[31 Pa.B. 235]
[Continued from previous Web Page]
Subchapter D. Additional Requirements for Class I Residual Waste Landfills Section 288.412. 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.
One commentator questioned why the proposed regulations 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 vary significantly during the manufacturing of liners and can change the performance of the liner.
Section 288.422. Areas where class I residual waste landfills are prohibited.
Subsection (a)(4) was amended to indicate that the permittee, as opposed to the operator, must own the underlying coal. The section also removes the ambiguity of the proposed term ''minerals'' and instead maintains the restriction for ''coal,'' which is the mineral most likely to be mined.
One commentator suggested that all setbacks be measured from areas used for disposal, processing, recycling or storage of solid waste, including the storage and treatment of leachate. The Board declined to make this change. All setback distances are measured from the facility boundary, in accordance with the statutory definition of ''facility.''
The Board has amended the isolation distance language in subsection (a)(7) relating to distances from occupied dwellings. Subsection (a)(7)(i) addresses operations at existing facilities. Under the final-form regulation, these facilities 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)(7)(ii) addresses expansions of facilities where the facility was permitted before the effective date of this final-form rulemaking. Expansion of noncaptive landfills must be 900 feet from an occupied dwelling unless the owner provides a written waiver that meets the requirements of subparagraph (ii)(A), 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 pursuant to an option contract entered into prior to the effective date (subparagraph (ii)(B). 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 (ii)(A).
New noncaptive landfills will be subject to the 900-foot isolation distance, unless they obtain a written waiver from the owner. A closed noncaptive landfill that submits an application to reopen and expand will also be subject to this paragraph.
Access roads are not subject to the 900-foot isolation distance. Under subsection (a)(7)(iv), 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. One commentator suggested that the setback distance required in subsection (a)(7)(iii) (subsection (a)(7)(ii) in the proposed amendments) be maintained at 300 feet, as the 300-yard setback is overly stringent and inconsistent with the brownfields initiative. The Board declined to amend this subsection. The requirement is drawn from the isolation distance in Act 101 of 300 yards from a school, park or playground for municipal waste landfills. In addition, most complaints from surrounding landowners deal with traffic, odors, dust and other nuisances that should be significantly reduced by the 300-yard isolation distance.
A new subsection (a)(11)(iii) was added to ensure that areas permitted on or after the effective date of the regulations would not be an obstruction to air navigation under 14 CFR 77.23 (a)(5) (relating to standards for determining obstructions). This will offer greater protection against intrusion into an airport's flight paths.
One commentator suggested that the airport isolation distance be measured from the disposal area, not the permit area. The Board declined to change this requirement since other permit areas at the landfill, such as leachate storage and treatment ponds, may attract birds and present a hazard to aircraft.
Section 288.432. 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 the level where groundwater occurs as a result of upward leakage from natural or other preexisting causes. The term ''upward'' was added to clarify the intent, which was questioned by one commentator.
The Board added requirements to clarify the construction of berms and the placement of waste in relation to the berms.
One commentator suggested allowing a reduction in the eight-foot regional groundwater separation distance based upon multiyear groundwater monitoring if the statistical probability of contact between the groundwater and the waste is not increased. The Board declined to allow this exception, since multiyear groundwater monitoring may be interpreted to mean only 2 or 3 years, which is a fraction of the working life of a disposal facility. Significant fluctuations in the regional groundwater table may occur at intervals outside the time frame used to derive these statistical predictions.
One commentator suggested that a minimum isolation distance between the liner and water table is unnecessary, as long as a drainage system is present to prevent contact between the two. The Board declined to adopt this suggestion, since field experience has shown that the 8-foot isolation distance has proven to be an effective buffer to account for fluctuations in regional groundwater levels. The commentator's suggestion does, however, apply to perched water zones and the seasonal high water table.
Section 288.434. Secondary liner.
The Board amended subsection (e) to incorporate the term ''composite'' instead of the term ''lower'' to clarify the characteristics of a composite secondary liner in cases where a primary composite liner is not designed, constructed, operated and maintained. This term is more consistent with Appendix A, Table I.
