
interest
in
the
project
and
have
had
some
involvement
in
the
project.
It
is
not
anticipated
that
all
stakeholders
would
play
an
active
and
ongoing
role
in
the
project.
If
they
do
not
actively
participate
in
the
project,
they
will
be
kept
informed
of
the
project's
progress
at
appropriate
milestones.
Their
input
will
be
welcomed
in
verbal
or
written
form.
In
May
of
2001,
after
the
FPA
was
signed,
the
County
sent
newsletters
to
approximately
130
nearby
residents
and
concerned
citizens
with
information
on
the
bioreactor
testing
under
project
XL.
During
implementation
of
this
XL
project,
the
stakeholder
involvement
program
agreed
to
in
the
FPA
would
ensure
that:
(
1)
Stakeholders
are
apprised
of
the
status
of
project
implementation;
and
(
2)
stakeholders
have
access
to
information
sufficient
to
judge
the
success
of
this
XL
project.
Anticipated
stakeholder
involvement
during
the
term
of
the
project
may
include
other
general
public
meetings
to
present
periodic
status
reports,
availability
of
data
and
other
information
generated.
Anne
Arundel
County
plans
to
convene
periodic
meetings
for
interested
stakeholders
to
brief
them
on
progress
during
the
duration
of
the
XL
project.
In
addition
to
the
reporting
requirements
of
today's
proposed
rule,
the
FPA
includes
provisions
whereby
the
County
will
make
copies
of
project
reports
available
to
all
interested
parties.
A
public
file
on
this
XL
project
has
been
maintained
at
the
Web
site
throughout
project
development,
and
the
EPA
will
continue
to
update
it
as
the
project
is
implemented.
Additional
information
is
available
at
EPA's
Web
site
at
URL
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl.

G.
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
limited.
Today's
proposed
rule
would
be
in
effect
for
seven
(
7)
years.
In
the
event
that
EPA
determines
that
this
project
should
be
terminated
before
the
end
of
the
seven
year
period
and
that
the
site­
specific
rule
should
be
rescinded,
the
Agency
may
withdraw
this
rule
through
a
subsequent
rulemaking.
This
will
allow
all
interested
persons
and
entities
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposed
termination
and
withdrawal
of
regulatory
authority.
In
the
event
of
an
early
termination
of
the
project
term,
EPA
or
the
State
will
establish
an
interim
compliance
period,
not
to
exceed
six
months,
such
that
the
County
will
be
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
seven
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
will
be
warranted
if
the
project's
environmental
benefits
do
not
meet
the
Project
XL
goal
for
the
achievement
of
superior
environmental
results.
In
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1
25558
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
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.

H.
Will
This
Project
Result
in
Cost
Savings
and
Paperwork
Reduction?
EPA
did
not
prepare
an
economic
estimate
of
the
cost
of
today's
proposed
rule
or
an
estimate
of
any
paperwork
reduction.
EPA
notes,
however,
that
the
County
volunteered
for
this
pilot
project
which
will
affect
only
one
facility
and
is
expected
to
result
in
an
overall
cost
savings
by:
Accelerating
the
decomposition
of
waste
placed
in
Cell
8.4
of
the
Landfill,
which
is
expected
to
extend
the
life
of
this
cell
and
improving
the
quality
and
management
of
leachate
generated
at
the
landfill,
both
of
which
are
expected
to
decrease
leachate
treatment
and
disposal
costs.

V.
What
Regulatory
Changes
Are
Being
Proposed
To
Implement
This
Project?

A.
Existing
Liquids
Restriction
for
MSWLFs
(
40
CFR
258.28)
This
proposed
site
specific
rule
would
grant
regulatory
relief
from
certain
requirements
of
RCRA
that
restrict
application
of
liquids
in
MSWLFs,
because,
as
previously
described,
Subcell
8.4
of
the
Landfill
was
constructed
with
an
alternative
liner
pursuant
to
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1).
When
the
FPA
for
this
project
was
signed,
RCRA
regulations,
40
CFR
258.28(
a)
allowed
bulk
or
non­
containerized
liquid
waste
to
be
added
to
a
MSWLF
only
if
the
following
two
conditions
were
met:
 
The
liquids
comprise
household
waste
(
other
than
septic
waste),
or
leachate
from
the
Landfill
itself,
or
gas
condensate
derived
from
the
Landfill,
and
 
