United States
 Environments
 Agency
                               EPA/600/R-14/335| September 2014 | www.epa.gov/ord
'otection
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor
Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule


                                          '"

Office of Research and Development

-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]

-------
                                                EPA/600/R-14/335
Permitting  of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
         Ten Years after the RD&D Rule
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Office of Research and Development
                National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
                     Waste Management Branch
                         Cincinnati Ohio

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule                                               EPA/600/R-14/335
                                           Notice

This research was funded by the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development (ORD) under the
Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program. This report was prepared by Geosyntec
Consultants of Columbia, Maryland under subcontract to RTI International of Research Triangle, North
Carolina. Work was performed in accordance with the Performance Work Statement issued by ORD
under Task Order #11 of EPA Contract EP-C-11-036.

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335

                                          Foreword

The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, US EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems.  NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.

This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by US EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.

                                                                  Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
                                                   National Risk Management Research Laboratory

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335

                                     Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms	v
Executive Summary	1
1.  Introduction	3
    1.1    Overview and Terms of Reference	3
    1.2    Definitions	3
    1.3    Objectives	4
    1.4    Data Collection and Analysis	4
          1.4.1     Sources of Secondary Data	4
          1.4.2     Data Validation and Analysis	5
2.  Technical and Regulatory Background	6
    2.1    Overview of Bioreactor Technology	6
          2.1.1     Bioreactor Benefits	7
          2.1.2     Potential Challenges of Bioreactor Operation	7
    2.2    Summary of Current Bioreactor Regulations	8
          2.2.1     The Rule in the Context of RCRA Subtitle D (40CFR Part 258)	8
          2.2.2    NESHAP for MSW Landfills (40CFR Part 63 Subpart AAAA)	9
    2.3    Precursors to the Rule	9
          2.3.1     Project XL	9
          2.3.2     Outer Loop Landfill, Kentucky	10
          2.3.3     Florida Bioreactor Demonstration Project	12
    2.4    Seminal Publications	13
          2.4.1     State of the Practice Reviews	13
          2.4.2     Textbooks and Guidance Documents	13
    2.5    Fundamentals of Bioreactor Design and Operation	14
          2.5.1     Slope Stability Analysis	14
          2.5.2     Design of Liquids Application Systems	15
          2.5.3     Landfill Gas Collection System Design	15
          2.5.4     Performance Monitoring	16
    2.6    Bioreactors and Climate Change	17

3.  Status of Rule Adoption by States	19
    3.1    Historical Context	19
    3.2    Current Situation	20
          3.2.1     States that Have Adopted the Rule	20
          3.2.2     States in the Process of Rule Adoption	21
          3.2.3     States that Have Not Adopted the Rule	23
4.  Challenges faced by States in Adopting the Rule	25
5.  Status of Bioreactor Projects in the U.S	28
    5.1    Number of Active Bioreactor Projects	28
    5.2    Number of Projects Currently Permitted underthe Rule	28
6.  Documentation for Permitting underthe Rule	31
    6.1    Overview	31
    6.2    Bioreactor Design Report	31
    6.3    Bioreactor Operating Plan	32
    6.4    Bioreactor Monitoring Plan	33
    6.5    Annual Report	34
7.  Summary and Conclusions	36
                                              in

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335

    7.1    Status of Rule Adoption by States	36
    7.2    Regulatory Challenges for Rule Adoption	36
    7.3    Number of Projects Permitted under the Rule	37
    7.4    Conclusions and Recommendations	37

8.  References	39
                                       List of Figures
Figure 3-1. Historical bioreactor permitting mechanisms and status reported by Gardner (2006)
       and states with active or previous bioreactor projects (as of 2009)	19
Figure 3-2. States approved by EPA to issue RD&D permits	21
Figure 3-3. States in the process of Rule adoption	22
Figure 3-4. States that have not adopted the Rule	24
                                        List of Tables
Table 5-1. Summary of bioreactor projects currently permitted under the Rule	29
Table 7-1. Summary of current status of Rule adoption	36
                                     List of Appendices
Appendix I. Procedures for state modifications to incorporate the Rule
Appendix II. Summary of specific state regulatory codes relating to RD&D permits
                                              IV

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule
                                                    EPA/600/R-14/335
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ANPR
ASTSWMO
CRADA
EGC
EPA
FBDP
Florida DEP
GHG
HFCs
ITRC
Kentucky DEP
LandGEM
L
LCS
LFG
MACT
Mg
MSW
NESHAP
NRMRL
NSPS
NSWMA
OLL
ORD
PCC
Project XL
QAPP
RCRA
RD&D
Rule
SWANA
TCEQ
Virginia DEQ
Wisconsin DNR
WM
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (U.S. EPA)
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (U.S. EPA)
exposed geomembrane cap
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Florida Bioreactor Demonstration Project
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
greenhouse gas
hydrofluorocarbons
Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
Landfill Gas Emissions Model
liter
leachate collection system
landfill gas
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
megagram (106 g)
municipal solid waste
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (U.S. EPA)
New Source Performance Standards
National Solid Waste Management Association
Outer Loop Landfill, Kentucky
Office of Research and Development (U.S. EPA)
post-closure care
Project excellence in Leadership Pilot Program (U.S. EPA)
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Research, development, and demonstration
U.S. EPA RD&D Rule
Solid Waste Association of North America
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Waste Management, Inc.

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335


Executive Summary

Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in the United States have conventionally been designed and
operated under the containment principles described in Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Disposal of bulk free liquids is thus not permitted and low permeability final
cover systems are required. This minimizes leachate and landfill gas (LFG) production and reduces the
risk of groundwater and atmospheric pollution. Although it was known at the time that enhanced waste
degradation can be effectively achieved by stimulating microbial activity through the controlled addition
of moisture to the waste, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considered that insufficient
information was available to allow full-scale addition of outside liquids to MSW landfills to be permitted
under the regulations. Concerns about the 'bathtub' effect (i.e., buildup of hydrostatic head on the liner
due to the  rates of infiltration and liquids addition outpacing leachate removal) also contributed to Subtitle
D being focused on containment.

Since promulgation of Subtitle D in 1991, a growing number of landfill sites have practiced leachate
recirculation as well as addition of bulk free liquids, generally under ad hoc state-level research and
development programs (e.g., the Florida Bioreactor Demonstration Project) or site-specific permitting
mechanisms administered in association with EPA (e.g., Project XL). The main premise behind
bioreactor landfills is the controlled introduction of moisture into the solid waste mass to increase the
waste degradation rate.  This has a number of associated benefits, notably acceleration of short-term LFG
generation, which increases opportunities for economically viable and beneficial utilization of methane in
renewable energy options.  Promotion of renewable energy options and control of greenhouse gases such
as methane are keystones of EPA's Climate Action Plan. Bioreactor operations require increased levels
of engineering design, operational control, and monitoring to safely achieve the benefits of accelerated
LFG generation and meet EPA's goals for responsible waste management and climate change mitigation.

To formally promote innovative landfill technologies, including adoption of alternative cover systems and
bioreactor technology, the EPA published the Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D)
Permit Rule (the Rule) on 22 March 2004.  The Rule allows Subtitle D landfills a variance option for
adding bulk free liquids if a demonstration can be made that such a variance will not increase risk to
human health and the environment relative to standard permit conditions for the landfill.  RD&D permits
can only be issued by the jurisdictional solid waste authority in approved states or on tribal lands as a site-
specific federal rulemaking by the EPA (i.e., the Rule is not self-implementing and states  are required to
adopt the Rule and obtain EPA approval for their RD&D program in order to issue a RD&D permit).
Although it is not required that states take this step (i.e., states may waive  the option to issue RD&D
permits), any state that does choose to adopt the Rule and issue RD&D permits must seek formal
approval from EPA to do so. Additionally, states that had their own RD&D-like provisions in place at the
time that EPA published the Rule are required to revise their regulations to address and be consistent with
the Rule.

Ten years  after promulgation of the Rule, this report describes the current status of Rule adoption and
investigates issuance of RD&D permits at the state level. Major challenges and hurdles for adoption of
the Rule are also identified, both in adoptive and non-adoptive states. For this report, the  status of Rule
adoption by a given state was established based on whether an announcement of such appeared in the
Federal  Register.  Based on this criterion, by March 2009 (i.e., five years after Rule promulgation) only
nine states had adopted the Rule and been approved by EPA or had applied for EPA approval. An RD&D
permit was also approved for the Salt River Landfill on Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian  Community
land within Arizona.  Five years later in March 2014, a total of 16 states had adopted the Rule and had
received approval from EPA to issue RD&D permits.  The most recent adoptees of the Rule are
Massachusetts and Oregon in January and April 2013, respectively.

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335

One state (New Mexico) reported being approved, but formal confirmation of this was not found in the
Federal Register.  An explanation given by a state employee was that their adoption of the Rule was
included in a package of new regulations submitted for approval by EPA and thus may not have appeared
in a stand-alone announcement. In any case, no RD&D permitted projects currently exist in New Mexico.
Six further states reported having adopted the Rule and applying for EPA approval, or being in the
application process as of March 2014. However, this was independently confirmed by announcement in
the Federal Register for only one state (Arizona).

As of March 2014, 27 states had not adopted the Rule, including 11 states with their own provisions for
issuing exceptional permits that do not specifically match the EPA's RD&D requirements or reference the
Rule. In this regard, it is noted that some states have interpreted the Subtitle D regulations to prohibit
only the addition of bulk liquid wastes and  not all liquid amendments to landfills.  Therefore, some states
permit landfills to operate as de facto bioreactors under state-specific beneficial use legislation. For
example, Washington reportedly allows landfills to augment leachate recirculation with addition of clean
water such as stormwater or groundwater.  Further, three states (Maryland,  South Carolina, and Texas)
believe that they are legally entitled to issue RD&D permits without the need to specifically adopt or
reference the Rule.

Prior to promulgation of the Rule, there  were approximately 20 full-scale bioreactor projects in North
America, including one in Canada.  Of these, six were permitted by EPA (four Project XL sites and two
projects listed separately under a cooperative research agreement at the Outer Loop Landfill in
Kentucky).  In March 2014, there were about 40 bioreactor projects reported, including 30 active RD&D
projects in 11 approved states and one project on tribal lands. Wisconsin features the largest number of
projects at 13, due primarily to the fact that landfill owners in the state must either eliminate landfill
disposal of biodegradable materials or achieve the complete stabilization of deposited organic waste at
MSW landfills within 40 years after closure. Most landfill operators have selected a bioreactor approach
to attempt to achieve the latter goal.

In summary, only 16 of 50 states (32%) have currently adopted the Rule, with a further seven (14%)
reportedly in the process of Rule adoption,  meaning that development of RD&D permitting procedures
that are consistent with EPA's requirements has not occurred in the majority of states. The predominant
single reason cited for not adopting the Rule was lack of interest amongst landfill facilities in the state.
Subtitle D and its  state derivatives already allow leachate recirculation over prescriptive (i.e., minimum
technology) liner systems, which is often the primary goal  of site operators seeking to control leachate
treatment costs. From a site owner/operator's perspective, therefore, the extra RD&D permitting needs,
costs for operation, and data collection and annual reporting are a deterrent given insignificant market
pressure or other economic incentives for accepting bulk commercial liquids.

Few technical concerns over site stability, environmental protection, or public safety were raised as issues
against Rule adoption, which is a positive finding. Some frustration was expressed over the long lag time
in the approval process following Rule adoption by states,  but this generally appears misplaced.
Although three states did wait over a year for approval, the average waiting time was only seven months,
with four states waiting three months or less. In this regard, it is also noted that delays are common in
almost all new permitting processes: applications based on familiar designs are easily approved while
those based  on innovative, complex designs are slowed by the unfamiliarity of permit reviewers. This
works against innovation, as recognized by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC),
which is why ITRC, with the support of EPA, prepares guidance documents to assist permit reviewers
deal with new technologies. Other reasons cited related to concerns over increased costs and the
complexity of the permitting procedure for both state personnel and individual applicant sites. This again
seems unwarranted as EPA has developed guidance to aid  development of RD&D procedures. However,
many states  seemed unaware that this guidance and support was available.

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
1.      Introduction

1.1     Overview and Terms of Reference

There are a growing number of landfill sites in the United States that are operating as bioreactors.  The
main premise behind bioreactor landfills is the introduction of moisture into the solid waste mass to
increase the solid waste degradation rate. This has a number of associated benefits (Section 2.1.1), albeit
at increased levels of operational monitoring and control (Section 2.1.2).

Municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in the United States have conventionally been operated with the
objective of minimizing the amount of moisture entering and retained in the waste. This landfill
management approach hinders biological activity and leachate and landfill gas (LFG) production, which
reduces the risk of groundwater and atmospheric pollution following the containment principles described
in Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Federal Register, 1991). The
Subtitle D regulations codified under 40CFR Part 258 thus restrict disposal of bulk free liquids in MSW
landfills and require low permeability final  cover systems. To promote innovative landfill technologies,
including adoption of alternative cover systems and bioreactor technology, on 22 March 2004 the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Research, Development, and Demonstration
(RD&D) Permit Rule (the Rule) (Federal Register, 2004). The intent of the Rule is to further encourage
innovative approaches within RCRA.  Of interest to this report, the Rule allows Subtitle D landfills a
variance option for adding bulk free liquids at a MSW landfill if a demonstration can be made that such a
variance will not increase risk to human health and the environment relative to standard permit conditions
for the landfill.  RD&D permits can only be issued by the jurisdictional solid waste authority in approved
states or on tribal lands as a site-specific federal rulemaking  by the EPA (i.e., the Rule is not self-
implementing and states are required to adopt the Rule and obtain EPA approval for their RD&D program
in order to issue a RD&D permit).

1.2     Definitions

Research and practice have resulted in several different definitions of bioreactors.  A broad inclusive
definition encompassing this philosophy has been proposed by the Solid Waste Association of North
America as (SWANA, 2003):

    "Any permitted Subtitle D landfill or landfill cell where  liquid or air is injected in a controlled
   fashion into the waste mass in order to  accelerate or enhance biostabilization  of waste ".

Building on such definitions, the general terms "wet," "leachate recirculation," or "bioreactor" are often
used rather interchangeably in technical and popular literature to describe any landfill operated under
conditions of elevated in-situ moisture content.  Certainly, recirculating the leachate generated from a
landfill is a primary and fundamental attribute of all bioreactor operations. However, not all leachate
recirculation facilities can be described as bioreactors, particularly as this practice  is often employed for
cost-effective onsite leachate management rather than with the intention of enhanced biodegradation.
Similarly, wet landfills include  several pre-Subtitle D units with soil covers in humid regions. A notable
example is the Delaware Solid Waste  Authority's Area A/B  at the Central Solid Waste Management
Center in Sandtown, Delaware, which was operated from 1980-1988. Very high rates of waste
stabilization that meet many bioreactor objectives have occurred at this unit, although the most significant
source of water for in-situ biodegradation was infiltration through the soil cover rather than leachate
recirculation (Morris et al., 2003).

