Vol. 80 Thursday, 

No. 166 August 27, 2015 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60 

Emission Guidelines, Compliance Times, and Standards of Performance for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Proposed Rules 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52100 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0451; FRL–9930–64– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS23 

Emission Guidelines and Compliance 

Times for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a new 

subpart that updates the Emission 

Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

(Emission Guidelines). The EPA 

determined that it was appropriate to 

review the landfills Emission 

Guidelines based on changes in the 

landfills industry since the Emission 

Guidelines were promulgated in 1996. 

The EPA’s review of the Emission 

Guidelines for municipal solid waste 

(MSW) landfills applies to landfills that 

accepted waste after November 8, 1987, 

and commenced construction, 

reconstruction, or modification on or 

before July 17, 2014. Based on its initial 

review, the EPA has determined that it 

is appropriate to propose revisions to 

the Emission Guidelines that reflect 

changes to the population of landfills 

and the results of an analysis of the 

timing and methods for reducing 

emissions. This action proposes to 

achieve additional reductions of landfill 

gas (LFG) and its components, including 

methane, by lowering the emissions 

threshold at which a landfill must 

install controls. This action also 

incorporates new data and information 

received in response to an advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking and 

addresses other regulatory issues 

including surface emissions monitoring, 

wellhead monitoring, and the definition 

of landfill gas treatment system. 

In addition to considering information 

received in response to this proposed 

rule in evaluating potential changes to 

the Emission Guidelines, the EPA 

intends to consider the information in 

evaluating whether changes to the 

requirements for new sources beyond 

those in the July 17, 2014, proposed rule 

for new sources are warranted. 

The proposed revisions to the 

Emission Guidelines, once implemented 

through revised state plans or a revised 

federal plan, would reduce emissions of 

LFG, which contains both nonmethane 

organic compounds and methane. 

Landfills are a significant source of 

methane which is a potent greenhouse 

gas (GHG) pollutant. These avoided 

emissions will improve air quality and 

reduce public health and welfare effects 

associated with exposure to landfill gas 

emissions. 

DATES:

Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before October 26, 2015. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA), comments on the information 

collection provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before September 28, 2015. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

September 1, 2015, the EPA will hold a 

public hearing on September 11, 2015 

from 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) 

to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) at 

the location in the ADDRESSES section. If 

no one contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing to be held concerning 

this proposed rule by September 1, 

2015, a public hearing will not take 

place. Information regarding whether or 

not a hearing will be held will be posted 

on the rule’s Web site located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/

landflpg.htm. Please contact Ms. Aimee 

St. Clair at (919) 541–1063 or at 

stclair.aimee@epa.gov to register to 

speak at the hearing. The last day to preregister to speak at the hearing will be 

September 8, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2014–0451, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will be at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

building located at 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711. Information regarding whether or 

not a hearing will be held will be posted 

on the rule’s Web site located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/

landflpg.htm. 

Please see section II.D of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for detailed 

information on the public hearing. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning this proposal, 

contact Ms. Hillary Ward, Fuels and 

Incineration Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (E143–05), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–3154; fax 

number: (919) 541–0246; email address: 

ward.hillary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

ACUS Administrative Conference of the 

United States 

ANPRM Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

ARB Air Resources Board 

BMP Best management practice 

BSER Best system of emission reduction 

Btu British thermal unit 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CA LMR California Landfill Methane Rule 

CBI Confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEA Council of Economic Advisers 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52101 

1Executive Office of the President, ‘‘The 

President’s Climate Action Plan’’ June 2013. https:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/

president27sclimateactionplan.pdf. 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 Carbon dioxide 

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent 

DOC Degradable organic carbon 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

GCCS Gas collection and control system 

GHG Greenhouse gas 

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

GWP Global warming potential 

HAP Hazardous air pollutant 

HOV Higher operating value 

IAMS Integrated assessment models 

ICR Information collection request 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

IRFA Initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

IWG Interagency working group 

lb/MMBtu Pounds per million British 

thermal unit 

LCRS Leachate collection and removal 

system 

LFG Landfill gas 

LFGCost Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model 

LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

m3 Cubic meters 

Mg Megagram 

Mg/yr Megagram per year 

mph Miles per hour 

MSW Municipal solid waste 

mtCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalent 

MW Megawatt 

MWh Megawatt hour 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NMOC Nonmethane organic compound 

NRC National Research Council 

NSPS New source performance standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management & Budget 

PM Particulate matter 

PM2.5 Fine particulate matter 

ppm Parts per million 

ppmvd Parts per million by dry volume 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RFS Renewable Fuel Standard 

RIA Regulatory Impacts Analysis 

SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review 

SC–CH4 Social cost of methane 

SC–CO2 Social cost of carbon dioxide 

SEM Surface emissions monitoring 

SER Small entity representative 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction 

Tg Teragram 

TIP Tribal implementation plan 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

U.S. United States 

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research 

Program 

VCS Voluntary consensus standard 

VOC Volatile organic compound 

WWW World Wide Web 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

C. Costs and Benefits 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. Public Hearing 

III. Background 

A. Landfill Gas Emissions and Climate 

Change 

B. What are the health and welfare effects 

of landfill gas emissions? 

C. What is EPA’s authority for reviewing 

the Emission Guidelines? 

D. What is the purpose and scope of this 

action? 

E. How would the proposed changes in 

applicability affect sources currently 

subject to subparts Cc and WWW? 

F. Where in the CFR will these changes 

appear? 

IV. Summary of Proposed Changes Based on 

Review of the Emission Guidelines 

A. Control Technology Review 

B. Proposed Changes to Monitoring, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

C. Emission Threshold Determinations 

D. Proposed Changes To Address Closed or 

Non-Producing Areas 

E. Other Proposed Changes 

V. Rationale for the Proposed Changes Based 

on GCCS Technology Review 

A. Control Technology Review 

B. What data and control costs did the EPA 

consider in evaluating potential changes 

to the timing of installing, expanding, 

and removing the GCCS? 

C. What emissions and emission reduction 

programs are associated with existing 

MSW landfills? 

D. What control options did the EPA 

consider? 

E. How did we select the proposed 

options? 

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes to 

Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting 

A. Surface Emissions Monitoring 

Requirements 

B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements 

C. Requirements for Updating the Design 

Plan 

D. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline 

Requests 

E. Electronic Reporting 

VII. Rationale for Proposed Alternative 

Emission Threshold Determination 

Techniques 

VIII. Proposed Changes To Address Closed or 

Non-Producing Areas 

A. Subcategory for Closed Landfills 

B. Criteria for Capping or Removing a 

GCCS 

C. Non-Producing Areas and Wellhead 

Standards 

IX. Rationale for the Other Proposed Changes 

A. Landfill Gas Treatment 

B. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

C. Definitions and Other Rule Changes 

X. Request for Comment on Specific 

Provisions 

A. Defining Closed Areas of Open Landfills 

B. Enhanced Surface Emissions Monitoring 

C. Wet Landfills 

D. Monitoring Wellhead Flowrate 

E. Third-Party Design Plan Certification 

Program 

F. Use of Portable Analyzers for Monitoring 

Oxygen 

XI. Impacts of Proposed Revisions 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the water quality and solid 

waste impacts? 

C. What are the secondary air impacts? 

D. What are the energy impacts? 

E. What are the cost impacts? 

F. What are the economic impacts? 

G. What are the benefits? 

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

This action proposes changes to the 

MSW landfills Emission Guidelines 

resulting from the EPA’s review of the 

Emission Guidelines under Clean Air 

Act (CAA) section 111. The EPA’s 

review identified a number of advances 

in technology and operating practices 

and the proposed changes are based on 

our evaluation of those advances and 

our understanding of LFG emissions. 

The resulting changes to the Emission 

Guidelines, if adopted, will achieve 

additional reductions in emissions of 

landfill gas and its components, 

including methane. This proposed rule 

is consistent with the President’s 2013 

Climate Action Plan,1 which directs 

federal agencies to focus on ‘‘assessing 

current emissions data, addressing data 

gaps, identifying technologies and best 

practices for reducing emissions, and 

identifying existing authorities and 

incentive-based opportunities to reduce 

methane emissions.’’ The proposed 

changes are also consistent with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52102 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2Executive Office of the President, ‘‘Climate 

Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane, March 

2014. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/

files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emissions_2014- 

03-28_final.pdf. 

3This date in 1987 is the date on which permit 

programs were established under the Hazardous 

and Solid Waste Amendments of the Resource, 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which 

amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), 42 

U.S.C. 6901–6992k. This date was also selected as 

the regulatory cutoff in the EG for landfills no 

longer receiving wastes because the EPA judged 

States would be able to identify active facilities as 

of this date. 

President’s Methane Strategy,2 which 

directs EPA’s regulatory and voluntary 

programs to continue to pursue 

emission reductions through regulatory 

updates and to encourage LFG energy 

recovery through voluntary programs. 

These directives are discussed in detail 

in section III.A of this preamble. This 

regulatory action also proposes to either 

resolve or clarify implementation issues 

that were previously addressed in 

amendments proposed on May 23, 2002 

(67 FR 36475) and September 8, 2006 

(71 FR 53271). 

1. Need for Regulatory Action 

The EPA reviewed the Emission 

Guidelines to determine the potential 

for achieving additional reductions in 

emissions of LFG. Such reductions 

would reduce air pollution and the 

resulting harm to public health and 

welfare. Significant changes have 

occurred in the landfill industry over 

time, including changes to the size and 

number of existing landfills, industry 

practices, and gas control methods and 

technologies. Based on the EPA’s initial 

review, we are proposing changes to the 

Emission Guidelines. The proposed 

changes, if adopted, will achieve 

additional emission reductions of LFG 

and its components (including 

methane), provide more effective 

options for demonstrating compliance, 

and provide clarification of 

implementation issues raised during the 

amendments proposed in 2002 and 

2006. 

2. Legal Authority 

The EPA is not statutorily obligated to 

conduct a review of the Emission 

Guidelines, but has the discretion to do 

so when circumstances indicate that it 

is appropriate. The EPA has determined 

that it is appropriate to review and 

propose changes to the Emission 

Guidelines at this time based on 

changes in the landfill industry and 

changes in the size, ownership, and age 

of landfills since the Emission 

Guidelines were promulgated in 1996. 

The EPA compiled new information on 

landfills through data collection efforts 

for a statutorily mandated review of the 

existing new source performance 

standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW), public comments 

received on the NSPS proposal (79 FR 

41796, July 17, 2014), and public 

comments received on the Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) (79 FR 41772, July 17, 2014) 

for a review of the Emission Guidelines. 

This information is allowing the EPA to 

assess current practices, emissions, and 

the potential for additional emission 

reductions. 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

The proposed revised Emission 

Guidelines will ultimately apply to 

landfills that accepted waste after 

November 8, 1987,3 and that 

commenced construction, 

reconstruction, or modification on or 

before July 17, 2014 (the date of 

publication of proposed revisions to the 

landfills NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

XXX). The proposed rule provisions are 

described below. 

Thresholds for installing or removing 

controls. The proposed revised 

Emission Guidelines retain the current 

design capacity threshold of 2.5 million 

megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million cubic 

meters (m3), but reduce the nonmethane 

organic compounds (NMOC) emission 

threshold for the installation and 

removal of a gas collection and control 

system (GCCS) from 50 Mg/yr to 34 

Mg/yr for landfills that are not closed. 

As proposed, an MSW landfill that 

exceeds the design capacity threshold 

must install and start up a GCCS within 

30 months after LFG emissions reach or 

exceed an NMOC level of 34 Mg/yr 

NMOC. (A megagram is also known as 

a metric ton, which is equal to 1.1 U.S. 

short tons or about 2,205 pounds.) 

Consistent with the existing Emission 

Guidelines, the owner or operator of a 

landfill may control the gas by routing 

it to a non-enclosed flare, an enclosed 

combustion device, or a treatment 

system that processes the collected gas 

for subsequent sale or beneficial use. 

Landfill Gas Treatment. The EPA is 

proposing to address two issues related 

to LFG treatment. First, the EPA is 

proposing to clarify that the use of 

treated LFG is not limited to use as a 

fuel for a stationary combustion device 

but also allows other beneficial uses 

such as vehicle fuel, production of highBtu gas for pipeline injection, and use 

as a raw material in a chemical 

manufacturing process. Second, the EPA 

is proposing to define Treated landfill 

gas as LFG processed in a treatment 

system meeting the requirements in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf and to define 

Treatment system as a system that 

filters, de-waters, and compresses LFG 

for sale or beneficial use. The proposed 

definition allows the level of treatment 

to be tailored to the type and design of 

the specific combustion or other 

equipment for other beneficial uses such 

as vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu 

gas for pipeline injection, or use as a 

raw material in a chemical 

manufacturing process in which the 

LFG is used. Owners or operators would 

develop a site-specific treatment system 

monitoring plan that would include 

monitoring parameters addressing all 

three elements of treatment (filtration, 

de-watering, and compression) to ensure 

the treatment system is operating 

properly for the intended end use of the 

treated LFG. They would also keep 

records that demonstrate that such 

parameters effectively monitor filtration, 

de-watering, and compression system 

performance necessary for the end use 

of the treated LFG. 

Surface Monitoring. The EPA 

proposes monitoring of all surface 

penetrations for existing landfills. In 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, 

landfills must conduct surface 

emissions monitoring (SEM) at all cover 

penetrations and openings within the 

area of the landfill where waste has 

been placed and a gas collection system 

is required to be in place and operating 

according to the operational standards 

in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

Specifically, landfill owners or 

operators must conduct surface 

monitoring on a quarterly basis at the 

specified intervals and where visual 

observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas, such as 

distressed vegetation and cracks or 

seeps in the cover and all cover 

penetrations. 

Emission Threshold Determination. 

The EPA is proposing an alternative 

site-specific emission threshold 

determination for when a landfill must 

install and operate a GCCS. This 

alternative emission threshold 

determination, referred to as ‘‘Tier 4,’’ is 

based on surface emission monitoring 

and demonstrates that surface emissions 

are below a specific threshold. The Tier 

4 SEM demonstration would allow 

landfills that exceed modeled NMOC 

emission rates using Tiers 1, 2, or 3 to 

demonstrate that site-specific surface 

methane emissions are low. A landfill 

that can demonstrate that surface 

emissions are below 500 parts per 

million (ppm) for 4 consecutive quarters 

would not trigger the requirement to 

install a GCCS even if Tier 1, 2, or 3 

calculations indicate that the 34 Mg/yr 

threshold has been exceeded. 

Wellhead Operational Standards. The 

EPA proposes to remove the operational 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52103 

standards (i.e., the requirement to meet 

operating limits) for temperature and 

nitrogen/oxygen at the wellheads. 

Landfill owners or operators would not 

be required to take corrective action 

based on exceedances of specified 

operational standards, but they would 

continue to monitor temperature and 

oxygen/nitrogen levels at wellheads in 

order to inform any necessary 

adjustments to the GCCS and would 

maintain records of monthly readings. 

The operational standard, corrective 

action, and corresponding 

recordkeeping and reporting remain for 

maintaining negative pressure at the 

wellhead. 

Closed Landfills. Because many 

landfills are closed and do not produce 

as much LFG, the EPA is proposing a 

separate subcategory for landfills that 

closed on or before August 27, 2015. 

Landfills in this subcategory will 

continue to be subject to an NMOC 

emission threshold of 50 Mg/yr for 

determining when controls must be 

installed or can be removed. 

Low LFG Producing Areas. The EPA is 

also proposing alternative criteria for 

determining when it is appropriate to 

cap or remove a portion of the GCCS at 

such landfills. The proposed alternative 

criteria for capping or removing the 

GCCS are: (1) The landfill is closed or 

an area of an active landfill is closed, (2) 

the GCCS has operated for at least 15 

years or the landfill owner or operator 

can demonstrate that the GCCS will be 

unable to operate for 15 years due to 

declining gas flows, and (3) the landfill 

owner or operator demonstrates that 

there are no surface methane emissions 

of 500 ppm or greater in the landfill or 

closed area for 4 consecutive quarters. 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. 

The EPA is proposing that standards in 

the Emission Guidelines apply at all 

times, including periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). In 

addition, to enable the EPA to 

determine the severity of any emissions 

exceedance that might occur during 

periods when the gas collection system 

or a control device is not operating, the 

EPA is proposing to add a 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirement for landfill owners or 

operators to estimate emissions during 

such periods. 

Requests for Comment. The EPA 

welcomes comments on all aspects of 

this proposal and is specifically 

requesting comments on the following 

topics: 

• Defining closed areas of open 

landfills. 

• Changing the walking pattern for 

surface emissions monitoring from 30 

meters (98 ft) to 25 ft and adding a 

methane concentration limit of 25 ppm 

as determined by an integrated reading. 

• Addressing wet landfills. 

• Monitoring wellhead flow rate. 

• Establishing a program for thirdparty design plan certification. 

• Using a portable gas composition 

analyzer as acceptable alternative to 

Method 3A or 3C. 

Other Clarifications. The EPA is 

proposing other clarifications to address 

issues that have been raised by landfill 

owners or operators during 

implementation of the current NSPS 

and Emission Guidelines. These other 

clarifications include adding criteria for 

when an affected source must update its 

design plan and clarifying when landfill 

owners or operators must submit 

corrective action timeline requests. The 

EPA is also proposing to update several 

definitions in the Emission Guidelines. 

In addition, while the EPA is not 

proposing to mandate organics 

diversion we are proposing two specific 

compliance flexibilities in the Emission 

Guidelines to encourage wider adoption 

of organics diversion and GCCS Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) for 

emission reductions at landfills. These 

compliance flexibilities are discussed in 

sections VI.B (wellhead monitoring) and 

VII.A (Tier 4 emission threshold 

determination) of this preamble. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

The proposed revised Emission 

Guidelines are expected to significantly 

reduce emissions of landfill gas and its 

components, which include methane, 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), and 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). 

Landfills are a significant source of 

methane emissions, and in 2013, 

landfills represented the third largest 

source of human-related methane 

emissions in the U.S. 

To comply with the emissions limits 

in the proposed rule, MSW landfill 

owners or operators are expected to 

install the least-cost control for 

collecting and combusting landfill gas. 

The annualized net cost for the 

proposed Emission Guidelines is 

estimated to be $46.8 million (2012$) in 

2025, when using a 7 percent discount 

rate. The annualized costs represent the 

costs compared to no changes to the 

current Emission Guidelines (i.e., 

baseline) and include $101 million to 

install and operate a GCCS, as well as 

$0.64 million to complete the 

corresponding testing and monitoring. 

These control costs are offset by $55.3 

million in revenue from electricity sales, 

which is incorporated into the net 

control costs for certain landfills that are 

expected to generate revenue by using 

the landfill gas to produce electricity. 

Installation of a GCCS to comply with 

the 34 Mg/yr NMOC emissions 

threshold at open landfills would 

achieve reductions of 2,770 Mg/yr 

NMOC and 436,100 Mg/yr methane 

(about 10.9 million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent per year 

(mtCO2e/yr)) beyond the baseline in 

year 2025. In addition, the proposal is 

expected to result in the net reduction 

of 238,000 Mg CO2, due to reduced 

demand for electricity from the grid as 

landfills generate electricity from 

landfill gas. The NMOC portion of 

landfill gas can contain a variety of air 

pollutants, including VOC and various 

organic HAP. VOC emissions are 

precursors to both fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) and ozone formation. 

These pollutants, along with methane, 

are associated with substantial health 

effects, welfare effects, and climate 

effects. The EPA expects that the 

reduced emissions will result in 

improvements in air quality and lessen 

health effects associated with exposure 

to air pollution related emissions, and 

result in climate benefits due to 

reductions of the methane component of 

landfill gas. 

The EPA estimates that the proposal’s 

estimated methane emission reductions 

and secondary CO2 emission reductions 

in the year 2025 would yield global 

monetized climate benefits of $310 

million to approximately $1.7 billion, 

depending on the discount rate. Using 

the mean social cost of methane (SCCH4) and social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2), at 

a 3-percent discount rate, results in an 

estimate of about $670 million in 2025. 

The SC-CH4 and SC-CO2 are the 

monetary values of impacts associated 

with marginal changes in methane and 

CO2 emissions, respectively, in a given 

year. It includes a wide range of 

anticipated climate impacts, such as net 

changes in agricultural productivity, 

property damage from increased flood 

risk, and changes in energy system 

costs, such as reduced costs for heating 

and increased costs for air conditioning. 

With the data available, we are not 

able to provide health benefit estimates 

for the reduction in exposure to HAP, 

ozone, and PM2.5 for this rule. This is 

not to imply that there are no such 

benefits of the rule; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling 

the direct and indirect impacts of the 

reductions in emissions for this sector 

with the data currently available. 

