[30 Pa.B. 6685]
[Continued from previous Web Page]
DAILY OPERATIONS § 273.211. Signs and markers.
One commentator suggested that the sign requirements should continue to require the name, address and telephone number of the organization operating the facility. The Board agrees and retains the name, business address and telephone number of the person or municipality that operates the facility, the operating hours and the permit identification number.
§ 273.213. Access roads.
Two commentators suggested that access roads should be considered those roads from the entrance gate to the disposal area. The Board did not make this change because certain operating requirements, such as stormwater management and dust controls, apply to all access roads. Where necessary, this section sets additional standards for roads leading to the disposal area which do not apply to other access roads.
§ 273.214. Measurement and inspection of waste.
Subsection (a) has been amended to reflect the repeal of the Weights and Measures Act of 1965 and the Public Weighmasters Act of 1961. Both acts were replaced with 3 Pa.C.S. §§ 4101--4194 (relating to Consolidated Weights and Measures Act).
Subsection (c) has been amended to delete the requirement to monitor and inspect incoming waste for radioactive isotopes. In response to public comments received on subsection (c), this requirement was refined and moved to §§ 273.133, 273.140a, 273.223, 273.311 and 273.313. Similar provisions appear in Chapters 277, 279, 281 and 283, and a transition schedule appears in § 271.114.
A number of commentators submitted comments on subsection (c). The commentators suggested that the Board clarify the amount of inspection necessary for an operator to determine the characteristics of incoming waste. The Board has clarified this in § 273.140a (relating to radiation protection action plan) and § 273.223 (relating to radiation monitoring and response). More detailed information on monitoring and inspection is provided in the Department's Guidance Document on Radioactivity Monitoring at Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities, Document Number 250-3100-001, which is cross-referenced in these sections.
The commentators requested that the specific level that would trigger rejection of a load of waste containing radioactive material be stated in the regulations. In response to this comment, the Board included in § 273.223 the levels at which an operator must immediately isolate a vehicle and notify the Department. One level is for radiation dose rates detected in the cab and the other level is for radiation detected from any other surface.
Once notified, the Department staff and possibly staff from Federal agencies will assist the facility and its consultants in identifying, localizing and quantifying the radioactive material in the load. This is a stepwise investigative process that will ultimately determine what corrective action is needed. The entire problem may be in one bag or the whole load may require disposal. These procedures are further described in the guidance document mentioned above. It is noted that there is a lower alarm level which calls for the facility to investigate the problem in accordance with its approved action plan, guidelines for which are set forth in the guidance document. In the range between this lower alarm level (Action Level I) and the levels above where the Department is called immediately (Action Level II), a facility has a variety of options available, including rejection of the load and sending it back to origin providing that a Department of Transportation Exemption is obtained from the Department. At levels at or above Action Level II, special handling of the radioactive material will be required and simple rejection is not permissible.
The commentators also asked the Board to examine the costs and capital necessary for landfills to monitor and inspect waste for radioactive material. The commentators asked that the Board consider establishing a reasonable time frame for compliance with the new regulations if the costs were significant. In response, the Department analyzed the costs necessary to inspect for radioactive materials and determined that the costs of installing the equipment and implementing the required procedures is minimal compared to the costs associated with managing radioactive wastes that have been improperly disposed in a landfill or resource recovery facility. Nevertheless, to accommodate the transition, the Board included a new section, § 271.114 (relating to transition period), which establishes a schedule by which each regulated facility is to come into compliance with the new requirements.
§ 273.216. Unloading and compaction.
One commentator indicated that the proposed amendments to the working face requirements should not be deleted, but rather reworded to define the working face in terms of daily cover requirements. The Board did not make this change because the information concerning the procedures used at the working face is covered in sections dealing with the placement of daily, intermediate and final cover.
§ 273.217. Air resources protection.
The Board clarified in subsection (b) that an air quality plan approval and air quality operating permit are issued under Chapter 127 (relating to construction, modification, reactivation and operation of sources). The Board declined to make further revisions in response to comments suggesting that a separate air plan should be required under the municipal waste regulations and that methane gas control should be focused on. The air quality plans address methane gas control and management. Odors that result from transportation or landfill working face activities can also be addressed by operational changes.
§ 273.218. Nuisance minimization and control.
The Board amended subsection (b) to require the operator to minimize and control ''public nuisances'' from odors. The proposed subsection had only referenced ''nuisances.'' Subsection (b) is now consistent with subsection (c). Similarly, to harmonize subsection (c) with (b), the requirement was added that the operator implement the plan approved under § 273.136 (relating to nuisance minimization and control plan). The Board did not revert to the ''prevent and eliminate'' language of the prior regulation as suggested by several commentators because field experience shows that nuisances cannot always be prevented. Finally, the Board reversed the order of subsections (b) and (c) for clarity.
§ 273.221. Daily volume.