The
MSWLF
has
been
built
with
a
liner
as
prescribed
in
the
design
standard
set
forth
in
40
CFR
258.40
(
a)(
2)
(
i.
e.,
not
the
performance
standard
set
forth
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
1)).
Since
then,
EPA
promulgated
a
sitespecific
rule
for
the
Yolo
County,
CA,
bioreactor
landfill
project
under
Project
XL,
which
amended
40
CFR
258.28(
a).
The
amendment
allows
bulk
liquid
wastes
to
be
added
to
a
MSWLF
if,
``
the
MSWLF
unit
is
a
Project
XL
MSWLF
and
meets
the
applicable
requirements
of
40
CFR
258.41''
(
66
FR
42441
 
42449,
August
13,
2001).
Therefore,
the
regulatory
relief
needed
for
the
Anne
Arundel
County
XL
Project
is
a
sitespecific
amendment
to
40
CFR
258.41.
With
the
exception
of
those
specific
provisions
modified
by
this
proposed
rule,
all
other
applicable
existing
and
future
regulatory
requirements
in
part
258
and
elsewhere
continue
to
apply
to
the
Anne
Arundel
County
Millersville
Landfill.

B.
Proposed
Site­
Specific
Rule
This
proposed
rule
would
allow
the
operator
of
the
Landfill
to
add
liquids,
primarily
consisting
of
leachate
from
the
Landfill
and
possibly
supplemental
storm
water
(``
liquids'')
to
a
portion
of
Subcell
8.4
of
the
Landfill,
as
long
as
the
maintenance,
operational,
monitoring
and
other
requirements
set
forth
in
40
CFR
258.41(
d)
are
met.
This
proposed
rule
would
add
a
new
subsection
to
the
rules
in
40
CFR
258.41.
New
40
CFR
258.41(
d)
would
specifically
apply
to
the
Anne
Arundel
County
Millersville
Landfill,
in
Severn,
Anne
Arundel
County,
Maryland,
and
would
allow
liquids
to
be
applied
to
a
portion
of
Subcell
8.4
in
this
Landfill.
This
proposed
rule
would
impose
certain
minimum
monitoring,
reporting,
and
control
requirements
on
the
County,
which,
among
other
things,
would
ensure
that
the
project
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and
facilitate
EPA's
evaluation
of
the
project.
The
CAA
Title
V
Permit
for
the
Landfill
was
signed
by
MDE
on
August
29,
2001.
Monitoring,
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
LFG
previously
agreed
to
in
the
FPA
(
Sections
II.
B.
and
III.
G.
and
Tables
4
and
5)
which
was
signed
by
the
County,
EPA
and
MDE
are
contained
in
the
Title
V
permit
for
the
Landfill.
The
Title
V
permit
specifies
that
the
LFG
monitoring
and
reporting
in
the
test
area
will
be
performed
according
to
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
WWW.
The
County
will
perform
quarterly
monitoring
for
surface
emissions
over
the
entire
plateau
area
that
includes
the
test
area
of
Subcell
8.4.
The
plateau
area
measures
180
feet
by
300
feet
and
the
test
area
is
essentially
centered
on
the
plateau.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
quarterly
monitoring
supplemental
LFG
monitoring
and
control
may
be
required
by
the
County's
Title
V
permit,
including
semi­
annual
testing
for
non­
methane
organic
compounds
and
weekly
testing
at
the
well
heads
for
methane,
carbon
dioxide,
carbon
monoxide,
oxygen
and
nitrogen.
Also,
if
the
County
undertakes
such
supplemental
LFG
collection
measures,
the
County
will
continuously
collect
the
LFG
flow
rate
from
Cell
8
and
on
a
weekly
basis
determine
the
LFG
flow
rate
in
the
plateau
area
of
Subcell
8.4.
Existing
regulation
allowing
leachate
recirculation
over
a
composite
liner
(
40
CFR
258.28(
a)(
2))
requires
a
leachate
collection
system
as
specified
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
2)
to
ensure
that
contaminant
migration
to
the
aquifer
is
controlled.
(
56
FR
50978
 
51056,
Oct.
9,
1991).
This
proposed
rule
would
also
require
that
a
leachate
collection
system
(
as
described
in
40
CFR
258.40(
a)(
2))
be
in
place
in
order
for
leachate
to
be
recirculated
in
the
Subcell
8.4,
and
the
County
would
be
required
to
ensure
that
the
leachate
collection
systems
maintains
the
leachate
head
over
the
liner
at
a
depth
of
less
than
30
cm
in
Subcell
8.4.
Today's
proposed
rule
would
not
provide
any
regulatory
flexibility
with
respect
to
monitoring
requirements;
rather
it
adds
monitoring
to
that
which
would
be
required
for
this
Landfill
if
it
continued
operating
as
a
conventional
MSWLF.
In
addition
to
the
monitoring
required
in
part
258,
for
example,
the
County
would
be
required
to
monitor
and
report
whether
surface
seeps
are
occurring
and
determine
whether
they
are
attributable
to
operation
of
the
liquid
application
system;
perform
a
semi­
annual
analysis
of
leachate
quality
in
both
test
and
control
areas;
and
at
least
monthly,
monitor
the
gas
temperature
at
well
heads.
EPA
believes
this
additional
information
will
provide
the
necessary
indicators
of
any
increased
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
in
a
timely
manner
and
will
enable
the
County,
MDE
and/
or
EPA
to
take
whatever
steps
are
necessary,
including
suspension
or
termination
of
the
project
to
reduce
or
eliminate
any
such
risk.
EPA
also
believes
that
this
additional
information
will
be
valuable
in
assessing
the
benefits
of
bioreactor
operation.