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
Given the focus of this report, which is the extent of bioreactor permitting under the Rule, leachate
recirculation sites operated fully within Subtitle D and other wet landfills are excluded as these would not
require an RD&D permit. In this report, the term bioreactor is thus used to refer only to MSW landfills at
which the addition of bulk free liquids is permitted in addition to recirculation of leachate and LFG
condensate with the primary goal of enhancing anaerobic waste degradation. Bulk free liquids may be
from offsite sources as well as onsite sources such as stormwater. This definition is in keeping with
EPA's original definition of bioreactors (cit. in ITRC, 2006) as:

    "Landfills where controlled addition of non-hazardous liquid wastes or water accelerates the
    decomposition of waste and landfill gas generation "

However, it should be noted this definition is deliberately more inclusive than EPA's stricter definition of
a bioreactor in 40CFR Part 63 Subpart AAAA in the context of the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for MSW landfills (Federal Register, 2003), which specifies that a
bioreactor is "a MSW landfill or portion of a MSW landfill where any liquid other than leachate  [and
LFG condensate] is  added in a controlled fashion into the waste mass.. .to reach a minimum average
moisture content of at least 40 percent by weight..."

1.3     Objectives

RD&D permits can  only be issued by the jurisdictional solid waste authority in each state or on tribal
lands as a site-specific rulemaking by the EPA.  States are required to adopt the Rule before being
approved by EPA to issue RD&D permits, including states that had their own RD&D-like provisions in
place at the time that EPA published the Rule.

The primary purpose of this report is to describe the current status of Rule adoption and issuance of
RD&D permits at the state level. Specifically, the following objectives are addressed:

    •   Ascertain which states have and have not adopted the Rule;

    •   Identify major challenges and hurdles for adoption of the Rule, both in adoptive and non-adoptive
        states;

    •   Estimate the number of permitted bioreactor projects in states that have adopted the Rule; and

    •   Outline the  structure and contents of permit application documentation and operation and
        monitoring plans developed for projects successfully permitted in states that have adopted the
        Rule.
It is anticipated that by understanding the main challenges experienced by states in adopting of the Rule,
EPA may incorporate lessons learned in future plans to modify or extend the Rule.

1.4     Data Collection and Analysis

1.4.1    Sources of Secondary Data
Published articles in peer-review journals as well as white papers and reports issued by federal and state
agencies were considered of paramount value as secondary data sources for this report. Project summary
reports by university faculty research teams and theses or dissertations prepared by graduate students
were also highly valued.  To provide the broadest possible coverage of secondary data sources (e.g.,
databases, conference papers and presentations, manuals, white papers, position statements, surveys, and
reports) within the scope and timeframe available, web searches of the following were also conducted:
                                                4

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
    •   Selected federal and state government agencies;

    •   Industry organizations and professional societies such as the Solid Waste Association of North
        America (SWANA) and National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA);

    •   Regulatory associations such as the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
        Officials (ASTSWMO) and Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC);

    •   Industry and trade magazines such as MSW Management, Waste Management World, Waste
        360, and Waste Business Journal;

    •   State and local popular press; and

    •   Private and public solid waste management operators.

Discussions with regulators, landfill operators,  consultants, and industry associations were conducted
where possible to obtain more details regarding information from secondary sources. This involved
communication with personnel at state environmental agencies with regulatory oversight responsibilities
for solid waste permitting.

1.4.2    Data Validation and Analysis

Collection and review of secondary data from published sources and interviews was performed in
accordance with the quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for development of this report. The QAPP
was developed by RTI International according to guidance provided in the EPA's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) adhering to quality assurance requirements for secondary
data projects (U.S. EPA, 2008).  The QAPP was approved by EPA prior to the initiation of data gathering.
Given that a secondary data project involves the examination of existing environmental data for purposes
other than those for which they were originally collected, the primary focus of the QAPP was to ensure
that the environmental and related data compiled for reference or use on this project are complete,
accurate, and of the type, quantity,  and quality required for their intended use.

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
2.      Technical  and Regulatory Background

2.1     Overview of Bioreactor Technology

Experience has shown that enhanced waste degradation can be effectively achieved by stimulating
microbial activity through the controlled addition of moisture to the waste via leachate recirculation and
addition of supplemental liquids (Reinhart et al., 2002). Although this was known at the time of
promulgation of Subtitle D based on the results of laboratory and pilot-scale simulations (e.g., Pohland,
1975a; Ham & Barlaz,  1987), EPA considered that insufficient information was available to allow full-
scale addition of outside liquids to MSW landfills to be permitted under the regulations (Federal Register,
1991). Concerns about the 'bathtub' effect (i.e., buildup of hydrostatic head on the liner due to the  rates
of infiltration and liquids addition outpacing leachate  removal) also contributed to Subtitle D being
focused on design and operation of landfills with the explicit objective of minimizing the amount of
moisture entering and retained in the waste (U.S. EPA,  1993). As a result, conventional Subtitle D
landfills are commonly  termed "dry tomb" landfills. However, Since the 1990s, a growing number of
landfill sites in the United States have practiced leachate recirculation as well as addition of bulk free
liquids (SWANA, 2009).

Detailed description of  bioreactor design and operation is beyond the scope of this report.  In brief,  there
are generally three types of bioreactor landfill operations (ITRC, 2006; SWANA, 2009):

    •    Anaerobic bioreactor: Only moisture is added to the waste mass, which maintains an oxygen
        depleted environment.  Elevated moisture conditions encourage microbial decomposition of
        waste, leading to enhanced methane generation.

    •    Aerobic bioreactor: Air and liquids are simultaneously injected into the waste mass to promote
        rapid aerobic microbial activity and accelerate waste decomposition.  In a process similar to
        composting, this generates significant heat as well as carbon dioxide and water vapor.

    •    Hybrid bioreactor: Both anaerobic and aerobic methods are employed sequentially, aerating waste
        in the upper portion of the landfill to enhance degradation while collecting LFG from the lower
        portion. Hybrid bioreactor landfills generate  methane earlier than strictly anaerobic bioreactor
        landfills, and thus require earlier installation and operation of gas collection systems.

Anaerobic bioreactors are predominant and thus of most interest to this report.  In all cases, leachate is
removed from the bottom of the waste and re-injected into the landfill at a higher elevation in a controlled
manner, often supplemented by the addition of uncontaminated water, wastewater sludge, or other non-
hazardous liquids to enhance microbial decomposition.

Bioreactor designs can be implemented "as-built" (i.e., designed from the initial landfill planning process
to be bioreactors, giving the advantage  of construction and  operation while waste is actively deposited) or
"retrofit" (i.e., built as traditional MSW landfills, with bioreactor technology implemented once the
landfill nears or reaches capacity). As-built designs allow for airspace recovery while the landfill is still
active and afford more options for liquid application methods and infrastructure.

In the U.S., Waste Management, Inc. (WM) and Veolia have the most operational experience with full-
scale bioreactors. Hater (2007) lists 15  active or former bioreactor sites operated by WM, while  a survey
by SWANA (2009) reported that Veolia operated seven active bioreactors, although sale of the company
in 2012 may have affected these operations. WM has used several different methods and has
experimented with full-scale leachate, liquid sludge, and outside commercial liquids addition using

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
various techniques for application to the working face or surface of landfills, in horizontal and vertical
trenches, to infiltration blankets or galleries, and bermed surface infiltration galleries (Hater, 2005).
Horizontal and vertical wells performed least favorably in WM's experience, with primary issues being
related to their short service lives and high failure rate. For example, Hater (2007) reported that 30
percent of horizontal wells become watered out and unusable each year.  Spraying leachate at the working
face has generally been found to be the most effective method of evenly distributing leachate into the
waste mass (Mandeville, 2006). This method now serves as the "method of choice" for many bioreactor
operators, including WM.

2.1.1     Bioreactor Benefits
Pioneering work on the benefits of anaerobic bioreactor technology and leachate recirculation was
initiated in the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s by research teams at the University of Wisconsin, Madison
(e.g., Ham & Bookter, 1982; Barlaz et al., 1987) and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta (e.g.,
Pohland, 1975b; Pohland & Harper, 1986). Since then, several studies have been conducted to assess the
effect of waste moisture content on the rate of waste degradation  and stabilization, LFG generation, and
leachate quality (e.g., Barlaz et al.,  1992; Miller and Emge 1997;  Norstrom et al., 2001; Mehta et al.,
2002; Sponza and Agdag, 2004; Bareither et al., 2012).  Promoting in-situ degradation through liquid
addition to landfills offers the following primary benefits (Reinhart and Townsend, 1998; Sullivan and
Stege, 2000; Haskell and Cochrane, 2001; Barlaz et al., 2002; Reinhart et al., 2005a; Berge et al., 2009):

    •  Acceleration of LFG generation, thereby increasing opportunities for economically viable and
       beneficial energy utilization options,  increasing the period over which capture of LFG (i.e.,
       control of greenhouse gas and other air emissions) is technically and economically feasible, and
       more rapid exhaustion of long-term LFG generation potential, potentially limiting the post-
       closure period required for LFG control;

    •  Elimination/minimization of leachate treatment and offsite disposal, thereby reducing the load on
       public wastewater treatment facilities;

    •  More rapid reduction in concentrations of many leachate  constituents of concern, potentially
       limiting the post-closure period required for leachate control; and

    •  An increase in the rate of landfill settlement and airspace reclamation, thereby promoting efficient
       utilization of permitted landfill capacity.
Reducing the impact potential of leachate and LFG emissions after closure  of the landfill is likely to offer
many long-term benefits, including reductions in the scope, duration, and costs of post-closure  care (PCC)
and enhanced opportunities for beneficial reuse of the landfill property (Morris and Barlaz, 2011).

2.1.2     Potential Challenges  of Bioreactor Operation
Key to the ability to implement bioreactor operations are availability of liquids, a significant limiting
factor where insufficient onsite sources are available.  Thereafter, beyond the administrative  complexities,
uncertainties, and potential confusion over regulations to permit bioreactors investigated for this report, a
number of potential challenges are associated with use of the technology. These include (ITRC, 2006;
SWANA, 2009):

    •  Increased engineering design requirements and more complex construction;

    •  Higher capital costs and increased operating and monitoring obligations and costs;

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
    •  Higher levels of oversight and operator skill due to increased complexity of conducting day-to-
       day operations;

    •  Issues  with temperature control, particularly in aerobic bioreactors;

    •  Geotechnical stability issues and lateral leachate seeps; and

    •  Increased LFG collection and control obligation and challenges, particularly with regard to
       control of odors and fugitive methane emissions from accelerated onset of gas production.
Of primary technical concern is that buildup of saturated conditions and rapid waste settlement as a
consequence of accelerated waste decomposition could compromise the structural stability of the waste
mass if not accounted for and managed properly (Bachus et al., 2004).  In addition,  moisture addition may
contribute to the physical instability of the waste, which could result in localized side slope failures and
damage to LFG collection wells and pipes or the liquid delivery system.

2.2    Summary of Current Bioreactor Regulations
2.2.1    The Rule in the Context  of  RCRA Subtitle D (40CFR Part 258)

As introduced  previously, the EPA published the Rule in 2004 to promote innovative landfill technologies
in the U.S. In proposing the Rule in 2002, the preamble  in the Federal Register notes EPA's desire "to
allow permits for alternative design and operating requirements because EPA has become aware of new
or improved technologies for landfill operations and design since promulgation of the criteria for Subtitle
D in 1991. These include: (1) improvements in liner system design and materials; (2) improvements in
the design of, and materials used in leachate drainage and recirculation systems; (3) new processes for
more rapid degradation of waste which require the addition of water; (4) new liquid distribution
techniques...; and (5) improvements in various monitoring devices... As a result, the approved States
would have flexibility in allowing the operation of new and innovative technologies in permitting the
landfilling of municipal solid waste. The State and the owner/operator must assure there is no increased
risk to human health and the environment when instituting any of the new techniques or processes which
would be allowed. . ."

The liquids addition provision of the Rule, which is codified under 40CFR § 258.4,  is the basis of
allowing bioreactor landfills. Without this provision, 40CFR § 258.28 limits liquids placed in MSW
landfills to LFG condensate and leachate derived from the same landfill unit. The Rule thus allows
landfills to apply for a variance under a RD&D permit; however, the landfill owner/operator must, at a
minimum:

    •  Demonstrate compliance with groundwater protection requirements;

    •  Implement LFG collection and control sooner than currently required under EPA's New Source
       Performance Standards (NSPS) (Federal Register, 1996);

    •  Have a LCS capable of limiting head on liner to  less than 30 cm, even under conditions of
       elevated moisture content encouraged by liquids addition; and

    •  Address the risk of geotechnical instability that liquids addition may encourage.

RD&D permits can only be issued by the jurisdictional solid waste authority in each state or on tribal
lands as a site-specific rulemaking by the  EPA. States are required to adopt the Rule before being
approved by EPA to issue RD&D permits. RD&D permits are issued for three years, each with the
option for three renewals allowing a total  of 12 permitted years of operation. Further details regarding

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
final provisions of the Rule, major issues raised in comments and responses, and supplementary
information regarding the process of Rule implementation at the state and tribal level can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/mswlficr/rdd-pre.pdf.

2.2.2    NESHAP for MSW Landfills (40CFR Part 63 Subpart AAAA)
In 2003, EPA issued its final rule on National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for MSW landfills, which define bioreactors as MSW landfills that utilize liquids other than
leachate and gas condensate to achieve an average moisture content of more than 40 percent on a wet
weight basis. Under the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations, landfills
defined as bioreactors under NESHAP with a total disposal capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 x 106 Mg
are required to include a system to actively collect and control LFG that will commence operation within
180 days after liquids addition or after the average landfill moisture content reaches 40 percent,
whichever occurs later (Federal Register, 2003).

It is noted that as part of the President's Climate Action Plan (see Section 2.6) and strategy to reduce
GHG emissions, EPA is updating air standards for landfills. On 30 June 2014, EPA issued an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking broad public input on whether and how to update
current emissions guidelines for existing MSW landfills to further reduce their emissions, including
methane. Alternative thresholds and timelines will be considered for conventional and wet landfills,
including for bioreactor landfills applying outside liquids. Further details on the scope of the ANPR are
available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/landfill/landflpg.html.

2.3    Precursors to the Rule

In publishing the Rule in 2004, the EPA was able to draw on experience  gained from permitting
approaches employed at a number of bioreactor demonstration projects.  The most important of these,
which allowed as-built and retroactive implementation of leachate recirculation and bioreactor technology
at full-scale operating landfill  sites in the U.S., are outlined in this section.
2.3.1    Project XL
EPA's Project XL (excellence in Leadership) was established in 1995 as a national-level pilot program
allowing limited regulatory flexibility for businesses, state and local governments, and federal facilities
for research and development  initiatives contributing to superior environmental performance and public
health protection.  The information and lessons learned from Project XL  were intended to assist EPA in
redesigning its regulatory and  policy-setting approaches. For the case  of MSW landfills, Project XL
allowed for leachate, as well as other industrial liquids, to be added to  Subtitle D landfills that do not meet
the composite liner criterion. In turn, the designers of the Project XL landfill bioreactors hoped that the
leachate recirculation/LFG recovery requirements would enhance groundwater protection and provide for
additional capacity to accommodate more waste at individual landfills, thus extending the life  of existing
landfill cells.