Two commentators suggested that this section be deleted because the design and operation of the landfill is based upon the maximum daily volume. The Board declined to delete this section. Act 101 requires that a municipal waste landfill include an average and maximum daily volume.
§ 273.223. Radiation monitoring and response.
A new § 273.223 has been added to this final rulemaking to address monitoring for and responding to radioactive materials in municipal waste. Subsection (a) requires the facility operator to implement the action plan approved under § 273.140a (relating to radiation protection action plan). Subsection (b) requires the operator to monitor in accordance with the Department's Guidance Document on Radioactivity Monitoring at Municipal and Residual Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities, document number 250-3100-001 (or in an equally protective manner), the facility's approved radiation protection action plan and this section. Subsection (c) describes the required sensitivity of the monitors and establishes the maximum level of radiation at which they must be set to alarm. In addition to the monitors described in subsections (b) and (c), portable radiation monitors that can determine the radiation dose rate and the presence of contamination on a vehicle that has caused an alarm are required by subsection (d). When radiation is detected at a landfill and the alarm exceedance is confirmed, the operator must perform a radiological survey of the vehicle. If a dose rate specified in subsection (e) is detected, the operator must notify the Department immediately and isolate the vehicle. Once notified, the Department staff, and possibly staff from Federal agencies, will assist the facility and its consultants in identifying, localizing and quantifying the radioactive material in the load. This is a stepwise investigative process that will ultimately determine what corrective action is needed.
To ensure that the monitoring equipment continues to function properly, subsection (f) requires that the equipment be calibrated at least once a year and more often if so specified by the manufacturer.
Subsection (g) notes the Federal requirement that, once the presence of radioactivity is detected (that is, above Action Level I, as described in the guidance document), the vehicle is not permitted to leave the facility with the material on board without written Department approval and an authorized Federal Department of Transportation exemption form issued by Department. The exemption forms will usually be issued by telephone or fax communication for levels between Action Level I and the Action Level II limits specified in subsection (e).
COVER AND REVEGETATION § 273.231. Topsoil storage.
In response to the proposal to delete this section, one commentator suggested that it may be more appropriate to modify this section to address topsoil used as part of a cap. The Board deleted this section, as proposed, because the design and performance standards for the final layer of soil placed over a cap are found in § 273.234.
§ 273.233. Intermediate cover and slopes.
One commentator expressed the concern that using waste as a cover material has the potential for pollution from erosion caused by excessive rain or flooding. The Board declined to amend this section in response because the intermediate slopes are located within the lined disposal area.
§ 273.234. Final cover and grading.
The Board amended subsections (a)(1)(i) and (c) to require the cap to have a permeability less than or equal to the permeability of the primary liner. This requirement is consistent with Federal Subtitle D requirements related to caps and will prevent the buildup of leachate during post closure activities. To be consistent with the amendments in § 273.234(a)(1)(i) and (c), the Board amended § 273.256, Table I by removing the option to use clay or bentonite caps.
Several commentators questioned the proposed requirement that the caps should limit the migration of precipitation into the landfill to the greatest degree technologically possible. The Board agreed and has deleted the requirement.
The Board amended subsection (b) to clarify that all layers of the final cover must be protected from differential settlement.
Two commentators suggested a variety of amendments to the design requirements of this section. The Board declined to make these amendments because they are unnecessarily prescriptive, and subsection (e) allows the operator to propose alternative designs through the equivalency review process.
WATER QUALITY PROTECTION § 273.241. General requirements.
One commentator indicated that the language in subsection (c) which requires the operator not to allow pollution within the site may be interpreted to mean that the operator would be in violation of the regulation if pollution from an upgradient industrial facility entered the site. The Board amended subsection (c) to indicate the operator may not cause water pollution within or outside the site from the operation of the facility.
§ 273.242. Soil erosion and sedimentation control.
A commentator suggested that subsection (c) include a specific time period for meeting the performance standards set for erosion and sedimentation control after a storm event has occurred.
The Board declined to make this change. The operator should repair the storm damage as soon as possible; and weather and planting conditions are taken into consideration.
LINER SYSTEM § 273.251. Scope and requirements.
Several commentators suggested that requiring the secondary or primary liner to be constructed as a composite liner is not necessary and that a single composite liner system or a double liner without a composite component is adequate. The Board declined to make this change because the performance of the liner system is greatly enhanced by adding a composite component to one of the liners. Many landfill operators in this Commonwealth recognize the composite component as state of the art in the industry and have added the layer to the design of their facilities to improve performance and long-term integrity. The final-form regulations allow construction of a liner under an existing permit for a period of 1 year from the effective date of the regulations. After that date, all liner construction must include a composite component.
§ 273.252. General limitations.
The Board amended subsection (c) to clarify that in confined layers at least 8 feet shall be maintained between the bottom of the liner system and where groundwater occurs in confined layers as the result of upward leakage. The term ''upward'' was added to clarify the intent.
The Board added requirements in subsections (d)--(f) to clarify the construction of berms and the placement of waste in relation to the berms. These were added to identify which requirements applied to temporary and perimeter berms.