VI.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
this
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
formal
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
and
to
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order,
which
include
assessing
the
costs
and
benefits
anticipated
as
a
result
of
this
regulatory
action.
The
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory''
action
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1
25559
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Because
this
proposed
rule
affects
only
one
facility,
it
is
not
a
rule
of
general
applicability
and
therefore
not
subject
to
OMB
review
under
Executive
Order
12866.
In
addition,
after
consultation
OMB
has
determined
that
review
of
proposed
site­
specific
rules
under
Project
XL
is
not
necessary.

B.
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.,
since
it
applies
to
only
one
facility.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Pursuant
to
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.,
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
whenever
an
Agency
is
required
to
publish
a
notice
for
any
proposed
or
final
rule,
it
must
prepare
and
make
available
for
public
comment
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
that
describes
the
effect
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
(
i.
e.,
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions).
However,
no
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
is
required
if
the
head
of
an
agency
certifies
that
the
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
SBREFA
amended
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
to
require
federal
agencies
to
provide
a
statement
of
the
factual
basis
for
certifying
that
a
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
because
it
affects
only
one
facility,
the
Anne
Arundel
County
Millersville
Landfill,
and
it
is
not
a
small
entity.
Based
on
the
foregoing
discussion,
I
hereby
certify
that
this
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
adverse
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Consequently,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
preparation
of
a
formal
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
is
unnecessary.

D.
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
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
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
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enable
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
As
noted
above,
this
proposed
rule
is
applicable
only
to
one
facility
in
Maryland.
EPA
has
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
EPA
has
also
determined
that
this
proposed
rule
does
not
contain
a
federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year.
Thus,
today's
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountability
process
that
would
ensure
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
state
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
are
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.''
Today's
proposal
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
on
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
nor
on
the
distribution
of
powers
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
Today's
proposal
will
only
affect
one
facility,
providing
regulatory
flexibility
applicable
to
this
specific
site.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.

F.
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
accountability
process
that
would
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
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1
25560
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
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.''
Today's
proposal
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
nor
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
EPA
is
currently
unaware
of
any
Indian
tribes
located
in
the
vicinity
of
the
facility.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
Risks
``
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
EPA
determines
(
1)
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
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
other
potential
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
not
an
economically
significant
rule
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
proposed
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
energy
action''
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
It
will
not
result
in
increased
energy
prices,
increased
cost
of
energy
distribution,
or
an
increased
dependence
on
foreign
supplies
of
energy.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(``
NTTAA,''
Pub.
L.
104
 
113,
section
12(
d)
(
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.
Today's
proposal
does
not
establish
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
To
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
Executive
Order
12898,
``
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations''
(
February
11,
1994)
is
designed
to
address
the
environmental
and
human
health
conditions
of
minority
and
low­
income
populations.
EPA
is
committed
to
addressing
environmental
justice
concerns
and
has
assumed
a
leadership
role
in
environmental
justice
initiatives
to
enhance
environmental
quality
for
all
citizens
of
the
United
States.
The
Agency's
goals
are
to
ensure
that
no
segment
of
the
population,
regardless
of
race,
color,
national
origin,
income,
or
net
worth
bears
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
impacts
as
a
result
of
EPA's
policies,
programs,
and
activities.
In
response
to
Executive
Order
12898,
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
(
OSWER)
formed
an
Environmental
Justice
Task
Force
to
analyze
the
array
of
environmental
justice
issues
specific
to
waste
programs
and
to
develop
an
overall
strategy
to
identify
and
address
these
issues
(
OSWER
Directive
No.
9200.3
 
17).
Potential
environmental
justice
impacts
are
identified
consistent
with
the
EPA's
Environmental
Justice
Strategy
and
the
OSWER
Environmental
Justice
Action
Agenda.
Today's
proposal
applies
to
one
facility
in
Maryland.
Overall,
no
disproportional
impacts
to
minority
or
low
income
communities
are
expected.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
258
Environmental
protection,
Landfill,
Solid
waste.
Dated:
May
7,
2003.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
forth,
part
258
of
chapter
I
of
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
258
 
CRITERIA
FOR
MUNICIPAL
SOLID
WASTE
LANDFILLS
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).