Unfortunately, because  of difficulty in obtaining a Project XL landfill bioreactor permit, only four landfill
pilot projects were approved to operate as pilot bioreactor projects before EPA ceased accepting Project
XL proposals in 2003. The four landfills permitted under this effort were:

    •  Buncombe County Landfill, North Carolina: In this permit, Buncombe County General Services
       Department primarily  sought regulatory flexibility to recirculate  leachate over MSW landfill units
       constructed with an alternative liner system to the prescriptive Subtitle D liner.

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
    •  Maplewood Landfill. Virginia: Similar to Buncombe County, the landfill operator WM primarily
       sought regulatory flexibility in this permit to recirculate leachate over MSW landfill units
       constructed with an alternative liner system.

    •  King George County Landfill Virginia: Under this permit, WM requested flexibility from the
       requirement under 40CFR §258.28 prohibiting application of outside bulk liquids in MSW
       landfills. An important research goal was to compare the performance of the King George
       County and Maplewood Landfills in order to examine the costs and benefits associated with
       operating a leachate recirculation system versus a bioreactor system.

    •  Yolo County Bioreactor Landfill. California: Yolo County requested to operate a controlled
       bioreactor landfill over part of their landfill and sought regulatory flexibility from the requirement
       under 40CFR §258.28 prohibiting application of outside bulk liquids and flexibility on other
       restrictions regarding landfill cover and containment. Yolo County also requested flexibility in
       state regulatory requirements for bottom linings based on project performance.
Further details on the specific goals and technical approach employed for each program can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/bioreactors.htmtfxl. It should be noted here for
completeness that, as reported in the second interim report for the Outer Loop Landfill (U.S. EPA, 2006),
a fifth Project XL agreement was signed in December 2000 for a bioreactor demonstration project at the
Millersville Landfill operated by Anne Arundel County, Maryland. However, this agreement was not
fully executed and a bioreactor project was never initiated at the site.

Permitting under the Project XL program was reported to be complex and time-consuming. For example,
the two Virginia landfills required a state-specific RD&D permit under the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality's (DEQ's) solid waste regulations in parallel with the federal Project XL permit
issued in 2002, with permit renewal required every three years (Mandeville et al., 2005).

To date, all Project XL programs have been terminated. Bioreactor operations at King George Landfill
have been fully suspended.  Since 2011 leachate recirculation at Maplewood has been permitted solely
under a RD&D permit issued by Virginia DEQ. Similarly, the Yolo County Landfill remains an active
bioreactor under a California RD&D permit. Leachate recirculation continues at the Buncombe County
Landfill under a state permit, although North Carolina has not adopted the Rule.

2.3.2    Outer Loop Landfill, Kentucky
EPA's  Office of Research and Development collaborated in research to evaluate innovative bioreactor
technologies at the  Outer Loop Landfill (OLL) in Louisville, Kentucky under a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRADA) Number 0189-00 with WM between 2001 and 2010. The primary
purpose of this multi-year joint research effort was to collect sufficient information to  ascertain the best
operating practices to promote the safe operation of bioreactor landfills. Six full-scale bioreactor cells
(both as-built and retrofit) were monitored in the study, each with varying design and operating features
including semi-aerobic (hybrid) bioreactors and facultative bioreactors, which use a technology that
involves  converting ammonia present  in the leachate to nitrate ex-situ and adding the nitrated  leachate
back into the landfill where it is used by facultative microorganisms.

A seminal reference document was developed at the mid-stage of this project:
                                               10

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
    *   Landfill Bioreactor Performance - Second Interim Report - Outer Loop Recycling and Disposal
        Facility, Louisville, Kentucky, EPA/600/R-07/060
        (http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r07060.html)

Since conclusion of the project, two peer-review journal papers have been published.

    •   Abichou, T., Barlaz, B.A., Green, R., Hater, G., 2013. The Outer Loop bioreactor: A case study
        of settlement monitoring and solids decomposition. Waste Management, 33, 2035-47.
        Synopsis: This paper reported on landfill settlement data from the OLL and compares settlement
        rates, strain, and modified compression indexes based on measurements from a conventional
        landfill control cell, as-built semi-aerobic bioreactor cell, and retrofit leachate recirculation cell.
        The objective was to summarize the results of settlement data and assess how these data relate to
        solids decomposition monitoring. The retrofit cell started to settle as soon as liquids were
        introduced.  The cumulative settlement during the eight years of monitoring varied from 60 to
        100 cm. These results suggest that liquid recirculation caused a 5-8% reduction in the thickness
        of the waste column.  The average long-term settlement in the as-built and control cells was about
        37% and 19%, respectively. The modified compression index was 0.17 for the control cell and
        0.2-0.48 for the as-built cell.  While the as-built cell exhibited greater settlement than the control,
        the data did not support biodegradation as the only explanation. The increased settlement in the
        as-built cell appeared to be associated with liquid movement and not with biodegradation because
        both chemical (biochemical methane potential) and physical (moisture content) indicators of
        decomposition were similar to the control. The solids data were consistent with the concept that
        bioreactor operations accelerate the rate of decomposition, but not necessarily the cumulative loss
        of anaerobically degradable solids.

    •   Abichou, T., Barlaz, B.A., Green, R., Hater, G., 2013. Liquid balance monitoring inside
        conventional, retrofit, and bioreactor landfill cells. Waste Management, 33, 2006-14.
        Synopsis: This paper reported on liquids  balance monitoring at OLL based on measurements of
        initial and interim moisture content of waste  samples, leachate and liquids addition and leachate
        removal, and estimated infiltration using the  HELP model.  This companion paper to the one
        above reported data from the same conventional landfill control cell, as-built semi-aerobic
        bioreactor cell, and retrofit leachate recirculation cell. During the monitoring period, the retrofit,
        control, and as-built cells received 48, 14, and 213 liters of liquids per metric ton of waste
        (L/Mg), respectively. The leachate collection system yielded 60, 57, and 198 L/Mg from each
        respective cell. The head on liner in all cells was below regulatory limits. In the control and as-
        built cells, leachate head on liner decreased once waste placement stopped.  The measured
        moisture content of the waste samples was consistent with that calculated from the estimate of
        accumulated liquid by the liquid balance.  Additionally, measurements on excavated solid waste
        samples revealed large spatial variability in waste moisture content.  The degree of saturation in
        the control cell decreased from 85% to 75%. The degree of saturation increased from 82% to
        83% due to liquids addition in the retrofit cell and decreased back to 80% once liquid addition
        ceased. In the as-built cell, the degree of saturation increased from 87% to 97% during filling
        activities and then started to decrease soon after filling activities ceased, rescinding to 92% by the
        end of the monitoring period. The measured leachate generation rates were  used to estimate the
        saturated hydraulic conductivity of in-place waste in the range of 10-8 to 10-7 m/s, which is
        lower than reported in previous bioreactor studies.  In the control and retrofit cells, the net loss in
        liquids, 43  and 12 L/Mg, respectively, was similar to the measured settlement of 15% and 5-8%
        strain, respectively, as reported in the paper above.  The increase in net liquid volume in the as-

                                               U

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
       built cell indicates that the 37% (average) measured settlement strain in these cells cannot be due
       to consolidation as the waste mass did not lose any moisture but rather suggests that settlement
       was attributable to lubrication of waste particle contacts, softening of flexible porous materials,
       and additional biological degradation.
2.3.3    Florida Bioreactor Demonstration Project

The Florida Bioreactor Demonstration Project (FBDP) at the New River Regional Landfill was supported
under a grant from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and operated between 1998
and 2008. The project featured vertical injection wells for both liquids and air injection, an exposed
geomembrane cap (EGC), gas collection from below the EGC and the LCS, moisture and temperature
instrumentation, and a segregated leachate collection system (Jain et al., 2005). The leachate
recirculation system was installed after the landfill was filled. The wells were installed as clusters of
three to assist in moisture distribution. Instrumentation allows the collection of in-situ measurements of
parameters such as leachate head on the liner, waste moisture content, waste load, gas composition, and
temperature of the waste. A full copy of the final report by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management, dated December 2008, as well as the following two seminal references emanating
from this project,  can be downloaded at http://www.bioreactorlandfill.org/publications.html.

    •   Bioreactor landfill operation: A guide for development, implementation and monitoring, version
       1.0, prepared by T. Townsend, D. Kumar and J. Ko for the Hinkley Center for Solid and
       Hazardous Waste Management, Gainesville, FL, dated July 2008.
       Synopsis: One of the specific project objectives for the FBDP was to develop standardized design
       and operation procedures for bioreactor technology. This document was produced to help meet
       this objective by providing information useful for landfill operators considering implementing
       bioreactor technology as well as those operating bioreactor landfills. However, this document
       was not specifically intended as a design resource. While regulations are mentioned, users are
       advised to consult appropriately regulatory agencies.

    •   Bioreactor landfill moisture management, prepared by D.R. Reinhart, T. Townsend, N. Gawande,
       P. Jain,  P. Thomas and C. Ziess for the Urban Waste Management and Research Center,
       University of New Orleans, LA, dated July 2004.
       Synopsis: The presence and movement of moisture in landfilled solid waste play a major role in
       the rate of landfill stabilization. Instruments that can monitor the in situ moisture content of
       landfilled waste would be of great benefit to landfill operators, especially those at bioreactors.
       Two potential technologies were  examined in this research: resistance based and time domain
       reflectometry (TDR) sensors. 135 resistance-based sensors and 12 TDR sensors were installed in
       a leachate recirculation well  field at the FBDP.  The resistance-based sensors were found to
       respond to an increase in moisture resulting from leachate recirculation. The initial spatial
       average moisture content determined by the sensor readings (using a laboratory-derived
       calibration) was 42% compared to 23% from gravimetric readings. This was attributed to the
       greater  leachate conductivity values encountered in the landfill compared to that used in the
       calibration, inability of the MTG  sensor to detect moisture contents below -35%, and the
       potential for the sensors to intercept leachate flow from preferential paths.  The TDR sensors
       were also found to respond to leachate recirculation.  The moisture contents from the TDR
       sensors (obtained using laboratory-derived calibration) were compared to the moisture contents
       from the resistance-based sensors. The results showed that both technologies predicted transient

                                               12

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
       moisture changes in the landfill. The heterogeneous nature of landfilled waste and its variable
       leachate electrical conductivity were observed to affect the calibration equations for both
       moisture measurement technologies. Moisture measurement devices have advantages over
       gravimetric moisture measurement techniques because of their less expensive manufacturing
       costs, ease in automation and ability to predict the transient moisture changes with time.
2.4    Seminal Publications

2.4.1    State of the Practice Reviews

Long-term studies have been conducted for EPA to evaluate the state-of-the-practice of bioreactor landfill
technology in the U.S. The objectives were to provide EPA and the community of regulators, designers,
owners, and operators with a thorough, unbiased evaluation of data from operating bioreactor landfills.
Factors such as regional (climatic) distribution, design history (new vs. retrofit), public vs. private
operation, and operational strategy (recirculation vs. liquid addition, anaerobic vs. aerobic, etc.) were
considered when selecting the sites to maximize the diversity of the selected landfills and data sets.

The first study (Benson et al., 2007) was conducted in 2002 and included six landfills (five in the U.S.
and one in Canada). The second, more comprehensive study was conducted in 2005-2008 and included
five bioreactor landfills in the U.S. (Bareither et al., 2010; Barlaz et al., 2010).  In summary, this study
showed that:
    •   Bioreactor landfills operate and function in much the same manner as conventional landfills, with
        designs similar to established standards for waste containment facilities;

    •   Leachate generation rates, leachate depths, leachate temperatures, and liner temperatures, are
        essentially the same in bioreactor and conventional landfills; and

    •   The integrity and performance  of landfill containment systems have not been observed to be
        affected by liquids addition such that leakage rates though liners beneath bioreactor landfills are
        comparable to those for conventional landfills.

However, analysis  of leachate quality data showed that bioreactors generally produce more concentrated
leachate than conventional landfills during the first two to three years of recirculation.  Comparison of
rates of recirculation to a previous study conducted in 2002 showed that higher rates are effective at
degrading waste, enhancing methane production, and accelerating waste  settlement. Based on findings,
recommendations were made for rate coefficients used for predicting gas generation from bioreactor
landfills and compression parameters for settlement of waste for  various  levels of leachate recirculation.

2.4.2    Textbooks and Guidance Documents

A number of textbooks and guidance documents have been developed to provide recommendations for
design, permitting, operation, performance, and monitoring of bioreactors and leachate recirculation
systems.

    •   Pohland F.G., 1975. Sanitary landfill stabilization with leachate recycle and residual treatment,
        EPA-600/2-75-043. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
        OH.
                                               13

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
    •  Reinhart D.R. and Townsend T.G., 1998. Landfill bioreactor design and operation. Lewis
       Publishers, New York, NY.

    •  Reinhart D.R., 1998. Prediction and measurement of leachate head on landfill liners. Florida
       Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Report #98-3, Gainesville, FL.

    •  United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. Monitoring approaches for landfill
       bioreactors, EPA/600/R-04/301. Prepared by Tolaymat T., Kremer F., Carson D. and Davis-
       Hoover W. for Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.

    •  United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Example moisture mass balance
       calculations for bioreactor landfills, EPA-456/R-05-004. Office of Air Quality Planning and
       Standards, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division. Research Triangle Park, NC.

    •  United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. First-order kinetic gas generation model
       parameters for wet landfills, EPA-600/R-05/072. Prepared by Reinhart D.R., Faour A.A. and You
       H. for Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.

    •  Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2006. Technical and regulatory guidance for
       characterization, design, construction, and monitoring of bioreactor landfills, ALT-3.  ITRC
       Alternative Landfill Technologies Team, Washington, DC.

    •  Townsend T.G., Jain P. and Tolaymat T.M., 2006. Liquids introduction design criteria for
       bioreactor landfills.  Prepared for U.S. EPA  Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH
       (Draft).

    •  Vazquez R.V., 2008. Enhanced stabilization of municipal solid waste in bioreactor landfills. CRC
       Press/Balkema, Leiden, the Netherlands.