One commentator expressed concern that best available technology (BAT) requirements are being retained, and these are unnecessary since there is information that less than BAT liner designs for coal ash have no impact on groundwater. The Board declined to modify the requirements, since there is flexibility in the design requirements for a residual waste disposal facility to allow the design to be based on the chemical characteristics of the coal ash. If the coal ash meets Class III minimum requirements for acceptable waste, the facility may be unlined. Coal ash not meeting the Class III criteria must be disposed in a single or double-lined facility.
Section 288.435. Leachate detection zone.
The Board added clarifying language in subsection (e) regarding the amount of leachate per area that must be exceeded before additional measures are to be implemented. The 100 gallons per acre of lined area was modified to read lined collection area.
Section 288.436. Primary liner.
The Board amended subsection (d) to incorporate the term ''composite'' instead of the term ''lower'' to clarify the characteristics of a composite primary liner in cases where a secondary composite liner is not designed, constructed, operated and maintained. This term is more consistent with Appendix A, Table I.
One commentator suggested that facility designs should be able to demonstrate, with Department guidance on application of performance standards, that groundwater quality will not be adversely impacted. The Board declined to make amendments on this issue, since the regulations contain design and performance standards, and allow the operator the opportunity to make adjustments through the equivalency review process.
One commentator expressed concern that best available technology (BAT) requirements are being retained, and these are unnecessary since there is information that less than BAT liner designs for coal ash have no impact on groundwater. The Board declined to modify the requirements, since there is flexibility in the design requirements for a residual waste disposal facility to allow the design to be based on the chemical characteristics of the coal ash. If the coal ash meets Class III minimum requirements for acceptable waste, the facility may be unlined. Coal ash not meeting the Class III criteria must be disposed in a single or double-lined facility.
Section 288.438. Leachate collection system within protective cover.
The Board deleted the proposed requirement in subsection (a)(2), which allowed the leachate depth on the primary liner to exceed one foot in depth in certain instances, to be consistent with the municipal waste program.
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)(2) 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.
Section 288.455. 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 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 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 inspection. The Board amended subsection (g) to allow for alternative methods of release detection to be used.
One commentator questioned the need to require captive storage tanks or impoundments to meet The Clean Streams Law if there is no point discharge from them. The Clean Streams Law prohibits the pollution of the waters of this Commonwealth, regardless of whether the source is a point or nonpoint discharge. All waste management activities must be in compliance with The Clean Stream Law.
One commentator questioned the need for pipes for leachate transport to have secondary containment at existing facilities. The Board amended subsection (g) to apply to the new requirements for the design of underground leachate pipes to areas permitted after the effective date of the regulations. The new pipes must have secondary containment or comply with alternative methods of release detection identified in the underground storage tank regulations.
Section 288.456. 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 analysis 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.
Subchapter E. Additional Requirements for Class II Residual Waste Landfills Section 288.512. 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.
Section 288.522. Areas where Class II residual waste landfills are prohibited.
Subsection (a)(4) was amended to indicate that the permittee, as opposed to the operator, must own the underlying coal. The section also removes the ambiguity of the term ''minerals'' and instead maintains the restrictions to ''coal,'' which is the mineral most likely to be mined.
One commentator suggested that all setbacks be measured from areas used for disposal, processing, recycling or storage of solid waste, including the storage and treatment of leachate. The Board declined to make this change. All setback distances are measured from the facility boundary, in accordance with the statutory definition of ''facility.''
The Board has amended the isolation distance language in subsection (a)(7). Subsection (a)(7)(i) addresses operations at existing facilities. Under the final-form regulation, 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)(7)(ii) addresses expansions of facilities where the facility was permitted before the effective date of this final-form rulemaking. Expansion of noncaptive landfills must be 900 feet from an occupied dwelling unless the owner provides a written waiver that meets the requirements of subparagraph (ii)(A), 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 pursuant to an option contract entered into prior to the effective date (subparagraph (ii)(B). 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 (ii)(A).
New noncaptive landfills will be subject to the 900-foot isolation distance, unless they obtain a written waiver from the owner. 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)(7)(iv), 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.
A new subsection (a)(11)(iii) was added to ensure that areas permitted on or after the effective date of the regulations would not be an obstruction to air navigation under 14 CFR 77.23 (a)(5) (relating to standards for determining obstructions). This will offer greater protection against intrusion into an airport's flight paths.
One commentator suggested that the airport isolation distance be measured from the disposal area, not the permit area. The Board declined to change this requirement since other permit areas at the landfill, such as leachate storage and treatment ponds, may attract birds and present a hazard to aircraft.