One commentator suggested that the word ''table'' should be deleted when it is used in relation to the seasonal high water table and perched water table. The Board declined to make this change because the terms seasonal high water table and perched water table are defined in the regulations and are not inconsistent in their application.
§ 273.253. Subbase.
One commentator suggested that subsection (b) be modified to describe standards for the use of geosynthetic or soil-like material in the subbase. The Board declined to make this change because the use of alternative materials can be demonstrated through the existing equivalency review process.
§ 273.254. Secondary liner.
Subsection (d) was amended to clarify that liners made of clay shall be compacted in 6-inch lifts unless data from a field demonstration validates the suitability of compacted lifts greater than 6 inches. Subsection (e) concerning the design and construction of the secondary liner is deleted because the standards for a composite secondary liner are now identified in the reformatted subsection (e). Minor amendments to the wording in subsection (e) were made to be consistent with the residual waste regulations.
Several commentators suggested language changes to terms used in this section concerning liner construction. The Board changed the term ''stability'' to ''suitability'' in subsection (d), and added the word ''geosynthetic'' before ''liner'' in subsection (e)(1).
§ 273.255. Leachate detection zone.
The Board amended subsection (b)(7) to remove the requirement that the stones or aggregates used to construct the detection zone be noncarbonate. This concern is addressed in the performance standards, which require the zone to be able to withstand chemical attack and function without clogging.
The proposed changes to subsection (d) concerning flow in the leachate detection zone were deleted. The current requirement, which requires the operator to test any leakage in the zone, was retained because this testing is used to determine whether the leakage is leachate. Subsection (e) was amended to require the flow calculation be based upon the flow in a lined collection area instead of the entire lined area. This can be used to more effectively address the leak on a localized basis.
The Board amended subsection (f) to require the operator to submit a plan for further action if the sampling results indicate that the concentration of constituents in the leachate detection zone could result in groundwater degradation. It is very important to address the leakage through the liner if the leakage has any potential to affect groundwater because addressing liner system problems early may have a significant impact on the long-term performance of the entire operation.
Two commentators suggested that changes should be made to subsection (d) to require that the liquid flow in the detection zone be determined on a quarterly average instead of on a weekly average. One commentator indicated that the proposed 10-gallon-per-day threshold would be routinely exceeded. The Board declined to make these changes. The final-form regulations maintain the current language because it is necessary to characterize any flow in the leachate detection zone.
§ 273.256. Primary liner.
The Board changed subsection (d)(1)(i) to require that the upper component of a composite liner be constructed of geosynthetic material. The Board changed the word ''lower'' to ''composite'' when describing the liner component made of earthen material in subsection (d). This change was made to be more descriptive and to be consistent with the residual waste requirements.
One commentator suggested that natural and remolded clay should be added as allowable material for the composite component. The Board modified Table I to allow the composite component to be constructed of natural or remolded clay and to reflect the geosynthetic liner requirement. These materials are commonly used as composite components.
Two commentators indicated that Table I should be reformatted in a more readable manner and should be performance based. The Board declined to make these changes because the table has successfully been used in the past and if the operator does not prefer to use the identified design requirements, an alternative design may be approved through the equivalency process.
§ 273.257. Protective cover.
A commentator indicated that the term ''graded'' in subsection (b)(2) was incomplete. The Board deleted the design standard, which required that the protective cover be graded. This design requirement was not necessary.
§ 273.258. Leachate collection system within protective cover.
The Board deleted the proposed requirement in subsection (a)(2) that allowed the leachate depth on the primary liner to exceed 1 foot in depth in certain instances. This requirement was inconsistent with the Federal municipal waste landfill requirements in Subtitle D.
One commentator suggested that the term ''noncarbonate'' be defined. The Board amended subsection (b)(4) to delete the requirement that stones or aggregates in the leachate collection zone be noncarbonate. The performance standards in subsection (a) address this issue by requiring that the collection system be able to withstand chemical attack from the leachate.
One commentator suggested that there should be a requirement for at least two methods for leachate to flow to the low point of the landfill. The Board declined to make the change. The current design and performance standards for leachate removal are successfully being implemented at operating landfills.
LEACHATE TREATMENT § 273.272. Basic treatment methods.
Two commentators indicated that offsite hauling should be allowed as an unrestricted supplement to another approved method. In addition, leachate recirculation and leachate evaporation should be added as an allowable treatment option.
The Board declined to make these changes because offsite hauling is dependant on contracts with offsite treatment facilities that may not always be available. Leachate recirculation and evaporation can augment a permitted treatment method, but cannot be approved as a basic treatment method.
§ 273.273. Leachate transportation.
Two commentators suggested that subsection (b)(4) be revised to eliminate the requirement for 6-month advance notice for leachate treatment contracts. The Board declined to make amendments to this section because the 6-month advance notice is necessary should the operator need to construct an onsite treatment facility or secure another means for leachate treatment or disposal.