    •  Solid Waste Association of North America, 2009. The solid waste manager's guide to the
       bioreactor landfill - 2009 update.  SWANA Applied Research Foundation, Silver Spring, MD.
2.5   Fundamentals of Bioreactor Design and Operation
2.5.1    Slope Stability Analysis
Liquids injection into bioreactor landfills can negatively affect landfill stability due to generation and
distribution of excessive pore fluid pressures near side slopes (Bachus et al, 2004; Blight, 2008). When
performing a slope stability analysis to address the flow of the introduced liquid through the waste, three
issues must be considered:
    •  Increased weight of the waste compared to the weight of "dry" waste;
    •  The possibility of perched liquids, which would cause a localized build-up of pore-water
       pressure; and
    •  Liquid migration along a soil/MSW interface layer, which could break out on the face of the
       slope and induce a veneer stability failure.
A related stability issue involves the accelerated rate of LFG generation; if this gas is not collected, then
gas pressure could build up within the waste mass and increase pore pressures, contributing to instability
and increasing the potential for side slope seepage.  The heterogeneous and anisotropic nature of MSW
and the increased pore gas pressures caused by leachate recirculation must also be considered in stability

                                               14

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
analysis. Numerical two-phase flow models can be used to investigate the effects of heterogeneity and
anisotropy on moisture distribution and pore water and capillary pressures and their resulting impacts on
stability during liquids injection events (Giri & Reddy, 2014).

As noted by Bachus et al. (2004), the primary defense against instability is the use of sound design and
operational practices. The primary design practice is to promote efficient and uniform distribution of the
liquid and, concurrently, good LFG collection. Sufficient hydraulic connection between the liquids
distribution system and the waste should be provided by constructing the system using high-permeability
materials and by preventing continuous, low-permeability layers within the waste that could restrict
downward flow of liquid through the landfill. The primary operational practice is monitoring of the
landfill to confirm that liquids are not accumulating at levels that could lead to excessive pore pressures.

2.5.2     Design of Liquids Application Systems

Methods employed for leachate recirculation and liquids addition vary widely, as do their effectiveness,
operational complexity, and requirements for dedicated infrastructure  such as  pipes, tanks, manifolds, and
pumps. Methods commonly employed include:

    •  Direct application at the landfill working face, generally using a water truck fitted with a rear
       sprayer (Mandeville, 2006);

    •  Surface infiltration from open trenches, ponds, or shallow depressions (Hater, 2005);

    •  Subsurface infiltration from horizontal injection trenches (Jain et al., 2010a) or blankets (Khire
       and Haydar, 2005); and

    •  Subsurface infiltration from vertical wells or conduits (Jain et al., 2010b).
Surface application methods are limited more by operational and space constraints than design attributes.
The key parameters for designing a horizontal source (e.g., horizontal trenches, infiltration ponds,
infiltration galleries, or blankets) for steady state are the rate liquids can  be added, the lateral and vertical
extents of the zone of impact, and the volume of liquid needed to wet the waste within the zone of impact
(Bachus et al., 2003). These parameters are functions of source dimensions, injection pressure, and MSW
properties (e.g., porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and anisotropy).  Site-specific or published data can be
used to derive these parameters. Using principles of fluid flow in porous media, models such as SEEP/W
can be used simulate liquids flow under steady state  conditions from a horizontal source (Haydar &
Khire, 2005), or design charts such as those presented by Jain et al. (2010a) can be used to design a liquid
introduction system within the range of expected conditions.  Similarly, the rate at which liquids can be
added to a vertical well, the lateral zone of impact of the well, and the liquids  volume needed to wet the
waste within the zone of impact of the well are the key inputs needed to  design a vertical well system.
Again, models such as SEEP/W or design  charts (Jain et al., 2010b) can  be used to estimate these inputs
as a function of MSW properties, well dimensions (radius and screen length),  and injection pressure.

Design methodologies for combined systems of liquid application and gas extraction have been developed
(e.g., Eden, 1994) but have largely been abandoned due to high levels of clogging encountered in such
systems.

2.5.3     Landfill Gas Collection System Design
The most widely used model for design of LFG collection systems is the EPA's Landfill Gas Emission
Model (LandGEM), in which methane generation is  modeled using a first-order decay equation (U.S.

                                               15

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
EPA, 2005). Input factors include the methane generation potential, Lo (generally expressed as m3/Mg on
a wet waste basis) and a first-order waste decay rate, k (per year). EPA presents default values for k
(0.04/year or 0.02/year, depending on precipitation) and L0 (100 m3/Mg) in its AP-42 air emissions
database (U.S. EPA, 1995). These values were derived from historical gas collection data and are used
extensively in practice by regulators and engineers. Landfill owners also have the option to present a site-
specific estimate for these values. However, only limited data have been published on k for bioreactor
landfills.

Use of LandGEM for design of LFG collection systems at bioreactor landfills requires modified operation
and input criteria to account for accelerated methane generation (Reinhart et al., 2005b). Recently, decay
rates (lvalues) of 0.3/year and 0.11-0.2 I/year were estimated for landfills that were wet throughout and
landfills that experienced some leachate recirculation, respectively (Faour et al., 2007). Based on data
from the Outer Loop Landfill CRADA project, Tolaymat et al. (2010) utilized site-specific Lo and
methane production rate data collected over a four-year period to estimate k for conventional and
bioreactor landfill cells. L0 (volume of methane produced on a wet weight basis) was estimated at 48.4
m3/Mg based on the biochemical methane potential of freshly buried  refuse. The value of k for the
conventional cells was estimated at 0.06/year from measured methane collection, which is comparable to
the AP-42 default value of 0.04/year, whereas estimates for the two bioreactor cells were substantially
higher at 0.1 I/year.

2.5.4    Performance Monitoring
To assess bioreactor performance, the characteristics and properties of LFG, leachate, and the waste mass
can be monitored and evaluated (U.S. EPA, 2004).  A brief description of useful monitoring parameters is
presented below.
    •   Physical Parameters: This includes monitoring of the waste quantity and composition (type)
        disposed at the landfill, liquid added at the landfill, precipitation, and leachate generated. These
        parameters are necessary to perform a moisture balance evaluation of waste disposal units at the
        landfill.
    •   Leachate Monitoring: Leachate parameters can be used to help assess the extent of waste
        decomposition and stabilization.  This includes leachate temperature, pH, volatile  organic acids
        (VOA), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen demand  (BOD), ammonia, heavy
        metals, semi-volatile and volatile organic compounds (SVOCs and VOCs), cations and anions
        (e.g., chloride), and phosphate.
    •   Landfill Gas Monitoring: The LFG generation rate and methane composition can be monitored in
        order to provide an estimate of the rate of waste decomposition in the landfill. The rate of LFG
        generation, and the methane content of the LFG, can then be  compared to either typical
        representative values for landfills in similar environments or, if available, site specific data based
        on spatial or temporal differences in liquid addition.
    •   Solid Waste Sampling: Sampling of either incoming waste or in-place waste can provide a direct
        measure of the waste properties and decomposition phase, in contrast to leachate and LFG
        monitoring. Waste samples can be analyzed for moisture content, biochemical methane potential
        (BMP), volatile solids, and cellulose/lignin content. However, in practice these measures have
        significant practical limitations in that the large spatial and temporal variability of the waste
        stream makes it difficult to  determine how representative the samples are of the waste mass.


                                               16

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
    *    Settlement Monitoring:  Enhanced settlement is expected at a landfill operated with liquid
        addition, which can be assessed by whole-site surveys or measuring the vertical movement of
        settlement plates installed at different locations of the landfill.
    •    Geotechnical Stability Monitoring:  Increased amounts of liquid in the waste and the resulting
        waste decomposition process may result in changes to the pore pressure and the waste properties
        such as density and shear strength. These parameters may affect the stability of waste slopes.
        Geotechnical stability monitoring may include visual inspections as well as physical monitoring
        such as settlement plates, piezometers, or inclinometers.
The fate of the liquid added to the waste mass is generally best analyzed by means of a simple water
balance (Yuen et al., 2001). In this way, the amount of liquid added as part of an RD&D project can be
compared to the amount of liquid from other sources (i.e., infiltration through the cover and incoming
water held in the waste). The mechanisms of water removal (i.e., leachate collected and discharged in the
LCS, water converted to methane or carbon dioxide and removed through the GCS, or discharge as water
vapor or condensate removed through the GCS) can also be assessed and quantified, and the amount of
added liquid can be compared to the remaining absorptive capacity of the waste mass.

A useful approach to quantifying the amount of water that should be added to the waste is to obtain a
representative measure of the typical moisture content of incoming waste at the facility. Samples of in-
place waste can be analyzed for moisture content to estimate the extent of wetting that is taking place in
specific areas of the waste mass.  The  most efficient approach is to  collect waste samples when new
infrastructure (e.g., LFG extraction wells, horizontal collection trenches, etc.) is installed at the landfill.
However, it is important to note that this approach has significant practical limitations in that the large
spatial and temporal variability of the  waste mass makes it difficult to determine how representative the
samples are. More sophisticated approaches to monitoring moisture distribution in landfills have been
developed, with varying degrees of success and wide distribution in costs. These include pressure
transducers and electrical resistivity/impedance moisture sensors (Imhoff et al., 2007; Kumar et al., 2009),
neutron probes and time domain reflectometry (Li & Zeiss, 2001; Staub et al., 2010), electrical resistivity
tomography (Grellier et al., 2008; Clement et al., 2011), and partitioning gas tracer tests (Jung et al.,
2012).

2.6     Bioreactors and Climate Change

President Obama's Climate Action Plan, which was released in a June 2013  Presidential Memorandum,
outlines several broad-based measures to cut the carbon pollution that causes climate change and affects
public health (Executive Office of the President, 2013).  The plan provides a schedule for meeting the
President's commitment to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the range of 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 by supporting renewable energy (which includes landfill gas to energy),
establishing stricter fuel economy standards and limits on carbon emissions from power plants, promoting
energy efficiency in homes and buildings, and reducing emissions of short-lived climate pollutants such
as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), black carbon, and methane. Such pollutants are relatively short-lived in
the atmosphere but have more potent greenhouse effects than carbon dioxide.  With particular relevance
to landfills, methane currently accounts for about 9% of U.S. GHG emissions; however, the U.S. has
achieved notable reductions in methane emissions since 1990. Contributing to this reduction has been the
enforcement of LFG collection standards for landfills under the NSPS regulations (Federal Register,
1996), and stricter standards under NESHAP (Federal Register, 2003) for bioreactors in which waste
degradation and methane generation is accelerated. As previously discussed in Section 2.2.2, an ANPR


                                               17

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
was issued by EPA on 30 June 2014 to seek input on whether and how to update current emissions
guidelines for landfills, including bioreactors.

The 2013 Presidential Memorandum serves as the basis for the U.S. EPA's climate action plan, which
includes initiatives aimed at landfills such as the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived
Climate Pollution, which has grown to include more than 30 partner countries and other key partners such
as the World Bank and the  U.N. Environment Program, and the Global Methane Initiative, which works
with 42 partner countries and an extensive network of over 1,100 private sector participants to reduce
methane emissions.  These initiatives facilitate technology transfer and allow lessons learned from control
and utilization of methane from landfills and bioreactor sites in the U.S. to be applied worldwide.
                                               18

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule
         EPA/600/R-14/335
3.      Status of Rule Adoption by States

3.1    Historical Context

The early uptake rate of Rule adoption and status of other state RD&D statutes that predate the Rule are
best summarized in a comprehensive survey by Gardner (2006), which reported that only eight states had
adopted the Rule and had applied for EPA approval or had already been approved (Figure 3-1).  A further
six states were reported to be in the process of adopting the Rule.  Three states indicated that their
programs were already consistent with the Rule and that they did not plan on seeking separate EPA
approval as they were not legally compelled to do so in order to issue an RD&D permit, while a further
seven states indicated they had no intention of adopting the Rule.  Of the remaining 26 states, 13 had not
initiated the process of Rule adoption, including six states (e.g., Colorado, New Jersey, and New York)
that were reported to have RD&D programs within their current solid waste regulations. In most cases,
however, these programs were not entirely consistent with the Rule.  The exact status of Rule adoption
was reported as uncertain for the remaining 13 states (shown white in Figure 3-1).
                                ! .New Hampshire
                                2. Vermont
                                J.Massacliuseus
                                •I.Rhodc Island
                                5. Connecticut
                                6.Ncw Jerse
                                S.Maryland
                                •f.Washmjiton. DC
                                                                         No progress on Rule adoption
 i   State with Project XL or
    CRADA bioreactor project

    State with existing or
^  previous bioreactor project
                                               Rule adopted EPA
                                               approval pending


                                               Rule adoption in progress

                                               No progress on Rule
                                               adoption, but state
                                               RD&D statute exists
Rule adoption not legally
required to issue RD&D permit

I No intention of Rule
Adoption


No information
  Figure 3-1. Historical bioreactor permitting mechanisms and status reported by Gardner (2006)
                 and states with active or previous bioreactor projects (as of 2009)
                                                 19

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
In an informal survey reported by SWANA (2003), there were approximately 20 full-scale bioreactor
projects in North America in 2002, including one in Canada. These included the four Project XL sites
(Section 2.3.1), two projects listed separately under the CRADA at the Outer Loop Landfill in Kentucky
(Section 2.3.2), the Florida Bioreactor Demonstration Project (Section 2.3.3), and an additional  13
projects, of which eight were at WM facilities.  Seven years later, a more comprehensive survey by
SWANA (2009) lists 30 active bioreactor projects in 17 states as well as Canada and the Bahamas. A
graphical depiction of states reported to have at least one existing or previous bioreactor project from the
mid-1990s through 2009 is also provided on Figure 3-1, based on information compiled from Reinhart et
al. (2002), SWANA (2003), Gardner (2006), Hater (2007), SWANA (2009), and SAIC (2011).

For completeness, it is noted here that SAIC (2011) indicates that a bioreactor CRADA project previously
existed in Florida. Although a CRADA was signed in 2003 between U.S. EPA and Polk County for a
bioreactor project at the North Central Landfill in Winter Haven, Florida, this agreement did not generate
a final report. As such, the Polk  County project is probably best associated with the bioreactor research
program administered by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
(http://www.bioreactorlandfill.org/florida.html). Therefore, Florida is depicted on Figure 3-1 as having
had existing bioreactor projects prior to 2009 but not a CRADA project.