Section 288.523. Minimum requirements for acceptable waste.
One commentator questioned the justification for the establishment of ''waste classification standards''. The Board indicates that the term ''waste classification standard'' has replaced the term ''groundwater parameter.'' The waste classification standard is used to determine the minimum requirements for acceptable waste at landfills and disposal impoundments. The requirements for acceptable waste have been in place since 1992.
Section 288.532. 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 the level where groundwater occurs as a result of upward leakage from natural or other preexisting causes. The term ''upward'' was added to clarify the intent, which was questioned by one commentator.
The Board added requirements to clarify the construction of berms and the placement of waste in relation to the berms.
One commentator suggested allowing a reduction in the eight-foot regional groundwater separation distance based upon multiyear groundwater monitoring if the statistical probability of contact between the groundwater and the waste is not increased. The Board declined to allow this exception, since multiyear groundwater monitoring may be interpreted to mean only two or three years, which is a fraction of the working life of a disposal facility. Significant fluctuations in the regional groundwater table may occur at intervals outside the time frame used to derive these statistical predictions.
One commentator suggested that a minimum isolation distance between the liner and water table is unnecessary, as long as a drainage system is present to prevent contact between the two. The Board declined to adopt this suggestion, since field experience has shown that the 8 foot isolation distance has proven to be an effective buffer to account for fluctuations in regional groundwater levels. The commentator's suggestion does, however, apply to perched water zones and the seasonal high water table.
Section 288.534. Leachate detection zone.
The Board added clarifying language in subsection (e) regarding the amount of leachate per area that must be exceeded before additional measures are to be implemented. The 100 gallons per acre of lined area was modified to read lined collection area.
Section 288.535. Liner.
The Board amended the language regarding liner requirements in subsection (c) to replace the term ''lower'' with the term ''composite.'' This term is more descriptive and consistent with Appendix A, Table I.
Section 288.537. Leachate collection system within protective cover.
The Board deleted the proposed requirement in subsection (a)(2) which allowed the leachate depth on the primary liner to exceed 1 foot in depth in certain instances. This change was made to be consistent with the municipal waste landfill requirements.
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)(2) address this issue by requiring that the collection system be able to withstand chemical attack from the leachate.
One commentator suggested making revisions to allow the leachate depth to exceed one foot under certain conditions. The Board had deleted the proposed requirement in subsection (a)(2), however, since it is inconsistent with the federal landfill requirements that implement Subtitle D of RCRA. The leachate collection system should be designed to handle the removal of leachate from storm events without exceeding the 1-foot maximum depth of leachate on the liner.
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.
Section 288.555. Leachate collection and storage.
The Board amended subsection (g) to apply the new requirements for the design of underground leachate pipes to areas permitted after the effective date of the regulations. The new pipes must have secondary containment or comply with alternative methods of release detection identified in the underground storage tank regulations.
Two commentators indicated that existing facilities should not have to have secondary containment for leachate piping. The Board has amended subsection (g) to indicate that the final-form rulemaking requires that underground pipes constructed after the effective date of the final-form rulemaking must have secondary containment or comply with § 245.445 (relating to methods for release detection for piping).
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 has proven to be necessary to ensure sufficient storage during adverse weather conditions or unforeseen leachate handling problems.
Section 288.556. 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 analysis 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.
Subchapter F. Additional Requirements for Class III Residual Waste Landfills Section 288.622. Areas where Class III residual waste landfills are prohibited.
Subsection (a)(4) was amended to indicate that the permittee, as opposed to the operator, must own the underlying coal. The section also removes the ambiguity of the term ''minerals'' and instead apply the restrictions to ''coal,'' which is the mineral most likely to be mined.
The Board has amended the isolation distance language in subsection (a)(7). Subsection (a)(7)(i) addresses operations at existing facilities. Under the final-form regulation, 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)(7)(ii) addresses expansions of facilities where the facility was permitted before the effective date of this final-form rulemaking. Expansion of noncaptive landfills must be 900 feet from an occupied dwelling unless the owner provides a written waiver that meets the requirements of subparagraph (ii)(A), 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)(B)). 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 (ii)(A).
New noncaptive landfills will be subject to the 900-foot isolation distance, unless they obtain a written waiver from the owner. A closed landfill that submits an application to reopen and expand will also be subject to this paragraph.
