Issue 3 - the Montana Secretary of State Website

Issue 3 - the Montana Secretary of State Website Issue 3 - the Montana Secretary of State Website

29.01.2015 Views

-372- MQC/CQC and MQA/CQA practices and to confirm that the approved MQA/CQA plan was followed and that the facility was constructed as specified in the design." Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Waste Containment Facilities, EPA/600/R-93/182, page 3, and D.E. Daniel, Ph.D, P.E., and R.M. Koerner Ph.D, P.E., Waste Containment Facilities- Guidance for CQA and CQC of Liner and Cover Systems, page 27 (American Society of Civil Engineers 2d ed. 2007). Because the submission of CQA and CQC reports, and their approval by the department, is contained in comparable EPA guidelines, and because the department is charged by law to review and approve design as part of the licensing process, findings under 75-10-107, MCA, are not required. Concerning the comment on (7), because of the potential for a conflict of interest, it is not appropriate for a licensed professional engineer to certify the proper construction of a landfill that is owned by the engineer's employer. To avoid a conflict of interest, the certification must be conducted by a third party. See Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Waste Containment Facilities, EPA/600/R- 93/182, page 8: "The MQA/CQA engineer is normally hired by the owner/operator and functions separately of the contractors and owner/operator." Because this requirement is contained in comparable EPA guidelines, stringency findings under 75-10-107, MCA, are not required. Therefore, the department declines to remove the language as requested in the comment. In New Rule XLIII, in referring to CQC and CQA, the department used the word "plan," but, in New Rule XXXIV, the department used the word "manual," to refer to the same document. Both terms are used in the solid waste field, but, for consistency, the department has amended New Rule XXXIV to use "plan" exclusively. COMMENT NO. 50: A commentor stated that (1)(d) allows the department to ask for any other design standards determined by the department to be necessary to meet the requirements of New Rule XXXIII(1) and that this type of requirement is too open-ended and vague. The department could ask for anything that could drive away the applicant because of the cost, and there is no provision in the rules for a landfill owner or operator to disagree that the department needs this additional information. If it is unreasonable or too expensive, an owner or operator could be forced to drop an application after spending tens of thousands of dollars to get to that point, and this rule should be revised or deleted. RESPONSE: The requirements of New Rule XXXIII(1), which are referenced in New Rule XXXIV(1)(d), are the same as those in 40 CFR 258.40(a) and existing rule ARM 17.50.506(1). An owner or operator is required to obtain department approval of a design, and in considering whether to approve the design, the department is required to consider "at least" the factors listed in New Rule XXXIII(2)(a) through (c), which is the same language used by EPA in 40 CFR 258.40(c)(1) through (3). The use of "at least" indicates that the EPA intended the department to have flexibility in determining if other information should be considered. By adopting "at least," the department retains the flexibility intended by EPA. Because that flexibility is available in New Rule XXXIII(2), and New Rule XXXIV(1)(d) refers to that provision, New Rule XXXIV(1)(d) is redundant and is being stricken. Montana Administrative Register 3-2/11/10

-373- COMMENT NO. 51: A commentor noted that (3)(c) requires secondary containment, monitoring of leachate and removal systems, and monitoring of leachate in collection sumps within an alternatively lined cell. The commentor asked whether this all needs to be completed within a lined cell, and the commentor questioned the justification and cost versus benefits for this requirement. The commentor also questioned the legality, due to the proposed rule being more stringent than the Subtitle D federal regulations, found at 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258. The commentor stated that this rule provision is unnecessary, unwarranted, and very expensive and should be deleted because the applicant already would have demonstrated that the alternative liner system meets the Subtitle D ground water protection standards, or the alternative liner wouldn't have been approved. RESPONSE: The department agrees that the phrase "monitoring of leachate in collection sumps within alternative liners" is not justified in New Rule XXXIV. Alternative liners may be approved under New Rule XXXIII(1)(a) or New Rule I. The requirements for an alternative liner would be determined based on engineering submissions and reviews pursuant to those rules. The department agrees that "secondary containment" is not defined. Therefore, the department has stricken New Rule XXXIV(3)(c). Subsection (3)(e) was stricken for the same reasons as in the Response to Comment No. 46. COMMENT NO. 52: A commentor stated that the conjunction at the end of (4)(a), and the entire (4)(b) should be changed to read: "…; or (b) is approved by the department under the requirements of [NEW RULE I]." Proposed (4)(b) needs to be deleted. RESPONSE: Because New Rule XXXIV(1)(d), which required an owner of a Class II or IV landfill to meet any other design standard determined by the department to be necessary to meet the requirements of New Rule XXXIII(1), has been stricken, and the only requirement being referred to in New Rule XXXIV(4)(b) is in New Rule XXXIV(1)(d), New Rule XXXIV(4)(b) has also been stricken. Regarding the commentor's suggestion that New Rule XXXIV(4) should be amended to state that a unit approved under New Rule I may recirculate leachate, New Rule I authorizes leachate to be circulated at a landfill unit approved under that rule if recirculation of leachate is part of the approved design and operation of the unit; therefore, it is unnecessary to insert a reference to New Rule I in New Rule XXXIV. NEW RULE XXXVI For the same reason discussed in the Response to Comment No. 45, the department is revising New Rules XXXVII and XXXVIII to use the phrase "underground drinking water source." New Rules XXXVII and XXXVIII are in New Subchapter IV. Because that phrase was not defined in this rule, which includes definitions for use in New Subchapter IV, it is necessary to revise this rule to include a definition of that phrase. The department has revised New Rule XXXVI to include 3-2/11/10 Montana Administrative Register