3.2     Current Situation
3.2.1     States that Have Adopted the Rule

Due to some of the uncertainty surrounding bioreactor permitting mechanisms and reported rate of Rule
adoption by states, for this report the current status of EPA approval for states to issue RD&D Permits
under the Rule was established based on whether an announcement appeared in  the Federal Register.
Based on this,  16 states were confirmed to have adopted the Rule and had received approval from EPA to
issue RD&D permits as of 28 February 2014 (Figure 3-2).  Of these, nine had adopted the Rule  by March
2009 (i.e., within five years of Rule promulgation).  The most recent adoptees of the Rule are
Massachusetts and Oregon in January and April 2013, respectively. In March 2009, EPA Region 9 also
approved an RD&D permit for the Salt River Landfill on Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
land within Arizona.
                                              20

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule
                                                 EPA/600/R-14/335
                A
               H;i\vjii
I .New Hampshire
2.Vermont
?.Massachusetts
4.Rhodc Island
S.Connccttcut
6.Ncw JCKCV
7. Del aware
S.Man'land
9. Washington. DC
                                                                                       .
                                                                             Indiana West \ irgmia
                                                                                      Viiginia
                                                   RD&D approved state
RD&D permitted facility
on tribal land
                    Figure 3-2. States approved by EPA to issue RD&D permits

Intuitively, it was expected that the rate of Rule adoption would be fastest in states that had already issued
RD&D-type permits or hosted bioreactor projects prior to enactment of the Rule in 2004. This can
generally be confirmed by comparing Figures 3-1 and 3-2, with some notable exceptions such as Alaska
and Ohio, neither of which had hosted a bioreactor prior to 2004 or reported any progress on Rule
adoption by 2006. It is, however, interesting that the list of approved states includes only three of the four
states reported in 2006 as having adopted the Rule pending EPA approval. It is not known exactly why
Kentucky did not follow through with Rule adoption; discussions with a Kentucky Department for
Environmental Protection (DEP) employee  (see Section 4.2) indicated  only that there was insufficient
operator interest within the state to move forward with an application.  It is possible that Gardner (2006)
considered the Outer Loop  CRADA project as evidence of Rule adoption. Perhaps most interestingly, the
list also includes Kansas and Missouri, which indicated in 2006 that they had no need or intention,
respectively,  of adopting the Rule. This may be illustrative of a change of heart or again an error in the
2006 data collection effort.

3.2.2     States in the Process of Rule Adoption

Seven states have adopted the Rule and applied for EPA approval to issue RD&D permits, or were in
various stage of application as of 21 March 2014 (Figure 3-3).
                                                21

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule
                              EPA/600/R-14/335
                                l.Ncw Hampshire
                                2.Vcrmont
                                S.Massaclmselts
                                4.Rhodc Island
                                5.Connccticul
                                6.Ncw Jersey
                                T.Dclawarc'
                                S.MaryUiKl
                                9.Wsshington, DC
Confimied    I Unconfimied
                         Figure 3-3. States in the process of Rule adoption

Reasons for the current status of Rule adoption in these states based on discussions with state solid waste
program employees are listed below.  As such, it should be recognized that the information provided is
limited.

    •   Arizona:  Although Gardner (2006) reported that Arizona had definitively stated it would not
        pursue RD&D permitting ability, Arizona had adopted the Rule and sought EPA approval in June
        2010 (as confirmed by the Federal Register).  However, approval of the RD&D program was
        stalled first due to the state's concerns with budgetary and staffing resources and second due to
        strong public opposition to perceived RD&D approval for industrial liquids disposal in a MSW
        landfill.

    •   Louisiana:  The state is in the process of seeking EPA approval for adoption of the Rule, but was
        unclear as the exact status of the application.  The state's action seems mostly motivated by
        interest on the part of specific facilities to obtain a RD&D permit.

    •   Mississippi: Presently, the state is working on several revisions to their waste law, and an RD&D
        permit provision is included.  When asked why it has taken nearly 10 years to make this addition,
        two reasons were given. First, there has only been one  facility to request this option, and that
        facility had been instructed to address other issues before the state would consider issuing a
        permit. The overall lack of interest in the state is believed to be due to a perception that
        bioreactor permitting and operation is complex and costly, along with increasingly muted reports
        on the benefits of doing so. Second, the state may not be  fully convinced of the  net benefits of
        bioreactor technology, and thus lacks urgency in adopting the Rule.
                                                22

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
    •  Montana: The state has an RD&D permit provision citing language that very clearly matches the
       Rule. Although there is no sign in the Federal Register that an application for approval has been
       submitted, Montana is reportedly in the process of applying.

    •  New Mexico: The state reported being EPA-approved for RD&D permitting, although formal
       confirmation of this was not found in the Federal Register.  An explanation given by a state
       employee was that their adoption of the Rule was included in a package of new regulations
       submitted for approval by EPA and thus may not have appeared in a stand-alone announcement.

    •  Vermont: In March 2012, the state finalized changes to their solid waste  statues to match the
       Rule, and they are presently in the midst of the EPA approval process.  Vermont decided to adopt
       the Rule because a few facilities had shown muted interest in obtaining RD&D permits, although
       it is not clear if they were actually seeking approval for leachate recirculation rather than bulk
       liquids addition. The state's urgency in seeking EPA approval is low, because no facilities are
       actively seeking a permit.

    •  Washington: The state is well advanced in the process of Rule adoption and expects EPA
       approval later in 2014. One facility in the state is already permitted under state law to add liquids
       for bioreactor operations and another will soon be permitted. Delays in seeking EPA approval
       reportedly occurred due to the Director placing restrictions on adoption of new regulations.

3.2.3    States that Have Not Adopted the Rule
As of 21  March 2014 there were still 27 states that have not adopted the  Rule. Of these, 11 states have
their own provisions that allow RD&D-type permits, but have not revised their regulations to specifically
match or reference the Rule (Figure 3-4).  The need to  formally adopt the Rule and seek EPA approval
may seem less urgent under these circumstances.   In this regard, it is noted that some states have
interpreted the Subtitle D  regulations to prohibit only the addition of bulk liquid wastes and not liquid
amendments to  landfills.  Therefore, even prior to implementation of the Rule, some states permitted
landfills to operate as a bioreactor under state-specific  beneficial use legislation, such as allowing landfills
to augment leachate recirculation with addition of "clean" water such as  stormwater or groundwater. For
example:
    •  Although Washington is currently in the process of Rule adoption, SWANA (2009) cites an EPA-
       approved change to Washington State's solid waste regulations that allowed controlled water
       addition into an MSW landfill.

    •  The City of Denton Landfill was approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
       (TCEQ) to add stormwater to leachate for recirculation under a 2009 permit (City of Denton
       Solid Waste and Recycling, 2014).
                                               23

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule       	
                                                       EPA/600/R-14/335
              \
                   A
                 I Lnvaii
I .New I Id i
2.Vermont
3.Massachusetts
•I.Rhode Island
5.Conncclicn
6.Ncw Jersey
7 Delaware
S.Mary Imid
1.Washington. UC
                                                         States with non-approved
                                                         RD&D statutes
States lacking RD&D
statutes
                            Figure 3-4. States that have not adopted the Rule
                                                      24

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
4.      Challenges faced  by States in Adopting the Rule

From Section 3, it is clear that adoption of the Rule has been slow across the states and development of
RD&D permitting procedures that are consistent with EPA's requirements has generally not occurred.
There are a variety of reasons for this, but feedback from approved states often related to long lag times in
the EPA's review process for Rule adoption. For example, California, Nebraska, and Iowa waited an
average of 16 months for final approval. However, the period between announcements of application and
approval in the Federal Register indicated that the average wait time for all 16 approved states was only
seven months, with Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Michigan all waiting three months or less.
Overall, these review periods are not unreasonable. For comparison, similar inspection of the Federal
Register reveals that the average lag time for adoption of the Subtitle D regulations after 1993 was about
two years (based on data for 30 states), with the review period  ranging from 5 to 72 months.

Acknowledging potential uncertainties faced by states in adoption of the Rule, in 2005 EPA developed a
guidance briefing entitled "Procedures for State Modifications  to Incorporate RD&D Final Rule," a copy
of which is provided as Appendix I to this report. This provides a simple overview of adoption and
notification procedures, as  well as examples of a formal state request for approval to modify their solid
waste program for Rule inclusion, a listing of items that should be reviewed to ensure that the
modification is consistent with federal provisions, and an example of a Federal Register notice approving
a modified state program.   In accordance with this guidance, EPA's Regional Administrator worked
closely with Alaskan state officials in modification of their program for Rule adoption in 2011. Similarly,
New York, which currently remains a non-adoptive state, has also worked through the guidance in
consultation with EPA Region 2. However, it is not certain to  what extent most other states are aware of
the level of support that can be available.

Of particular significance to this report are the hurdles cited by the 27 states that have not adopted the
Rule (Section 3.2.3).  A number of drawbacks have been voiced by landfill operators (Hater, 2007):

    •   States requiring additional experimental testing instead of results and experience from other
        states;

    •   RD&D permits requiring major modifications, instead  of easier permitting mechanisms;

    •   High costs of obtaining RD&D permits;

    •   Uncertainties in the outcome of the RD&D permit process (for example, after making major
        investments, WM eventually abandoned plans for permitting bioreactor operations at sites in
        Ohio, Mississippi,  and Texas);

    •   Delays resulting in the areas demarcated for bioreactor demonstration  at a facility being filled
        before approval can be obtained; and

    •   Lack of funds for state agencies to conduct adequate workshops to educate state and  industry
        stakeholders on the anticipated RD&D permit process  requirements.
Overall, it seems clear that operators are generally more interested in obtaining permanent provisions for
bulk liquids addition under 40CFR Part 258 than participating in RD&D-type activities with  specific
permitting and reporting requirements.

Discussions with state employees from all 27 non-adoptive states were conducted in an attempt to
ascertain their current reasons for delaying or opposing Rule adoption. A summary of primary reasons

                                              25

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
given is presented below, although it should be recognized that the data are limited to personal
communications and that formal surveys or interviews were not conducted.

    •   The predominant reason for not adopting the Rule was lack of interest amongst landfill facilities
        in the state. The lack of motivation by facilities to be inclined to apply for an RD&D permit was
        likely related to the reasons cited by Hater (2007) above.

    •   In addition to lack of interest from permitted facilities, about 10% of states cited other non-
        technical issues (e.g., perceived high cost or administrative burden) as reasons against Rule
        adoption.

    •   A minority of 10-15% of states indicated general technical concerns over bioreactor operations
        (e.g., threats posed to groundwater or geotechnical stability) or practical constraints (e.g., arid
        conditions) as reasons limiting their interest in Rule adoption. The perceived constraint posed by
        arid conditions is somewhat counter-intuitive, as drier sites would seem more suitable for addition
        of outside liquids. However, declining aquifer storage and restrictions or priority on water uses in
        some arid areas could preclude use of groundwater for bioreactor projects. Some state
        regulations are also restrictive of the use or diversion of stormwater. Even wastewater may be
        required to be recycled and reused at the point of origin or redistributed as gray water for
        agricultural irrigation or domestic use.

    •   Several state employees  noted that Subtitle D and its state derivatives already allow leachate
        recirculation over prescriptive (i.e., minimum technology) liner systems, which is often the
        primary goal of site operators seeking to offset leachate treatment costs.  From a site's
        perspective, therefore, the extra RD&D permitting needs  are a significant deterrent to considering
        addition of supplemental bulk liquids.  Applications for RD&D permits requiring major
        modifications to existing operating permits or collection of additional site data impose extra effort
        on landfill employees, often at substantial cost. Overall, the benefits of bioreactor landfills seem
        less significant when the cost in time and money to properly permit them is taken into account.
        As a result, restricting wet landfill operation to leachate recirculation is thus a more attractive and
        simpler alternative.

    •   Other simpler reasons given for the lack of interest on the part of states and facilities are  state-
        specific and include low numbers of suitable landfill facilities. For example:

        •  Rhode Island has only one landfill;

        •  There are only three landfill sites in Delaware, all of which  already recirculate leachate;

        •  Most landfills in South Dakota and Wyoming do not  have prescriptive Subtitle D liners,
           limiting opportunities for bulk liquids addition; and

        •  Connecticut relies almost entirely on waste-to-energy plants and thus lack landfills suitable
           for liquids application.

Finally, on the opposite end of the scale, it is interesting that three states (Maryland, South Carolina, and
Texas) believe that they are legally entitled to issue RD&D permits without the need to specifically adopt
the Rule. This is  slightly different to states' perception of this issue reported by Gardner (2006) in which
Kansas, Tennessee, and Texas expressed this opinion but Maryland and South Carolina did not, stating
instead that they did not intend to adopt the Rule or were actively working on Rule adoption, respectively.
This highlights some of the uncertainty that exists amongst states and even between agency personnel as
to what exactly is meant by Rule adoption.  Since  enactment  of the Rule in 2004, Texas reportedly issued

                                                26

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
a permit in 2009 for addition of stormwater to a landfill but there is no record of Maryland or South
Carolina having issued any such permits.
                                              27

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
5.     Status of Bioreactor Projects  in the U.S.

5.1    Number of Active Bioreactor Projects

As discussed in Section 3.1, the most comprehensive survey to date of full- and demonstrate-scale
bioreactor projects in the U.S. was compiled by SWANA (2009), which lists 28 active projects in 17
states.  Based on this, supplemented with independent review of the current status of these sites as well as
reports of other active facilities using web-based resources, there may currently be as many as 40
bioreactor projects in the U.S. However, considerable uncertainty exists as to the true scale (i.e., pilot- or
full-scale) and nature of many of these projects (i.e.,  conventional leachate recirculation may be  reported
as a bioreactor operation).

5.2    Number of Projects Currently Permitted under the Rule

Discussions were conducted with employees of the state solid waste division of all approved states to
clarify the current extent of bioreactor RD&D permitting.  This showed there are 30 active RD&D
projects in 11 states, as well as one project on tribal lands. A summary is provided in Table 5-1.