Access roads are not subject to the 900-foot isolation distance. Under subsection (a)(7)(iv), 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.
A new subsection (a)(11)(iii) was added to ensure that areas permitted on or after the effective date of the regulations would not be an obstruction to air navigation under 14 CFR 77.23 (a)(5) (relating to standards for determining obstructions). This will offer greater protection against intrusion into an airport's flight paths.
One commentator suggested that the airport isolation distance be measured from the disposal area, not the permit area. The Board declined to change this requirement since other permit areas at the landfill, such as leachate storage and treatment ponds, may attract birds and present a hazard to aircraft.
One commentator suggested that the setback distances in § 288.622(a)(7) not apply to captive facilities. The final-form regulations clarify that the new 300-yard setback is not applicable to captive facilities.
Section 288.624. Attenuating soil.
One commentator suggested developing a more practical formulation of the standard of performance in requiring that attenuating soil ''prevent migration of contaminants to the surface and the groundwater to the greatest degree that is technologically possible.'' The Board declined to amend this section, since current design standards for attenuating soil provide the appropriate level of protection for groundwater and surface water. The final-form regulations add flexibility by allowing an operator to choose an alternative design that provides the equivalent or greater level of protection to groundwater and surface water.
Appendix A, Table I.
The Board has modified this table to be more consistent with the municipal waste regulations and reflect more current terminology.
Chapter 289. Residual Waste Disposal Impoundments
Subchapter B. Application Requirements Section 289.112. Facility plan.
The Board added language in paragraph (2) to require the permit application for a residual waste disposal impoundment 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.
One commentator questioned whether the proposed language indicates that only soil may be used for construction. The requirement does not limit the use of alternative materials for construction. To the extent that alternative materials are demonstrated through appropriate equivalency reviews, alternative materials can be used.
Section 289.122. Geology and groundwater description.
The Board 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.
One commentator indicated that the required groundwater contour map should be made from measurements obtained during the same month, not the highest measurement obtained from a particular well. The Board agrees but no changes to the Annex are necessary because the error was in the preamble explanation of how the contour map would be used. The contour map is only used to determine appropriate liner system isolation distances from the regional water table, and cannot be used to depict groundwater flow patterns.
Section 289.127. Mineral deposits information.
The Board amended the language in subsection (b) to remove the ambiguity of the term mineable mineral deposits and instead maintain the restrictions to mineable coals, which is the mineral most likely to be mined. An exception to the restrictions is provided for surface mining activities approved in the permit for purposes of facility construction.
One commentator suggested that the language should not apply to noncoal minerals which are adjacent to the facility. The Board amended the language to only apply to mineable coals, but retained the current requirement that also considers adjacent areas to the extent that coal mining in those areas would have an impact on the design and operation of the waste disposal impoundment. Another commentator felt that captive facilities should not be exempt from the new requirements in this section. The Board deleted the language exempting captive facilities from meeting the new change to this Section as it will allow surface mining, if necessary.
Section 289.128. Notification of proximity to airport.
The Board has amended this Section to require the applicant to notify the Bureau of Aviation of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration and the airport if a proposed disposal impoundment or lateral expansion is within 6 miles of an airport runway. This was added to be consistent with the municipal waste regulations and 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 § 287.127 (relating to environmental assessment), at a minimum.
Section 289.132. Operation plan.
On final-form rulemaking, minor clarifying language has been added to indicate that procedures for inspection and monitoring of incoming waste must be included in the operation plan of a permit application.
Section 289.133. Map and grid requirements.
The Board has added a requirement in new subsection (a)(13) that an application for a noncaptive residual waste disposal impoundment indicate on the topographic map a designated area for vehicles for use in the event of the detection of waste containing radioactive material. As with other requirements in this subchapter, this requirement applies to all permit applications, not just applications for new facilities. A transition schedule has been developed in § 287.135 (relating to transition period for radiation monitoring) for existing facilities to come into compliance with this regulation. The designated area must protect the environment, facility staff and public from radiation originating in the vehicle. The Department's Guidance Document on Radioactivity Monitoring at Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities, Document Number 250-3100-001, describes various factors to consider in determining an appropriate designated area.
Section 289.134. Plan for access roads.
One commentator suggested the term ''adequately handle'' was vague as a requirement for the ability of an access road to handle truck traffic. The Board agrees and deleted this provision from the application requirements.