Based on the monetized benefits and 

costs, the estimated net benefits of the 

rule are estimated to be $620 million 

($2012) in 2025. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52104 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This proposed rule addresses existing 

MSW landfills and associated solid 

waste management programs. 

Potentially affected categories include 

those listed in Table 1 of this preamble. 

TABLE 1—REGULATED ENTITIES

Category NAICSa Examples of affected facilities 

Industry: Air and water resource and solid waste management .. 924110 Solid waste landfills. 

Industry: Refuse systems—solid waste landfills ........................... 562212 Solid waste landfills. 

State, local, and tribal government agencies ............................... 924110 Administration of air and water resource and solid waste management programs. 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by the new subpart. To 

determine whether your facility would 

be regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria in proposed 40 CFR 60.32f of 

subpart Cf. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of the 

proposed subpart to a particular entity, 

contact the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments? 

1. Submitting CBI 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI to 

only the following address: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (Room C404– 

02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0451. 

If you have any questions about CBI 

or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

2. Docket 

The docket number for the Emission 

Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

(proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf) is 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0451. Docket ID No. A–88–09 for related 

40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc 

contains supporting information. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the proposed 

Emission Guidelines is available on the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN) 

Web site. Following signature, the EPA 

will post a copy of proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf on the TTN’s policy 

and guidance page for newly proposed 

or promulgated rules at http://

www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/

landflpg.html. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. 

D. Public Hearing 

Please contact Ms. Aimee St. Clair at 

(919) 541–1063 or at stclair.aimee@

epa.gov to register to speak at the 

hearing. The last day to pre-register to 

speak at the hearing will be September 

8, 2015. Requests to speak will be taken 

the day of the hearing at the hearing 

registration desk, although preferences 

on speaking times may not be able to be 

fulfilled. If you require the service of a 

translator or special accommodations 

such as audio description, please let us 

know at the time of registration. 

If a hearing is held, it will provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 

present data, views or arguments 

concerning the proposed action. The 

EPA will make every effort to 

accommodate all speakers who arrive 

and register. Because this hearing, if 

held, will be at U.S. government 

facilities, individuals planning to attend 

the hearing should be prepared to show 

valid picture identification to the 

security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. Please note that the 

REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 

2005, established new requirements for 

entering federal facilities. If your 

driver’s license is issued by Alaska, 

American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Montana, New York, 

Oklahoma or the state of Washington, 

you must present an additional form of 

identification to enter the federal 

building. Acceptable alternative forms 

of identification include: Federal 

employee badges, passports, enhanced 

driver’s licenses and military 

identification cards. In addition, you 

will need to obtain a property pass for 

any personal belongings you bring with 

you. Upon leaving the building, you 

will be required to return this property 

pass to the security desk. No large signs 

will be allowed in the building, cameras 

may only be used outside of the 

building and demonstrations will not be 

allowed on federal property for security 

reasons. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations, but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral comments 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. Commenters should 

notify Ms. St. Clair if they will need 

specific equipment, or if there are other 

special needs related to providing 

comments at the hearings. Verbatim 

transcripts of the hearing and written 

statements will be included in the 

docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will 

make every effort to follow the schedule 

as closely as possible on the day of the 

hearing; however, please plan for the 

hearing to run either ahead of schedule 

or behind schedule. A public hearing 

will not be held unless requested. Please 

contact Ms. Aimee St. Clair at (919) 

541–1063 or at stclair.aimee@epa.gov to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52105 

4Executive Office of the President, ‘‘The 

President’s Climate Action Plan’’ June 2013. https:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/

president27sclimateactionplan.pdf. 

5The IPCC updates GWP estimates with each new 

assessment report, and in the latest assessment 

report, AR5, the latest estimate of the methane GWP 

ranged from 28–36, compared to a GWP of 25 in 

AR4. The impacts analysis in this proposal is based 

on AR4 instead of AR5 (i.e., a GWP of 25). 

6Executive Office of the President, ‘‘Climate 

Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane, March 

2014. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/

files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emissions_2014– 

03–28_final.pdf. 

7Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills-Background Information for Proposed 

Standards and Guidelines, U.S. EPA (EPA–450/3– 

90–011a) (NTIS PB 91–197061) page 2–15. 

8Total U.S. methane emissions were 636 Tg CO2e 

in 2013. U.S. EPA ‘‘Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013.’’ Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/

usinventoryreport.html. 

9 Ibid, Page ES–14. 

10 Ibid, Table ES–2. 

11U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5. Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. October 2006. Available on the 

Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/

RIAs/Chapter%205-Benefits.pdf. 

12U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone. Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 

2010. Available on the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/s1- 

supplemental_analysis_full.pdf. 

13U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone. Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

December 2014. Available on the Internet at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/

20141125ria.pdf. 

14U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08– 

139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment—RTP Division. December 2009. 

Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 

request or register to speak at the 

hearing or to inquire as to whether a 

hearing will be held. Again further 

information on the public hearing will 

be provided on the rule’s Web site 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/ 

landfill/landflpg.html. 

III. Background 

The Emission Guidelines for MSW 

landfills were promulgated on March 

12, 1996, and subsequently amended on 

June 16, 1998, February 24, 1999, and 

April 10, 2000, to make technical 

corrections and clarifications. 

Amendments were proposed on May 23, 

2002, and September 8, 2006, to address 

implementation issues, but those 

amendments were never finalized. On 

July 17, 2014, the EPA issued an 

ANPRM for the MSW landfills Emission 

Guidelines (79 FR 41772). The purpose 

of that action was to request public 

input on controls and practices that 

could further reduce emissions from 

existing MSW landfills and to evaluate 

that input to determine if changes to the 

Emission Guidelines were appropriate. 

On July 17, 2014, the EPA issued a 

concurrent proposal for revised NSPS 

for new MSW landfills (79 FR 41796). 

In this action, the EPA is proposing a 

review of and certain changes to the 

Emission Guidelines to build on 

progress to date to (1) achieve additional 

reductions in emissions of LFG and its 

components, (2) account for changes in 

size, ownership and age of landfills and 

trends in GCCS installations, as 

reflected in new data, (3) provide new 

options for demonstrating compliance, 

and (4) to complete efforts regarding 

unresolved implementation issues. The 

proposed approaches are consistent 

with the Methane Strategy developed as 

part of the President’s Climate Action 

Plan. 

A. Landfill Gas Emissions and Climate 

Change 

In June 2013, President Obama issued 

a Climate Action Plan that directed 

federal agencies to focus on ‘‘assessing 

current emissions data, addressing data 

gaps, identifying technologies and best 

practices for reducing emissions, and 

identifying existing authorities and 

incentive-based opportunities to reduce 

methane emissions.’’ 4 Methane is a 

potent GHG that is 28–36 times greater 

than carbon dioxide (CO2) and has an 

atmospheric life of about 12 years.5

Because of methane’s potency as a GHG 

and its atmospheric life, reducing 

methane emissions is one of the best 

ways to achieve near-term beneficial 

impact in mitigating global climate 

change. 

The ‘‘Climate Action Plan: Strategy to 

Reduce Methane Emissions’’ 6 (the 

Methane Strategy) was released in 

March 2014. The strategy recognized the 

methane reductions achieved through 

the EPA’s regulatory and voluntary 

programs to date. It also directed the 

EPA to continue to pursue emission 

reductions through regulatory updates 

and to encourage LFG energy recovery 

through voluntary programs. 

The EPA recognized the climate 

benefits associated with reducing 

methane emissions from landfills nearly 

25 years ago. The 1991 NSPS 

Background Information Document 7

asserted that the reduction of methane 

emissions from MSW landfills was one 

of many options available to reduce 

global warming. The NSPS for MSW 

landfills, promulgated in 1996, also 

recognized the climate co-benefits of 

controlling methane (61 FR 9917, March 

12, 1996). The review and proposed 

revision of the MSW landfills Emission 

Guidelines explores additional 

opportunities to achieve methane 

reductions while acknowledging 

historical agency perspectives and 

research on climate, a charge from the 

President’s Climate Action Plan, the 

Methane Strategy, and improvements in 

the science surrounding GHG emissions. 

LFG is a collection of air pollutants, 

including methane and NMOC. LFG is 

typically composed of 50-percent 

methane, 50-percent CO2, and less than 

1-percent NMOC by volume. The NMOC 

portion of LFG can contain various 

organic HAP and VOC. When the 

Emission Guidelines and NSPS were 

promulgated in 1996, NMOC was 

selected as a surrogate for MSW LFG 

emissions because NMOC contains the 

air pollutants that at that time were of 

most concern due to their adverse 

effects on health and welfare. Today, 

methane’s effects on climate change are 

also considered important. In 2012, 

methane emissions from MSW landfills 

represented 15.3 percent of total U.S. 

methane emissions and 1.5 percent of 

total U.S. GHG emissions.8 In 2013, 

landfills continued to be the third 

largest source of human-related methane 

emissions among stationary source 

categories in the U.S., representing 18.0 

percent of total methane emissions 9 and 

1.7 percent of all GHG emissions (in 

CO2e) in the U.S.10 For these reasons 

and because additional emissions 

reductions can be achieved at a 

reasonable cost, the EPA is proposing 

changes to the Emission Guidelines that 

are based on reducing the NMOC and 

methane components of LFG. 

B. What are the health and welfare 

effects of landfill gas emissions? 

1. Health Impacts of VOC and Various 

Organic HAP 

VOC emissions are precursors to both 

PM2.5 and ozone formation. As 

documented in previous analyses (U.S. 

EPA, 2006,11 2010,12 and 2014,13), 

exposure to PM2.5 and ozone is 

associated with significant public health 

effects. PM2.5 is associated with health 

effects, including premature mortality 

for adults and infants, cardiovascular 

morbidity such as heart attacks, and 

respiratory morbidity such as asthma 

attacks, acute bronchitis, hospital 

admissions and emergency room visits, 

work loss days, restricted activity days 

and respiratory symptoms, as well as 

welfare impacts such as visibility 

impairment.14 Ozone is associated with 

health effects, including hospital and 

emergency department visits, school 

loss days and premature mortality, as 

well as ecological effects (e.g., injury to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52106 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

15U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 

Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/ 

R–05/004aF–cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

February 2006. Available on the Internet at http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923. 16U.S. EPA. 1998. Office of Air and Radiation, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

‘‘Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 

Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area 

Sources, Chapter 2: Solid Waste Disposal, Section 

2.4: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills’’. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/

c02s04.pdf. 17 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.–K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 

S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex 

and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA. 

18Note that this proposal uses a GWP value for 

methane of 25 for CO2 equivalency calculations, 

consistent with the GHG emissions inventories and 

the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. 

19 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.–K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 

S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex 

and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA. 

19 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under 

20 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act,’’ 74 FR 66496 (Dec. 15, 

2009) (‘‘Endangerment Finding’’). 

vegetation and climate change).15

Nearly 30 organic HAP have been 

identified in uncontrolled LFG, 

including benzene, toluene, ethyl 

benzene, and vinyl chloride.16 Benzene 

is a known human carcinogen. 

2. Climate Impacts of Methane 

Emissions 

In addition to the improvements in air 

quality and resulting benefits to human 

health and the non-climate welfare 

effects discussed above, reducing 

emissions from landfills is expected to 

result in climate co-benefits due to 

reductions of the methane component of 

LFG. Methane is a potent GHG with a 

global warming potential (GWP) 28–36 

times greater than CO2, which accounts 

for methane’s stronger absorption of 

infrared radiation per ton in the 

atmosphere, but also its shorter lifetime 

(on the order of 12 years compared to 

centuries or millennia for CO2).17 18

According to the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th 

Assessment Report, methane is the 

second leading long-lived climate forcer 

after CO2 globally.19

In 2009, based on a large body of 

robust and compelling scientific 

evidence, the EPA Administrator issued 

the Endangerment Finding under CAA 

section 202(a)(1).20 In the Endangerment 

Finding, the Administrator found that 

the current, elevated concentrations of 

GHGs in the atmosphere—already at 

levels unprecedented in human 

history—may reasonably be anticipated 

to endanger public health and welfare of 

current and future generations in the 

U.S. We summarize these adverse 

effects on public health and welfare 

briefly here. 

3. Public Health Impacts Detailed in the 

2009 Endangerment Finding 

The 2009 Endangerment Finding 

documented that climate change caused 

by human emissions of GHGs threatens 

the health of Americans. By raising 

average temperatures, climate change 

increases the likelihood of heat waves, 

which are associated with increased 

deaths and illnesses. While climate 

change also increases the likelihood of 

reductions in cold-related mortality, 

evidence indicates that the increases in 

heat mortality will be larger than the 

decreases in cold mortality in the 

United States. Compared to a future 

without climate change, climate change 

is expected to increase ozone pollution 

over broad areas of the U.S., including 

in the largest metropolitan areas with 

the worst ozone problems, and thereby 

increase the risk of morbidity and 

mortality. Climate change is also 

expected to cause more intense 

hurricanes and more frequent and 

intense storms and heavy precipitation, 

with impacts on other areas of public 

health, such as the potential for 

increased deaths, injuries, infectious 

and waterborne diseases, and stressrelated disorders. Children, the elderly, 

and the poor are among the most 

vulnerable to these climate-related 

health effects. 

4. Public Welfare Impacts Detailed in 

the 2009 Endangerment Finding 

The 2009 Endangerment Finding 

documented that climate change 

impacts touch nearly every aspect of 

public welfare. Among the multiple 

threats caused by human emissions of 

GHGs, climate changes are expected to 

place large areas of the country at 

serious risk of reduced water supplies, 

increased water pollution, and 

increased occurrence of extreme events 

such as floods and droughts. Coastal 

areas are expected to face a multitude of 

increased risks, particularly from rising 

sea level and increases in the severity of 

storms. These communities face storm 

and flooding damage to property, or 

even loss of land due to inundation, 

erosion, wetland submergence and 

habitat loss. 

Impacts of climate change on public 

welfare also include threats to social 

and ecosystem services. Climate change 

is expected to result in an increase in 

peak electricity demand, Extreme 

weather from climate change threatens 

energy, transportation, and water 

resource infrastructure. Climate change 

may also exacerbate ongoing 

environmental pressures in certain 

settlements, particularly in Alaskan 

indigenous communities, and is very 

likely to fundamentally rearrange U.S. 

ecosystems over the 21st century. 

Though some benefits may balance 

adverse effects on agriculture and 

forestry in the next few decades, the 

body of evidence points towards 

increasing risks of net adverse impacts 

on U.S. food production, agriculture and 

forest productivity as temperature 

continues to rise. These impacts are 

global and may exacerbate problems 

outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, 

trade, and national security issues for 

the U.S. 

5. New Scientific Assessments 

Since the 2009 administrative record 

concerning the Endangerment Finding 

closed following the EPA’s 2010 

Reconsideration Denial, the climate has 

continued to change, with new records 

being set for a number of climate 

indicators such as global average surface 

temperatures, Arctic sea ice retreat, CO2

concentrations, and sea level rise. 

Additionally, a number of major, 

scientific assessments have been 

released that improve understanding of 

the climate system and strengthen the 

case that GHGs endanger public health 

and welfare both for current and future 

generations. These assessments, from 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC), the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program (USGCRP), and the 

National Research Council of the 

National Academies (NRC), include: 

IPCC’s 2012 Special Report on 

Managing the Risks of Extreme Events 

and Disasters to Advance Climate 

Change Adaptation (SREX) and the 

2013–2014 Fifth Assessment Report 

(AR5), USGCRP’s 2014 National Climate 

Assessment, Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States (NCA3), and the 

NRC’s 2010 Ocean Acidification: A 

National Strategy to Meet the 

Challenges of a Changing Ocean (Ocean 

Acidification), 2011 Report on Climate 

Stabilization Targets: Emissions, 

Concentrations, and Impacts over 

Decades to Millennia (Climate 

Stabilization Targets), 2011 National 

Security Implications for U.S. Naval 

Forces (National Security Implications), 

2011 Understanding Earth’s Deep Past: 

Lessons for Our Climate Future 

(Understanding Earth’s Deep Past), 2012 

Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52107 

21 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, 

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional 

Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, 

D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. 

Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. 

Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. 

MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White 

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 

1581. 

22National Research Council, Understanding 

Earth’s Deep Past, p. 1. 

23 Id., p. 138. 

California, Oregon, and Washington: 

Past, Present, and Future, 2012 Climate 

and Social Stress: Implications for 

Security Analysis (Climate and Social 

Stress), and 2013 Abrupt Impacts of 

Climate Change (Abrupt Impacts) 

assessments. 

The EPA has carefully reviewed these 

recent assessments in keeping with the 

same approach outlined in Section 

VIII.A of the 2009 Endangerment 

Finding, which was to rely primarily 

upon the major assessments by the 

USGCRP, IPCC, and the NRC to provide 

the technical and scientific information 

to inform the Administrator’s judgment 

regarding the question of whether GHGs 

endanger public health and welfare. 

These assessments addressed the 

scientific issues that the EPA was 

required to examine were 

comprehensive in their coverage of the 

GHG and climate change issues, and 

underwent rigorous and exacting peer 

review by the expert community, as 

well as rigorous levels of U.S. 

government review. 

The findings of the recent scientific 

assessments confirm and strengthen the 

conclusion that GHGs endanger public 

health, now and in the future. The 

NCA3 indicates that human health in 

the United States will be impacted by 

‘‘increased extreme weather events, 

wildfire, decreased air quality, threats to 

mental health, and illnesses transmitted 

by food, water, and disease-carriers such 

as mosquitoes and ticks.’’ The most 

recent assessments now have greater 

confidence that climate change will 

influence production of pollen that 

exacerbates asthma and other allergic 

respiratory diseases such as allergic 

rhinitis, as well as effects on 

conjunctivitis and dermatitis. Both the 

NCA3 and the IPCC AR5 found that 

increasing temperature has lengthened 

the allergenic pollen season for 

ragweed, and that increased CO2 by 

itself can elevate production of plantbased allergens. 

The NCA3 also finds that climate 

change, in addition to chronic stresses 

such as extreme poverty, is negatively 

affecting indigenous peoples’ health in 

the United States through impacts such 

as reduced access to traditional foods, 

decreased water quality, and increasing 

exposure to health and safety hazards. 

The IPCC AR5 finds that climate 

change-induced warming in the Arctic 

and resultant changes in environment 

(e.g., permafrost thaw, effects on 

traditional food sources) have 

significant impacts, observed now and 

projected, on the health and well-being 

of Arctic residents, especially 

indigenous peoples. Small, remote, 

predominantly-indigenous communities 

are especially vulnerable given their 

‘‘strong dependence on the environment 

for food, culture, and way of life; their 

political and economic marginalization; 

existing social, health, and poverty 

disparities; as well as their frequent 

close proximity to exposed locations 

along ocean, lake, or river 

shorelines.’’ 21 In addition, increasing 

temperatures and loss of Arctic sea ice 

increases the risk of drowning for those 

engaged in traditional hunting and 

fishing. 

The NCA3 concludes that children’s 

unique physiology and developing 

bodies contribute to making them 

particularly vulnerable to climate 

change. Impacts on children are 

expected from heat waves, air pollution, 

infectious and waterborne illnesses, and 

mental health effects resulting from 

extreme weather events. The IPCC AR5 

indicates that children are among those 

especially susceptible to most allergic 

diseases, as well as health effects 

associated with heat waves, storms, and 

floods. The IPCC finds that additional 

health concerns may arise in low 

income households, especially those 

with children, if climate change reduces 

food availability and increases prices, 

leading to food insecurity within 

households. 

Both the NCA3 and IPCC AR5 

conclude that climate change will 

increase health risks facing the elderly. 

Older people are at much higher risk of 

mortality during extreme heat events. 

Pre-existing health conditions also make 

older adults susceptible to cardiac and 

respiratory impacts of air pollution and 

to more severe consequences from 

infectious and waterborne diseases. 

Limited mobility among older adults 

can also increase health risks associated 

with extreme weather and floods. 

The new assessments also confirm 

and strengthen the conclusion that 

GHGs endanger public welfare, and 

emphasize the urgency of reducing GHG 

emissions due to their projections that 

show GHG concentrations climbing to 

ever-increasing levels in the absence of 

mitigation. The NRC assessment 

Understanding Earth’s Deep Past 

projected that, without a reduction in 

emissions, CO2 concentrations by the 

end of the century would increase to 

levels that the Earth has not experienced 

for more than 30 million years.22 In fact, 

that assessment stated that ‘‘the 

magnitude and rate of the present 

greenhouse gas increase place the 

climate system in what could be one of 

the most severe increases in radiative 

forcing of the global climate system in 

Earth history.’’ 23 Because of these 

unprecedented changes, several 

assessments state that we may be 

approaching critical, poorly understood 

thresholds: as stated in the NRC 

assessment Understanding Earth’s Deep 

Past, ‘‘As Earth continues to warm, it 

may be approaching a critical climate 

threshold beyond which rapid and 

potentially permanent—at least on a 

human timescale—changes not 

anticipated by climate models tuned to 

modern conditions may occur.’’ 