The large number of projects in Wisconsin relative to other states is due to the fact that Wisconsin
Administrative Code (WAC) NR 514.07(9) requires  landfill owners to either eliminate landfill disposal of
biodegradable materials or to achieve the complete stabilization of deposited organic waste at  MSW
landfills within 40 years after closure (Wisconsin DNR, 2007).  Wisconsin's policies were developed
mainly in consideration of PCC issues amid concerns that financial accruals may not be sufficient for
longer-term care, and require landfill owners to submit a plan showing how to significantly reduce the
residual amount of degradable organic matter in place after closure in order to meet this goal.  Landfill
organic stability is considered to have been achieved when LFG production has effectively ceased, the
organic pollution load of landfill leachate is insignificant, the organic fraction of the waste mass will not
readily decompose when placed in ideal moisture and temperature conditions, and there is no longer
measurable settlement.  Recommended approaches to achieve this goal are liquids addition or  in-situ
aeration, both of which require an RD&D permit.  Invariably, landfill operators have elected to attempt to
meet their goal using a liquids addition approach.  Under the statutes, operators are required to submit
regular status updates to estimate progress toward achieving their goals, and revise their operations plans
accordingly if efforts are considered to be off target.  This represents a unique opportunity to collect data
from multiple sites on the long-term performance of  bioreactor landfills in relation to a uniformly applied
goal.
                                               28

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule
EPA/600/R-14/335
           Table 5-1. Summary of bioreactor projects currently permitted under the Rule
State
Alaska
California
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Ohio
Oregon
Virginia
Wisconsin
Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian
Community (Arizona)
Date Approved
by EPA
January 2011
October 2007
January 2006
October 2005
April 2009
August 2009
January 2013
August 2006
January 2005
November 2006
January 2008
August 2010
June 2011
April 201 3
January 2009
March 2006
March 2009
Number of
RD&D
Permits
Issued
3
2
1
0
0
4
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
13
1
Listing of Permitted Projects
Anchorage Regional Landfill, Eagle River
Central Peninsula Landfill, Soldotna
Palmer Central Landfill, Palmer
CWM Kettleman Hills Facility, Kettleman City
Yolo County Central Landfill, Woodland
River Bend Prairie Landfill, Calumet
None
None
Johnson County Landfill, Shawnee
Plumb Thicket Landfill, Runnymede
Seward County Landfill, Liberal
Western Plains Landfill, Garden City
Fall River Landfill
Midland City Landfill, Midland
Smiths Creek Landfill, St. Clair
Spruce Ridge Landfill, Plymouth
City of Columbia Landfill, Columbia
None
None
None
Columbia Ridge Landfill, Arlington
Maplewood Landfill, Amelia County1
Cranberry Creek Landfill, Wisconsin Rapids
Deer Track Park Landfill, Johnson Creek
Emerald Park Landfill, Muskego
Glacier Ridge Landfill, Horicon (Williamstown)
Hickory Meadows Landfill, Hilbert
Lake Area Landfill, Sarona
Metro Landfill, Franklin
Orchard Ridge Landfill, Menomonee Falls
Pheasant Run Landfill, Paris
Ridgeview Landfill, Whitelaw
Seven Mile Creek Landfill, Eau Claire
Timberline Trail Landfill, Stubbs
Valley Trail Landfill, Berlin
Salt River Landfill, Phoenix metropolitan area2
 Notes:
        1. RD&D permit is for leachate recirculation over alternative liner, no bulk liquids addition
        2. Permitted by EPA Region 9
                                                29

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule                                                 EPA/600/R-14/335
                                              30

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
6.      Documentation for Permitting  under the Rule

6.1     Overview

Given the relatively low level of Rule adoption by states (i.e., 16/50 states, or 32%) and wide disparities
in RD&D permitting approaches at the state level, a final objective of this report is to provide case study
examples of permit applications, operating plans, monitoring plans, and performance evaluation reports
that were used in successful RD&D permit applications.  This is intended to give a "best practice"
indication of the level of detail that an applicant should expect to provide. In general, a successful
application will require clear, succinct documentation, be goals-oriented, and provide sufficient
redundancy to allow for flexibility of operation within conservatively defined conditions for protecting
health, safety, and the environment. It is also important also to remember that all RD&D permits are
issued only on that basis; in other words, an application must clearly convey what is to be learned as a key
motive for a demonstration project.

It is recommended that RD&D documentation prepared for bioreactor projects should broadly follow the
structure outlined in the 2006 bioreactor guidance document prepared by the Interstate Technology and
Regulatory Council (ITRC), as listed in Section 2.4.2. ITRC is a coalition of public authorities and
industry stakeholders partially funded by EPA and dedicated to cooperative development of cost-
effective, innovative environmental techniques; their guidance documents are thus intended to inform
both applicants and reviewers of new and unfamiliar technologies as to what are the key elements of
operation, maintenance, monitoring, and reporting.

6.2     Bioreactor Design Report

The main purpose of the design report narrative supporting a RD&D permit application is to provide clear
understanding of site  characteristics and future  development plans, communication of planned activities
and the engineering design, and explanation as to why planned liquids application activities are suitable
(i.e., safe) and beneficial at the subject landfill.  Component sections expected in a design plan include:

        •  Introduction

           •   Purpose, overview of the facility and planned development, prior operational history of
               liquids application (if applicable), prior permitting history and current status

        •  Plan requirements

           •   Site eligibility, goals and anticipated benefits of the demonstration project, expected
               process and schedule for RD&D permit approval

        •  Overview of liquid application system and operating parameters

           •   Design and performance metrics and standards, sources and quantities of permitted
               liquids, proposed methods of operation and management of liquid application activities
               and systems, contingency measures

        •  Engineering calculations

           •   Liquid application capacity and rate (average daily and maximum annual allowable),
               control of leachate head on liner, landfill gas collection, geotechnical stability analysis,
               effectiveness and performance of liner and LCS

        •  Potential implications  of adopting the plan
                                              31

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
           •   Effects on site-wide leachate management, effects on the characteristics of the waste
               mass, protection of human health and the environment, warning symptoms and failure
               thresholds (above ground and subsurface)

        •   Operating plan (see Section 6.3)

        •   Monitoring and reporting plan (see Section 6.4)

At a minimum, engineering drawings should include a plan showing existing conditions and facility
layout, a proposed project development plan, construction details for liquids application systems, and
appropriate process flow diagrams for liquid application systems and dedicated infrastructure.

6.3     Bioreactor Operating Plan

The main component of a bioreactor operations plan is typically a liquid application plan (LAP).  The
LAP is intended provide details on existing and proposed liquid application activities and systems.  The
main intent is to support and simplify the day-to-day decision making process by landfill managers and
site personnel on how and where liquid application should be performed in order to optimize operation
and benefits of the RD&D program while minimizing disturbance of site waste disposal operations and
maintaining compliance with permit conditions and monitoring and reporting requirements.

Component sections expected in a LAP include:
        •   Introduction

           •   Purpose, overview of the facility and planned development, prior operational history of
               liquids application (if applicable), requirements for the LAP

        •   Liquids acceptance and management practices

           •   Sources of permitted liquids (e.g., leachate, storm water, sludge, commercial liquids),
               acceptance protocols for outside liquids, operational procedures for approved liquid
               application methods, limits on liquid application rates for each method and total
               daily/annual quantities for the facility, necessary restrictions on operation due to site
               conditions, inclement weather, etc.
        •   Procedures for monitoring and reporting (see details in Section 6.4)

        •   Warning symptoms and contingency measures

           •   Leachate seeps and breakouts, side  slope slopes or other signs  of instability, leachate
               generation in exceedance of expectations, LFG management issues, odors, observation of
               elevated subsurface temperatures, fire

        •   Site, state, and emergency contacts list

Figures should include a plan showing project layout plan and features and appropriate process flow
diagrams for liquid application systems and dedicated infrastructure.  Daily field logs should be provided
to track liquid application according to landfill area or infiltration system (e.g., trench, blanket, pond, etc.)
as well as to allow observations on potential warning symptoms and noteworthy site conditions to be
recorded.
                                               32

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
6.4     Bioreactor Monitoring Plan

Bioreactor projects require additional monitoring above that routinely performed at Subtitle D landfills.
In addition to monitoring the condition of the landfill and environmental media to avoid operational
issues and impacts as a result of liquid application, a key component of any RD&D permit is a
requirement to measure and report performance of the bioreactor demonstration against stated goals and
anticipated benefits. To  assess the performance of liquid addition to a landfill, the characteristics and
properties of LFG, leachate, and the waste mass can be monitored and evaluated.  To provide a basis for
consistent data collection for future decision-making in support of the newly promulgated RD&D
requirements, EPA developed a guidance document in 2004 to outline approaches for bioreactor landfill
monitoring (as listed in Section 2.4.2).  Preparation of monitoring plans for RD&D project should follow
the guidelines set forth in that document.

Component sections in a monitoring plan developed for a liquids application project typically include:

        •   Introduction

           •   Purpose, overview of the facility, overview of RD&D program goals and anticipated
               benefits, requirements for the monitoring plan

        •   Review of rationale for selection of monitoring parameters

           •   RD&D project performance metrics and monitoring parameters

               •   Physical parameters, including parameters necessary to perform an annual moisture
                   balance such as monitoring of the waste (quantity, type, moisture content) disposed at
                   the landfill, liquid added at the  landfill, precipitation, and leachate generated

               •   Leachate parameters used to  identify the waste decomposition state and pollution
                   potential, including temperature, pH,  volatile fatty acids (VFA), BOD, COD, TOC,
                   nitrogen compounds, metals, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, cations
                   and  anions (e.g., chloride), and phosphate

               •   LFG generation rate and methane composition, which  provide an estimate of the rate
                   of waste decomposition in the landfill for inter-site comparison to published
                   representative values for landfills in similar environments or intra-site comparison
                   based on spatial or temporal differences in liquid addition

               •   Sampling and analysis of either incoming or in-place waste for moisture content,
                   biochemical methane potential  (BMP), volatile solids,  and cellulose/lignin content,
                   all of which can provide a direct measure of the waste  properties and decomposition
                   state (in contrast to indirect measures from leachate and LFG monitoring) if practical
                   limitations related to the large spatial and temporal variability of the waste stream can
                   be accounted for

               •   Settlement monitoring (settlement plates or land surveys)

           •   Operational monitoring parameters

        •   Routine monitoring procedures established to measure RD&D  project performance and/or
           site operational and safety conditions

           •   Direct performance monitoring measures

                                               33

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
               •   Operational changes that occurred during the report period (e.g., opening of new
                   cells, installation of addition LFG collector trenches, etc.), total leachate flow in the
                   LCS, total volume of each type of liquid added to the landfill during the reporting
                   period, location and volume of liquid added via each application method employed
                   during the reporting period, volume of waste placed in the landfill during the
                   reporting period, precipitation and other climatic data;

               •   Geotechnical stability monitoring, including visual inspections as well as physical
                   monitoring features such as settlement plates, piezometers, or inclinometers

           •   Indirect performance monitoring measures

               •   Total and average flow and composition of LFG, leachate quality parameters, waste
                   settlement

        •   Supplemental environmental monitoring established to measure impacts to site operations
           and safety and allow corrective measures to be implemented as necessary

           •   Leachate release through surface seeps, subsurface release to groundwater;

           •   Side slope instability

           •   Increase LFG and/or leachate generation

           •   Reduced LFG collection efficiency due to watered out wells

        •   Monitoring in-situ moisture distribution using invasive or non-invasive techniques

        •   Recordkeeping and reporting protocols

Monitoring logs outlining routine and non-routine monitoring activities should be provided. These
should clearly outline responsibilities for site personnel.

6.5     Annual Report

40CFR 258(c)(4) requires the owner/operator of a RD&D project landfill to submit an annual report to the
state outlining to what extent the project is progressing in attaining its stated RD&D goals. As such, the
contents of the annual report will vary between projects depending on the goals and expected benefits of
the RD&D program. Sections that could be expected in a "typical" annual report include the list below,
although it should be recognized that some sections will not require substantial revision but only updating
on a routine basis.  All reports must include a summary of all monitoring and testing results obtained in
the preceding 12-month period as well as any other operating information specified by the RD&D permit.

        •   Introduction and technical background

           •   Purpose, overview of the facility, overview of RD&D program goals and anticipated
               benefits, reporting requirements

           •   Overview of liquid addition relative to waste decomposition and effects on landfill
               conditions and emissions, discussion of rationale for selection of monitoring parameters
               established for evaluation of RD&D program performance (i.e., physical parameters,
               leachate, LFG, solid waste, settlement,  and stability)

        •   Review of site activities during reporting period


                                               34

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
           •   General description of pertinent site activities and waste disposal operations (in particular
               modifications since submission of last PER), liquid addition under RD&D program,
               leachate management, LFG management, data collected and available for assessment
           •   Liquid feedstock assessment (i.e., types and amounts of applied liquids)
        •   Review of project performance against established metrics
           •   Water balance analysis (total liquid addition quantities, leachate generation, water
               consumption in LFG production and extraction, storage in the waste mass)
           •   Waste decomposition and settlement
           •   Leachate and LFG generation and quality
        •   Performance issues and potential environmental impacts
           •   Overall performance issues, including slope stability concerns, liner or LCS function,
               changes in leachate volume or head on liner, odor complaints, changes in differential
               settlement or waste moisture content
           •   Leachate quality and potential groundwater issues
           •   Seeps, runoff management, and potential surface water issues
           •   Gas management issues, including changes in gas composition and collection, fugitive
               emissions
        •   Conclusions and recommendations for future project modification and/or data collection
                                               35

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule
EPA/600/R-14/335
7.     Summary and  Conclusions

7.1    Status of Rule Adoption by States

As discussed in Section 3, there is some uncertainty surrounding bioreactor permitting mechanisms and
the extent of Rule adoption by states.  For this report, the current status of EPA approval for states to
issue RD&D Permits under the Rule was established on the basis of whether an announcement appeared
in the Federal Register. Based on this, 16 states (i.e., 32%) were confirmed to have adopted the Rule and
are approved by EPA to issue RD&D  Permits as of March 2014. This is a fourfold increase over the four
approved states reported by Gardner (2006). One bioreactor landfill on tribal land within Arizona was
permitted under the Rule by EPA Region 9.  Seven states were reported to be in various stages of Rule
adoption and application for EPA approval, while a final 27 states have not adopted the Rule.  Although
11 of these 27 states have their own provisions that allow RD&D-type permits using language similar to
that in the Rule, it is not known the extent to which any such permits have been issued. Table 7-1
summarizes the current status of Rule adoption, and lists which non-approved states have individual
RD&D-type statutes.

                     Table 7-1. Summary of current status of Rule adoption
Status of Rule Adoption
Rule adopted, approved by EPA
In process of Rule adoption and
application for EPA approval
Rule not adopted; however, non-
approved RD&D statute exists at
state level
No Rule adoption or state RD&D
statute
Number and List of States
16 States
• AK, CA, IL, IN, IA, KS, MA, Ml, MN, MO, NE, NH, OH, OR, VA, Wl
Seven States
• AZ
• LA, MS, MT, NM, VT, WA (unconfirmed)
1 1 States
• CO, DE, FL, KY, MD, NJ, NY, Rl, SC, SD, WY
16 States
• AL, AR, CT, GA, HI, ID, ME, NV, NC, ND, OK, PA, TN, UT, WV
• TX (does not consider legal need exists for specific statute)
State laws were found to vary in terms of permit duration and renewability, reporting requirements, and
the scope of allowable Subtitle D exceptions.  Discussion is beyond the scope of this report; however, a
summary of specific state regulatory codes relating to RD&D Permits, whether within or external to the
EPA approval process, is provided in Appendix II.

7.2    Regulatory Challenges for Rule Adoption

Feedback received from RD&D permit stakeholders on how the process of Rule adoption and
implementation could be improved was reviewed in Section 4.  Most information compiled was obtained
from interviews with employees of the solid waste division at state environmental agencies. As such, it
should be recognized that information obtained is limited and may not be fully representative of the issues
and problems experienced by all states with regard to Rule adoption and implementation.

The predominant single  category of reasons cited for not adopting the Rule was lack of interest amongst
facilities in the state. Other reasons cited related to concerns over increased time, cost, and complexity of
the permitting procedure for both state personnel and individual applicant sites.  However, this is

                                             36

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
unwarranted as EPA has developed a guidance briefing entitled "Procedures for State Modifications to
Incorporate RD&D Final Rule," a copy of which is provided as Appendix I to this report. This guidance
provides a simple overview of adoption and notification procedures, as well as examples of a formal state
request for approval to modify their solid waste program for Rule inclusion, a listing of items that should
be reviewed to ensure that the modification is consistent with federal provisions, and an example of a
Federal Register notice approving a modified state program. However, many states seemed unaware that
this level of support was available.