Section 289.136. Nuisance minimization and control plan.
The Board amended subsection (a) to include the term ''unsightliness'' to address a commentator's suggestion that the application requirements for nuisance minimization and control reflect the operating requirements.
Section 289.138. Radiation protection and action plan.
The Board has added a new section in the final-form rulemaking requiring that an application for a noncaptive residual waste disposal impoundment 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. As with the other requirements of this subchapter, this requirement applies to all permit applications, not just applications for new facilities. A transition schedule has been developed in § 287.135 (relating to transition period for radiation monitoring) for existing facilities to come into compliance with this regulation. The action plan must be incorporated into the impoundment's approved waste analysis plan, under § 287.134 (relating to waste analysis plan). The permit modification will be a major modification. The action plan must be prepared in accordance with the Department's Guidance Document on Radioactivity Monitoring at Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities, Document Number 250-3100-001 or in a manner at least as protective of the environment, facility staff and public health and safety and which meets all statutory and regulatory requirements.
An approved action plan will specify the radiation exposure rate, in accordance with these regulations and the foregoing guidance document, at which the facility's radiation detection monitors will indicate the presence of radioactive material in waste in accordance with § 289.230 (relating to monitoring and response for noncaptive residual waste disposal impoundments). A waste load that does not trigger a radiation monitor will need no further action regarding radioactive materials screening. A waste load that does trigger a radiation monitor may only be accepted at the landfill if it is within the acceptable range approved in the action plan in accordance with these final regulations and the operator obtains additional written approval of the Department for that particular waste load. The Department's written approvals will be decided situation by situation or in advance in the facility's approved action plan. The Department will not authorize any waste containing radioactive material to be accepted at a residual waste landfill if it is above regulatory limits or if its disposal would endanger the health and safety of the public or the environment.
Section 289.172. Closure plan.
One commentator suggested revising the term ''toward and after closure'' and allowing the definition of ''closure'' to allow for temporary closure. To provide clarification, 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 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.
Section 289.201. 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 residual waste stream that may not be accepted at a residual waste landfill.
Subsection (f) lists six types of radioactive materials that are controlled under specific or general license or order. These are prohibited from disposal at a residual waste impoundment unless they are specifically exempted from disposal restrictions by an applicable Pennsylvania or Federal statute or regulation.
The first type, in paragraph (1), is NARM, which includes naturally occurring and accelerator produced radioactive material. Examples of NARM are radium, potassium-40, various isotopes produced in accelerators, such as cobalt-57, and members of the uranium-238 and thorium-232 decay chains when they don't meet the requirements for source material or special nuclear material.
Paragraph (2) prohibits disposal of by-product materials. These are produced by nuclear fission, or otherwise, in the nuclear energy cycle. Prominent examples are cesium-137 and strontium-90.
Paragraph (3) prohibits disposal of source material which, by definition, is uranium and/or thorium present at a combined concentration, by weight, of 0.05% or more. Examples are uranium ores and slags produced by smelting rare metal earth ores containing uranium and thorium.
Paragraph (4) prohibits disposal of special nuclear material, which includes those isotopes of uranium and plutonium that will split, or fission, when struck by neutrons. Examples of special nuclear material include uranium-233, uranium-235, and plutonium-239.
Paragraph (5) prohibits disposal of transuranic radioactive materials, which include all elements with an atomic number greater than 92 (92= uranium). Examples include neptunium, plutonium, americium, curium, californium, berkelium, einsteinium, fermium, mendelevium, and others. Transuranic elements do not occur naturally and are produced in high energy accelerators.
Paragraph (6) prohibits disposal of low-level radioactive waste. A definition of low-level radioactive waste is contained in section 130 of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act.
Subsection (g) lists three categories of radioactive materials that are prohibited from being accepted at a residual waste landfill unless approved in writing by the Department and the disposal does not endanger the environment, facility staff or public health and safety.
The first radioactive material, in paragraph (1), is short-lived radioactive material from a patient having undergone a medical procedure. Certain short-lived radioactive materials are administered to medical patients for diagnosing or treating some illnesses. Once these materials are administered to the patient, they no longer fall under NRC or Pennsylvania licensing. Some of the material is retained in the patient and some is excreted in urine, feces, sweat, saliva or mucous and may get into solid waste through disposal of personal care items. The Department's intent is to authorize such material to be disposed in waste facilities upon case-by-case permission from the Area Health Physicists or Director of the Bureau of Radiation Protection, or advance authorization in the landfill's approved action plan, using the general concepts provided in the Department's Guidance Document on Radioactivity Monitoring at Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities, Document Number 250-3100-001.