Moreover, due to the time lags inherent 

in the Earth’s climate, the NRC Climate 

Stabilization Targets assessment notes 

that the full warming from increased 

GHG concentrations will not be fully 

realized for several centuries, 

underscoring that emission activities 

today carry with them climate 

commitments far into the future. 

Future temperature changes will 

depend on what emission path the 

world follows. In its high emission 

scenario, the IPCC AR5 projects that 

global temperatures by the end of the 

century will likely be 2.6 °C to 4.8 °C 

(4.7 to 8.6 °F) warmer than today. 

Temperatures on land and in northern 

latitudes will likely warm even faster 

than the global average. However, 

according to the NCA3, significant 

reductions in emissions would lead to 

noticeably less future warming beyond 

mid-century, and therefore less impact 

to public health and welfare. 

While rainfall may see only small 

globally and annually averaged changes, 

there are expected to be substantial 

shifts in where and when that 

precipitation falls. According to the 

NCA3, regions closer to the poles will 

see more precipitation, while the dry 

subtropics are expected to expand 

(colloquially, this has been summarized 

as wet areas getting wetter and dry 

regions getting drier). In particular, the 

NCA3 notes that the western U.S., and 

especially the Southwest, is expected to 

become drier. This projection is 

consistent with the recent observed 

drought trend in the West. At the time 

of publication of the NCA, even before 

the last 2 years of extreme drought in 

California, tree ring data were already 

indicating that the region might be 

experiencing its driest period in 800 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52108 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

24NRC, 2011: National Security Implications of 

Climate Change for U.S. Naval Forces. The National 

Academies Press, p. 28. 

25Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and 

Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts 

in the United States: The Third National Climate 

Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

p. 9. 

26Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and 

Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change Impacts 

in the United States: The Third National Climate 

Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

p. 17. 

27 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, 

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and 

Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II 

to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, 

C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. 

Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. 

Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. 

Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. 

White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, p. 796. 

years. Similarly, the NCA3 projects that 

heavy downpours are expected to 

increase in many regions, with 

precipitation events in general 

becoming less frequent but more 

intense. This trend has already been 

observed in regions such as the 

Midwest, Northeast, and upper Great 

Plains. Meanwhile, the NRC Climate 

Stabilization Targets assessment found 

that the area burned by wildfire is 

expected to grow by 2 to 4 times for 

1 °C (1.8 °F) of warming. For 3 °C of 

warming, the assessment found that 

nine out of 10 summers would be 

warmer than all but the 5 percent of 

warmest summers today, leading to 

increased frequency, duration, and 

intensity of heat waves. Extrapolations 

by the NCA also indicate that Arctic sea 

ice in summer may essentially 

disappear by mid-century. Retreating 

snow and ice, and emissions of carbon 

dioxide and methane released from 

thawing permafrost, will also amplify 

future warming. 

Since the 2009 Endangerment 

Finding, the USGCRP NCA3 and 

multiple NRC assessments have 

projected future rates of sea level rise 

that are 40 percent larger to more than 

twice as large as the previous estimates 

from the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment 

Report due in part to improved 

understanding of the future rate of melt 

of the Antarctic and Greenland ice 

sheets. The NRC Sea Level Rise 

assessment projects a global sea level 

rise of 0.5 to 1.4 meters (1.6 to 4.6 feet) 

by 2100, the NRC National Security 

Implications assessment suggests that 

‘‘the Department of the Navy should 

expect roughly 0.4 to 2 meters (1.3 to 6.6 

feet) global average sea-level rise by 

2100,’’ 24 and the NRC Climate 

Stabilization Targets assessment states 

that an increase of 3 °C will lead to a 

sea level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter (1.6 to 

3.3 feet) by 2100. These assessments 

continue to recognize that there is 

uncertainty inherent in accounting for 

ice sheet processes. Additionally, local 

sea level rise can differ from the global 

total depending on various factors: The 

east coast of the U.S. in particular is 

expected to see higher rates of sea level 

rise than the global average. For 

comparison, the NCA3 states that ‘‘five 

million Americans and hundreds of 

billions of dollars of property are 

located in areas that are less than four 

feet above the local high-tide level,’’ and 

the NCA3 finds that ‘‘[c]oastal 

infrastructure, including roads, rail 

lines, energy infrastructure, airports, 

port facilities, and military bases, are 

increasingly at risk from sea level rise 

and damaging storm surges.’’ 25 Also, 

because of the inertia of the oceans, sea 

level rise will continue for centuries 

after GHG concentrations have 

stabilized (though more slowly than it 

would have otherwise). Additionally, 

there is a threshold temperature above 

which the Greenland ice sheet will be 

committed to inevitable melting: 

according to the NCA, some recent 

research has suggested that even present 

day carbon dioxide levels could be 

sufficient to exceed that threshold. 

In general, climate change impacts are 

expected to be unevenly distributed 

across different regions of the United 

States and have a greater impact on 

certain populations, such as indigenous 

peoples and the poor. The NCA3 finds 

climate change impacts such as the 

rapid pace of temperature rise, coastal 

erosion and inundation related to sea 

level rise and storms, ice and snow 

melt, and permafrost thaw are affecting 

indigenous people in the United States. 

Particularly in Alaska, critical 

infrastructure and traditional 

livelihoods are threatened by climate 

change and, ‘‘[i]n parts of Alaska, 

Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other 

coastal locations, climate change 

impacts (through erosion and 

inundation) are so severe that some 

communities are already relocating from 

historical homelands to which their 

traditions and cultural identities are 

tied.’’ 26 The IPCC AR5 notes, ‘‘Climaterelated hazards exacerbate other 

stressors, often with negative outcomes 

for livelihoods, especially for people 

living in poverty (high confidence). 

Climate-related hazards affect poor 

people’s lives directly through impacts 

on livelihoods, reductions in crop 

yields, or destruction of homes and 

indirectly through, for example, 

increased food prices and food 

insecurity.’’ 27

Events outside the United States, as 

also pointed out in the 2009 

Endangerment Finding, will also have 

relevant consequences. The NRC 

Climate and Social Stress assessment 

concluded that it is prudent to expect 

that some climate events ‘‘will produce 

consequences that exceed the capacity 

of the affected societies or global 

systems to manage and that have global 

security implications serious enough to 

compel international response.’’ The 

NRC National Security Implications 

assessment recommends preparing for 

increased needs for humanitarian aid; 

responding to the effects of climate 

change in geopolitical hotspots, 

including possible mass migrations; and 

addressing changing security needs in 

the Arctic as sea ice retreats. 

In addition to future impacts, the 

NCA3 emphasizes that climate change 

driven by human emissions of GHGs is 

already happening now and it is 

happening in the United States. 

According to the IPCC AR5 and the 

NCA3, there are a number of climaterelated changes that have been observed 

recently, and these changes are 

projected to accelerate in the future. The 

planet warmed about 0.85 °C (1.5 °F) 

from 1880 to 2012. It is extremely likely 

(>95 percent probability) that human 

influence was the dominant cause of the 

observed warming since the mid-20th 

century, and likely (>66 percent 

probability) that human influence has 

more than doubled the probability of 

occurrence of heat waves in some 

locations. In the Northern Hemisphere, 

the last 30 years were likely the warmest 

30 year period of the last 1,400 years. 

U.S. average temperatures have 

similarly increased by 1.3 to 1.9 degrees 

F since 1895, with most of that increase 

occurring since 1970. Global sea levels 

rose 0.19 m (7.5 inches) from 1901 to 

2010. Contributing to this rise was the 

warming of the oceans and melting of 

land ice. It is likely that 275 gigatons per 

year of ice melted from land glaciers 

(not including ice sheets) since 1993, 

and that the rate of loss of ice from the 

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets 

increased substantially in recent years, 

to 215 gigatons per year and 147 

gigatons per year respectively since 

2002. For context, 360 gigatons of ice 

melt is sufficient to cause global sea 

levels to rise 1 millimeter (mm). Annual 

mean Arctic sea ice has been declining 

at 3.5 to 4.1 percent per decade, and 

Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent 

has decreased at about 1.6 percent per 

decade for March and 11.7 percent per 

decade for June. Permafrost 

temperatures have increased in most 

regions since the 1980s, by up to 3 °C 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52109 

28Blunden, J., and D. S. Arndt, Eds., 2014: State 

of the Climate in 2013. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 

95 (7), S1–S238. 

29http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13. 

30NRC, 2011: America’s Climate Choices, The 

National Academies Press. 

31U.S. EPA. 2013. ‘‘Integrated Science 

Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical 

Oxidants (Final Report).’’ EPA–600–R–10–076F. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment— 

RTP Division. Available at http://www.epa.gov/

ncea/isa/. 

32Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bre ́on, W. Collins, 

J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. 

Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. 

Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: 

Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: 

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 

Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Pg. 680. 

33 Ibid. 

34 Ibid. 

35West, J.J., Fiore, A.M. 2005. ‘‘Management of 

tropospheric ozone by reducing methane 

emissions.’’ Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:4685–4691. 

36Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. ‘‘Intercontinental 

impacts of ozone pollution on human mortality,’’ 

Environ. Sci. & Technol. 43: 6482–6487. 

37Rather than merely updating 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cc, the existing emissions guidelines, the 

EPA has determined that the most appropriate way 

to proceed is to establish a new subpart that 

includes both the verbatim restatement of certain 

provisions in the existing emission guidelines and 

proposed revisions to, or the addition of, other 

provisions. 

(5.4 °F) in parts of Northern Alaska. 

Winter storm frequency and intensity 

have both increased in the Northern 

Hemisphere. The NCA3 states that the 

increases in the severity or frequency of 

some types of extreme weather and 

climate events in recent decades can 

affect energy production and delivery, 

causing supply disruptions, and 

compromise other essential 

infrastructure such as water and 

transportation systems. 

In addition to the changes 

documented in the assessment 

literature, there have been other climate 

milestones of note. According to the 

IPCC, methane concentrations in 2011 

were about 1,803 parts per billion, 150 

percent higher than concentrations were 

in 1750. After a few years of nearly 

stable concentrations from 1999 to 2006, 

methane concentrations have resumed 

increasing at about 5 parts per billion 

per year. Concentrations today are likely 

higher than they have been for at least 

the past 800,000 years. Arctic sea ice 

has continued to decline, with 

September of 2012 marking a new 

record low in terms of Arctic sea ice 

extent, 40 percent below the 1979–2000 

median. Sea level has continued to rise 

at a rate of 3.2 mm per year (1.3 inches/ 

decade) since satellite observations 

started in 1993, more than twice the 

average rate of rise in the 20th century 

prior to 1993.28 And 2014 was the 

warmest year globally in the modern 

global surface temperature record, going 

back to 1880; this now means 19 of the 

20 warmest years have occurred in the 

past 20 years, and except for 1998, the 

10 warmest years on record have 

occurred since 2002.29 The first months 

of 2015 have also been some of the 

warmest on record. 

These assessments and observed 

changes make it clear that reducing 

emissions of GHGs across the globe is 

necessary in order to avoid the worst 

impacts of climate change, and 

underscore the urgency of reducing 

emissions now. The NRC Committee on 

America’s Climate Choices listed a 

number of reasons ‘‘why it is imprudent 

to delay actions that at least begin the 

process of substantially reducing 

emissions.’’ 30 For example: 

• The faster emissions are reduced, 

the lower the risks posed by climate 

change. Delays in reducing emissions 

could commit the planet to a wide range 

of adverse impacts, especially if the 

sensitivity of the climate to GHGs is on 

the higher end of the estimated range. 

• Waiting for unacceptable impacts to 

occur before taking action is imprudent 

because the effects of GHG emissions do 

not fully manifest themselves for 

decades and, once manifest, many of 

these changes will persist for hundreds 

or even thousands of years. 

In the committee’s judgment, the risks 

associated with doing business as usual 

are a much greater concern than the 

risks associated with engaging in strong 

response efforts. 

Methane is a precursor to groundlevel ozone, a health-harmful air 

pollutant. Additionally, ozone is a 

short-lived climate forcer that 

contributes to global warming. In remote 

areas, methane is a dominant precursor 

to tropospheric ozone formation.31

Approximately 50 percent of the global 

annual mean ozone increase since 

preindustrial times is believed to be due 

to anthropogenic methane.32 Projections 

of future emissions also indicate that 

methane is likely to be a key contributor 

to ozone concentrations in the future.33

Unlike nitrogen oxide (NOX) and VOC, 

which affect ozone concentrations 

regionally and at hourly time scales, 

methane emissions affect ozone 

concentrations globally and on decadal 

time scales given methane’s relatively 

long atmospheric lifetime compared to 

these other ozone precursors.34

Reducing methane emissions, therefore, 

may contribute to efforts to reduce 

global background ozone concentrations 

that contribute to the incidence of 

ozone-related health effects.35 36 These 

benefits are global and occur in both 

urban and rural areas. 

C. What is EPA’s authority for reviewing 

the Emission Guidelines? 

The EPA is not statutorily obligated to 

conduct a review of the Emission 

Guidelines, but has the discretionary 

authority to do so when circumstances 

indicate that it is appropriate. The EPA 

has determined that it is appropriate to 

conduct a review of and propose certain 

changes to the Emission Guidelines due 

to changes in the size, ownership and 

age of landfills and the types of MSW 

landfills with gas collection systems 

installed since the Emission Guidelines 

were promulgated in 1996 and the 

opportunities for significant reductions 

in methane and other pollutants at 

reasonable cost. The EPA compiled new 

information on MSW landfills through 

data collection efforts for a statutorily 

mandated review of the NSPS, public 

comments received on the NSPS 

proposal, and public comments received 

on an ANPRM for a review of the 

Emission Guidelines. This information 

allowed the EPA to conduct an 

assessment of current practices, 

emissions and potential for additional 

emission reductions. Information 

received in response to this proposed 

rule will allow EPA to further refine that 

assessment. 

D. What is the purpose and scope of this 

action? 

The purpose of this action is to (1) 

present the results of EPA’s initial 

review of the Emission Guidelines, (2) 

propose and take comment on revisions 

to the Emission Guidelines based on 

that review, and (3) propose resolution 

or provide clarification regarding 

implementation issues that were 

addressed in prior proposed 

amendments published on May 23, 2002 

(67 FR 36475) and September 8, 2006 

(71 FR 53271) as they apply to existing 

sources. The proposed revisions appear 

in the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cf.37 Although the EPA is not required 

to respond to comments received on the 

July 17, 2014, ANPRM (79 FR 41772) for 

the MSW landfills Emission Guidelines 

or comments it received on the 

concurrent proposal for revised NSPS 

for new MSW landfills in this 

document, the EPA is summarizing 

several comments it received to provide 

a framework and support the rationale 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52110 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

38 Indian tribes may, but are not required to, seek 

approval for treatment in a manner similar to a state 

for purposes of developing a tribal implementation 

plan (TIP) implementing the emission guidelines. If 

a tribe obtains such approval and submits a 

proposed TIP, the EPA will use the same criteria 

and follow the same procedure in approving that 

plan as it does with state plans. The federal plan 

will apply to all affected facilities located in Indian 

country unless and until EPA approves an 

applicable TIP. 

for the proposed revisions to the 

Emission Guidelines. 

E. How would the proposed changes in 

applicability affect sources currently 

subject to subparts Cc and WWW? 

Landfills currently subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts Cc and WWW would 

be considered ‘‘existing’’ and would 

ultimately be affected by any changes to 

the Emission Guidelines resulting from 

this review. Any source for which 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction commenced on or before 

July 17, 2014, the date of proposal of 

new subpart XXX, is an existing source. 

Under section 111, a source is either 

new, i.e., construction, modification, or 

reconstruction commenced after a 

proposed NSPS is published in the 

Federal Register (CAA section 111(a)(1)) 

or existing, i.e., any source other than a 

new source (CAA section 111(a)(6)). 

Since the revised Emission Guidelines 

apply to existing sources, any source 

that is not subject to new subpart XXX 

will be subject to the revised Emission 

Guidelines. Consistent with the general 

approach evinced by section 111, 

sources currently subject to subpart 

WWW would need to continue to 

comply with the requirements in that 

rule unless and until they become 

subject to more stringent requirements 

in the revised Emission Guidelines as 

implemented through a revised state or 

federal plan. The current Emission 

Guidelines, subpart Cc, refer to subpart 

WWW for their substantive 

requirements. That is, the requirements 

regarding the installation and operation 

of a well-designed and well-operated 

GCCS and compliance with the 

specified emission limits are the same 

in both rules. Thus, if the EPA were to 

finalize its proposal to revise the 

Emission Guidelines to increase their 

stringency, a landfill currently subject to 

40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW would 

need to comply with the more stringent 

requirements in a revised state plan or 

federal plan implementing the revised 

Emission Guidelines (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf). States with designated 

facilities would be required to develop 

(or revise) and submit a state plan to the 

EPA within 9 months of promulgation 

of any revisions to the Emission 

Guidelines unless the EPA specifies a 

longer timeframe in promulgating those 

revisions (40 CFR 60.23). Any revisions 

to an existing state plan and any newly 

adopted state plan must be established 

following the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart B (40 CFR 60.20–60.29). 

Those requirements include making the 

state plan publically available and 

providing the opportunity for public 

discussion. 

Once the EPA receives a complete 

state plan or plan revision, and 

completes its review of that plan or plan 

revision, the EPA will propose the plan 

or plan revision for approval or 

disapproval. The EPA will approve or 

disapprove the plan or plan revision no 

later than 4 months after the date the 

plan or plan revision was required to be 

submitted 40 CFR 60.27(b). The EPA 

will publish state plan approvals or 

disapprovals in the Federal Register 

and will include an explanation of its 

decision. The EPA also intends to revise 

the existing federal plan (40 CFR part 

62, subpart GGG) to incorporate any 

changes and other requirements that 

result from the EPA’s review of the 

Emission Guidelines. The revised 

federal plan will apply in states that 

have either never submitted a state plan 

or not received approval of any 

necessary revised state plan until such 

time as an initial state plan or revised 

state plan is approved.38

Because many of the landfills 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts Cc and WWW are closed, the 

EPA is proposing several items to 

minimize the burden on these closed 

landfills, as discussed in section VIII.A 

of this preamble. 

F. Where in the CFR will these changes 

appear? 

The EPA is proposing to add a new 

subpart Cf to 40 CFR part 60, beginning 

at 40 CFR 60.30f. Subpart Cf would 

apply to landfills that have accepted 

waste after November 8, 1987, and were 

constructed, reconstructed, or modified 

on or before July 17, 2014. Proposed 

subpart Cf in 40 CFR part 60 contains 

a revision to the NMOC emission 

threshold for landfills that are not 

closed and addresses technical and 

implementation issues for all landfills 

subject to this subpart. 

IV. Summary of Proposed Changes 

Based on Review of the Emission 

Guidelines 

The EPA is proposing several changes 

to the Emission Guidelines following its 

review of the Emission Guidelines and 

the NSPS for MSW landfills. The EPA 

reviewed both landfills regulations and 

considered the current technology, 

practices, and associated monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. The rationale for the 

following proposed changes is 

presented in sections V through IX of 

this preamble. 

A. Control Technology Review 

1. Best System of Emission Reduction 

The EPA has determined that a welldesigned and well operated landfill 

GCCS with a control device capable of 

reducing NMOC by 98 percent by 

weight continues to be the best system 

of emission reduction (BSER) for 

controlling LFG emissions. Thus, there 

is no change to the fundamental means 

of controlling LFG: Proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf requires landfill 

owners or operators to install a system 

to collect the LFG from the landfill and 

to route the collected gas to a 

combustion device or treatment system. 

Landfill owners or operators must 

submit for approval a site-specific GCCS 

design plan prepared by a professional 

engineer. The EPA is proposing 98 

percent reduction of NMOC, expressed 

as a performance level (i.e., a rate-based 

standard or percent control), as the 

appropriate BSER-based standard. Thus, 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf requires 

combustion control devices to 

demonstrate 98 percent reduction by 

weight of NMOC or an outlet 

concentration of 20 parts per million 

dry volume (ppmvd) of NMOC, as 

hexane. Enclosed combustion devices 

have the option of reducing emissions to 

20 ppmvd. 