§ 273.274. Leachate recirculation.
A commentator suggested that leachate recirculation should be allowed as it promotes biological degradation of the waste and enhances gas production and recovery. The Board declined to make amendments to this section because leachate recirculation can be approved as part of the permit.
§ 273.275. Leachate collection and storage.
The Board amended subsection (g) to apply the new requirements for the design of underground leachate pipes to facilities permitted after the effective date of the final-form regulations. The new pipes must have secondary containment or comply with alternative methods of release detection identified in the underground storage tank regulations.
A commentator suggested that the 30-day leachate storage requirement allow more room for engineering mitigation. The Board declined to make the change because the 30-day storage requirement, in effect since 1988, has proven to be necessary to ensure sufficient storage during adverse weather conditions or unforeseen leachate handling problems.
Two commentators indicated that the dual containment piping required in subsection (g) is excessive, and proper performance can be assured through routine inspections. The Board amended subsection (g) to allow for alternative methods of release detection to be used.
§ 273.276. Leachate analysis and sludge handling.
The Board amended the proposed changes to subsection (a)(2) to not allow a reduction in the quarterly leachate chemical analyses testing requirements. It is necessary to have current information on the leachate quality to determine such things as the impact of the leachate on the liner system, the effectiveness of the leachate treatment system and the need for additional groundwater monitoring.
A commentator suggested that four quarters of testing is insufficient and that a longer period of time is necessary to evaluate the movement of contaminants. The Board declined to make this change.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING § 273.282. Number, location and depth of monitoring points.
The Board amended subsection (f) to ensure groundwater sampling would not be affected by materials used in the installation of the well. Two commentators suggested that the requirement for a groundwater monitoring point within 200 feet of the disposal area should be deleted as it is mutually exclusive with the point of compliance monitoring point. The Board declined to make this change because the detection monitoring wells within 200 feet of the disposal area monitor the performance of the facility and determine if groundwater assessment is required. The point of compliance is 150 meters and is used to determine when abatement is necessary.
One commentator suggested that the requirement for well drillers to be licensed should be maintained. The Board agreed and retained the requirement that the well drillers be licensed.
§ 273.283. Standards for wells and casing of wells.
The Board amended subsection (a)(3) to require that the well screen maximize open area to minimize entrance velocities and allow rapid sample recovery. This is necessary to make sure that the groundwater sampling can be done in an efficient manner.
The Board added new subsection (c)(7) to allow for alternative well casing designs in stable formations, if approved by the Department. This provides some design flexibility based upon the tightness of the hydrogeologic formation.
One commentator suggested that monitoring wells should be constructed in accordance with an ASTM standard. The Board declined to make the change because some requirements in the ASTM standard are in conflict with hydrogeologic and other portions of the Commonwealth's rules and regulations.
§ 273.284. Sampling and analysis.
The Board amended this section to move magnesium from an annual testing parameter to a quarterly parameter because magnesium is an effective early indicator of liner leakage or failure.
Several commentators suggested the regulations allow the reduction in the number of parameters and sampling frequency in the groundwater monitoring program. The Board declined to make the suggested changes for monitoring at facilities prior to closure. The waste acceptance plans approved at most landfills allow for a variety of waste to be disposed that may impact water quality in the event of liner failure. Reducing the number of parameters or sampling frequency may significantly reduce the effectiveness of the groundwater monitoring program. The Board did amend § 273.322 to allow the operator to request a reduction in the sampling frequency for parameters after closure.
§ 273.286. Groundwater assessment plan.
The Board amended subsection (c)(1) to clarify that groundwater monitoring devices installed at the point of compliance must be constructed in accordance with the design requirements for detection monitoring wells. Monitoring wells need to be constructed to the standards established for detection monitoring wells so that the groundwater information gathered is consistent and can be compared to data from other wells.
One commentator suggested that the time period for submitting reports under subsection (a) should be changed from 60 to 90 days because most sites request a 30-day extension. The Board declined to make this change. Based upon information from existing sites, most sites do not request an extension up to 90 days when submitting analytical results and the results need to be reported in a timely manner for use in evaluating the assessment plan.
§ 273.287. Abatement plan.
Subsection (d)(4) has been amended on final rulemaking to delete the term ''primary'' in reference to MCLs. As a result of this amendment, abatement and remediation standards will include primary and secondary MCLs. The insertion of the word ''primary'' in the proposed rulemaking was inadvertent and would have established an inconsistency with the references to MCLs in other parts of this section. Remediation standards for MCLs under the Federal regulations, at 40 CFR Part 258, refer only to primary MCLs, but in this Commonwealth secondary MCLs are enforceable drinking water standards, so the final-form regulations include all promulgated MCLs. The final-form regulations are thereby more stringent than the Federal regulations. The Board is primarily concerned about containing contamination on-site and minimizing offsite migration during the operation of a landfill. Facility design and operations must be adequate to minimize the release and migration of all contamination.