Paragraph (2) addresses TENORM, which is naturally occurring radioactive material which has been altered by human activity in a manner that results in increased radiation exposure to people. The alteration could be chemical or physical change in form, relocation of the norm, or removal of barriers that isolated the norm. The Department's intent is to authorize disposal of TENORM in landfills only in amounts and concentrations that will not result in concentrations of the NORM isotopes significantly above local background. Authorization will be given as case-by-case permission from the Area Health Physicists or Director of the Bureau of Radiation Protection, or advance authorization in the landfill's approved action plan.
Paragraph (3) addresses consumer products containing radioactive material. Some consumer products, such as smoke detectors, luminous dial clocks and watches, or some ceramics will wind up in the waste stream. The Department intends to allow disposal of small quantities of these under conditions specified in the facility's approved action plan or on a case-by-case basis with permission from the Area Health Physicist or Director of the Bureau of Radiation Protection.
Subsection (h) provides that the limitations set forth in this section will not apply to radioactive material as found in the undisturbed natural environment of this Commonwealth. The original soil and rock in many parts of the Commonwealth contain sufficient uranium, thorium, radium and potassium-40 to cause monitors to alarm even at quite high settings. This provision ensures that facilities may use soil and rock from undisturbed sites for cover, regardless of the content of radioactive material.
One commentator requested not to restrict the authority of the Department to allow mitigation activities to be conducted at the same time as waste acceptance only for ''technical reasons'' (subsection (e)). The Board declined to make changes in this subsection since allowing mitigation for technical reasons is the only items which can be resolved through proper design and operation. Mitigation measures are part of an approved application. Information provided in the application is incorporated into a permit issuance. Because mitigation is used to balance an environmental harm, it must be implemented immediately unless a technical design or operating reason is identified.
Section 289.224. Measurement and inspection of waste.
Subsection (a) has been amended to require noncaptive facilities receiving 30,000 or more cubic yards or more of solid waste in a calendar year to weigh incoming waste on a scale or an alternative method approved by the Department. This is consistent with the residual waste landfill requirements and will be used to monitor the maximum daily volume in the permit.
Subsection (c) has been amended to delete the requirement to monitor and inspect incoming waste for radioactive isotopes. This requirement was refined and moved to the various other sections throughout the final-form rulemaking.
Section 289.227. Air resources protection.
The board amended subsection (a) to reflect the applicable provisions of the Air Pollution Control Act (35 P. S. §§ 4001--4015), which required the operator to implement fugitive air contaminant control measures.
Section 289.228. 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 (b) with (c), the requirement was added that the operator implement the plan approved under § 289.136 (relating to nuisance minimization and control plan). Finally, the Board reversed the order of subsections (b) and (c) for clarity.
Section 289.230. Radiation monitoring and response for noncaptive residual waste disposal impoundments.
A new § 289.230 has been added to this final-form rulemaking to address monitoring for and responding to radioactive materials in residual waste in noncaptive disposal impoundments. Subsection (a) requires the facility operator to implement the action plan approved under § 289.138 (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 Solid 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 and the presence of contamination on a vehicle that has caused an alarm are required by subsection (d). When radiation is detected at an impoundment 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 staff, and possible 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.
To ensure that the monitoring equipment continues to function properly, subsection (f) requires that it 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 (such as, 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 United States Department of Transportation exemption form issued by the 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).
Section 289.242. Cover
One commentator questioned the proposed performance standard that required the cap to limit the migration of precipitation into the disposal impoundment to the greatest degree technologically possible. The Board agrees and deleted the requirement. Instead, subsection (b) has been amended to require the cap to minimize the migration of precipitation into the landfill.
Section 289.263. Standards for wells and casing of wells.
The Board amended subsection (a) to allow for alternative well casing designs in stable formations, if approved by the Department. This provides some design flexibility based upon certain lithologic characteristics (stability and ''tightness'') of the formations under the site.
Section 289.264. Sampling and analysis.