The EPA carefully considered 

whether various emission reduction 

techniques and BMPs that could 

improve collection and control of LFG 

emissions should be considered a 

component of BSER. As explained in 

section V.A. of this document, the EPA 

has concluded that the various emission 

reduction techniques and BMPs should 

not be considered to be components of 

BSER and, therefore, is not proposing to 

require their use. The EPA believes that 

the techniques and BMPs can, however, 

be useful in minimizing emissions in 

appropriate circumstances. 

2. Criteria for Installing and Expanding 

GCCS 

The EPA undertook an analysis of 

existing landfills to determine whether 

applying the existing 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cc and WWW size, emissions, 

and timing criteria for installing and 

operating a landfill GCCS to the 

population of existing MSW landfills 

remains the preferred approach to 

implementing BSER. Based on the 

analysis of the threshold and timing 

parameters, the EPA is proposing to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52111 

reduce the NMOC emission rate 

threshold for installing the GCCS from 

50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr. There are no 

proposed changes regarding the size of 

landfill covered by the Emission 

Guidelines or the timing of installation 

and expansion: The requirements would 

continue to apply to landfills with a 

design capacity greater than 2.5 million 

Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters, 

landfill owners or operators would 

continue to have 30 months to install 

and begin operating the GCCS upon the 

landfill exceeding the emission 

threshold and owners or operators 

would be required to expand the GCCS 

into new areas of the landfill within 5 

years for active areas and within 2 years 

for areas that are closed or at final grade. 

However, a landfill could potentially 

delay the requirement to install a GCCS 

through the use of emission reduction 

techniques and BMPs in conjunction 

with Tier 4 monitoring. The rationale 

for the change to the NMOC emissions 

threshold is provided in section V.B of 

this preamble and the rationale for Tier 

4 is presented in section VII.A of this 

preamble. 

B. Proposed Changes to Monitoring, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

1. Proposed Changes to Monitoring 

Surface Monitoring. The EPA 

proposes that all surface penetrations at 

existing landfills must be monitored. In 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, 

landfills must monitor all cover 

penetrations and openings within the 

area of the landfill where waste has 

been placed and a gas collection system 

is required to be in place and operating 

according to the operational standards 

in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

Specifically, landfill owners or 

operators must conduct surface 

monitoring on a quarterly basis at 30- 

meter intervals and where visual 

observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas, such as 

distressed vegetation and cracks or 

seeps in the cover and all cover 

penetrations. 

The EPA is also considering 

alternative surface monitoring 

provisions for 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cf. The alternative provisions would 

reduce the walking pattern for 

conducting surface monitoring from 30- 

meter (98 feet (ft)) intervals to 25-ft 

intervals. The alternative would also 

add a methane concentration limit of 25 

ppm as determined by integrated 

surface emissions monitoring, in 

addition to the instantaneous methane 

concentration limit of 500 ppm. This 

alternative would also limit surface 

monitoring during windy conditions. 

Under the alternative, the landfill would 

have to take corrective action if either 

the integrated or instantaneous limits 

were exceeded. More information about 

this approach is provided in sections 

VI.A and X.B of this preamble. 

The EPA is also proposing an 

alternative site-specific emission 

threshold determination based on 

surface emission monitoring for when a 

landfill must install and operate a 

GCCS, as described in sections IV.C and 

VII.A, and when to cap or remove a 

GCCS, as described in section VIII of 

this preamble. 

Wellhead Monitoring. The EPA 

proposes to remove the operational 

standards (i.e., the requirement to meet 

operating limits) for temperature and 

nitrogen/oxygen at the wellheads and is 

thus removing the corresponding 

requirement to take corrective action for 

exceedances of these two parameters as 

discussed in section VI.B of this 

preamble. These adjustments to the 

wellhead monitoring parameters would 

apply to all landfills. Monthly 

monitoring of oxygen/nitrogen and 

temperature would still be required; 

however, fluctuations/variations in 

these parameters would no longer be 

required to be identified as exceedances 

in the annual reports. Instead, the 

landfill would maintain the records of 

this monthly monitoring on site and use 

the monitoring to inform any necessary 

adjustments to the GCCS and make 

them available to the Administrator 

(EPA Administrator or administrator of 

a state air pollution control agency or 

his or her designee) upon request. 

Landfill owners or operators would 

continue to be required to operate their 

GCCS with negative pressure and in a 

manner that collects the most LFG and 

minimizes losses of LFG through the 

surface of the landfill. Landfills would 

also continue to be required to prepare 

and submit to the regulating authority 

for approval a gas collection design 

plan, prepared by a professional 

engineer. 

2. Proposed Changes to Recordkeeping 

and Reporting 

Update and Approval of Design Plan. 

We propose two criteria for when an 

affected source must update its design 

plan and submit it to the Administrator 

for approval. A revised design plan 

would be submitted on the following 

timeline: (1) Within 90 days of 

expanding operations to an area not 

covered by the previously approved 

design plan; and (2) prior to installing 

or expanding the gas collection system 

in a manner other than one described in 

a previously approved design plan. The 

EPA is also taking comment on 

potentially establishing a third-party 

design plan certification program, 

which could reduce the burden 

associated with EPA or state review and 

approval of site-specific design plans 

and plan revisions, as discussed in 

section X.E of this preamble. 

Submitting Corrective Action 

Timeline Requests. The EPA expects 

that eliminating the operational 

standards for oxygen/nitrogen and 

temperature will drastically reduce the 

number of requests for alternative 

timelines for making necessary 

corrections. However, landfills would 

still be required to maintain negative 

pressure at the wellhead to demonstrate 

a sufficient extraction rate and would be 

required to take corrective action in the 

event that a negative pressure is not 

maintained. Therefore, proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf outlines the timeline 

for correcting positive pressure. A 

landfill must submit an alternative 

corrective action timeline request to the 

Administrator if the landfill cannot 

restore negative pressure within 15 

calendar days of the initial failure to 

maintain negative pressure and the 

landfill is unable to (or does not plan to) 

expand the gas collection within 120 

days of the initial exceedance. 

Electronic Reporting. The EPA is 

proposing electronic reporting of 

required performance test reports, 

NMOC emission rate reports, and 

annual reports. We also propose that 

industry should be required to maintain 

only electronic copies of the records to 

satisfy federal recordkeeping 

requirements. The proposed electronic 

submission and storage procedures are 

discussed in detail in section VI.E of 

this preamble. 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to the EPA 

applies only to those performance tests 

conducted using test methods that are 

supported by the Electronic Reporting 

Tool (ERT). A listing of the pollutants 

and test methods supported by the ERT 

is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/ert/index.html. When the EPA 

adds new methods to the ERT, a notice 

will be sent out through the 

Clearinghouse for Inventories and 

Emissions Factors (CHIEF) Listserv 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/

listserv.html#chief) and a notice of 

availability will be added to the ERT 

Web site. You are encouraged to check 

the ERT Web site regularly for up-todate information on methods supported 

by the ERT. 

C. Emission Threshold Determinations 

The EPA is proposing an alternative 

site-specific emission threshold 

determination for when a landfill must 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52112 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

install and operate a GCCS based on 

surface emission monitoring using EPA 

Method 21. This alternative emission 

threshold determination is referred to as 

‘‘Tier 4.’’ The Tier 4 SEM demonstration 

would allow landfills that have modeled 

NMOC emission rates (using Tiers 1, 2, 

or 3) at or above the threshold to 

demonstrate that site-specific methane 

emissions are actually below the 

threshold. A landfill that can 

demonstrate that surface emissions are 

below 500 ppm for 4 consecutive 

quarters does not trigger the 

requirement to install a GCCS. Tier 4 

would be based on the results of 

quarterly site-specific methane 

emissions monitoring of the entire 

surface of the landfill along a 30-meter 

(98-ft) path, in addition to monitoring 

areas where visual observations indicate 

elevated concentrations of landfill gas, 

such as distressed vegetation and cracks 

or seeps in the cover and all cover 

penetrations. If the landfill opts to use 

Tier 4 for its emission threshold 

determination and there is any 

measured concentration of methane of 

500 parts per million or greater from the 

surface of the landfill, the owner or 

operator must install a GCCS, and the 

landfill cannot go back to using Tiers 1, 

2, or 3. Because Tier 4 is based on sitespecific actual surface data whereas 

Tiers 1–3 are based on modeled 

emission rates, the EPA is requiring a 

GCCS to be installed and operated 

within 30 months of a Tier 4 exceedance 

of 500 ppm or higher. 

D. Proposed Changes To Address Closed 

or Non-Producing Areas 

1. Subcategory for Closed Landfills 

The EPA recognizes that many 

landfills subject to proposed subpart Cf 

are closed. Therefore, the EPA is 

proposing a separate subcategory for 

landfills that closed on or before August 

27, 2015. These landfills would be 

subject to a 50 Mg/yr NMOC emission 

rate threshold, consistent with the 

NMOC thresholds in subparts Cc and 

WWW of 40 CFR part 60. These landfills 

would also be exempt from initial 

reporting requirements, provided that 

the landfill already met these 

requirements under subparts Cc or 

WWW of 40 CFR part 60. The EPA also 

solicits comments on an alternative 

approach which would expand the 

closed landfill subcategory to include 

those landfills that close within 13 

months after publication of the final 

emission guidelines. 

2. Alternative Criteria for Removing 

GCCS 

The EPA also recognizes that many 

open landfills subject to proposed 

subpart Cf contain inactive areas that do 

not produce as much landfill gas. 

Therefore, the EPA is also proposing an 

alternative set of criteria for determining 

when it is appropriate to cap or remove 

a portion of the GCCS. The proposed 

alternative criteria for capping or 

removing the GCCS are: (1) The landfill 

is closed or an area of an active landfill 

is closed, (2) the GCCS has operated for 

at least 15 years or the landfill owner or 

operator can demonstrate that the GCCS 

will be unable to operate for 15 years 

due to declining gas flows, and (3) the 

landfill owner or operator demonstrates 

that there are no surface emissions of 

500 ppm methane or greater for 4 

consecutive quarters. With these 

provisions, the landfill can employ 

various technologies or practices to 

minimize surface emissions and have 

the flexibility to decommission or 

permanently cap and remove the GCCS 

based on site-specific surface emission 

readings. Note that the EPA is 

requesting comment on defining closed 

areas of open landfills as discussed in 

section X.A of this preamble. 

E. Other Proposed Changes 

1. Treated Landfill Gas 

The EPA is proposing a definition of 

treated landfill gas and treatment 

systems. Specifically, the EPA proposes 

to define Treated landfill gas as landfill 

gas processed in a treatment system 

meeting the criteria in proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf and to define 

Treatment system as a system that 

filters, de-waters, and compresses 

landfill gas. The proposed definition 

allows the level of treatment to be 

tailored to the type and design of the 

specific combustion equipment, 

chemical process, or other purpose for 

which the landfill gas is used. These 

definitions would be available for all 

MSW landfill owners or operators. 

Owners or operators would identify 

monitoring parameters, develop a sitespecific treatment system monitoring 

plan, and keep records that demonstrate 

that such parameters effectively monitor 

filtration, de-watering, and compression 

system performance necessary for the 

end use of the treated LFG. 

Uses of Treated LFG. In addition, the 

EPA is proposing that the use of treated 

landfill gas not be limited to use as a 

fuel for a stationary combustion device 

but also for other beneficial uses such as 

vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas 

for pipeline injection, and use as a raw 

material in a chemical manufacturing 

process. 

2. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Provisions 

The general provisions in 40 CFR part 

60 provide that emissions in excess of 

the level of the applicable emissions 

limit during periods of SSM shall not be 

considered a violation of the applicable 

emission limit unless otherwise 

specified in the applicable standard (see 

40 CFR 60.8(c)) (emphasis added). As 

reflected in the italicized language, an 

individual subpart can supersede this 

provision. In this action, the EPA is 

proposing standards in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf that apply at all times, 

including periods of startup or 

shutdown, and periods of malfunction. 

In addition, the EPA is proposing to add 

a recordkeeping and reporting 

requirement for landfill owners or 

operators to estimate emissions during 

periods when the gas collection system 

or control device is not operating, to 

determine the severity of any emissions 

exceedance during such periods. 

3. Other Proposed Changes 

We are proposing to revise the 

definition of ‘‘Modification’’ and 

‘‘Household waste’’ ‘‘Solid waste,’’ and 

‘‘Sludge’’ and to add a definition of 

‘‘Segregated yard waste’’ to make clear 

the applicability of proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf. 

Method 25A. Method 25A is being 

included in proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf. After reviewing the 

comments received on the NSPS for 

new landfills proposed on July 17, 2014, 

the EPA recognizes that the use of 

Method 25A is necessary for measuring 

outlet concentrations less than 50 ppm 

NMOC. Per Emission Measurement 

Center Guidance Document 033 (EMC 

GD–033—available at http://

www.epa.gov//ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd033.pfd), Method 25A should be used 

only in cases where the outlet 

concentration is less than 50 ppm 

NMOC as carbon (8 ppm NMOC as 

hexane). 

Method 18. Method 18 is not included 

in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

While Method 18 may be used in 

conjunction with Method 25A for 

methane or specific compounds of 

interest, there are limitations on the 

number of analytes that can be 

reasonably quantified in measuring the 

sum of all NMOCs. With the possibility 

of 40 target analytes listed in the current 

landfill section of AP–42 (160 analytes 

in the draft landfill AP–42), Method 18 

is not an appropriate or cost effective 

method to test all NMOCs found in 

landfill samples. The extensive quality 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52113 

39Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills—Background Information for Final 

Standards and Guidelines, EPA–453/R–94–021. 

EPA Office of Air and Radiation/Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Emission 

Standards Division, December 1995, page 2–79. 

40Methane is more readily combustible than 

other organic compounds, thus methane generally 

has higher destruction (or control) efficiencies than 

other organic compounds such as NMOC and VOC. 

Therefore, although compliance with the landfills 

regulations is expressed as a percent reduction (or 

reduction to a level of 20 ppmv) of NMOC, landfills 

that reduce NMOC by 98 percent reduce methane 

by a similar percentage. Two EPA programs use a 

99 percent destruction efficiency for methane: the 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990– 

2013 and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. 

In addition, the EPA’s AP–42 Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors, Chapter 2.4 (1998), 

contains typical NMOC control efficiencies of 94– 

99+ for various devices used at landfills, including 

flares, internal combustion engines, boiler/steam 

turbines, and gas turbines. Draft updates (2008) to 

AP–42 contain typical NMOC control efficiencies 

for flares of 97.7 percent. Because methane is more 

readily combustible than NMOC, methane 

destruction efficiencies would be at least at this 

level. 

41Comment submitted by Republic Waste 

Services (EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215–0100). 

Attachment 15 includes statement from John Zink 

Company on standard emissions for elevated flares. 

assurance required by the method 

makes the method technically and 

economically prohibitive for all the 

potential target analytes. 

Surface monitoring intervals. The 

EPA is clarifying that surface emissions 

monitoring can be conducted at an 

interval less than specified in the rule 

text. Thus, the EPA is adding ‘‘no more 

than’’ in front of the specified interval 

in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf 

(i.e., at no more than 30-meter intervals). 

V. Rationale for the Proposed Changes 

Based on GCCS Technology Review 

A. Control Technology Review 

1. Gas Collection and Control Systems 

The EPA has determined that a welldesigned and well operated GCCS that 

collects the LFG from the landfill and 

routes the collected gas to a combustion 

device that reduces NMOC by 98 

percent by weight or an outlet 

concentration of 20 ppmvd of NMOC, as 

hexane, or to a treatment system that 

processes the gas for subsequent 

beneficial use in a process that ensures 

that such reductions are achieved 

continues to be BSER for controlling 

LFG emissions for both new and 

existing MSW landfills. As discussed in 

section IX.A of this preamble, LFG 

energy recovery has environmental 

benefits in controlling emissions and 

offsetting conventional energy sources. 

The BSER determination is based on the 

EPA’s review of the NSPS for new 

landfills as described in the landfills 

NSPS proposal at 79 FR 41800–41805, 

as well as public comments and 

information received on the proposed 

NSPS (79 FR 41796) and public input 

received on both the proposed NSPS 

and the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) for 

existing landfills. 

The majority of comments on this 

topic, received in response to the 

proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796), 

including those from industry owners 

and operators, landfill engineering 

consultants, and trade organizations, as 

well as input received in response to the 

ANPRM (79 FR 41772), agreed that a 

GCCS and 98 percent NMOC 

destruction represent BSER for MSW 

landfills. 

2. Open Flares and Destruction 

Efficiencies 98 Percent Reduction 

The EPA is proposing 98 percent 

reduction of NMOC, expressed as a 

performance level (i.e., a rate-based 

standard or percent control), as the 

appropriate BSER-based standard. The 

EPA previously determined that this 

level was reasonable considering costs, 

nonair quality health and environmental 

impacts, and energy requirements.39

That determination still stands today 

and the EPA proposes 98 percent NMOC 

reduction for proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf. The following combustion 

controls can achieve at least 98 percent 

destruction of NMOCs and we propose 

that they continue to represent BSER: 

Enclosed flares and incinerators, and 

devices that burn LFG to recover energy, 

such as boilers, turbines, and internal 

combustion engines. The EPA solicits 

comment on whether these devices can 

in fact achieve at least 98 percent 

destruction of NMOCs and whether uses 

of the LFG other than for combustion 

achieve equivalent reductions. Note that 

although the landfills rules measure 

NMOC, similar reductions are expected 

for methane.40

The EPA continues to believe that 98 

percent reduction is appropriate 

because this continues to be the level 

achievable by demonstrated 

technologies. Current data are consistent 

with 98 percent destruction. 

Nonetheless, in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed NSPS (79 FR 

41803), we requested comment and 

additional data on the NMOC 

destruction efficiency of incinerators 

and devices that burn LFG to recover 

energy, such as boilers, turbines, and 

internal combustion engines. The EPA 

did not receive new data on the NMOC 

destruction of energy recovery devices. 

Open/Non-Enclosed Flares. Both 

enclosed and non-enclosed (open) flares 

have been determined to be BSER 

combustion devices and these 

technologies continue to be used today. 

Commenters on the proposed landfills 

NSPS noted the prevalence of nonenclosed flares as both a primary and 

secondary control device. Commenters 

contend that non-enclosed flares used at 

landfills meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 

60.18(b) have been demonstrated to 

have destruction efficiencies similar to 

enclosed flares and incinerators, and 

devices that burn LFG to recover energy, 

such as boilers, turbines, and internal 

combustion engines. 

Commenters on the NSPS did not 

submit new data on flare performance. 

However, one commenter included a 

statement of a guaranteed 98 percent 

destruction efficiency from a commonly 

used flare technology provider at 

landfills.41 Commenters on the 

proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796) and 

information submitted in response to 

the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) indicate that 

hundreds of open/non-enclosed flares 

are currently in use and that these flares 

are fully capable of achieving a 

performance standard of 98 percent 

reduction of NMOC. The use of open/

non-enclosed flares is supported 

because of their inherent flexibility in 

addressing multiple operational 

components including flow rate, Btu 

content, other gas constituents, 

proximity to neighbors, and cost. The 

information provided also indicates that 

open/non-enclosed flares are simpler 

and therefore easier and less expensive 

to operate when compared with 

enclosed combustion devices; in 

addition, their simplicity makes them 

less susceptible to malfunctions or 

shutdowns. A better turndown ratio for 

open/non-enclosed flares was cited as 

an important consideration in 

addressing variable operating flow rates 

over the life of the landfill. The ability 

to use flares as a back up to LFG energy 

recovery projects is also an important 

consideration. 

One commenter on the proposed 

landfills NSPS did, however, state that 

EPA should not consider open flares to 

be part of the BSER for landfills, given 

issues with their performance in 

reducing emissions. The commenter 

provided several references that 

identified the difficulty in measuring 

the performance of flares and poor or 

questionable flare performance when 

measurements were made, especially in 

windy conditions. 

Based on the operational flexibilities, 

open flares offer landfill operators, and 

the flare design and operational 

requirements in the general provisions, 

the EPA is retaining the option for 

landfills to comply with proposed 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf using an open 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52114 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

42Refer to pages 55–56 of the original comment 

letter at DCN EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215–0100 for 

references. 

flare operated in accordance with 40 

CFR 60.18(b) of the general provisions. 

The EPA maintains that the design and 

operational requirements set forth in 40 

CFR 60.18(b) ensure that open flares are 

operated to adequately destroy NMOC 

to a level consistent with NMOC 

destruction requirements for other 

control devices. The general provisions 

require a minimum heating value to 

ensure combustion efficiency. 