The Board also amended subsection (d)(4) to delete the redundant reference to the Safe Drinking Water Acts, which are already referenced in subsection (d)(1). The Board added a requirement in subsection (d)(4)(v) to address the abatement levels for systemic toxicants. This is necessary to address action levels for parameters where MCL's have not been established.
A commentator indicated that the background standard should be the same as that used in the Land Recycling program. The term is defined in § 271.1 and has the same meaning as it has in the Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act.
MINERALS AND GAS § 273.293. Gas recovery.
Two commentators suggested that there would not be a gas recovery byproduct generated as part of the gas recovery process. The Board amended subsection (b) to delete the word ''gas'' as the gas would not be a byproduct of gas recovery.
EMERGENCY PROCEDURES § 273.301. Hazard prevention.
A commentator recommended that first aid equipment and supplies should be available on site. The Board declined to require that first aid equipment and supplies be available at the facility. The Pollution Prevention Compliance plan submitted with the application identifies first aid equipment and procedures. These may or may not be directly located at the site.
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING § 273.311. Daily operational records.
Subsection (b)(10) has been added on final to require information to be kept in the daily record describing radioactive materials detected in waste loads. This information will be helpful to the operator, the host municipality inspector and the Department. If the origin of the material is known, it will be stated in the daily record, along with the identity of the supplier or handler of the radioactive material and the driver. Identifying these parties will enable the operator and the Department to take steps to prevent inappropriate distribution of radioactive materials in the future. The final disposition of the material is also required to be stated in the daily record. This will help the operator, host municipality inspector and Department know that the material will be properly disposed of.
Subsection (b)(11) has been added on final to require a landfill operator to identify vehicles that have arrived at the landfill over the maximum gross weight allowed on roadways of this Commonwealth under section 4941 of the Vehicle Code (relating to maximum gross weight of vehicles). This requirement is designed to help reduce the number of overweight waste vehicles traveling on roadways of this Commonwealth. While the Department will not use this part of the daily operational record to institute a direct enforcement action against a waste hauler for exceeding a roadway weight limit or against a waste facility for accepting an overweight vehicle, the Department may use the information in enforcing the daily volume limits at the facility, in selecting locations for routine vehicle inspections and in taking other steps toward reducing the number of overweight waste vehicles.
§ 273.313. Annual operation report.
Two commentators suggested that the proposed reporting changes that required the annual report to include plans showing cross sections was unnecessary and should be deleted because it could be obtained from topographic contour maps. The Board deleted this requirement in the final-form regulations because the information can be obtained through other requirements in the report.
The Board added subsection (b)(1)(iii) on final to require an annual reporting to the Department of radioactive materials detected at the landfill. This requirement was added to allow the Department to track the amount of radioactive material arriving at solid waste facilities and to use the data to better resolve the extent of the problem and for future problem solving.
§ 273.315. Recycling fee.
When the proposed rulemaking was published, the recycling fee had recently been extended under an amendment to the Administrative Code. Since then, the Environmental Stewardship and Watershed Protection Act further extended the fee. Because of the frequent statutory amendments, the Board has revised subsection (a) so that it no longer identifies a fee termination date, but instead states that the fee shall terminate in accordance with statute.
§ 273.316. Environmental stewardship fee.
This section used to be entitled ''Site-specific postclosure trust fee,'' however, that fee is no longer collected, under the ESWPA, which passed after the regulations were proposed in 1998. The Board has therefore replaced the site-specific postclosure trust provisions with new Environmental Stewardship fee provisions. These provisions implement the new act and, where appropriate, borrow procedures from Act 101 and § 273.315 (relating to recycling fee) regarding collection of the recycling fee.
CLOSURE PROVISIONS § 273.322. Closure.
The Board deleted the proposed requirement in subsection (c)(2) that requires acceptance of the operator's selection of the remediation standard because the decision may be impacted by other closure considerations. The Board added subsections (e) and (f) to allow the Department to approve modifications to the frequency of groundwater sampling during the postclosure period if the operator demonstrates that the parameter has not caused or contributed to groundwater degradation and that the parameter is unlikely to cause or contribute to groundwater degradation in the future. The Board added subsection (g) to authorize the Department to reinstate the more frequent monitoring requirements for any parameter if the Department has reason to believe that the parameter may cause or contribute to groundwater degradation.
Subchapter E. ADDITIONAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL HANDLING AND RESIDUAL WASTES
SPECIFIC WASTES § 273.513. Sewage sludge.
One commentator suggested that the sewage sludge stabilization requirements reference the appropriate standards in Chapter 271. The Board agreed and amended this section to require that sewage sludge disposed at a landfill meet one of the processes to significantly reduce pathogens or to further reduce pathogens set forth in Chapter 271, Subchapter J, Appendix A and one of the vector attraction reduction standards in § 271.933(b). This is the minimum level of treatment needed to minimize odors and vectors during transportation and disposal.