The Board amended this section to change magnesium from an annual testing parameter to a quarterly parameter. This places magnesium among the more frequently measured metals which are effective early indicators of liner leakage or failure, and removes it from the generally more dissimilar metals included in the annual testing list.
Section 289.267. Abatement plan.
One commentator expressed a general concern that the groundwater abatement requirements do not fully parallel those provisions available in the Act 2. The Board declined to change the abatement language from the proposed revisions. The residual waste abatement standards apply to operating facilities, which by design and practice are engineered to prevent contamination of groundwater. Conditions at the disposal impoundment are not static: waste continues to be received and the area of disposal may expand. More stringent standards than those available under Act 2 are needed to address the operational dynamics of such a waste management facility. This contrasts with an Act 2 site, typically an abandoned facility, not designed to properly contain waste or manage groundwater, where the property boundaries have been established for years. At final closure, when the dynamics of the operating disposal impoundment are static and the property boundaries established, Act 2 remediation standards and the point of compliance are available.
Section 289.301. Daily operational records.
Subsection (b)(7)(iv) 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 municipality 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 material in the future. The final disposition of the material is also required to be stated in the daily record. This will help the operator, the municipality and the Department know that the material will be properly disposed.
Subsection (b)(7)(v) has been added on final to require a disposal impoundment operator to identify vehicles that have arrived at the disposal impoundment over the maximum gross weight allowed on the roadways of this Commonwealth under section 4941 of the Vehicle Code. This requirement is designed to help reduce the number of overweight waste vehicles travelling 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.
Section 289.303. Annual operation report.
The Board amended subsection (b)(3) to delete the requirement to identify areas that are closed in the annual report because there is only one closure at the facility, that time at which the facility permanently ceases to accept waste. Instead, subsection (b)(3) has been amended to require the operator to describe the acreage used for disposal, areas revegetated, and a narrative describing the operator's progress in implementing its closure plan.
To provide a summary of the daily operational recordkeeping regarding radioactive waste, subsection (b)(10) was amended to require the annual report to include a record of detected radioactive materials at the disposal impoundment. 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.
Section 289.312. Closure.
The Board deleted the proposed requirement that requires acceptance of the operator's selection of the remediation standard because the decision may be impacted by other closure considerations.
Additional Requirements for Class I Residual Waste Disposal Impoundments Section 289.412. Liner system and leachate control plan.
Several changes were made to the final 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.
One commentator questioned why the proposed regulations 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 vary significantly during the manufacturing of liners and can change the performance of the liner.
Section 289.422. Areas where Class I residual waste disposal impoundments are prohibited.
Subsection (a)(4) was amended to indicate that the permittee, as opposed to the operator, must own the underlying coal. The Section also removes the ambiguity of the term ''minerals'' and instead apply the restrictions to ''coal,'' which is the mineral most likely to be mined. One commentator suggested that captive facilities should not be exempt from the requirements of this subsection because it is an intrusion on the mineral owner's property rights. The Board deleted the exemption for captive facilities in this subsection.
The Board has amended the isolation distance language in subsection (a)(7). Subsection (a)(7)(i) addresses operations at existing facilities. Under the final regulation, 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)(7)(ii) addresses expansions of noncaptive facilities where the facility was permitted before the effective date of this final-form rulemaking. Expansions of noncaptive disposal impoundments must be 900 feet from an occupied dwelling unless the owner provides a written waiver that meets the requirements of subparagraph (ii)(A), 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 pursuant to an option contract entered into prior to the effective date (subparagraph (ii)(B)). 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 (ii)(A).
New noncaptive disposal impoundments will be subject to the 900-foot isolation distance, unless they obtain a written waiver from the owner. 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)(7)(iv), access roads are subject to a 300-foot setback. While an increase in the setback to 900 feet from disposal impoundment 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.
A new subsection (a)(11)(iii) was added to ensure that areas permitted on or after the effective date of the regulations would not be an obstruction to air navigation under 14 CFR 77.23 (a)(5) (relating to standards for determining obstructions). This will offer greater protection against intrusion into an airport's flight paths.
One commentator had concerns with the clarity with subsection (a) (12) because it begins with ''if a school park or playground is nearby, the following apply:...'' The Board declined to make changes to the language in this subsection, because the introductory language merely indicates that if a school, park or playground is near the proposed waste impoundment site, the applicant or operator must check and make sure that the 300-yard isolation distance is met.