Specifically, 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3)(ii) 

requires the net heating value of the gas 

being combusted to be 7.45 megajoules 

per standard cubic meter (MJ/scm)(200 

Btu/standard cubic foot) or greater if the 

flare is nonassisted or 11.2 MJ/scm (300 

Btu/scf) or greater if the flare is steamassisted or air-assisted. LFG typically 

contains 50 percent methane, but 

methane content generally ranges from 

45 to 60 percent, depending on several 

factors including waste characteristics 

and landfill design and operation 

activities. This range of methane 

contents is equivalent to LFG heating 

values of approximately 450 to 600 Btu/ 

scf, which are above the minimum net 

heating values outlined in 40 CFR 

60.18(c)(3)(ii). Regardless of the specific 

methane content of LFG, the landfill 

owner or operator must calculate the net 

heating value of the LFG for comparison 

to the appropriate minimum net heating 

value defined in 40 CFR 60.18. 

Proposed subpart Cf (40 CFR 60.35f(d)) 

complements the general provision 

requirements by requiring three 30- 

minute samples obtained by Method 3C. 

These rule provisions ensure that the 

landfill gas burned in the flare has 

adequate heating value to ensure 

complete combustion, which in turn, 

ensures adequate NMOC destruction. 

Note that flares at landfills are 

typically non-assisted and generally 

have low variability in the flow of LFG. 

A non-assisted, relatively constant flow 

of gas means there is nothing to dilute 

or interrupt the mixture of gas in the 

combustion zone. Thus, LFG and its 

components are destroyed more 

efficiently. In addition, with respect to 

concerns about operating flares in 

windy conditions, the EPA has found 

extremely limited data exists to indicate 

that wind conditions adversely affect 

destruction efficiencies of flares. Studies 

cited regarding wind conditions are 

based on experiments conducted in 

laboratory environments using very 

small diameter flares (4.5 to 6 inches) 

that are more susceptible to wind than 

larger diameter flares used at MSW 

landfills. 

Although flaring remains one 

compliance option for collecting and 

controlling emissions of landfill gas, the 

EPA believes that the use of landfill gas 

to produce energy represents a higher 

value use and requests comments on 

whether there are opportunities to 

incentivize the use of landfill gas for 

energy production rather than flaring. 

Thus, the EPA solicits comments on 

incentive approaches to encourage 

landfill owners or operators to 

productively use landfill gas for energy. 

3. Emission Reduction Techniques and 

GCCS Best Management Practices 

In the ANPRM for existing landfills 

(79 FR 41784), the EPA presented 

several alternative technologies, 

including oxidative technologies, that 

could potentially serve as a component 

of BSER. The principle of oxidative 

technologies is the use of 

methanotrophic bacteria, commonly 

found in most soils and compost, to 

oxidize methane into water, carbon 

dioxide, and biomass. The EPA also 

presented information on various BMPs 

that could improve the operation and 

performance of GCCS and thus achieve 

additional emission reductions. Such 

BMPs included installing final cover 

early to increase gas collection 

efficiency, connecting the leachate 

collection and removal system (LCRS) to 

a GCCS, providing redundant seals on 

wellheads, installing horizontal 

collectors to facilitate earlier gas 

collection (i.e., shorter lag times), and 

preventing flooded wells via the use of 

pumps and surface collectors. The EPA 

received comments both supporting and 

objecting to considering BMPs and 

oxidative control technologies as BSER. 

Commenters generally pointed out the 

site-specific nature of the various GCCS 

BMPs. Several commenters disagreed 

that the EPA should prescribe enhanced 

wellhead seals in the rule and indicated 

that landfill operators are already 

employing site-specific approaches to 

ensure that wells are properly sealed in 

order to avoid exceedances of wellhead 

standards and maintain good gas 

quality. Regarding connecting to a 

LCRS, two commenters raised several 

technical site-specific issues associated 

with connecting an LCRS to a GCCS. 

Several commenters indicated that 

LCRS connections are typically shallow 

and can introduce ambient air into the 

GCCS, which could increase the risk of 

subsurface fire. According to these 

commenters, to reduce these risks, each 

individual connection point of an LCRS 

would need to be evaluated to 

determine if it was suitable for 

connection to a GCCS. For cover, several 

commenters stated that landfill cover 

materials must meet multiple objectives, 

including controlling odors, vectors, 

fires, and litter, shedding moisture to 

reduce infiltration, and supporting 

vegetation and compaction. One of the 

commenters added that Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

and state and local regulations govern 

many of these cover criteria and 

expressed concerns that cover 

requirements in the Emission 

Guidelines could be contradictory to 

other requirements. These commenters 

indicated that as landfill owners and 

operators select cover materials and 

designs intended to promote methane 

oxidation, such as biocovers or cover 

soils, these performance objectives 

should be taken into consideration. 

Other commenters advocated for 

requiring BMPs including enhanced or 

duplicate seals on wellheads, 

connections to LCRS to collect LFG, 

early final covers, horizontal collectors, 

and BMPs for dewatering gas collection 

wells. 

With respect to oxidative covers, 

several commenters mentioned or 

provided information on articles and 

other literature that discuss selecting 

appropriate biocover materials.42 Some 

of these commenters noted that the rate 

of oxidation depends on both material 

properties and site-specific operations, 

including moisture, temperature, 

material particle size, depth, and 

compaction. One state agency agreed 

that methane oxidation is well 

demonstrated for cover materials such 

as compost or yard waste, but expressed 

concern that methane oxidation 

performance in extreme climate 

conditions is not well known, in 

particular as related to daily and 

intermediate cover thicknesses. One 

commenter expressed concerns that the 

use of an oxidizing cover can reduce gas 

collection efficiency and should not be 

required by the Emission Guidelines. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern with whether the long-term 

performance of oxidative control 

technologies in real-world conditions 

has been established for controlling 

landfill methane and NMOC emissions. 

Several commenters appreciated the 

EPA’s willingness to recognize the role 

of oxidation in mitigating methane and 

NMOC emissions and agreed that the 

use of biocovers or biofilters for landfill 

methane oxidation is promising but did 

not recommend requiring oxidative 

controls in the Emission Guidelines. A 

couple of these commenters indicated 

that these technologies are not BSER, 

one of which specifically noted that 

biocover technology has not been 

sufficiently demonstrated to support a 

regulatory requirement under CAA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52115 

section 111, as that requires the EPA to 

determine performance standards based 

on adequately demonstrated technology. 

The EPA recognizes the site-specific 

nature of GCCS design and operation 

and that the effectiveness of any 

particular BMP, therefore, depends on 

the site-specific circumstances of a 

particular MSW landfill. Therefore, 

while EPA strongly encourages the use 

of appropriate BMP to ensure the best 

possible design and operation of each 

GCCS, EPA does not consider any 

particular BMPs to constitute BSER and, 

thus, is not proposing to prescribe the 

use of GCCS BMPs in proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf. The EPA continues 

to believe that BSER remains a welldesigned and well-operated GCCS and 

that while all such systems have certain 

characteristics in common, what 

constitutes a well-designed and welloperated GCCS will vary somewhat 

from landfill to landfill. While we agree 

with commenters that these alternative 

technologies and BMPs can achieve 

additional reductions in some 

circumstances, the performance, cost, 

and technical feasibility of these BMPs 

can vary greatly from site to site as well 

as from cell to cell even within the same 

site. Further, designing specific 

components of a GCCS (e.g., 

biofiltration cells, prescribed wellhead 

seals, horizontal collectors, LCRS 

connection to GCCS, and surface 

collectors) depends on climate-specific 

and site-specific conditions that must be 

assessed on a case-by-case basis and 

requires engineering judgment, which is 

best exercised by the professional 

engineer that reviews the GCCS design 

plan for approval and the staff at each 

delegated authority responsible for 

approving the GCCS design plan. 

The EPA recognizes that the 

effectiveness of cover practices, both 

early installation of final cover and the 

use of oxidative covers in reducing 

emissions is also site-specific. 

Therefore, the EPA does not consider 

these to constitute BSER and is not 

proposing to prescribe specific cover 

practices in proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf. The timing of final cover 

installation depends on the filling 

sequence and cell design of the 

particular landfill. For biocovers, the 

applicability is dependent on whether 

the area is closed or open. The materials 

allowed to be used for oxidative covers 

could also vary from site to site 

depending on state or local yard waste 

or compost bans, materials most 

favorable to the local climate, or 

materials that are best suited to meet 

multiple site-specific performance 

objectives in addition to reducing 

landfill gas emissions. The EPA also 

agrees with commenters who noted that 

long-term performance of oxidative 

covers has not yet been adequately 

demonstrated in a full-scale industrial 

setting at a landfill. 

Based on the information and public 

input it received on emission reduction 

techniques and various BMPs that could 

improve collection and control of LFG 

emissions, the EPA proposes to 

conclude that BSER does not include 

specific GCCS BMPs, cover practices, or 

oxidative controls and, therefore, is not 

proposing to require landfills to adopt 

those practices in the Emission 

Guidelines. The EPA does not consider 

oxidative technologies (biocovers and 

biofilters) or BMPs to be part of BSER. 

Although the EPA is not prescribing 

BMPs for GCCS or advanced cover 

practices in proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf, the EPA expects that two 

proposed rule flexibilities will 

encourage and promote more 

widespread adoption of BMPs and 

alternative cover technologies. First, the 

proposed Tier 4 surface monitoring 

demonstration allows a landfill owner 

or operator to use site-specific surface 

methane emissions measurements prior 

to determining when the installation of 

a regulatory compliant GCCS is 

required. (The Tier 4 surface emissions 

threshold is discussed in section VII.A 

of this preamble. Tier 4 may also be 

used to determine when the GCCS can 

be removed, as discussed in section VIII 

of this preamble.) Thus, the EPA expects 

that at least some landfill owners or 

operators will utilize oxidative cover 

practices or BMPs such as early gas 

collection or LCRS connection to 

minimize surface emissions. 

Second, the EPA is proposing to 

remove the wellhead temperature and 

oxygen/nitrogen performance 

requirements and the corresponding 

requirement to take corrective action 

upon exceeding one of these parameters, 

thereby providing flexibility with regard 

to wellhead operating parameters. (The 

wellhead operating parameters are 

discussed in section VI.B of this 

preamble.) With the proposed wellhead 

operating parameter flexibility, landfill 

owners or operators may employ cover 

practices or GCCS BMPs that are 

suitable for their sites and GCCS 

designs, thereby allowing them to 

collect more LFG and reduce emissions 

without the risk of exceeding a wellhead 

operating parameter. 

In addition to these two flexibilities, 

the EPA is requesting comment on other 

compliance flexibilities to better 

promote the use of GCCS BMPs that 

could be used in the final Emission 

Guidelines. To complement the 

compliance flexibilities proposed in 

these Emission Guidelines, the EPA 

intends to explore the creation of 

technical assistance documents and 

other tools or resources for educating 

the owners or operators of affected 

landfills and delegated authorities about 

how GCCS BMPs and oxidative controls 

can be implemented effectively to 

achieve additional methane and NMOC 

emission reductions from landfills. 

4. Organics Diversion and Source 

Separation 

LFG is a by-product of the 

decomposition of organic material in 

MSW under anaerobic conditions in 

landfills. The amount of LFG created 

primarily depends on the quantity of 

waste and its composition and moisture 

content, as well as the design and 

management practices at the site. Food 

waste, yard debris, and other organic 

materials continue to be the largest 

component of MSW discarded, with 

food waste comprising the largest 

portion. Decreasing the amount of 

organics disposed in landfills would 

reduce the amount of LFG generated. 

As previously discussed in this 

section V.A, we are proposing to define 

BSER as a well-designed, installed and 

operated GCCS. We are proposing to 

conclude that organics diversion and 

source separation are not part of a welldesigned, installed and operated GCCS 

and, therefore, not part of BSER. The 

EPA does, however, consider organics 

diversion and source separation 

advantageous because such practices 

reduce the amount of LFG generated 

and, thus, may serve as a useful 

compliance tool as it may allow landfill 

owners or operators to postpone the 

need to install a GCCS. 

In the ANPRM for existing landfills 

(79 FR 41787, July 17, 2014), the EPA 

solicited input on methods to encourage 

organics diversion in any proposed 

revised Emission Guidelines. The EPA 

received a variety of ideas on how best 

to encourage diversion. 

Many commenters generally 

recognized that organics diversion could 

achieve emission reductions from 

landfills. Although the ANPRM (79 FR 

41772) specifically stated EPA was not 

soliciting comments on mandating 

organics diversion, many commenters 

cautioned against an organics diversion 

mandate in the Emission Guidelines, 

given the complexity and local nature of 

waste management. Specific examples 

of how a Tier 4 emission threshold 

determination and flexible wellhead 

operating parameters could encourage 

more landfills to adopt organics 

diversion programs were provided, as 

discussed in sections VI, VII, and VIII of 

this preamble. Several commenters 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52116 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

43U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for 

Proposed Emission Guidelines and Compliance 

Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Section 

2.7, 2015. 

44 Ibid. 

45 Ibid. 

46Stege, Alex. The Effects of Organic Waste 

Diversion on LFG Generation and Recovery from 

U.S. Landfills. SWANA’s 37th Annual Landfill Gas 

Symposium. 2014. 

47 Ibid. 

48Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills—Background Information for Proposed 

Standards and Guidelines, U.S. EPA (EPA–450/3– 

90–011a) (NTIS PB 91–197061). 

suggested that the EPA encourage 

partial organics diversion programs 

instead of focusing on rule exemptions 

for landfills with 100 percent diversion 

rates, which commenters said is 

impractical at this point given current 

infrastructure and technology 

limitations. One commenter touted the 

economic and job creation benefits of 

increased organic diversion rates. A 

state agency suggested that a separate 

subcategory with a higher design 

capacity threshold could be developed 

for landfills diverting organics. Another 

commenter suggested that the EPA 

should provide states the flexibility to 

incorporate both source control 

requirements and landfill diversion 

programs into their state plans. States 

and municipalities in the U.S. are 

increasingly moving toward the 

diversion of organic wastes from 

landfills to composting and anaerobic 

digesters. At least 21 states have 

mandated organics diversion and/or 

banned disposal of at least some 

organics (primarily yard waste) from 

landfills. Five of these states (California, 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) have enacted 

legislation governing organics disposal 

specific to food waste.43 In addition, 

state initiatives to recycle organic 

wastes have contributed to the growth of 

local residential organics collection, 

with 198 communities in 19 states 

reporting curbside collection of food 

scraps.44 Between 2009 and 2014, the 

number of municipalities with source 

separated food waste collection more 

than doubled (from 90 to 198) and the 

number of affected households grew by 

nearly 50 percent.45 Separate collection 

and treatment of organics in the 

commercial and institutional sectors has 

also risen. The nature of organics 

management initiatives and programs at 

the state and local levels varies across 

the country by several factors, including 

type of organics targeted (e.g., food 

waste, yard waste), source of organics 

generation (e.g., commercial, residential, 

institutional), implementation phase 

(e.g., pilot projects, mandatory with 

fines for violations), and pricing formats 

(e.g., ‘‘pay-as-you-throw,’’ property tax, 

fixed fee). 

The EPA recognizes the emission 

reduction benefit of organics diversion 

from landfills. A recent study indicated 

that modest organics diversion programs 

could achieve a 9 percent reduction in 

LFG generation rates, while more 

aggressive diversion programs could 

yield up to 18.5 percent reduction.46

Nevertheless, while the EPA has 

proposed several pathways to encourage 

voluntary organics diversion in this 

proposal, the EPA is not proposing a 

federal mandate of organics diversion 

under this proposal. There are 

significant barriers to issuing a federal 

mandate for diversion under the 

Emission Guidelines, including: Lack of 

regulations and incentives at the state 

and local level; limited processing and 

transfer capacity for organic wastes; low 

cost to dispose of waste in landfills 

relative to other waste treatment 

technologies; multifaceted and regional 

nature of the solid waste management 

industry; and behavioral changes 

needed among waste generators 

(individuals, businesses, and industries) 

to divert their organic wastes from 

landfills.47

In the 1996 Landfills NSPS 

Background Information Document,48

the EPA ‘‘decided not to include 

materials separation requirements 

within the final rules because the EPA 

continues to believe RCRA and local 

regulations are the most appropriate 

vehicle to address wide-ranging issues 

associated with solid waste management 

for landfills.’’ The EPA continues to 

believe that this is the case. The EPA 

has, however, proposed three 

compliance flexibilities as discussed in 

sections VI.B (wellhead monitoring), 

VII.A (Tier 4 emission threshold 

determination), and VIII.B (Criteria for 

Capping or Removing a GCCS) of this 

preamble that may aid landfills in 

increasing organics diversion. The 

proposed adjustments to wellhead 

operating standards provide some GCCS 

operational flexibility to accommodate 

declining LFG quantity or quality 

resulting from modified waste 

composition at landfills employing an 

organic diversion program. The formats 

of the Tier 4 option and alternative set 

of surface emission-based GCCS 

removal criteria serve as built-in 

incentives for the landfill owner or 

operator to implement a variety of 

surface emission reduction techniques, 

including organics diversion. 

In addition to the three compliance 

flexibilities discussed in sections VI.B 

(wellhead monitoring), VII.A (Tier 4 

emission threshold determination), and 

VIII.B (criteria for capping or removing 

a GCCS), the EPA is seeking comment 

on other compliance flexibilities it 

should consider when issuing the final 

Emission Guidelines to encourage more 

organics diversion. The EPA is also 

requesting comment on other ways we 

could structure the guidelines to credit 

organics diversion. 

In response to public input, the EPA 

is also seeking comment on what, if any, 

role organics diversion policies or 

measures could play in an approvable 

state plan. The EPA must ensure that 

each state plan establishes requirements 

for LFG emission controls that are at 

least as stringent as the Emission 

Guidelines. We are, therefore, interested 

in how states might demonstrate that a 

state plan that contains organics 

diversion policies and measures is at 

least as stringent as the Emission 

Guidelines. The EPA is interested in 

supporting state organics diversion 

initiatives and one way of doing this 

may be to provide flexibility to include 

such initiatives as a component of an 

approvable state plan. As previously 

stated, however, to be approvable, a 

state plan must be at least as stringent 

in its effect on LFG as the Emission 

Guidelines, i.e., it must ensure emission 

reductions equivalent to those achieved 

with a well-designed, installed, and 

well-operated GCCS with a NMOC 

destruction efficiency of 98 percent and 

we request comments on how a state 

that relies on organics diversion could 

do this. The EPA, through its various 

voluntary programs intends to explore 

the creation of outreach materials, 

technical assistance documents, 

trainings, and other tools or resources 

for educating owners and operators of 

affected landfills and implementing 

authorities about the benefits of organics 

diversion and how organics diversion 

programs can be implemented 

effectively to achieve additional 

reductions in methane and NMOC 

emissions from landfills. The EPA is 

also exploring opportunities through its 

voluntary programs to recognize 

leadership in diverting organics from 

landfills. 

B. What data and control costs did the 

EPA consider in evaluating potential 

changes to the timing of installing, 

expanding, and removing the GCCS? 

To examine the potential impact of 

changes to the timing of initiating and 

removing landfill gas collection and 

control, the EPA updated a dataset of 

information for landfills, as described 

below, and applied a model to assess 

when controls were needed under the 

baseline control scenario (2.5 million 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52117 

49November 8, 1987, is the date on which permit 

programs were established under the Hazardous 

and Solid Waste Amendments of RCRA. This date 

was also selected as the regulatory cutoff in the 

emission guidelines for landfills no longer receiving 

wastes because the EPA judged states would be able 

to identify active facilities as of this date. The data 

available to EPA includes an open year without the 

month and so the analysis uses a cutoff year of 1988 

for landfill closure year. 

50 July 17, 2014, is the proposed date of the 

revised NSPS for MSW landfills in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart XXX. A landfill opening or commencing 

construction on its modification after this date 

would become subject to this new subpart and 

would not be subject to the revised emission 

guidelines. The EPA cannot predict the exact month 

a model landfill will open so the analysis uses a 

cutoff year of 2014. 

Mg design capacity threshold and 50 

Mg/yr NMOC threshold) as well as 

various regulatory options. 

As discussed at 79 FR 41805 in 

determining whether to revise the 

proposed standards of performance for 

new MSW landfills, the EPA developed 

a dataset of information for landfills, 

which included landfill-specific data 

such as landfill open and closure year, 

landfill design capacity, landfill design 

area, and landfill depth. For the 

regulatory analysis, we approximated 

the number of landfills that would 

become subject to the regulation based 

on size using the reported design 

capacities, which were provided in 

units of megagrams. For purposes of 

rule applicability, size is based on both 

mass (Mg) and volume (m3). 