Some frustration was also expressed over the long lag time in the approval process following Rule
adoption by states. Although some states (California, Nebraska, and Iowa) did wait over a year for
approval, the average waiting time for the 16 approved states  was only seven months, with four states
(25%) waiting three months or less. It is noted also that delays are common in almost all new permitting
processes: for example, the full process of states' adoption of Subtitle D after 1993 required an average of
over two years. It is recognized that applications based on familiar designs are easily approved while
those based on innovative, complex designs are slowed by the unfamiliarity of permit reviewers.  This
works against innovation, as recognized by ITRC, which is why that organization, with the support of
EPA, prepares guidance  documents to assist  permit reviewers with new technologies.

Overall, few technical concerns over site stability, environmental protection,  or public safety were raised.
This is a generally positive finding. A negative finding is  that a leading cause of delay or postponement
of Rule adoption by states is low enthusiasm by site operators in seeking RD&D permits. Most operators
appear satisfied with leachate recirculation as a method to control leachate disposal costs, and there does
not appear to be significant market pressure or other economic incentives for accepting commercial
liquids for landfill disposal. Whether this situation would change if more states were to  adopt the Rule is
not known.

7.3     Number of Projects Permitted under the Rule

As discussed in Section 5, there may currently be as many as 40 bioreactor projects in the U.S. However,
several definitions of bioreactor operations exist, many of which differ from that selected for this
research.  This means that considerable uncertainty exists  as to the true scale  (i.e., pilot- or full-scale) and
nature (i.e., leachate recirculation only versus application of bulk liquids) of many projects reported as
bioreactors.  Employees  of the state solid waste division were asked to clarify the current extent of RD&D
permitting amongst the 16 approved states.  This showed that there are 30 active RD&D projects in 11
states, as well as one project on tribal lands.

7.4     Conclusions and Recommendations

A main objective of this  report included identifying major hurdles for adoption of the Rule, both in
adoptive and non-adoptive states. It is anticipated that by  understanding the main hurdles experienced by
states in adopting of the Rule, EPA may incorporate lessons learned in their future plans for modification
or extension of the Rule. In the short term, there may be an opportunity to overlap any further
investigations into updating the Rule with research or pilot studies related to other upcoming initiatives or
regulations for landfill monitoring and permitting planned by  EPA (e.g., methane emissions monitoring).

Available  guidance on Rule adoption and the structure and contents of RD&D permit documentation and
design and operations plans from existing projects were briefly reviewed in this report.  Overall, it is
concluded that development of new guidance materials for Rule adoption or RD&D permitting is not
necessary. However, it would be useful to promote EPA's existing guidance on Rule adoption to non-
                                               37

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
adoptive states as this would highlight the extent to which the process can be streamlined and would help
overcome current misconceptions over its high administrative and cost burdens.

Finally, it should be understood that it is not necessarily EPA's goal to have all 50 states approved to
issue RD&D permits. Rather, EPA anticipated that during the 12-year period following initial Rule
promulgation and adoption, the data gathered would be evaluated to allow consideration of general
rulemaking with regard to the 40CFR Part 258 criteria. Over the longer term, therefore, it would be of
significant interest to evaluate the actual performance of bioreactor projects against the stated goals and
expected benefits of their RD&D programs, as all projects permitted under the Rule are required to
include such goals.  RD&D permits also require annual performance evaluation reports to be submitted to
the state to summarize and evaluate data collected (see Section 6.5). Once a significant number of
projects have completed their total RD&D permit approval period of 12 years, a substantial quantity of
information  should thus be available from state agencies, and collaborative research programs could be
established to evaluate findings. A number of states were approved for RD&D permit issuance in 2006,
which means the oldest permitted projects in those states could complete their 12-year RD&D term in
2018. Wisconsin appears to offer very significant potential for collaborative research, as  it is one of the
earliest approved states (March 2006) and has issued 13 RD&D permits. As was discussed in Section
5.2, Wisconsin DNR requires that operators submit regular status updates to estimate progress toward
achieving organic stabilization goals, and revise their operations plans accordingly if efforts are
considered to be off target.  This represents a unique  opportunity to evaluate data from multiple sites on
the long-term performance of bioreactor landfills in relation to relatively uniform goals and stable factors
such as climate and waste generation and disposal patterns.
                                               38

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
8.     References

Bachus R.C., Jaber J., Harris J. (2003) Design methodology for bioreactor landfills. Proc. RCRA National
Conference, Washington B.C., August 2003
Bachus R.C., Houlihan M.F., Kavazanjian E., Isenberg R., Beech J.F. (2004) Bioreactor landfill stability:
key considerations. MSW Management, September/October 2004
Bareither C.A., Benson C.H., Barlaz M.A., Edil T.B., Tolaymat T.M. (2010) Performance of North
American bioreactor landfills:  I. Leachate hydrology and waste settlement. J. Environmental
Engineering, 136, 824-838
Bareither C. A., Breitmeyer R. J., Benson C. H., Barlaz M. A., Edil T.B. (2012) Deer Track Bioreactor
Experiment: A field-scale  evaluation of municipal solid waste bioreactor performance. J. Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138, 1-13
Barlaz M.A., Ham R.K., Milke M.W. (1987) Gas production parameters in sanitary landfill simulators.
Waste Management & Research, 5, 27-39
Barlaz M.A., Ham, R.K., Schaefer D.M. (1992) Microbial, chemical and methane production
characteristics  of anaerobically decomposed refuse with and without leachate recycle. Waste Management
& Research, 10,257-267
Barlaz M.A., Rooker A.P., Kjeldsen P.K, Gabr M.A., Borden R.C. (2002) A critical evaluation of factors
required to terminate the post-closure monitoring period at solid waste landfills. Environmental Science &
Technology, 36, 3457-3464
Barlaz M.A., Bareither C.A., Hossain A., Saquing J., Mezzari I., Benson C.H., Tolaymat T.M., Yazdani
R. (2010) Performance of North American bioreactor landfills:  II. Chemical and biological
characteristics. J. Environmental Engineering, 136, 839-853
Benson C.H., Barlaz M.A., Lane D.T. Rawe J.M. (2007) Bioreactor landfills in North America: Review
of the state-of-the practice. Waste Management, 27, 13-29
Berge N.D., Reinhart D.R., Batarseh E.S. (2009) An assessment of bioreactor landfill costs and benefits.
Waste Management 29, 1558-1567
Blight G.E. (2008) Slope failures in municipal solid waste dumps and landfills. Waste Management &
Research, 26, 448-463
Bookter T.J., Ham R.K. (1982) Stabilization of solid waste in landfills. J. Environmental Engineering,
108(EE6), 1089-1100
California Air Resources Board (2014) Implementation guidance document for the regulation to reduce
methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. Prepared for the State of California
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board (CARB), February 2014 [online] available from
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/landfills/docs/guidance0711.pdf [11 July 2014]
City of Denton Solid Waste & Recycling (2014) The City of Denton Landfill [online] available from
http://www.cityofdenton.com/departments-services/departments-q-z/solid-waste-recycling/landfill-at-eco-
w-e-r-c-s-/landfill-gas-to-energy [21 March 2014]
Clement R., Oxarango L.,  Descloitres M. (2011) Contribution of 3-D time-lapse ERT to the study of
leachate recirculation in a landfill. Waste Management, 31, 457-467


                                              39

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
Eden C. (1994) Combined landfill gas and leachate extraction systems. Technical guidance note
CPE07/94 prepared for UKPS Ltd, University of Warwick Science Park, Coventry, England
Executive Office of the President (2013) The President's climate action plan. The White House Office of
the Press Secretary, 25 June 2013 [online] available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2013/06/25/fact-sheet-president-obama-s-climate-action-plan [11 July 2014]
Faour, A., Reinhart D.R., You, H. (2007) First-order kinetic gas generation model parameters for wet
landfills. Waste Management 27, 946-953
Federal Register (1991) Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria; Final Rule, 56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991
Federal Register (1996) Final Rule for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills NSPS, 60 FR 9918, March
12, 1996
Federal Register (2003) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Final Rule, 68 FR
2227, January  16, 2003

Federal Register (2004) Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills, 69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004
Gardner R.B. (2006) What ever happened to the RD&D Rule? A look at where landfills have come  from
and where they are heading [online] available from http://www.scsengineers.com/Papers/Gardner
Whatever Happened to the  ROD Rule.pdf [21  March 2014]
Giri R.K., Reddy K.R. (2014) Slope stability of bioreactor landfills during leachate injection: Effects of
heterogeneous  and anisotropic municipal solid waste conditions. Waste Management & Research, 32,
186-197
Grellier S., Guerin R., Robain H., Bobachev A., Vermeersch F., Tabbagh  A. (2008) Monitoring of
leachate recirculation in a bioreactor landfill by 2-D electrical resistivity imaging. J. Environmental  &
Engineering Geophysics, 13, 351-359

Ham R.K., Barlaz M.A. (1987) Measurement and  prediction of landfill gas quality and quantity. Proc.
Sardinia  1987, International Sanitary Landfill Symposium, ISWA, Cagliari, Italy

Haskell K, Cochrane D. (2001) Evaluation of the impact of landfill operating strategies on  post-closure
care. Proc. Sardinia 2001, 8th International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, 1-5 October
2001, Cagliari, Italy
Hater G.R. (2005) Observations and data on liquids addition at retrofit and as-built bioreactors. Proc.
SWANA's 10th Annual Landfill Symposium, June 2005, Boulder, CO
Hater G.R. (2007) Bioreactor landfills operational and regulatory challenges. Proc. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National Risk Management Laboratory, the World Bank's Finance, Economics  and
Urban Department, and the Solid Waste Management Thematic Group Bioreactor Landfill Workshop, 13
November 2007, Washington D.C.
Haydar M.M.,  Khire M.V. (2005) Leachate recirculation using horizontal trenches in bioreactor landfills.
J. Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131, 837-847
Imhoff P.T., Reinhart D.R., Englund M., Guerin R., Gawande N.A., Han B., Jonnalagadda S., Townsend
T.G., Yazdani R. (2007) Review of state of the art methods for measuring water in landfills. Waste
Management 27,  729-745
                                              40

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (2006) Technical and regulatory guidance for
characterization, design, construction, and monitoring of bioreactor landfills. Document ALT-3, February
2006

Jain P., Townsend T.G., Reinhart D.R., Berge N.D., Gawande, N.A., (2005) New River Regional
Landfill: A full-scale bioreactor landfill demonstration project. Waste Management World, March/April
2005

Jain P., Townsend T.G., Tolaymat T.M. (2010a) Steady-state design of horizontal systems for liquids
addition at bioreactor landfills. Waste Management, 30, 2560-2569
Jain P., Townsend T.G., Tolaymat T.M. (2010b) Steady-state design of vertical wells for liquids addition
at bioreactor landfills. Waste Management, 30, 2222-2229
Jung Y., Han B., Erfan Mostafid M., Chiu P., Yazdani R, Imhoff P.T. (2012) Photoacoustic infrared
spectroscopy for conducting gas tracer tests and measuring water saturations in landfills. Waste
Management, 32, 297-304
Khire M.V.,  Haydar M.M. (2005) Leachate recirculation using geocomposite drainage layer in engineered
MSW landfills. Proc. Geo-Frontiers 2005 Conference, January 2005, Austin TX
Kumar D., Jonnalagadda S., Jain P., Gawande N.A., Townsend T.G., Reinhart D.R. (2009) Field
evaluation of resistivity sensors for in situ moisture measurement in a bioreactor landfill. Waste
Management, 29, 1547-1557

Levis J.W., Barlaz M.A. (2011) What is the most environmentally beneficial way to treat commercial
food waste? Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 7438-7444
Levis J.W., Barlaz M.A. (2014) Landfill gas Monte Carlo model documentation and results. Final report
to ICF [online] available from http://epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/warm/SWMGHGreport.html [11
July 2014]

Li R.S., Zeiss C. (2001) In situ moisture content measurement in MSW landfills with TDR.
Environmental Engineering Science, 18, 53-66
Mandeville D.T., Norstrom J., Farrell E.P., Kim J., Thomas M. (2005) Performance of two bioreactor
landfills in Virginia. Proc. SWANA's 10th Annual Landfill Symposium, June 2005, Boulder, CO
Mandeville D.T. (2006) Landfill bioreactor and leachate recirculation. Proc. Bioreactor Leachate
Recirculation Design and Operations Training Seminar, New York State Chapter of SWANA, Albany,
NY, November 2006.
Mehta R., Barlaz M.A., Yazdani R., Augenstein D.,  Bryars M., Sinderson L. (2002) Refuse
decomposition in the presence and absence of leachate recirculation. J. Environmental Engineering, 128,
228-236
Miller D.E., Emge S.M. (1997) Enhancing landfill leachate recirculation system performance. Practice
Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management,  1,  113-119
Morris J.W.F., Vasuki N., Baker J.A., Pendleton C.H. (2003) Findings from long-term monitoring studies
at MSW landfill facilities with leachate recirculation. Waste Management, 23, 653-666
Morris J.W.F., Barlaz M.A. (2011) A performance-based system for the long-term management of
municipal waste landfills. Waste Management, 31, 649-62
                                              41

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
Morris J., Matthews S.H., Morawski C. (2013) Review and meta-analysis of 82 studies on end-of-life
management methods for source separated organics. Waste Management, 33, 545-551
Norstrom J., Barlaz M.A., Bourque H. (2001) Life-cycle inventory comparison of a bioreactor landfill and
a traditional MSW landfill in Sainte Sophie, Quebec. Proc. SWANA's 6th Annual Landfill Symposium,
June 2001, San Diego, CA
Pohland, F.G. (1975a) Accelerated solid waste stabilization and leachate treatment by leachate recycle
through sanitary landfills. Progress in Water Technology, 7, 753-765

Pohland F.G. (1975b) Sanitary landfill stabilization with leachate recycle and residual treatment.
EPA/600/2-75/043, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH
Pohland F.G., Harper S.A. (1986) Critical review and summary of leachate and gas production from
landfills. EPA/600/2-86/073, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH
Reinhart D.R., Townsend, T.G. (1998) Landfill bioreactor design and operation. Lewis Publishers, New
York, NY
Reinhart D. R., McCreanor P. T., Townsend T.G. (2002) The bioreactor landfill: its status  and future,
Waste Management & Research, 20, 162-171