Subpart
D
 
Design
Criteria
3.
Amend
§
258.41
to
add
a
new
paragraph
(
d)
to
read
as
follows:

§
258.41
Project
XL
Bioreactor
Landfill
Projects.

*
*
*
*
*
(
d)
Anne
Arundel
County,
Millersville
Landfill
Requirements.
Paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section
applies
solely
to
the
Anne
Arundel
County,
Millersville
Landfill,
owned
and
operated
by
the
Anne
Arundel
County
Department
of
Public
Works,
or
its
successors,
located
in
Severn,
Anne
Arundel
County,
Maryland
(``
Landfill'').
The
Landfill
is
allowed
to
Landfill
leachate
and
onsite
storm
water,
hereinafter,
``
liquid
or
liquids'',
to
a
test
area
contained
in
portion
of
Subcell
8.4
of
the
Landfill
under
the
following
conditions:
(
1)
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
maintain
the
liner
underlying
Subcell
8.4,
which
was
designed
and
constructed
with
an
alternative
liner
in
accordance
with
§
258.40(
a)(
1),
and
a
leachate
collection
system,
in
order
to
maintain
the
integrity
of
the
liner
system
and
keep
it
and
the
leachate
collection
system
in
good
operating
order.
From
top
to
bottom
the
base
liner
underlying
the
waste
in
Cell
8
consists
of:
2­
feet
of
sand
cover,
a
geotextile
filter,
a
leachate
collection
layer,
a
60­
mil
high
density
polyethylene
(
HDPE)
top
liner,
a
leakage
detection
layer;
a
60­
mil
HDPE
bottom
liner
and
1.5­
feet
of
a
low
permeability
soil
subbase.
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
ensure
that
the
addition
of
any
liquids
does
not
result
in
an
increased
leakage
rate,
and
does
not
result
in
liner
or
waste
slippage,
or
otherwise
compromise
the
integrity
of
the
Landfill
and
its
liner
system,
as
determined
by
the
Director
of
the
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment
(
State
Director).
In
addition,
the
leachate
collection
system
shall
be
operated,
monitored
and
maintained
to
ensure
that
less
than
30
cm
depth
of
leachate
is
maintained
over
the
liner.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1
25561
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
92
/
Tuesday,
May
13,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
(
2)
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
ensure
that
the
concentration
values
listed
in
Table
1
of
§
258.40
are
not
exceeded
in
the
uppermost
aquifer
at
the
relevant
point
of
compliance
for
Cell
8
of
the
Landfill,
as
specified
by
the
State
Director,
under
section
§
258.40(
d).
(
3)
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
monitor
and
report
whether
surface
seeps
are
occurring
and
determine
whether
they
are
attributable
to
operation
of
the
liquid
application
system.
EPA
and
the
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment
(
MDE)
shall
be
notified
in
the
semi­
annual
report
of
the
occurrence
of
any
seeps.
(
4)
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
determine
on
a
semi­
annual
basis
the
leachate
quality
by
analyzing
samples
of
the
Landfill
leachate,
from
the
sumps
in
Subcell
8.4
(
where
the
test
area
is
located)
and
8.6
(
where
the
control
area
is
located),
for
the
following
parameters:
dissolved
oxygen,
dissolved
solids,
biochemical
oxygen
demand,
chemical
oxygen
demand,
organic
carbon,
nutrients
(
ammonia,
nitrogen,
total
nitrogen,
and
total
phosphorus),
nitrate,
nitrite,
total
alkalinity,
ortho
phosphate,
total
suspended
solids,
cyanide,
chloride,
total
dissolved
solids,
RCRA
hazardous
metals,
volatile
organic
compounds
and
semi­
volatile
organic
compounds
by
Method
SW
 