Another commentator questioned why the requirements for disposal of sewage sludge at a landfill required the control of odors. The Board declined to make a change in response to this comment as odors need to be controlled if sewage sludge is to be disposed at the facility.
CHAPTER 277. CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION WASTE LANDFILLS. One commentator indicated that the construction/demolition waste requirements closely mirror the Class II residual waste requirements and suggested that the construction/demolition chapter be a subset of the residual waste regulations. The Board declined to make this change. While there are some parallel design concepts between the construction/demolition landfill requirements and the Class II residual waste landfill requirements, there are a number of differences due to the nature of residual and construction/demolition (municipal) waste.
Subchapter B. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
PHASE I APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS § 277.110. Modification to expand existing landfill. (Proposed only.)
This section was added in the proposed rulemaking, but has been relocated to § 277.122 in the final-form rulemaking.
§ 277.112. Facility plan.
The Board added language in paragraph (2) to require the permit application for a municipal waste landfill to include a description of the method by which the soil necessary for construction and operation will be delivered. If soil is not located onsite, the traffic, access roads and other impacts need to be evaluated when performing the environmental assessment process.
§ 277.115. Geology and groundwater description.
Subsection (a)(3) was amended to allow alternative techniques for characterizing groundwater to be employed when the standard multiple well aquifer tests are not feasible. This allows the applicant to use alternative methods if unique hydrogeologic conditions are not conducive to standard testing techniques.
The Board also added language in subsection (a)(9) to allow the Department to require more frequent water level measurements after significant precipitation events. This information is necessary if the monthly measurements required by the regulations do not adequately represent the highest possible water levels which are needed to design the site.
§ 277.116. Groundwater quality description.
The Board amended subsection (a)(1) to add lead to the list of parameters analyzed during background groundwater monitoring. Lead is prevalent in construction/demolition waste and establishing the background is necessary to compare to future monitoring data.
§ 277.120. Mineral deposits information.
The Board amended the language in subsection (b) to require that the applicant either own the underlying mineable coal, or own the land or enter into an enforceable option contract to purchase land on which an expansion would operate and have an agreement with the owner of the coal to maintain support as long as waste remains on the site. These requirements are necessary to prevent failure of the landfill liner system should settlement occur into voids created by coal mining. Under the previous structure, the applicant was required to demonstrate that the owner of underlying mineable minerals would not mine the minerals as long as municipal waste remained on the site. The amendments remove the ambiguity of the term mineable mineral deposits and instead apply the restrictions to mineable coals, which is the mineral most likely to be mined and is consistent with the mineral deposits information in the residual waste regulations. The amendments also provide some opportunity for existing facilities to expand on to areas where the applicant does not own the underlying coal.
§ 277.121. Notification of proximity to airport.
This section has been revised in the final-form rulemaking to be consistent with its municipal waste landfill corollary, § 273.121 (relating to notification of proximity to airport). The revision restricts construction of construction/demolition waste landfills within 6 miles of airports. Under the revisions, an applicant will have to notify and include copies of any notifications to the FAA, the airport and the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Aviation as well as any responses received from those entities. This information will assist the Department in determining whether construction of the facility or modification thereof would be safe. If any of the respondents expresses safety concerns, the applicant will generally be required to submit a mitigation plan under § 271.127 (relating to environmental assessment), at a minimum. The section has also been revised to apply to all applications for new landfills or expansions, not just to new landfills and lateral expansions, because the phrase ''lateral expansions'' was unnecessarily restrictive.
§ 277.122. Modification to expand existing landfill.
This section was proposed as § 277.110 and has been renumbered as § 277.122 for structural formatting purposes. The final text is identical to the proposed text.
PHASE II APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL PROVISIONS § 277.133. Map and grid requirements.
The Board added a requirement in new subsection (a)(14) that an application for a construction/demolition waste landfill indicate on the topographic map a designated area for vehicles for use in the event of the detection of waste containing radioactive material. This provision is the same as the provision added for municipal waste landfills, in § 273.133 (relating to map and grid requirements), which is discussed in more detail above.
§ 277.134. Plan for access roads.
A commentator indicated that the proposed modification to the access road application requirements was a performance standard and should be located in the operating requirements for access roads in § 277.213. The commentator also indicated that the proposed requirement that access roads be designed and constructed to adequately handle the truck traffic was not clear. The Board agreed and removed the proposed changes to this section.
§ 277.139. Daily volume.
A commentator opposed the setting of a maximum and average daily volume for construction/demolition sites and suggested that the average daily volume be calculated on a semiannual period. The Board declined to make the suggested changes. The operator needs to identify the average and maximum volumes to prepare the nuisance minimization and control plan and to evaluate the potential impact in the environmental assessment process. The quarterly computation requirement is consistent with the municipal waste landfill regulations.
§ 277.140. Radiation protection action plan.