The EPA made several significant 

updates to this original dataset to 

evaluate the impacts of this proposal. 

Notably, the EPA updated the technical 

attributes of over 1,200 landfills based 

on new detailed data reported to 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart HH of the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). In 

addition, the EPA consulted with its 

regional offices, as well as state and 

local authorities, to identify landfills 

expected to undergo a modification 

within the next 5 years. According to 

the applicability of the proposed 

subpart XXX, if a landfill commenced 

construction on its modification after 

July 17, 2014, it would no longer be 

subject to the state or federal plans 

implementing these proposed revisions 

to the Emission Guidelines; therefore, 

these landfills were excluded from the 

impacts analysis conducted for this 

proposal, and their impacts will be 

considered as part of the final revisions 

to the standards of performance for new 

(and modified) landfills issued under 40 

CFR part 60, subpart XXX. After 

incorporating all of the updates to the 

inventory and taking out the landfills 

expected to modify, the revised dataset 

now has 1,839 existing landfills that 

accepted waste after 1987 49 and opened 

prior to 2014 50 that are analyzed in this 

regulatory options analysis. A detailed 

discussion of updates made to the 

landfill dataset is in the docketed 

memorandum, ‘‘Summary of Updated 

Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and 

Emission Reduction Analysis of 

Landfills Regulations. 2015.’’ 

The EPA programmed a Microsoft®

Access database (hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘model’’) to calculate the costs 

and emission reductions associated with 

the regulatory options for each of the 

landfills in the revised dataset. The 

default parameters for methane 

generation potential (L0), the methane 

generation rate (k), and the NMOC 

concentration used to estimate when the 

landfills exceeded regulatory emission 

thresholds and estimate emission 

reductions are the same as those 

discussed at 79 FR 41805. Similarly, the 

default parameters for methane 

generation potential (L0), the methane 

generation rate (k), and the NMOC 

concentration used to estimate when 

landfills could cap or remove controls 

are the same as those discussed at 79 FR 

41805. 

When modeled landfill gas emissions 

for a particular landfill exceeded the 

emission rate threshold, the EPA 

assumed that collection equipment was 

installed and started operating at the 

landfill 30 months after first exceeding 

the threshold (as discussed in the 

docketed memorandum ‘‘Methodology 

for Estimating Cost and Emission 

Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 

2014’’). The EPA also assumed that as 

the landfill was filled over time, the 

landfill would expand the GCCS into 

new areas of waste placement according 

to an expansion lag time of 5 years for 

active areas and 2 years for areas that 

are closed or at final grade. Based on 

input received during public outreach to 

small entity representatives (SERs) as 

well as comments received on the 

proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796), most 

modern large landfills do not reach final 

grade within 2 years and a majority of 

landfills are complying with the 5 year 

provision. 

Although we are proposing a new Tier 

4 option as a site-specific alternative for 

determining if a landfill has exceeded 

the regulatory emission threshold (and 

must install controls) or if a landfill has 

fallen below the regulatory emission 

threshold (and can remove or cap 

controls), the number and types of 

landfills that could opt to use a Tier 4 

option are unknown and could not be 

incorporated into the impacts calculated 

in the model. As a result, the number of 

landfills expected to control under each 

regulatory option, as well as the 

estimated emission reductions and costs 

associated with each regulatory option 

are based on modeled estimates of 

landfill gas emissions. To estimate the 

costs of each regulatory option, the EPA 

made minor changes to the cost 

methodology discussed in the landfills 

NSPS proposal at 79 FR 41805. In this 

analysis, cost equations were obtained 

from a recent update to EPA’s Landfill 

Gas Energy Cost Model (LFGcost-Web), 

version 3.0, which was updated by 

EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach 

Program (LMOP) in August 2014. The 

EPA also updated estimates for surface 

emission monitoring costs based on 

revised estimates made available to the 

EPA since proposal of the NSPS in July 

2014. 

The capital costs continue to be 

presented in year 2012 dollars and 

annualized using an interest rate of 7 

percent over the lifetime of the 

equipment (typically 15 years), or in the 

case of drill mobilization costs, the 

length of time between each wellfield 

expansion. These annualized capital 

costs were added to the annual 

operating and maintenance costs 

estimated by LFGcost-Web. The 

annualized cost includes capital related 

to the purchase, installation, operation 

and maintenance of GCCS, and costs 

related to testing and monitoring. 

For certain landfills that were 

expected to generate revenue by using 

the LFG for energy, the EPA also 

estimated LFG energy recovery rates and 

associated costs to install and operate 

the energy recovery equipment as well 

as the revenue streams from the 

recovered energy. These revenues were 

subtracted from the annualized capital 

and operating and maintenance costs at 

each landfill in order to obtain a net cost 

estimate for each option in each year. 

The emission reduction and cost and 

revenue equations and assumptions are 

detailed in the docketed memoranda, 

‘‘Updated Methodology for Estimating 

Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW 

Landfills Regulations. 2015’’ and 

‘‘Updated Methodology for Estimating 

Testing and Monitoring Costs for the 

MSW Landfill Regulations. 2015.’’ 

C. What emissions and emission 

reduction programs are associated with 

existing MSW landfills? 

The EPA estimates that the potential 

uncontrolled emissions from the 

approximately 1,800 landfills in its 

regulatory analysis dataset (as explained 

in section V.B of this preamble) are 

approximately 69,700 Mg NMOC and 

11.0 million Mg methane (275 million 

mtCO2e) in year 2014. In year 2025, the 

EPA estimates that the potential 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52118 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

51U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013. April 2015. Table 

7–3. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

52 Ibid, Annex 3.14, Table A–265. 

53Climate Action Reserve. Issued List of CRTs as 

of January 7, 2015. https://thereserve2.apx.com/

myModule/rpt/myrpt.asp?r=112. 54See sections V.B and V.C of this action for a 

detailed discussion of the modeling database and 

estimated reductions under the current federal 

regulatory framework. 

55For the regulatory analysis, we approximated 

the number of landfills that would become subject 

to the regulation based on size using the reported 

design capacities, which were provided in units of 

megagrams. For purposes of rule applicability size 

is based on both mass (Mg) and volume (m3). 

uncontrolled emissions from the 

approximately 1,800 landfills in the 

dataset are approximately 71,400 Mg 

NMOC and 11.2 million Mg methane 

(281 million mtCO2e). The majority of 

landfills in the dataset are expected to 

remain open through 2025, thus 

uncontrolled emissions are higher in 

2025. 

Looking beyond the modeled dataset, 

the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013 shows 

a growth in uncontrolled emissions 

from MSW landfills, from 205.4 

teragrams (Tg) CO2e in 1990 to 332.6 Tg 

CO2e in 2013.51 If controls are 

considered, emissions from landfills 

have decreased from 173.8 Tg CO2e in 

1990 to 97.5 Tg CO2e in 2013 from both 

regulatory and voluntary programs as 

discussed below.52

1. Emission Reductions Due to Subparts 

Cc and WWW 

To estimate the emission reductions, 

the EPA applied the current design 

capacity and NMOC emission rate 

thresholds in the MSW landfills 

regulations, and the time allowed for 

installing, expanding and removing the 

GCCS to the modeled emission 

estimates discussed in section V.B of 

this preamble. 

Table 2 of this preamble summarizes 

the reductions anticipated to be 

achieved in 2025 as a result of 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart WWW and the federal 

and state plans implementing the 

Emission Guidelines. This table reflects 

the current baseline level of control at 

existing landfills: Landfills greater than 

or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 

million m3 must install a GCCS when 

NMOC emissions reach or exceed 50 

Mg/yr. The table includes emission 

reductions for NMOC and methane. 

TABLE 2—BASELINE EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN 2025 AT EXISTING LANDFILLS

Number of 

landfills affected 

Number of 

landfills 

controlling 

Number of 

landfills reporting but not 

controlling a

Annual net 

cost 

(million 

$2012) b

Annual 

NMOC 

Reductions 

(Mg/yr) 

Annual 

methane 

reductions 

(million Mg/yr) 

Annual CO2e 

Reductions 

(million mt/yr) 

NMOC cost 

effectiveness 

($/Mg) 

Methane cost 

effectiveness 

($/Mg) 

CO2e cost 

effectiveness 

($/mt) 

989 .................... 574 211 299 57,300 9.0 226 5,090 32.3 1.3 

aExcludes closed landfills from reporting count, because the closed landfills are not expected to have to submit reports in 2025. They would have already submitted 

their one-time reports under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW or the state or federal plan implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, and because they are closed, they 

would also be expected to be done with NMOC reporting by 2025 because they are on the tail end of their gas curve and gas rates are declining. bThe annualized net cost ($299 million) is the difference between the average annualized revenue ($1,408 million) and the sum of annualized control cost ($1,700 

million) and the average annualized testing and monitoring costs ($7.3 million). 

The Emission Guidelines in the 

baseline are estimated to require control 

at 574 of the 989 affected landfills in 

2025 and achieve reductions of 57,300 

Mg/yr NMOC and 9.0 million Mg/yr 

methane (226 million mt/yr CO2e). In 

the baseline, we estimate that 31 percent 

(574/1,839) of existing landfills will 

operate emission controls in 2025. 

2. Other Programs Achieving Emission 

Reductions From Existing MSW 

Landfills 

Landfill owners or operators collect 

LFG for a variety of reasons: To control 

odor, to minimize fire and explosion 

hazards, to recover LFG to be used for 

energy recovery, to sell carbon credits, 

and to comply with local, state, or 

federal air quality standards. This 

section of this proposed action 

discusses several non-EPA programs of 

which the EPA is aware. These 

reductions complement the reductions 

achieved by the current NSPS and 

Emission Guidelines framework. 

a. State and Local Ordinances 

The EPA is aware that some state or 

local ordinances require LFG 

combustion. The number of landfills 

controlling under these ordinances is 

unknown and is not factored into the 

incremental impacts analysis for this 

rule. The EPA is also aware that other 

states have rules regulating LFG 

combustion for odor control or safety 

reasons, which may be less 

comprehensive than the requirements of 

a GCCS operated in accordance with the 

NSPS and emission guideline 

requirements. 

b. Market-Based Mechanisms 

Many of these systems may have been 

installed to recover energy and generate 

revenue through the sale of electricity or 

LFG. Some landfills with voluntary 

systems may also receive revenues as a 

result of the creation of carbon credits. 

Data from the Climate Action Reserve 

indicates that more than 115 LFG 

capture projects in 36 states have been 

issued credits known as Climate Reserve 

Tonnes (CRTs).53

To estimate the number of landfills 

that may be controlling LFG emissions 

voluntarily, the EPA evaluated the most 

current data available and compared the 

list of landfills that are modeled to have 

installed a GCCS in 2014 in the NSPS/ 

Emission Guidelines dataset to the list 

of landfills that are reported to have a 

GCCS installed in the LMOP or subpart 

HH GHGRP databases. While the NSPS/ 

Emission Guidelines dataset estimates 

that approximately 620 landfills have 

installed controls to meet the 

requirements of the NSPS or an 

approved state plan or federal plan 

implementing the Emission Guidelines, 

the LMOP and GHGRP databases show 

approximately 330 additional landfills 

as having installed controls, resulting in 

approximately 950 landfills estimated to 

have a GCCS installed in 2014.54

Approximately 55 percent of these 330 

landfills exceed the design capacity of 

2.5 million Mg,55 but as of 2014, are not 

modeled to exceed the NMOC emission 

threshold that dictates when a GCCS 

must be installed. In some cases these 

GCCS may have been installed earlier 

than required by the time frames 

currently specified in the NSPS and 

Emission Guidelines. The LMOP 

database estimates that nearly 120 of the 

330 landfills with voluntary systems 

have an energy recovery component. 

Among landfills with design capacities 

of 2.5 million Mg or greater, 

approximately 80 of the 180 landfills 

with a voluntary GCCS have an energy 

recovery component. These 330 

landfills are estimated to reduce 

approximately 12 million Mg CO2e in 

2014. This is in addition to the 231 

million Mg CO2e reduction achieved by 

the current regulatory baseline. This 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52119 

56California Code of Regulations, title 17, 

subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, sections 95460 

to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid 

Waste. 

represents an additional 5 percent 

reduction in year 2014 coming from 

systems installed for reasons other than 

compliance with the NSPS or state and 

federal plans implementing the 

Emission Guidelines. 

D. What control options did the EPA 

consider? 

The EPA considered several factors 

when determining which control 

options would represent BSER. This 

section of the preamble describes those 

control options, which include varying 

the design capacity threshold, varying 

the NMOC emission rate threshold, and 

varying the time allowed to install and 

then expand the GCCS. To examine 

these options, the EPA ran several 

permutations of various control options 

on the original dataset developed for the 

July 2014 NSPS proposal. Each 

regulatory option assessed variations in 

the design capacity and/or emission rate 

thresholds, as well as changes to the 

initial lag time and expansion lag time. 

The ‘‘initial lag time’’ is the time period 

between when the landfill exceeds the 

emission rate threshold and when 

controls are required to be installed and 

started up (30 months in 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts Cc and WWW). The 

‘‘expansion lag time’’ is the amount of 

time allotted for the landfill to expand 

the GCCS into new areas of the landfill 

(5 years for active areas and 2 years for 

areas that are closed or at final grade in 

40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW). 

Some options adjusted a single 

threshold in isolation; for example, 

reducing the NMOC emission threshold 

to between 34 and 40 Mg/yr while 

keeping the design capacity threshold 

constant at 2.5 million Mg. Other 

options adjusted multiple control 

parameters simultaneously, taking into 

account the relationship between the 

parameters. For example, recognizing 

that NMOC emissions are a function of 

waste-in-place, some options that 

significantly reduced the NMOC 

emission threshold also reduced the 

design capacity thresholds to 2.0 

million Mg to avoid situations where 

the NMOC emission threshold would be 

exceeded long before the design 

capacity threshold. 

In addition to adjusting design 

capacity and emission control 

thresholds, other preliminary model 

runs varied the initial and/or expansion 

lag times. These variations estimated the 

impacts of requiring landfill owners or 

operators to install or expand gas 

collection systems more quickly after 

crossing each modeled NMOC emission 

threshold. 

In 2013, the EPA presented different 

model runs during Federalism 

consultations and small entity outreach 

that represented the range of variation 

in both the threshold and lag time 

parameters. For the options presented, 

small entity representatives (SERs) and 

Federalism consultation participants 

provided feedback to the EPA, which 

included implementation concerns with 

varying certain parameters as part of the 

Emission Guidelines review, as 

discussed in the following sections. The 

EPA also received comments on varying 

certain parameters in response to its 

July 2014 NSPS proposal and ANPRM 

for Emission Guidelines at MSW 

landfills (79 FR 41772) and conducted 

a subsequent round of Federalism 

consultations and small entity outreach 

in 2015. The EPA considered these 

concerns and comments received on the 

July 2014 NSPS proposal and ANRPM 

when developing a revised set of 

regulatory options in this proposal. 

1. What are the implementation 

considerations with changing the design 

capacity criteria? 

For this proposal, the EPA considered 

two different design capacity 

thresholds: No change from the current 

regulatory baseline of 2.5 million Mg 

and 2.5 million m3, and an option that 

reduced the design capacity to 2.0 

million Mg and 2.0 million m3. This 

section of the preamble describes the 

resulting potential burden to regulated 

entities, including small entities. 

Potential burden includes obtaining a 

title V permit and calculating an annual 

NMOC emission rate. This discussion 

also considers the size threshold 

associated with existing state 

regulations, as well as collection 

systems that are in place on a voluntary 

basis. 

The EPA did not consider an option 

to remove the design capacity criteria 

for this proposal so that all landfills 

would be affected sources no matter 

their size, because of the burdens of 

permitting and reporting at small 

landfills as discussed below and at 79 

FR 41782. If the EPA were to remove the 

design capacity threshold, a significant 

number of additional landfills would be 

subject to the rule. Out of the 

approximately 1,800 existing landfills in 

the revised dataset, approximately 850 

have a design capacity of less than 2.5 

million Mg. Without a design capacity 

threshold, the NMOC emission rate 

would be the only criterion for 

installing controls. Thus, these 850 

landfills would be required to begin 

calculating and reporting their NMOC 

emission rate. They would also be 

required to obtain a Title V permit. This 

would present a significant burden on 

both regulated landfills and delegated 

permitting authorities, which must be 

evaluated in light of potential emissions 

reductions. 

The EPA did not analyze control 

options for landfills with landfill design 

capacities less than 2.0 million Mg in 

the model. Based on the revised dataset, 

571 of the 623 closed landfills (91.6 

percent) have a design capacity less 

than 2.0 million Mg. Lowering the 

design capacity below 2.0 million Mg 

would cause a large number of closed 

landfills to become subject to regulatory 

requirements including annual NMOC 

reporting requirements and Title V 

permitting requirements. Additionally 

depending on NMOC emission rates, a 

number of these landfills may also be 

required to install GCCS despite the fact 

that many of these landfills have been 

closed for many years and are on the 

downside of their gas production curve. 

The EPA concludes lowering the design 

capacity threshold below 2.0 million Mg 

would add regulatory requirements with 

minimal environmental benefit. The 

EPA also notes that closed landfills may 

have limited access to additional 

revenue because they are no longer 

collecting tipping fees and the cost for 

GCCS and regulatory compliance were 

not factored into their closure plans, 

they may have poor or incomplete 

records for estimating landfill gas 

emissions, and they are less likely to be 

permitted. 

Several commenters from state 

agencies expressed concerns with the 

permitting and reporting burdens on 

smaller landfills and advised the EPA to 

retain the current design capacity 

threshold. Another state agency noted 

that MSW landfills with a design 

capacity greater than 0.38 million m3

(roughly 15 percent of the current 

design capacity threshold in the 

Emission Guidelines) are required to 

install GCCSs under the state’s HAP 

rule. In practice, the smallest landfills 

controlling under the state regulation 

have design capacities as low as 0.6 

million Mg and 0.4 million m3. The 

commenter noted that the state rule has 

control requirements similar to those in 

the Emission Guidelines, but does relax 

some of the monitoring requirements 

given the lower gas quality and smaller 

emission potential at older and smaller 

landfills. 

Two commenters advocated for 

reducing or eliminating the design 

capacity criteria, referencing the state of 

California Landfill Methane Rule 56 (CA 

LMR), which requires all landfills with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52120 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

57See Docket Item ‘‘Modeling Database 

Containing Inputs and Impacts for Proposed Review 

of the MSW Emission Guidelines. 2015.’’ 

at least 450,000 tons of waste-in-place to 

assess whether or not GCCS is required 

based on other criteria, including 

estimated heat input capacity from the 

landfill gas and surface emissions 

monitoring data. 

Based on a review of GCCS data 

reported in its dataset, the EPA 

estimates that over 900 landfills in its 

revised dataset have installed a GCCS 

for either voluntary or regulatory 

reasons. Of these, 17 percent of landfills 

with a capacity less than 2.0 Million Mg 

report having a GCCS installed; 47 

percent of landfills with a capacity 

between 2.0 million Mg and 2.5 million 

Mg have a GCCS installed; and 76 

percent of landfills with a capacity of 

2.5 Million Mg or greater have a GCCS 

installed.57 Thus, it appears that a 

significant number of landfills have 

installed GCCS even in the absence of 

federal regulation of these smaller 

sources, based on site-specific 

circumstances such as gas quality and 

age of waste in the landfill or areas of 

the landfill, access to capital, and 

energy recovery opportunities. 

When the EPA promulgated the 2.5 

million Mg and 2.5 million m3 design 

capacity threshold in 1996, we 

considered the impact on small entities 

based on public comment (61 FR 9918, 

March 12, 1996). Today, small private 

entities and municipalities still tend to 

own smaller sized landfills, whereas 

larger private entities tend to own larger 

regional landfills. One commenter noted 

that reducing the design capacity may 

disproportionately affect local 

governments and small entities. Based 

on the ownership data reported in the 

revised dataset, 78 percent of landfills 

with a design capacity less than 2.0 

million Mg are publicly owned and a 

similarly strong majority (71 percent) of 

landfills between 2.0 million Mg and 2.5 

million Mg are publicly owned. For 

landfills with a design capacity of 2.5 

million Mg or greater, the share of 

public ownership drops to 48 percent of 

landfills. Further, small entity 

ownership represents only 

approximately 8.7 percent of the 

landfills required to control under a 

state or federal plan implementing 

subpart Cc. If the EPA were to reduce 

the design capacity to 2.0 million Mg 

and 2.0 million m3, approximately 730 

landfills would be subject to control 

requirements and 70 (9.8 percent) of 

those are classified as small entities. If 

the EPA were to eliminate the design 

capacity criteria, approximately 749 

additional existing landfills with a 

design capacity below 2.0 million Mg 

(50 percent) would become subject to 

the rule, of which 379 are classified as 

small entities, with many of these being 

required to install controls depending 

on the NMOC level selected. Further, 

the cost burden for installing a 

collection and control system is more 

significant for small landfills, which are 

more often owned by small entities, 

compared to larger landfills. Because 

certain costs to construct the gas 

collection system (e.g., flat fees for drill 

rig mobilization, and monitoring and 

construction costs) remain relatively 

constant regardless of the size of the 

landfill, the per-acre costs to control a 

small landfill are more expensive than 

the per-acre costs to control a large 

landfill. 