Section 289.432. 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 the level where groundwater occurs as a result of upward leakage from natural or other preexisting causes. The term ''upward'' was added to clarify the intent.
One commentator suggested that a minimum isolation distance between the liner and water table is unnecessary, as long as a drainage system is present to prevent contact between the two. The Board declined to adopt this suggestion, since field experience has shown that the 8-foot isolation distance has proven to be an effective buffer to account for fluctuations in regional groundwater levels.
Section 289.434. Secondary liner.
The Board changed the word ''lower'' to ''composite'' when describing the liner component made of earthen material in subsection (d) to be more descriptive and to be consistent with Appendix A, Table 1. One commentator suggested that the regulations only include BAT or performance standards for liner system design that will protect the groundwater. The Board declined to make changes to this section. The current regulations contain design and performance standards and allow the applicant or operator to make adjustment through the equivalency review process.
Section 289.435. Leachate detection zone.
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.
Section 289.436. Primary liner.
The Board changed the word ''lower'' to ''composite'' when describing the liner component made of earthen material in subsection (d) to be more descriptive and to be consistent with Appendix A, Table 1.
Two commentators suggested that the regulations only include BAT or performance standards for liner system design that will protect the groundwater. The Board declined to make changes to this section. The current regulations contain design and performance standards and allow the applicant or operator to make adjustments through the equivalency review process.
Section 289.438. Leachate collection system within protective cover.
The reference to ''noncarbonate'' stones aggregates has been deleted in subsection (b)(4) on final-form rulemaking. The performance standards in subsection (a) address this issue by requiring that the collection system be able to withstand chemical attack from the leachate and function without clogging.
Section 289.455. Leachate collection and storage.
The Board amended subsection (g) to apply the new requirements for the design of underground leachate pipes to areas permitted after the effective date of the 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 1992, has proven to be necessary to ensure sufficient storage during adverse weather conditions or unforeseen leachate handling problems.
Section 289.456. 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.
Subchapter E. Additional Requirements for Class II Residual Waste Disposal Impoundments Section 289.512. Liner system and leachate control plan.
Several changes were made to the final 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.
One commentator questioned why the proposed regulations require 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 vary significantly during the manufacturing of liners and can change the performance of the liner.
Section 289.522. Areas where Class II residual waste disposal impoundments are prohibited.
Subsection (a)(4) was amended to indicate that the permittee, as opposed to the operator, must own the underlying coal. The section also removes the ambiguity of the term ''minerals'' and instead apply the restrictions to ''coal,'' which is the mineral most likely to be mined. One commentator suggested that captive facilities should not be exempt from the requirements of this subsection because it is an intrusion on the mineral owner's property rights. The Board deleted the exemption for captive facilities in this subsection.
The Board has amended the isolation distance language in subsection (a)(7). Subsection (a)(7)(i) 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)(7)(ii) addresses expansions of noncaptive facilities where the facility was permitted before the effective date of this final rulemaking. Expansions of noncaptive disposal impoundments must be 900 feet from an occupied dwelling unless the owner provides a written waiver that meets the requirements of subparagraph (ii)(A), 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 pursuant to an option contract entered into prior to the effective date (subparagraph (ii)(B)). 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 (ii)(A).
New noncaptive disposal impoundments will be subject to the 900-foot isolation distance, unless they obtain a written waiver from the owner. 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)(7)(iv), access roads are subject to a 300-foot setback. While an increase in the setback to 900 feet from disposal impoundment 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.
A new subsection (a)(11)(iii) was added to ensure that areas permitted on or after the effective date of the regulations would not be an obstruction to air navigation under 14 CFR 77.23 (a)(5) (relating to standards for determining obstructions). This will offer greater protection against intrusion into an airport's flight paths.
Section 289.532. General limitations.
The Board amended subsection (c) to clarify that in confined layers at least eight (8) feet shall be maintained between the bottom of the liner system and the level where groundwater occurs as a result of upward leakage from natural or other preexisting causes. The term ''upward'' was added to clarify the intent.
One commentator suggested that a minimum isolation distance between the liner and water table is unnecessary, as long as a drainage system is present to prevent contact between the two. The Board declined to adopt this suggestion, since field experience has shown that the 8 foot isolation distance has proven to be an effective buffer to account for fluctuations in regional groundwater levels.
[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.