The Board has added a new section in the final-form rulemaking requiring that an application for a construction/demolition waste landfill contain an action plan specifying procedures for monitoring for and responding to radioactive material entering the facility, as well as related procedures for training, notification, record keeping and reporting. This provision is the same as the provision added for municipal waste landfills, in § 273.140a (relating to radiation protection action plan), which was previously discussed in more detail.
PHASE II APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
COVER AND REVEGETATION § 277.141. Compaction and cover plan.
The Board amended the language in paragraph (4) to require that the applicant identify procedures to establish the intermediate and final elevations for the landfill because this information is critical during the design and construction of the facility. This change is consistent with the municipal waste landfill requirements.
PHASE II APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
LINERS AND LEACHATE MANAGEMENT § 277.161. Liner system and leachate control plan.
Several changes were made to the final-form regulations in this section.
The Board amended the existing liner testing properties to reflect current liner compatibility testing procedures. The following properties were added: density, carbon black content, carbon black dispersion, stress crack resistance and oxidative induction time. The following properties were deleted: the modulus of elasticity, impact resistance, operating temperature range, ozone resistance, water vapor transmission, coefficient of linear thermal expansion, and low temperature/brittleness.
Several commentators questioned why the proposed rulemaking required percent recycled material as a testing property and suggested that it be deleted unless this information is relevant. The Board declined to make the change. The percent recycled material can significantly vary during the manufacturing process which can change the performance of the liner.
PHASE II APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
CLOSURE PROVISIONS § 277.192. Closure plan.
The Board replaced the phrase ''toward and after closure'' with ''in preparation for closure and after closure.'' ''Closure'' is the point at which the entire facility permanently ceases to accept waste. It happens only once at a landfill. Under the final-form regulations, the application shall contain a plan describing the activities that are proposed to occur in preparation for closure and after closure and a narrative description of the measures that are proposed to be carried out.
Subchapter C. OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL PROVISIONS § 277.201. Basic limitations.
This section has been revised in the final-form rulemaking to specify clearly the types of radioactive materials that might be found in the waste stream that may not be accepted at a construction/demolition waste landfill. These provisions are the same as the provisions added for municipal waste landfills, in § 273.201 (relating to basic limitations), which were previously discussed in detail.
§ 277.202. Areas where construction/demolition waste landfills are prohibited.
One commentator asked for clarification in the final-form rulemaking of whether the prohibitions against operating over mineable minerals will apply if the owner of the mineral rights guarantees that no mining will occur and for clarification of what prohibition applies to expansions of landfills that were permitted prior to the effective date of these final-form regulations. The isolation distances pertaining to minerals have been revised and clarified in the final-form regulations, consistent with the final revisions in § 273.202 (relating to areas where municipal waste landfills are prohibited). Portions of the old rule were retained, but new provisions were also added. The clarifications appear in subsections (a)(3) to (a)(5), all of which relate to coal now.
Under subsection (a)(3), an area that was permitted as a construction/demolition waste landfill between April 9, 1988, and the effective date of this final-form rulemaking remains subject to the rule in place during that time period and may not be operated in areas underlain by recoverable or mineable coals unless the operator of the facility demonstrates and the Department finds that the operator owns the underlying coal or has entered an agreement with the owner of the coal to provide support. The Board deleted the proposed language in paragraph (ii) that would have required the operator of a facility permitted on or after publication of the final-form regulation to own the underlying mineable minerals.
Under subsection (a)(4), a later expansion of a construction/demolition waste landfill that was permitted between April 9, 1988, and the effective date of this final-form rulemaking may not be operated in coal bearing areas underlain by recoverable or mineable coals unless the applicant satisfies one of two conditions. The first condition is that the applicant own the underlying coal. The second condition is that the applicant owned or entered into an enforceable option contract to purchase land on which the expansion would operate on or before the effective date of this final-form rulemaking and still holds the option rights, owns the land or owns the land under the option rights contract when the permit expansion is issued. In order to meet the second condition, the applicant must demonstrate in its application that coal providing support for the expansion area will not be mined as long as waste remains on the site.
Under subsection (a)(5), a new construction/demolition waste landfill permitted on or after the effective date of this final-form rulemaking may not be operated in coal-bearing areas underlain by recoverable or mineable coal, unless the permittee owns the underlying coal.
The Board made a number of changes to the occupied dwelling provisions of proposed subsection (a)(6), breaking it into four subsections, numbered (a)(8)--(11). The new provisions allow some flexibility for currently operating facilities and facilities expanding onto land already owned or under option rights on the effective date of these regulations, but impose the new isolation distance on new and reopened landfills.
Subsection (a)(8) addresses operations at existing facilities. Under the final-form regulations, these are subject to the old 300-foot setback. Disposal areas may not be closer than 500 feet except upon waiver by the owner of the dwelling.