Assuming an NMOC emission 

threshold level of 34 Mg/yr, reducing 

the design capacity from 2.5 million Mg 

and 2.5 million m3 to 2.0 million Mg 

and 2.0 million m3 would require 

controls at an additional 20 landfills 

that have a design capacity between 2.0 

million and 2.5 million Mg, as shown in 

Table 3 of this preamble. Requiring 

controls at landfills in the 2.0 million to 

2.5 million Mg size range would be less 

cost effective because these landfills 

have a smaller emission reduction 

potential in later years. This is apparent 

when considering the percent changes 

in net control costs and corresponding 

emission reductions: net control costs 

increase by approximately 1.5 percent, 

while emission reductions increase by 

only 0.5 percent in year 2025. 

The EPA does not believe that the 

additional burden on small entities and 

the disproportionate impact on 

publicly-owned landfills can be justified 

in light of the limited additional 

reduction in overall emissions and is, 

therefore, not proposing any changes to 

the current design capacity threshold of 

2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3. 

2. What are the implementation 

considerations with reducing the NMOC 

threshold? 

For this proposal, the EPA considered 

two alternative NMOC emission 

thresholds: 40 Mg/yr and 34 Mg/yr. The 

EPA recognizes that NMOC emissions 

are site specific, varying widely from 

landfill to landfill and understands that 

a majority of landfills currently affected 

by the federal and state plans 

implementing the Emission Guidelines 

conduct Tier 2 testing in order to refine 

their NMOC emission estimates before 

installing a GCCS. This proposal also 

allows a new site-specific Tier 4 

alternative to determine when a landfill 

must install a GCCS, as discussed in 

sections IV.C and VII.A of this 

preamble. 

Despite these variations in NMOC 

emissions, results from the model show 

that a lower NMOC emissions threshold 

could accelerate the schedule for 

installing GCCS at existing landfills and 

also increase the number of existing 

landfills required to install controls, 

thereby achieving additional reductions 

of NMOC emissions. 

The EPA proposed on July 17, 2014 a 

lower NMOC emission threshold in the 

NSPS (40 Mg/yr) and discussed this 

alternative in the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) 

and several nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs) and a local 

government entity commented in 

support of a reduction in the NMOC 

emission threshold. One state agency 

also provided examples of existing 

landfills controlling emissions in its 

state with estimated NMOC emission 

rates as low as 8.1 Mg/yr. 

Two commenters expressed concern 

about whether landfills planning to 

install controls based on the current 

threshold of 50 Mg/yr would be 

financially ready to install controls at an 

earlier time. Other commenters 

expressed concern about whether 

landfills that have closed and 

decommissioned their GCCS should be 

pulled back into control requirements if 

their emissions fall between the current 

50 Mg/yr threshold and a more stringent 

NMOC emission threshold. These 

commenters recommended that EPA 

exempt these landfills from more 

stringent control requirements. One of 

the commenters added that it would be 

costly to re-install or refurbish a 

previously shutdown system and noted 

that the system would likely operate for 

only a few more years before it once 

again fell below the more stringent 

NMOC emission threshold. 

Other commenters expressed 

concerns that lowering the NMOC 

threshold would jeopardize carbon 

credit revenues expected from landfills 

emitting between 40 and 50 Mg/yr 

NMOC that were planning on 

voluntarily installing a GCCS. A state 

agency also expressed concern about the 

additional burden to delegated 

authorities of managing a larger group of 

landfills. Another state agency 

expressed concerns that landfills in arid 

areas will have difficulty continuously 

operating a flare at landfills with lower 

quality gas that emit between 40 and 50 

Mg/yr. Another commenter indicated 

that older and closed landfills will 

struggle to maintain continuous 

operation of their flare at a lower NMOC 

emission threshold and will need to 

operate the flare with a supplemental 

fossil fuel. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52121 

58See also the docketed report ‘‘Summary of 

Small Entity Outreach. 2014.’’ (Docket Item: EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0215–0051) and the Final Report of 

the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on 

EPA’s Planned Proposed Rules Standards of 

Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

and Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, July 2015. 

Because of concerns with GCCS 

operations at landfills that have closed, 

the EPA evaluated whether the lower 

NMOC thresholds of 34 and 40 Mg/yr 

should apply to this subset of landfills, 

as discussed in section VIII.A of this 

preamble and presented in Table 3 of 

this preamble. Because of concerns 

about areas with low gas quality, the 

EPA is proposing changes to address 

closed or low-gas-quality areas, 

including changes to the criteria for 

capping or removing a GCCS, and 

providing for the use of site-specific 

surface emissions monitoring 

measurements to indicate area-specific 

LFG emissions, as discussed in section 

VIII.B of this preamble. 

As shown in Table 3 of this preamble, 

the incremental cost to control NMOC at 

open landfills at a threshold of 34 Mg/ 

yr NMOC is $17,000/Mg NMOC and 

$4.3/mtCO2e, compared with $19,300/

Mg NMOC and $4.9/mtCO2e to control 

at both open and closed landfills. As 

discussed in section V.H of this 

preamble, an NMOC threshold of 34 

Mg/yr at open landfills would achieve 

reductions of 2,770 Mg/year NMOC and 

436,100 Mg/year methane (10.9 million 

mtCO2e) compared to the baseline in 

year 2025. Based on these 

considerations, the EPA is proposing to 

reduce the NMOC emission threshold 

from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr at open 

landfills. The EPA is proposing a 

separate subcategory for landfills that 

closed on or before August 27, 2015, as 

discussed in section VIII.A of this 

preamble. 

3. What are the implementation 

concerns with shortening the initial or 

expansion lag times? 

In its revised regulatory options 

analysis for this proposal, the EPA did 

not model the impacts from any 

regulatory options that reduced the 

initial or expansion lag times. To a great 

extent, this decision was based on our 

consideration of the numerous 

implementation and cost concerns 

raised by SERs and Federalism 

consultation participants as discussed at 

79 FR 41807,58 as well as in comments 

received on the 2014 MSW landfills 

NSPS proposal and ANPRM for 

Emission Guidelines (79 FR 41772). 

Those concerns are summarized below. 

The initial lag time is the time period 

between when the landfill exceeds the 

emission rate threshold and when 

controls are required to be installed and 

started, and the expansion lag time is 

the amount of time allotted for the 

landfill to expand the GCCS into new 

areas of the landfill. 

One state agency commented that 

shortening the current initial lag time 

would not allow sufficient time to 

develop and approve the GCCS design 

plan, obtain the necessary permit, and 

construct the GCCS. The commenter 

added that one unintended consequence 

of shortening the initial lag time could 

be the inhibition of the beneficial reuse 

of landfill gas, since a shorter lag time 

may not allow time to design and 

approve a more complex landfill gas 

energy recovery system. Commenters 

representing affected landfills also 

expressed concerns that current 

administrative and construction lead 

times would make shorter lag times 

difficult. 

Several landfill owners or operators 

and a state authority agreed with costs 

and operational and safety concerns 

described at 79 FR 41807 associated 

with increasing the number of wells in 

active areas as a result of shorter initial 

or expansion lag times. One commenter 

provided detailed information on costs 

to install and repair wells in active 

areas, which the commenter estimated 

to be between two and three times more 

expensive than wells installed in areas 

at final grade. This commenter added 

that 43 percent of the wells installed 

during 2014 were replacement wells 

that had to be installed as a result of 

damage to existing wells resulting from 

ongoing activities in active areas and 

noted that shortened lag times would 

only increase the number of 

replacement wells required. In addition 

to the damage to wells from filling 

operations, one commenter added that 

vertical wells in active areas require 

additional lateral collection pipes to be 

installed on rather flat slopes that are 

susceptible to condensate blockage and 

must also be replaced more frequently. 

Similarly, two commenters were 

concerned whether horizontal collectors 

could universally meet the need for 

shorter lag times in light of the 

susceptibility of flooding of the 

horizontal designs and the inability to 

dewater these wells with pumps. 

Several commenters recognized the 

benefit of earlier GCCS installation, but 

these commenters also discussed 

aerobic conditions in active areas and 

other factors affecting gas quality that in 

turn create exceedances of wellhead 

monitoring requirements for pressure, 

temperature, and oxygen/nitrogen. They 

noted that few states have 

accommodated flexible monitoring 

alternatives for early collection systems. 

One state authority believed that sitespecific factors other than the 

regulatory-driven lag times, such as 

safety or odor control, are already 

achieving earlier installation of GCCS. 

Three other commenters urged EPA to 

include early collection requirements in 

the proposed Emission Guidelines. One 

of these commenters indicated that the 

requirement to promote early collection 

could be flexible instead of a rigid 

adjustment to the lag times. For the 

reasons presented in this section as well 

as those detailed at 79 FR 41807, the 

EPA is not proposing to shorten the 

initial or expansion lag times in the 

revised Emission Guidelines. However, 

the EPA is requesting comment on 

whether the regulation should require 

that the GCCS design plan contain a 

description of early gas collection 

measures or best management practices, 

in order for the reviewing professional 

engineer or the Administrator to ensure 

that emissions are minimized. The EPA 

is also taking comment on whether the 

monitoring in the rule should be 

strengthened to require GCCS to be 

expanded in a site-specific manner as 

long as surface emission monitoring 

limits in all areas of the landfill were 

maintained at all times, similar to the 

approach taken in the California 

Landfill Methane Rule (LMR). 

E. How did we select the proposed 

options? 

When determining which control 

options would represent BSER, the EPA 

considered several factors: The 

implementation considerations 

identified earlier in this section of this 

preamble; and the incremental emission 

reductions, cost, and co-benefits that 

would be achieved beyond the baseline. 

The EPA compared the annualized 

net cost and emission impacts in 2025 

of three different regulatory options to 

the annualized net costs and emission 

impacts in 2025 of the baseline. The 

EPA analyzed numerous iterations of 

alternate control and reporting 

thresholds and presented potential 

control options to SERs and Federalism 

consultation participants, as described 

in section V.D of this preamble. After 

considering feedback from the SERs and 

Federalism consultation participants, as 

well as comments received on the July 

2014 NSPS proposal and ANPRM (79 

FR 41772), the EPA selected for 

consideration three regulatory 

alternatives as presented in Table 3 of 

this preamble. Table 3 summarizes the 

incremental impacts of each control 

option, when compared to the baseline. 

The table shows the NMOC and 

methane emission reductions and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52122 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

59 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. 

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, 

R.K. and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, 

Switzerland, 104 pp. 

corresponding annualized net costs, when using a 7 percent discount rate, in 

2025. 

TABLE 3—EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS IN YEAR 2025 AT EXISTING LANDFILLS

[2012$] 

Option 

Landfills 

affected by 

proposed 

option a

Number of 

landfills 

affected b

Number of 

landfills 

controlling 

Number of 

landfills 

reporting 

but not 

controlling 

Annual net 

cost 

(million 

$2012) 

Annual 

NMOC 

reductions 

(Mg/yr) 

Annual 

methane 

reductions 

(million 

Mg/yr) 

Annual 

CO2e 

reductions 

(million mt/ 

yr) c

NMOC cost 

effectiveness 

($/Mg) 

Methane cost 

effectiveness 

($/Mg) 

CO2e cost 

effectiveness 

($/mt) c

Baseline 

Baseline (2.5 million Mg design 

capacity/50 Mg/yr NMOC).

All ................ 989 574 211 299 57,300 9.0 226 5,100 32.3 1.3 

Incremental values vs. the Baseline 

Option (2.5 million Mg design capacity/40 Mg/yr NMOC).Open ...........

All ................

0 

0 

62 

84 

¥62 

120 

27.0 

48.1 

1,720 

2,500 

0.27 

0.39 

6.8 

9.9 

15,800 

19,200 

100 

122 

4.0 

4.9 

Option (2.5 million Mg design capacity/34 Mg/yr NMOC).Open ...........

All ................

0 

0 

106 

142 

¥106 

62 

46.8 

77.6 

2,770 

4,030 

0.44 

0.64 

10.9 

15.9 

17,000 

19,300 

108 

122 

4.3 

4.9 

Option (2.0 million Mg design capacity/34 Mg/yr NMOC).Open ...........

All ................

101 

101 

122 

162 

¥75 

143 

51.0 

83.5 

3,040 

4,360 

0.48 

0.69 

12.0 

17.2 

16,800 

19,200 

107 

122 

4.3 

4.9 

aOptions in this table show the impacts of reducing the design capacity and/or NMOC emission threshold below baseline levels on open landfills only, and retaining the NMOC threshold of 50 

Mg/yr for the closed landfill subcategory as well as reducing the design capacity and/or NMOC emission thresholds for all landfills (open and closed). b Landfills are affected by the landfills Emission Guidelines based on design capacity. Once affected, they calculate and report emissions until they exceed the NMOC threshold, which triggers 

control requirements. c Results do not include secondary CO2 impacts. 

Regulatory options. The EPA 

considered three regulatory options 

more stringent than the baseline, as 

presented in Table 3 of this preamble. 

The first option reduces the NMOC 

emission threshold to 40 Mg/yr. The 

second option further reduces the 

NMOC threshold to 34 Mg/yr. The third 

option reduces both the NMOC 

emission threshold to 34 Mg/yr and the 

design capacity threshold to 2.0 million 

Mg and 2.0 million m3. We analyzed the 

impacts of applying each of these three 

more stringent thresholds to only open 

landfills as well as all (open and closed) 

landfills. 

Based on the characteristics of the 

landfills, between approximately 60 and 

160 additional landfills would be 

required to install controls in 2025. In 

addition to increasing the total number 

of landfills that would control their 

emissions, the schedule for installing 

controls would be accelerated for many 

landfills in years prior to 2025 because 

the landfill would exceed the lower 

thresholds of 34 or 40 Mg/yr NMOC 

earlier than the baseline, and in turn 

begin collecting and destroying landfill 

gas emissions earlier. 

Emission reductions. If the EPA were 

to reduce the NMOC emission threshold 

to 34 Mg/yr at open landfills while 

retaining the 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 

million m3 design capacity threshold 

(option 2.5/34) as proposed in this rule, 

the corresponding emission reductions 

in 2025 would be 2,770 Mg/year NMOC 

and 436,100 Mg/year methane (10.9 

million mtCO2e) compared to the 

baseline, which represents a 4.8 percent 

reduction in emissions beyond the 

baseline. If EPA were to apply this 

threshold to all landfills (open and 

closed), the corresponding emission 

reductions in 2025 would be 4,030 Mg/ 

year NMOC and 635,100 Mg/year 

methane (15.9 million mtCO2e) 

compared to the baseline. Additional 

reductions could be achieved if the EPA 

combined the NMOC emission 

threshold of 34 Mg/yr with a lower 

design capacity threshold of 2.0 million 

Mg and 2.0 million m3 (option 2.0/34). 

The corresponding emission reductions 

for open landfills in 2025 would be 

3,040 Mg/yr NMOC and 479,100 Mg/yr 

methane (12 million mtCO2e) compared 

to the baseline for open landfills, 

representing a 5.3 percent reduction in 

emissions beyond the baseline. If the 

EPA were to apply this lower threshold 

for both design capacity and NMOC to 

all landfills (open and closed), the 

corresponding emission reductions in 

2025 would be 4,360 Mg/year NMOC 

and 687,100 Mg/year methane (17.2 

million mtCO2e) when compared to the 

baseline. 

If the EPA were to reduce the NMOC 

threshold to 40 Mg/yr at open landfills 

while retaining a 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 

million m3 design capacity threshold 

(option 2.5/40), the emission reductions 

in 2025 would be 1,720 Mg/year NMOC 

and 270,700 Mg/year methane (6.8 

million mtCO2e) compared to the 

baseline. An emission threshold of 40 

Mg/yr NMOC with a 2.5 million Mg and 

2.5 million m3 design capacity 

threshold represents approximately a 3 

percent reduction in emissions beyond 

the baseline. If the EPA were to apply 

the 40 Mg/yr NMOC threshold to all 

landfills (open and closed), the 

corresponding emission reductions in 

2025 would be 2,500 Mg/year NMOC, 

270,000 Mg/year methane (6.8 million 

mtCO2e) compared to the baseline. 

The wide range in the magnitude of 

emission reductions among pollutants is 

due to the composition of landfill gas: 

NMOC represents less than 1 percent of 

landfill gas, while methane represents 

approximately 50 percent. CO2e is an 

expression of methane in terms of the 

CO2 equivalents, given the methane 

GWP of 25.59

Cost. In terms of control costs in 2025, 

option 2.5/34 represents an 

approximately 16 percent increase in 

control costs compared to the baseline 

if the threshold were reduced for open 

landfills only, and a 26 percent increase 

in control costs compared to the 

baseline if the threshold were reduced 

for all landfills (open and closed). If the 

EPA adopted a lower NMOC threshold 

of 34 Mg/yr NMOC along with a 

reduction in design capacity to 2.0 

million Mg and 2.5 million m3, the net 

cost would increase by 17 percent above 

the baseline if applying more stringent 

controls only at open landfills, and 28 

percent for more stringent control of all 

landfills (open and closed). If the EPA 

adopted an NMOC threshold of 40 Mg/ 

yr NMOC but retained a design capacity 

of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, 

the net cost would be 9 percent above 

the baseline for open landfills and a 16 

percent increase for all landfills. 

In terms of cost effectiveness, the 

overall dollar-per-Mg cost for NMOC 

reductions under the baseline is $5,100 

per Mg NMOC and $32.3 per Mg 

methane as presented in Table 3 of this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52123 

60U.S. EPA. 2013. ‘‘Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013. Executive 

Summary, ES–8.’’ Available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

climatechange/ghgemissions/

usinventoryreport.html. 

61 Ibid. 

preamble. Under option 2.5/34, the cost 

effectiveness is $17,000 for controlling 

open landfills and $19,300 for all 

landfills. If the EPA adopted a lower 

NMOC threshold of 34 Mg/yr NMOC 

along with a reduction in design 

capacity to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 

million m3 (option 2.0/34), the cost 

effectiveness is $16,800 for open 

landfills and $19,200 for all landfills, 

although the EPA recognizes that this 

lower cost effectiveness does not 

incorporate costs related to additional 

permitting needs for sources between 

2.0 and 2.5 million Mg and m3. Under 

option 2.5/40, the incremental dollarper-Mg control cost for NMOC 

reductions is approximately $15,800 per 

Mg NMOC for open landfills and 

$19,200 for all landfills. The EPA 

welcomes additional data and comment 

on the issue of costs. 

Proposed Option 2.5/34. Based on the 

emission reduction and cost discussions 

above and consistent with the 

President’s Methane Strategy and the 

potential to achieve a near-term 

beneficial impact in mitigating global 

climate change as discussed in section 

III of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing to reduce the NMOC 

threshold to 34 Mg/yr at open landfills 

but retain the current design capacity 

threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 

million m3. Lowering the NMOC 

threshold would result in earlier GCCS 

installations at landfills already subject 

to the rule based on their design 

capacity, thereby achieving additional 

reductions of NMOC and methane. This 

lowered threshold achieves reductions 

without adjusting the initial and 

expansion lag times and incurring the 

associated costs and implementation 

concerns. 

Reducing the NMOC threshold from 

the baseline-level of 50 Mg/yr to 34 

Mg/yr at open landfills would affect 106 

more landfills in 2025 and would 

achieve an estimated 4.8 percent 

additional reduction in emissions of 

NMOC and methane compared to the 

baseline. These additional reductions 

can be achieved at very similar cost 

effectiveness to an NMOC threshold of 

40 Mg/yr, but a level of 34 Mg/yr would 

achieve almost 60 percent more 

reductions than a level of 40 Mg/yr. In 

addition, the proposal is expected to 

result in the net reduction of 238,000 

Mg CO2, due to reduced demand for 

electricity from the grid as landfills 

generate electricity from landfill gas. 