-373-<br />

COMMENT NO. 51: A commentor noted that (3)(c) requires secondary<br />

containment, monitoring <strong>of</strong> leachate and removal systems, and monitoring <strong>of</strong><br />

leachate in collection sumps within an alternatively lined cell. The commentor asked<br />

whe<strong>the</strong>r this all needs to be completed within a lined cell, and <strong>the</strong> commentor<br />

questioned <strong>the</strong> justification and cost versus benefits for this requirement. The<br />

commentor also questioned <strong>the</strong> legality, due to <strong>the</strong> proposed rule being more<br />

stringent than <strong>the</strong> Subtitle D federal regulations, found at 40 CFR Parts 257 and<br />

258. The commentor stated that this rule provision is unnecessary, unwarranted,<br />

and very expensive and should be deleted because <strong>the</strong> applicant already would<br />

have demonstrated that <strong>the</strong> alternative liner system meets <strong>the</strong> Subtitle D ground<br />

water protection standards, or <strong>the</strong> alternative liner wouldn't have been approved.<br />

RESPONSE: The department agrees that <strong>the</strong> phrase "monitoring <strong>of</strong> leachate<br />

in collection sumps within alternative liners" is not justified in New Rule XXXIV.<br />

Alternative liners may be approved under New Rule XXXIII(1)(a) or New Rule I. The<br />

requirements for an alternative liner would be determined based on engineering<br />

submissions and reviews pursuant to those rules. The department agrees that<br />

"secondary containment" is not defined. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> department has stricken<br />

New Rule XXXIV(3)(c).<br />

Subsection (3)(e) was stricken for <strong>the</strong> same reasons as in <strong>the</strong> Response to<br />

Comment No. 46.<br />

COMMENT NO. 52: A commentor stated that <strong>the</strong> conjunction at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong><br />

(4)(a), and <strong>the</strong> entire (4)(b) should be changed to read:<br />

"…; or<br />

(b) is approved by <strong>the</strong> department under <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> [NEW RULE I]."<br />

Proposed (4)(b) needs to be deleted.<br />

RESPONSE: Because New Rule XXXIV(1)(d), which required an owner <strong>of</strong> a<br />

Class II or IV landfill to meet any o<strong>the</strong>r design standard determined by <strong>the</strong><br />

department to be necessary to meet <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> New Rule XXXIII(1), has<br />

been stricken, and <strong>the</strong> only requirement being referred to in New Rule XXXIV(4)(b)<br />

is in New Rule XXXIV(1)(d), New Rule XXXIV(4)(b) has also been stricken.<br />

Regarding <strong>the</strong> commentor's suggestion that New Rule XXXIV(4) should be<br />

amended to state that a unit approved under New Rule I may recirculate leachate,<br />

New Rule I authorizes leachate to be circulated at a landfill unit approved under that<br />

rule if recirculation <strong>of</strong> leachate is part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> approved design and operation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

unit; <strong>the</strong>refore, it is unnecessary to insert a reference to New Rule I in New Rule<br />

XXXIV.<br />

NEW RULE XXXVI<br />

For <strong>the</strong> same reason discussed in <strong>the</strong> Response to Comment No. 45, <strong>the</strong><br />

department is revising New Rules XXXVII and XXXVIII to use <strong>the</strong> phrase<br />

"underground drinking water source." New Rules XXXVII and XXXVIII are in New<br />

Subchapter IV. Because that phrase was not defined in this rule, which includes<br />

definitions for use in New Subchapter IV, it is necessary to revise this rule to include<br />

a definition <strong>of</strong> that phrase. The department has revised New Rule XXXVI to include<br />

3-2/11/10 <strong>Montana</strong> Administrative Register

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!