Subsection (a)(9) addresses expansions of facilities where the facility was permitted before the effective date of this final-form rulemaking. Expansions must be 900 feet from an occupied dwelling unless the owner provides a written waiver that meets the requirements of this subparagraph (i) or the expansion will be on land owned by the applicant on the effective date of the regulations, subject to an enforceable option contract for purchase of the land on that date or purchased after the effective date of the regulations under an option contract entered into prior to the effective date. (Subparagraph (ii).) If the contract/option provision applies, the expansion may not be operated closer than 300 feet and the disposal area may not be within 500 feet of an occupied dwelling unless the applicant obtains a waiver as described in subparagraph (i).
New landfills will be subject to the 900-foot isolation distance, unless they obtain a waiver in accordance with subsection (a)(10). A closed landfill that submits an application to reopen and expand shall also be subject to this paragraph.
Access roads are not subject to the 900-foot isolation distance. Under subsection (a)(11), access roads are subject to a 300-foot setback. While an increase in the setback to 900 feet from landfill activity is necessary to address issues such as noise, dust and odors, these issues can continue to be adequately addressed for access roads with a 300-foot setback.
The Board amended subsection (a)(12) so that a construction/demolition waste landfill cannot be located within 100 feet of a perennial stream unless storage, processing and disposal will not occur within that distance and no adverse hydrologic or water quality impacts will occur. This change is consistent with the change in § 273.202 made in response to public comment.
The Board added a phrase at the end of subsection (a)(15), regarding the isolation distance from a school, park or playground to make this section consistent with its municipal waste corollary in § 273.202.
The Board added a new paragraph (16) to subsection (a) to prohibit a construction/demolition waste landfill from operating in a manner in which any portion of the landfill would be an obstruction to air navigation under 14 CFR 77.23(a)(5) (relating to standards for determining obstructions). This protects the ''imaginary surfaces'' which the Federal Aviation Administration protects under 14 CFR 77.25 (relating to civil airport imaginary surfaces) for safety reasons.
DAILY OPERATIONS § 277.211. Signs and markers.
One commentator suggested that the sign requirements should continue to require the name, address and telephone number of the organization operating the facility. The Board agrees and retains the name, business address and telephone number of the person or municipality that operates the facility, the operating hours and the permit identification number.
§ 277.214. Measurement and inspection of waste.
Subsection (a) has been amended to be consistent with the requirement for municipal waste landfills in § 273.214 (relating to measurement and inspection of waste).
§ 277.217. Air resources protection.
One commentator asked why the ''air quality plan'' and ''air quality operating permit'' need to be referenced in this section. The commentator suggested that if such references are necessary, appropriate regulatory citations should be provided. The Department retained the references to assist operators in understanding their requirements and included appropriate regulatory cross references in the final-form rulemaking to indicate that an air quality plan approval and air quality operating permit are issued under Chapter 127 (relating to construction, modification, reactivation and operation of sources).
§ 277.218. Nuisance minimization and control.
The Board amended subsection (b) to require the operator to minimize and control ''public nuisances'' from odors. The proposed subsection had only referenced ''nuisances.'' Subsection (b) is now consistent with subsection (c). Similarly, to harmonize subsection (c) with (b), the requirement was added that the operator implement the plan approved under § 277.136 (relating to nuisance minimization and control plan). The Board did not revert to the ''prevent and eliminate'' language of the prior regulation as suggested by several commentators because field experience shows that nuisances cannot always be prevented. Finally, the Board reversed the order of subsections (b) and (c) for clarity.
§ 277.222. Radiation monitoring and response.
This new section has been added to the final-form rulemaking to address monitoring for and responding to radioactive materials in the construction/demolition waste stream. This section is the same as the section added for municipal waste landfills, § 273.223 (relating to radiation monitoring and response), which was previously discussed in more detail.
COVER AND REVEGETATION § 277.232. Intermediate cover and slopes.
The Board amended this section to require that nonfriable asbestos containing waste shall be covered within 24 hours after disposal. This provision is necessary to comply with Federal standards concerning the disposal of asbestos containing waste. The Board also amended subsection (e) to insert performance standards for establishing vegetation. This makes the revegetation standards in this subsection consistent with the rest of this section.
§ 277.233. Final cover and grading.
The Board made several changes to this section. Subsection (a) requires a cap to be placed over the waste, and it allows the Department to waive or modify the cap and drainage layer for construction/demolition landfills permitted prior to the effective date without liners. The Board removed the requirement that the cap limit the migration of precipitation into the landfill to the greatest degree that is technologically possible, and has moved the permeability requirement for the cap from the design to the performance standards. Subsection (c) has been amended to require that the cap have a permeability less than or equal to the permeability of the primary liner. This requirement is consistent with Federal Subtitle D requirements related to caps and will prevent the buildup of leachate during post closure activities. Subsection (d) has been modified to delete the reference to the design requirements for intermediate cover. This reference was not necessary because the design requirements for the 2 feet of soil above the drainage layer are specifically listed in this subsection.
One commentator questioned the proposed requirement that the caps should limit the migration of precipitation into the landfill to the greatest degree technologically possible. The Board agreed and has deleted the requirement.
[Continued on next Web Page]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