846.
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
collect
weekly
samples
of
Landfill
leachate,
from
the
sumps
in
Subcell
8.4
and
Subcell
8.6,
and
analyze
them
for
the
following
parameters:
pH
and
conductivity.
The
depth
of
liquid
in
the
sumps
shall
be
monitored
on
a
continual
basis
and
the
leachate
flow
rate
shall
be
calculated
on
a
monthly
basis.
(
5)
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
determine
on
a
semi­
annual
basis:
The
total
quantity
of
leachate
collected
in
Subcell
8.4
and
Subcell
8.6;
the
total
quantity
of
liquids
applied
in
the
test
areas;
any
changes
in
the
application
rate
or
quantity
and
any
leachate
taken
for
offsite
disposal.
(
6)
Prior
to
the
addition
of
any
liquid
to
the
Landfill,
the
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
perform
an
initial
characterization
of
the
liquid
and
notify
EPA
and
MDE
of
the
liquid
proposed
to
be
added.
The
parameters
for
the
initial
characterization
of
liquids
shall
be
the
same
as
the
semi­
annual
parameters
for
the
Landfill
leachate
specified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
4)
of
this
section.
The
operator
shall
annually
test
all
liquids,
other
than
leachate,
added
to
the
Landfill
for
the
semi­
annual
parameters
specified
in
paragraph
(
d)(
4)
of
this
section
and
compare
these
results
to
the
initial
characterization.
(
7)
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
ensure
that
Subcell
8.4
is
operated
in
such
a
manner
so
as
to
prevent
any
landfill
fires
from
occurring.
If
quarterly
monitoring
for
surface
methane
emissions
triggers
supplemental
LFG
controls,
the
County
will
test
any
Landfill
gas
extraction
wells
installed
in
the
test
area
on
a
weekly
basis
for
LFG
flow
rate
and
gases
including:
methane,
carbon
dioxide,
carbon
monoxide,
oxygen
and
nitrogen.
The
County
will
carefully
monitor
for
and
manage
the
oxygen
concentration
in
the
LFG
to
reduce
the
potential
occurrence
of
a
landfill
fire.
(
8)
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
determine
on
a
semi­
annual
basis
the
settlement
of
the
test
area
based
on
measurements
of
the
elevation
of
monuments
installed
for
this
purpose.
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
determine
on
a
annual
basis
the
settlement
of
the
test
and
control
areas
based
on
topographic
surveys.
(
9)
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
monitor
the
frequency
of
odor
complaints
during
and
after
liquid
application
events.
EPA
and
MDE
shall
be
notified
of
the
occurrence
of
any
odor
complaints
in
the
semi­
annual
report.
(
10)
The
operator
of
the
Landfill
shall
report
to
the
EPA
Regional
Administrator
and
the
State
Director
on
the
information
described
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
through
(
9)
of
this
section
on
a
semi­
annual
basis.
The
first
report
is
due
within
6
months
after
[
THE
EFFECTIVE
DATE
OF
THE
FINAL
RULE].
These
reporting
provisions
shall
remain
in
effect
for
the
duration
of
the
project
term.
(
11)
Application
of
this
site­
specific
rule
to
the
Landfill
is
conditioned
upon
the
Landfill
being
subject
to
an
approved
Title
V
permit
issued
pursuant
to
the
Clean
Air
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.
(
CAA)
that
provides
for
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
60,
Subpart
WWW
in
the
plateau
area
of
Subcell
8.4
that
is
impacted
by
the
recirculation
activities.
(
12)
This
section
will
remain
in
effect
until
[
DATE
SEVEN
YEARS
FROM
EFFECTIVE
DATE
OF
FINAL
RULE].
By
[
DATE
SEVEN
YEARS
FROM
EFFECTIVE
DATE
OF
FINAL
RULE],
the
Landfill
must
return
to
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements
which
would
have
been
in
effect
absent
the
flexibility
provided
through
this
section.
If
EPA
Region
3'
s
Regional
Administrator,
the
State
of
Maryland
and
Anne
Arundel
County
agree
to
an
amendment
of
the
project
term,
the
parties
must
enter
into
an
amended
or
new
Final
Project
Agreement
for
any
such
amendment.
(
13)
The
authority
provided
by
this
section
may
be
terminated
before
the
end
of
the
7
year
period
in
the
event
of
noncompliance
with
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section.
The
determination
by
the
EPA
Region
3'
s
Regional
Administrator
that
the
project
has
failed
to
achieve
the
expected
level
of
environmental
performance,
or
the
promulgation
of
generally
applicable
requirements
that
apply
instead
of
this
section
may
also
result
in
termination
of
the
authority
provided
by
this
section.
In
the
event
of
early
termination
EPA,
in
consultation
with
the
State
of
Maryland,
will
determine
an
interim
compliance
period
to
provide
sufficient
time
for
the
owner
or
operator
to
return
the
Landfills
to
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements
which
would
have
been
in
effect
absent
the
authority
provided
by
this
section.
The
interim
compliance
period
shall
not
exceed
six
months.

[
FR
Doc.
03
 
11909
Filed
5
 
12
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
17:
28
May
12,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
13MYP1.
SGM
13MYP1