Reinhart D.R., Chopra M.B., Vajirkar M.M. (2005a) Design and operational issues related to the co-
disposal of sludges and biosolids in Class I landfills: Phase II. Report # 0332002-05, prepared for the
Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, August 2005
Reinhart D.R., Faour A.A., You H. Reinhart (2005b) First-order kinetic gas generation model parameters
for wet landfills. EPA/600/R-05/072, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH
Science Applications International Corporation (2011) Aerobic and anaerobic bioreactor project protocol.
Issue paper prepared by SAIC for Climate Action Reserve, December 2011
Solid Waste Association of North America (2003) The solid waste manager's guide to the  bioreactor
landfill. Prepared by SWANA's Applied Research Foundation, June 2003
Solid Waste Association of North America (2009) The solid waste manager's guide to the  bioreactor
landfill - 2009 update. Prepared by SWANA's Applied Research Foundation, December 2009
Sponza D.T., Agdag O.N. (2004) Impact of leachate recirculation and recirculation volume on
stabilization of municipal solid wastes in simulated anaerobic bioreactors. Process Biochemistry, 39,
2157-2165
Staub M.J., Gourc J.-P., Laurent J.-P., Kintzuger C., Oxarango L., Benbelkacem H., Bayard R., Morra C.
(2010) Long-term moisture measurements in large-scale bioreactor cells using TDR and neutron probes.
Journal of Hazardous Materials,  180, 165-172
Sullivan P.S., Stege G.A. (2000) An evaluation of air and greenhouse gas emissions and methane
recovery potential from bioreactor landfills. MSW Management, September/October 2000
Tolaymat T.M., Green R.B., Hater G.R, Barlaz M.A., Black P., Bronston D., Powell J. (2010)
Evaluation of landfill gas decay constant for municipal solid waste landfills operated as bioreactors. J. Air
and Waste Management Association, 60, 91-97

                                              42

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993) Solid waste disposal facility criteria: Technical manual.
EPA530-R-93-017, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste, Washington D.C.,
November 1993 (revised 13 April 1998)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995) AP-42, fifth edition, compilation of air pollutant emission
factors, volume 1: Stationary point and area sources, Section 2.4: Municipal solid waste landfills. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC, January 1995, Supplement E (November 1998), draft update in review (October 2008)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Monitoring approaches for bioreactor landfills.
EPA/600/R-04/301, prepared by Tolaymat, T.M., Kremer F., Carson D., Davis-Hoover W. for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati OH
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM), version 3.02
user's guide. EPA-600/R-05/047, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research
and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 2005
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Second interim report - Landfill bioreactor performance,
Outer Loop Recycling and Disposal Facility, Louisville, Kentucky. EPA/600/R-07/060, prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH, September 2006

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008) National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) quality assurance project plan (QAPP) requirements for secondary data projects, Rev. 0
October 2008 [online] available from http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/qa/qappreq.html [11 July 2014]

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2007) Guidance for landfill organic stability plans. WDNR,
Madison, Wisconsin, Publication WA-1125: 19
Yuen S.T.S., Wang Q.J., Styles J.R., McMahon T.A. (2001) Water balance comparison between a dry and
a wet landfill: A full-scale experiment. J. Hydrology, 251, 29-48
                                              43

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
Appendix I

    Procedures for  State Modifications to Incorporate

                              RD&D Final Rule

      Since the final RD&D rule provides more flexibility than existing federal Criteria, states are not
required to amend permit programs which have been determined to be adequate under 40 CFR Part 239.
States have the option to amend statutory or regulatory provisions pursuant to the final RD&D.  If a State
adopts a law, regulation, or guidance to provide authority for RD&D permits, Section 239.12(c) requires
that the State notify the Regional Administrator of the modification. It seems appropriate that this
notification can be simple and straightforward.

      Section 239.12(d) does not impose any required time-frame for submission of such modification.
Since States are electing to pick up the RD&D provision at their discretion, any submission of a permit
modification should be when the State is ready to submit its modification.
It seems appropriate that the State solid waste staff work with the Regional solid waste staff prior to any
formal submission of a modification in order to ensure that most issues have been worked through and to
ensure that the formal submission  is a quick and pain-free process.

      Once a State submits its RD&D modification to the Part 258 program, the Regional staff will
perform a review. If the Region believes that the submission is consistent with the Federal RD&D
language then the review would be finished and the Region would draft a FR notice indicating approval
of the modification language, ask for public comments and the determination would become final in 60
days if no adverse comments were received on the FR notice in the first 30 days. The Regional Counsel
can assist the Regional staff in determining when an "adverse" comment is received and provide guidance
as to the appropriate process to follow when an "adverse" comment is received. Section 239.12(g)(2)
requires that the Regional Administrator review any "adverse" comments and publish another FR notice
either affirming or revising the initial determination. If the Regional review determines that the
submission is not consistent, it would work with the State to make it consistent with the Federal RD&D
Criteria prior to issuing the FR notice approving of the modification..

     Attached are some Appendices. Appendix A is an example of a formal State request for approval
for an RD&D modification to Part 258. Appendix B is a listing of items that should be reviewed by the
Region to ensure that the State modification is consistent with the Federal RD&D provision.  Appendix
C is an example of a FR notice approving a state program for their RD&D permit modification.
                                            44

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335

                                          Appendix A

                        Example Submission of Formal State Request for
                        Regional Review of an RD&D Modification
                                                          Regional Administrator
                                                          U.S. EPA
                                                          Region XX

Dear Regional Administrator:
      This is to inform you, that the State of XXXXXX has decided to amend its existing permit
program for municipal solid waste landfills and, as such, has modified its regulations to include language
that allows owners/operators of municipal landfills in the State to apply for RD&D permits. We are
hereby formally requesting approval of this modification. We are providing the citations and
regulatory/statutory language that we believe are consistent with the recently promulgated Federal RD&D
change for your review.  We have worked with your solid waste  staff to ensure that the modification
language is appropriate. We are requesting that your review and subsequent decision by made within 90
days. If your staff have any questions regarding this modification, please contact Xxx Xxxxxx of my
staff at (xxx)-xxx-xxxx. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you regarding this request.

                                            Sincerely,
                                             State Director
                                             XXX Department of Environmental Control
                                              45

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335

                                          Appendix B

In the Regional review of a State modification under the RD&D provision, the following provides a
listing of items that should be reviewed for consistency:

               -Does the state have the authority to issue a permit (or other enforceable
               approval document) for a RD&D permit?

               - Does the modification only allow variances to the run-on, liquids, and final cover
               provisions?

               -Does the modification require that any RD&D facility have a leachate collection system
               that will be designed and constructed to maintain less then 12 inches of head on the liner
               system if a variance from the run-on system (Section 258.26) or liquids restrictions in
               section 258.28 (a) is allowed?

               - Does the modification require that any RD&D facility demonstrate that the infiltration
               of liquid through an alternative cover will not cause contamination of ground water or
               surface water or cause the leachate dept h on the liner to exceed the 12 inch limit?

               - Does the modification prohibit any RD&D permit from exceeding 3 years, any renewal
               from exceeding 3 years, or from exceeding a total of 12 years?

               - Does the modification require the submission of an annual report that documents the
               performance of an RD&D operation?

               - Does the modification have provisions included to terminate or provide for corrective
               action at a unit operating under an RD&D permit?

               - Does the modification require a detailed assessment of the RD&D project for a permit
               renewal?

               - Does the modification prohibit the applicability of an RD&D permit to small landfills
               operating under 258.1(f)(l)?

      The questions below were thought about but were not considered essential components of a State
RD&D review because 1) only approved states will be  seeking approval  and it can be assumed that
approved States are going to require that 258 protectiveness be met and 2) the determinations of what
waste streams and what type of testing to require are up to the states to determine.

               - Does the modification require that any RD&D project be at least as protective as the
               criteria for municipal  solid waste landfills to assure protection of human health and the
               environment?
               - Does the modification discuss the appropriate waste streams and quantities for inclusion
               in a unit operating under the RD&D permit?
                                               46

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
               - Does the modification include requirements for testing and providing information to the
               State Director regarding the performance of the unit?

               - Does the modification require the continue compliance with all other parts of the 258
               Criteria for a unit operating under an RD&D permit?
                                               47

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335

                                       Appendix C

               Example FR Notice Approving a State RD&D modification request


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


40 CFR Part 258
[insert STATE name]: Approval of Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) Permit
Requirements for [insert State name]'s Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permitting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Notice of final determination of adequacy of [insert STA TEname^s Research, Development,
and Demonstration (RD&D) Permit Provisions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.


SUMMARY:  On [insert Date of Publication of final ROD Rule} the U.S. EPA issued final


regulations allowing research, development, and  demonstration (RD&D) permits to be issued to


certain municipal solid waste landfills by approved states (40  CFR Part 258.4).    On  [insert


date] I'insert STATE name] submitted an application to the U.S. EPA seeking Federal approval of


its RD&D requirements per the procedures in  40 CFR  Part 239.12.  Subject to public  review and


comment, this notice  approves [insert STATE name]'s  RD&D permit  requirements.


DATES: This final determination of RD&D program adequacy  for [insert STATE name]  will


become effective [insert date 60 days after the date of publication in  the FR\  unless adverse


                                            48

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
comments are received on or before [insert date 30 days after the date of publication in the FR[.


If adverse comments are received a second FR notice responding to the adverse comments will be


subsequently published.


ADDRESSES: You may inspect and copy [insert STATE name]'s application for a RD&D permit


program during business hours at the following addresses:  [insert STATE agency name, address,


and primary contact person] and U.S. EPA Region  5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago Illinois


60604, Attention: Susan Mooney, mail code: DW-8J.   Send written comments on this


determination of adequacy to the U.S. EPA Region  5 mailing address.  Comments on this


determination of adequacy may also be submitted electronically to mooney.susan@epa.gov.


Please submit electronic submittals as ASCII files and avoid the use of special  characters and any


form of encryption.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan  Mooney, mailcode DW-8J,  Waste Management


Branch, U.S. EPA Region  5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,  Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone


(312) 886-3585, mooney.susan@epa.gov.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


                                          49

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335
On [insert date] the U.S. EPA issued final regulations allowing RD&D permits to be issued at certain

municipal solid waste landfills (40 CFR Part 258.4). This new provision may only be implemented by an

approved State. While States are not required to seek approval for this new provision, those States that

are interested in providing RD&D permits to municipal solid waste landfills must seek approval from

EPA before issuing such permits.  Approval procedures for new provisions of 40 CFR Part 258 are

outlined in 40 CFR Part 239.12.   On [insert date],  [insert STATE name] submitted an amended

application for approval of its RD&D permit provisions,  ([insert STATE name] received full approval for

all other 40 CFR Part 258 provisions on [insert date] (see [insert FR citation]).  After a thorough review,

U.S. EPA Region 5 determined that [insert STATE name]'s RD&D provisions as defined under [insert

state rule citation} are adequate to ensure compliance with the Federal criteria as defined at 40 CFR Part

258.4.

AUTHORITY:  This notice is issued under the authority of section 2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).
                                              50

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule	EPA/600/R-14/335

      Dated:
NOTE:  REGION 3 HAS DEVELOPED STREAMLINED LANGUAGE FOR ALL OF THE

EXECUTIVE AND STATUTORY BOILERPLATE STUFF THAT GOES AT THE BACK END OF FR

NOTICES.
                                     51

-------
Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations:
Ten Years after the RD&D Rule
EPA/600/R-14/335
Appendix II






TJ
O
O

o
CO
1
EC
CD
S/5




Q
n
tus of State Rl
Regulation1
ns
GO

tu
S
to





O
in
d

nt. Admin R 17
o





r^
In Application



Montana

-3-

q
™
Q
CJ
fN

n. Code Title 1
^
TJ
<
O1
Z


Approved



Nebraska








z







OJ
c
o
z



Nevada






LO
O
MD
O
CO
GO
z;
LU







Approved



New Hampshire








ii
o






"CJ
Non-Approve



New Jersey






u

20,9.4.17 NM







Approved'



New Mexico






m

320 NYCRR 1,






TJ
Non-Approve



New York








z







OJ
c
o
z



North Carolina








S







01
c
o
z



«)
1
Q
_£,






co
o

o
GO
r**
cN
<
O






Approved



o
O








Z







01
c
o



Oklahoma







in
ORS459.24;







Approved



Oregon








z







eu
c;
o



Pennsylvania








CRIR2-3-06






T)
Non-Approve



Rhode Esland






o

Code Rees 61-
GH





T3
Non-Approve



South Carolina



fN
O
1— t
6
O

rr
Q
o
u
C7
C
1—


TJ
Non-Approve



South Dakota








2;







OJ
c
o



Tennessee








S







c
o



03








1







OJ
c
o



CO








Not found






IN
c
O
CO
"o.
CL
_C



Vermont






Q
ITi
m
9 VAC 20-80-4;







Approved



'E






o

WAC 173351,






r-4
In Application



Washington








S







OJ
c
o



West Virginia








o
rH
3
fr







Approved



Wisconsin




m
u
GO
fN

Waste Rules Ci
3?
"o
GO



~o
Non-Approve



Wyoming






O)
State Regulatory Coc




Q
D
* -
tus of State
Regulatio
fO
GO


CO








z:







OJ
c:
O




Alabama








ISAAC 60.213






TJ
Approve




CO
CO








fN
CPf
GO
cc





c
.2
CD
"Q.
QL
C




Arizona








§







OJ
d
o
z




Arkansas








27 CCR 2-1






—.
Approve




California








oj
rN
£
O
CC
U
U





TJ
CM
O
Q.
a
c
o




Colorado








z:







QJ
O




Connecticu








S





T3
>
O
D.
C
O




Delaware








FAC 4-03.70715





T5
OJ
O
Q.
O.
c
o
z:




CD
O
U-








z:







cu
C:
O
z:




CD
'(30
1








z:







OJ
c
o




Hawaii








z







c
o
z




o
_c
1








o
o
CO
£
"O
in
m






TJ
Approve




'o
c.








329 1C 10-11-6. 5






"O
Approve




Indiana








567 IAC 113.4(10)






TJ
Approve




CO
_o








(N
efi
fN
CO
cc






T3
Approve




Kansas








401 KAR 47:150





T)
^
O
Q.
Q.
C
O
Z




Kentucky








3





rj
O
TO
CJ
"o,
a.




Louisiana








z;







QJ
O




OJ
,_








COMAR 26.04.07.0;





TJ
0*
O
Q.
Q.
O
2




Maryland






o
co
o
LO CMR 19,062 & 19,
fTl





T3
Approve



a
lassachuse"
-2


d

~H
!f-|
rH
Act 451 Part 11532^
L_
U
S



TJ
Approve




Michigan






'43
fN
r 7035.0450 & 7035
z
S




TJ
Approve




Minnesota








Not available4





r-4
o
In Applicati




'Q.
a.
1








10 CSR 80-2.021






TJ
Approve




Missouri


T5
C
fO
cu

w
_g
co
Ol
o
:e regulations f
03

T3
_
QJ
o
,°
•P
ao
OJ
c
T5
,>
"c
c
srovtsions is based t
QJ
S
og
Q
cr
Oi
ro
igister, the status of =
QJ
_
oi
OJ
u_
1
Is
>
)f EPA appri

c
o
CO
c
es:
bsent of co
0 <
Z TH
                                          52

-------