Reducing the NMOC threshold to 34 

Mg/yr results in an incremental 

reduction of methane that is equivalent 

to approximately 10.9 million mtCO2e 

per year, which compares to 19 to 33 

million mtCO2e reductions from the 

April 16, 2012 regulations for the oil 

and gas industry (77 FR 49490). In 

addition, as discussed in section XI.G of 

this preamble, a level of 34 Mg/yr 

NMOC also results in climate-related 

benefits associated with methane 

reductions. The 2025 methane benefits 

vary by discount rate and range from 

about $310 million to approximately 

$1.7 billion; the mean SC–CH4 at the 

3-percent discount rate results in an 

estimate of about $660 million in 2025. 

Further, this proposal would tighten 

the control device removal criteria, 

requiring that the controls would have 

to stay on until three successive tests for 

NMOC emissions were below the 

NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr 

instead of 50 Mg/yr, unless the landfill 

can demonstrate that its surface 

emissions are low, as discussed in 

section VIII.B of this preamble. 

Depending on the waste-in-place of the 

landfill at closure and other site-specific 

factors (e.g., waste composition, 

climate), it may take 15 to 45 years after 

closure for a large modern landfill to 

emit less than the NMOC emission 

threshold, and in turn qualify for 

capping or removing the GCCS. 

Although the emission reductions 

associated with these later years in the 

landfills’ lifetimes are not incorporated 

in the environmental and economic 

impacts of the baseline and options 

under consideration in year 2025, the 

lower threshold associated with this 

proposal would require controls to be 

installed for a longer period than the 

baseline. 

Reducing the NMOC threshold also 

recognizes the opportunity to build 

upon progress to date and achieve even 

more reductions of landfill gas and its 

components, consistent with the 

President’s Methane Strategy as 

discussed in section III of this preamble. 

Landfill gas generated from established 

waste (waste that has been in place for 

at least a year) is typically composed of 

roughly 50 percent methane and 50 

percent CO2 by volume, with less than 

1 percent NMOC. Because the 

components of landfill gas are 

associated with substantial health, 

welfare, and climate effects, additional 

reductions of landfill gas would 

improve air quality and reduce health 

and welfare effects associated with 

exposure to landfill gas emissions. Note 

that in 2013, landfills continued to be 

the third largest source of humanrelated methane emissions in the U.S., 

representing 15.3 percent of total 

methane emissions.60 Methane 

emissions represent 9.5 percent of all 

GHG emissions (in CO2e) in the U.S.61

The EPA is not proposing to reduce 

the design capacity in conjunction with 

a reduction in the NMOC emission 

threshold. As discussed in section VI.E 

of this preamble, this option achieves 

only modest additional reductions (less 

than one percent more than the 

proposed option 2.5/34), but has a 

disproportionate impact on small entityand municipally-owned sites, and 

closed landfills that are on the 

downward trend of generating landfill 

gas. Reducing the design capacity would 

also pose substantial burden on 

delegated authorities because these 

small entity- and municipally- owned 

landfills are not affected by the 

currently promulgated NSPS or 

Emission Guidelines. 

Alternative Option 2.5/40. The EPA 

recognizes that the ownership, operating 

status, and other technical 

characteristics of individual landfills 

can affect the site-specific cost 

effectiveness of achieving additional 

reductions of NMOC and methane and 

ability to sustain the operation of GCCS 

that may not be readily apparent when 

selecting a control option based on the 

national aggregate values shown in 

Table 3 of this preamble. The EPA is 

soliciting comment on whether an 

NMOC threshold higher than 34 Mg/yr 

may be appropriate for all, or a subset 

of the existing landfills affected by this 

proposal, in addition to retaining the 

current threshold of 50 Mg/yr for the 

closed landfill subcategory, as proposed 

and discussed in section VIII.A of this 

preamble. 

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes 

to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting 

A. Surface Emissions Monitoring 

Requirements 

The intent of the surface monitoring 

provision in the existing Emission 

Guidelines is to maintain a tight cover 

that minimizes the migration of 

emissions through the landfill surface. 

Quarterly surface emissions monitoring 

indicates whether the cover and gas 

collection system are working properly. 

In addition to the proposed surface 

emission provisions discussed here, the 

EPA is also seeking comment on 

additional enhancements to surface 

emissions monitoring in section X.B of 

this preamble. 

Every Cover Penetration. The EPA 

proposes that all surface penetrations 

must be monitored for existing landfills. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52124 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf 

specifies that the landfill must ‘‘operate 

the collection system so that the 

methane concentration is less than 500 

parts per million above background at 

the surface of the landfill. To determine 

if this level is exceeded, the owner or 

operator must conduct surface 

monitoring around the perimeter of the 

collection area along a pattern that 

traverses the landfill at 30 meter 

intervals and where visual observations 

indicate elevated concentrations of 

landfill gas, such as distressed 

vegetation and cracks or seeps in the 

cover and all cover penetrations.’’ 

Commenters both supported and 

opposed monitoring every cover 

penetration. Several commenters, 

including two state/local agencies and 

one environmental organization 

supported monitoring every cover 

penetration. The state agency noted that 

seals around penetrations can be 

compromised as a result of settlement, 

separation from the barrier layers or 

boot materials, and cracking of cover 

soils tied into penetrations, thus, 

leading to detections of landfill gas 

during surface monitoring as reported 

by field staff. Several commenters 

opposed the requirement to monitor 

every cover penetration, citing 

significant additional cost with no or 

limited environmental benefit. In 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, we 

are reiterating the position in the 

current regulation that landfills must 

monitor all cover penetrations and 

openings within the area of the landfill 

where waste has been placed and a gas 

collection system is required. 

Specifically, landfill owners or 

operators must conduct surface 

monitoring at 30-meter intervals and 

where visual observations indicate 

elevated concentrations of landfill gas. 

The EPA maintains that cover 

penetrations can be observed visually 

and are clearly a place where gas would 

be escaping from the cover, so 

monitoring of them is required by the 

regulatory language. The regulatory 

language gives distressed vegetation and 

cracks as an example of a visual 

indication that gas may be escaping, but 

this example does not limit the places 

that should be monitored by landfill 

staff or by enforcement agency 

inspectors. Thus, consistent with the 

EPA’s historical intent and 

interpretation, the landfill owner or 

operator must monitor any openings 

that are within an area of the landfill 

where waste has been placed and a gas 

collection system is required. 

More Precise Location Data. The EPA 

is proposing more specific requirements 

for reporting the locations where 

measured methane surface emissions 

are 500 parts per million above 

background. Since the Emission 

Guidelines were originally promulgated 

in 1996, EPA is aware of new, relatively 

inexpensive monitoring technologies 

that incorporate GPS technologies to 

more precisely identify the location of 

exceedances. The EPA is aware of 

several landfills that have been using 

GPS to more accurately track the 

location of measurements and store 

these data in databases. The EPA is 

proposing to require landfills to report 

the latitude and longitude coordinates 

of each exceedance using an instrument 

with an accuracy of at least 3 meters. 

Coordinates must be in decimal degrees 

with at least five decimal places. This 

level of accuracy and precision is 

consistent with the requirements 

proposed in Petroleum Refinery Sector 

Risk and Technology Review and New 

Source Performance Standards (79 FR 

36880). This precision will also provide 

more transparency to inspectors 

reviewing site records on the location of 

surface emission leaks, and confirming 

areas of the landfill where surface 

monitoring activities were skipped, 

which may assist with targeting 

inspections to problem areas of the 

landfill. In addition, this precision will 

allow the landfill to overlay the 

coordinates of surface exceedances 

against maps of the GCCS to determine 

spatial and temporal patterns of 

exceedances relative to GCCS 

components. This specificity for 

location data is also being required for 

landfills using the Tier 4 site-specific 

measurement approach, as discussed in 

section VII.A of this preamble. 

B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements 

The operational standards of the 

current Emission Guidelines are to 

operate each interior wellhead in the 

collection system with a negative 

pressure (vacuum), a landfill gas 

temperature less than 55 °C and with 

either a nitrogen level less than 20 

percent or an oxygen level less than 5 

percent. Since 1996, when the rules 

were originally promulgated, the EPA 

has heard concerns from both regulated 

entities and implementing authorities 

regarding the implementation of the 

operational standards for temperature 

and oxygen/nitrogen at wellheads. The 

EPA received feedback during 2013 and 

2014 from SERs and Federalism 

consultation participants expressing 

concern that the wellhead standards 

were overly prescriptive. In the July 17, 

2014 proposed NSPS (79 FR 41821) and 

the ANPRM for the Emission Guidelines 

(79 FR 41788), the EPA discussed 

whether these parameters should be 

adjusted in order to provide monitoring 

flexibility for landfills while also 

ensuring that the GCCS were well 

operated. The EPA also requested 

comment on what types of landfills may 

be eligible for adjustments to these 

wellhead standards; for example, the 

EPA asked whether only small entities, 

or landfills with energy recovery 

projects should benefit from this flexible 

monitoring. 

In response to the July 2014 proposed 

NSPS (79 FR 41796) and ANPRM (79 FR 

41772), many commenters questioned 

the need for the current wellhead 

operating standards for monitoring 

pressure, temperature, and oxygen or 

nitrogen to assess whether the GCCS 

was operating effectively. 

Fire. Industry commenters recognized 

that the wellhead operational standards 

were intended to ensure the landfill gas 

collection system is operating properly 

and to avoid propagation of a subsurface 

fire or inhibit anaerobic decomposition, 

but they asserted that the standards 

achieve neither of the latter objectives. 

Commenters asserted that the 

wellhead monitoring parameters are 

poor indicators of landfill fires or 

inhibited decomposition and impede 

proper operation of the collection 

system without providing any of the 

expected benefits. They also explained 

that landfill operators typically respond 

to high temperature and oxygen/

nitrogen readings by reducing flow from 

the well or expanding the gas collection 

system. They explained that both 

approaches can have unintended and 

harmful consequences, including 

exacerbating a fire, and reducing the 

collection efficiency of the GCCS. In 

addition, they asserted that expanding a 

GCCS in an area with poor gas quality 

or quantity does not assist with 

achieving additional reductions. 

Commenters emphasized the difficulty 

of meeting the wellhead standards in 

areas of the landfill with declining gas 

flowrates or gas quality, which is more 

common in older or closed areas of the 

landfill. Several commenters stated that 

landfill owners already have inherent 

incentives to minimize fire risks in 

order to protect significant investments 

in GCCS and energy recovery 

infrastructure. 

Flooding. Commenters both agreed 

and disagreed that surface emission 

monitoring and monthly monitoring of 

pressure at the wellhead are sufficient to 

determine if the well is inoperable or 

functioning below expected capacity as 

a result of flooding. Commenters 

suggested that landfill gas flowrate 

measurement is an established 

technology to assess well performance 

and can be measured without removing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52125 

the wellhead (unlike measurement of 

liquid levels) and added that flow rate 

measurement is required for landfills 

affected by the Wisconsin landfills 

regulations. The EPA recognizes that 

this parameter can be measured using 

the same equipment used to monitor 

other wellhead parameters and it is 

taking comment on whether to monitor 

this parameter in section X of this 

preamble. 

Wellhead Monitoring and BMPs. In 

response to the July 17, 2014 ANPRM 

(79 FR 41772) and NSPS proposal, the 

EPA received input indicating that the 

currently required wellhead operating 

parameters (particularly oxygen/

nitrogen and temperature), are barriers 

to, rather than a part of, a ‘‘well 

operated’’ GCCS and prevent proactive 

LFG collection practices such as 

connecting the GCCS to the leachate 

collection system and installing 

horizontal or other early gas collectors. 

Specifically, the EPA received 

information explaining that leachate 

systems are not designed to be air tight 

and are not constructed in refuse. The 

information also indicated that when 

leachate collection systems contain 

liquids, the piping that conveys the 

leachate may be unable to collect 

enough gas until the liquid is removed 

and that as a result, when a vacuum is 

applied, ambient air can be pulled in as 

well, leading to elevated oxygen 

concentrations. Accordingly, an 

alternative operating procedure would 

be needed to accommodate these higher 

oxygen levels. The information received 

indicates that regulatory agencies have 

been reluctant to grant these 

alternatives. 

It was also pointed out that gas 

quality and quantity can vary widely 

from different systems and at different 

times within the same system, which is 

why horizontal collectors and leachate 

system components are not designed to 

meet the 40 CR part 60, subpart Cc and 

WWW operating parameters for 

pressure, temperature, and nitrogen/

oxygen concentration. Information from 

a state agency indicated that some 

intake of ambient air is likely with 

leachate collectors and suggested that 

operators should have flexibility to 

decide the balance between gas flow 

and oxygen intake and on whether to 

cease extracting landfill gas or use 

another method. The information 

provided further indicated that the time 

delay associated with modifying a GCCS 

design plan or getting approval for 

higher operating values (HOVs) is 

problematic when applied to collector 

pipes used for seep and odor control, 

since operators must make these 

changes more quickly for safety reasons. 

The EPA also received input 

explaining the benefits of early gas 

collection, such as fewer emissions and 

reduced odors. 

Corrective Action Concerns. Under 

the current rules, if a landfill exceeds a 

wellhead operating parameter, the 

landfill owner or operator must initiate 

corrective action within 5 days and 

follow the timeline in 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts WWW and Cc for correcting 

the exceedance. If the exceedance 

cannot be corrected within the specified 

timeframe, the landfill owner or 

operator should prepare to expand the 

GCCS. As commenters note above, 

exceedances involving elevated 

temperature and oxygen/nitrogen 

concentration are often not solved by 

expanding the GCCS, especially in older 

areas. Several industry commenters, as 

well as a state regulatory agency, noted 

that wellhead corrective action often 

requires very site-specific and technical 

solutions other than expanding a GCCS 

and it is not reasonable to develop these 

actions and have them approved within 

the narrow timeframes allowed in the 

current rules. A trade association noted 

that most landfills have occasional 

exceedances of wellhead standards and 

that requests for HOVs are among the 

top five paperwork items submitted for 

landfill GCCS operations. Given the 

numerous landfills subject to control 

requirements as well as the fact that 

many landfills could have more than 

100 wells installed, the trade association 

also noted that the prescriptive review 

and approval processes for HOV of 

wellhead operating standards present a 

significant burden for both the landfill 

and the delegated authority without an 

environmental benefit. 

Commenters representing industry, 

state government, the SBA Office of 

Advocacy, and a trade organization 

called on the EPA to remove 

temperature and oxygen/nitrogen 

wellhead operating parameters from 

Emission Guidelines for all landfills. 

These commenters were all in 

agreement that negative pressure and 

surface monitoring can assure proper 

GCCS operation. One commenter noted 

that landfills with energy recovery 

projects will continue to monitor 

wellhead parameters to ensure proper 

equipment operation and maximize 

revenue from energy sales, without 

requiring the monitoring and reporting 

of these parameters under the Emission 

Guidelines. Another commenter noted 

that the regulations should provide 

some flexibility to accommodate 

declining gas generation that facilities 

will experience as a result of local 

diversion initiatives. 

Two state agencies requested that the 

wellhead operating parameters of 

temperature and oxygen/nitrogen 

merely serve as guidance to provide 

flexibility, particularly to small entities. 

One of the commenters provided an 

example of monitoring requirements in 

its state regulation, which exempts 

supplemental and/or temporary odor 

and gas control system components 

(e.g., leachate cleanouts, leachate 

recirculation, early collectors) from 

pressure, temperature, and oxygen/

nitrogen limits. In this case, the state 

does not impose limits for these 

parameters, but it does require the 

landfill to monitor those parameters. 

Two commenters requested that 

temperature and oxygen/nitrogen 

monitoring requirements be continued 

while maintaining current surface 

methane monitoring methods. A state 

agency noted that wellhead monitoring 

can identify subsurface biological and 

chemical reactions that can present a 

safety hazard and cannot be detected by 

surface emission monitoring only. An 

environmental organization explained 

that wellhead monitoring provides 

indicators of conditions that could lead 

to subsurface fires, release massive 

volumes of HAP, and cause terrible 

odors and was concerned that removing 

these requirements prevents the landfill 

and the implementing authorities from 

identifying early indicators of potential 

problems. The commenter explained 

that landfill owners may have difficulty 

meeting the requirements due to 

improper site management and failure 

to maintain tight seals, leading to too 

much air intake. One city also 

advocated for more stringent monitoring 

in order to more proactively identify 

odors or other operational concerns 

with a GCCS. 

Based on public comments, input 

from small entities, and our own 

analysis of available information, the 

EPA is proposing to remove the 

requirement to meet operational 

standards for temperature and nitrogen/ 

oxygen at wellheads and is thus also 

proposing to remove the corresponding 

requirement for corrective action for 

exceedances of these parameters. To 

ensure a well-designed and welloperated GCCS that minimizes surface 

emissions, the EPA is proposing to use 

a combination of GCCS design and 

approval requirements as discussed in 

section VI.C of this preamble, landfill 

surface emission monitoring 

requirements as discussed in section 

VI.A of this preamble, and continued 

maintenance of negative pressure at 

wellheads. Based on the feedback 

provided by commenters and our 

analysis of available information, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52126 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

62http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/27/engineer/

eguides/guide78.pdf. 

63http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy97/

23070.pdf. 

EPA believes these adjustments provide 

more flexibility to landfills, can result in 

additional reductions of LFG emissions 

from other GCCS components, and will 

reduce the burden of corrective action 

on both the landfill owner or operator 

and the implementing authority. Based 

on public input, the EPA expects that 

eliminating the operational standards 

for oxygen/nitrogen and temperature 

will drastically reduce the number of 

requests for HOVs and alternative 

timelines for making corrections while 

ensuring that the GCCS continues to 

operate properly. The procedures for 

approving HOVs for wellheads not 

demonstrating compliance with the 

negative pressure standard are 

discussed in section VI.D of this 

preamble. 

While the EPA is proposing to remove 

the requirement to meet operational 

standards for temperature and nitrogen/ 

oxygen, the EPA is proposing that 

landfill owners or operators continue 

monthly monitoring and recordkeeping 

of the wellhead temperature and 

oxygen/nitrogen values, consistent with 

operational guidance documents and 

best practices for operating a GCCS in a 

safe and efficient manner.62 63 Based on 

our evaluation of commenters’ concern 

that the oxygen/nitrogen and 

temperature operational standards can 

be a limiting factor in promoting earlier 

and more robust collection of LFG, the 

EPA is proposing to no longer require 

the landfill to take corrective action if 

the monitoring of these parameters 

demonstrates that a particular value or 

values is/are exceeded. The EPA is 

proposing that landfill owners or 

operators continue monitoring these 

parameters because, as several industry 

commenters and regulatory agencies 

stated, the measurement of these 

parameters can still serve as useful 

guidance for landfill operators and 

landfill gas energy project operators 

because they assess GCCS performance 

and thus help to periodically adjust or 

‘‘tune’’ the GCCS to minimize LFG 

emissions and maintain safe operating 

conditions at the landfill. The 

equipment used to monitor wellheads 

commonly includes these parameters, so 

these parameters can be measured at the 

same time the technician monitors 

wellhead pressure without imposing 

additional burden. The results of this 

monthly wellhead monitoring will now 

be kept as records on site because the 

EPA continues to believe these data will 

be useful for implementing authorities 

when approving modifications to the 

original GCCS design plan, or when 

conducting inspections of the site. 

The requirement to maintain negative 

pressure at each wellhead ensures that 

gas is being routed to a GCCS that was 

designed and built in accordance with 

a GCCS design plan that has been 

approved by a professional engineer. 

The EPA believes these wellhead 

standards, together with the surface 

emission monitoring requirements, are 

effective and limit the possibility of 

surface emissions of LFG. This approach 

also allows landfills and state regulators 

the time and flexibility to determine the 

appropriate response for adjusting 

wellfield operations, as needed, without 

imposing overly prescriptive 

requirements. This approach also 

provides increased flexibility for 

landfills to install supplemental and 

temporary gas collection components to 

achieve additional reductions of LFG 

without the risk of exceeding oxygen/

nitrogen or temperature operational 

standards. 

C. Requirements for Updating the 

Design Plan 

The EPA is proposing criteria for 

when an affected source must update its 

design plan and submit it to the 

implementing authority for approval. 

We are proposing that a revised design 

plan must be submitted as follows: (1) 

Within 90 days of expanding operations 

to an area not covered by the previously 

approved design plan, and (2) prior to 

installing or expanding the gas 

collection system in a manner other 

than as described in a previously 

approved design plan. 

The EPA is proposing site-specific 

design plan review and approval 

procedures that recognize the unique 

site-specific topography, climate, and 

other factors affecting the design of the 

GCCS. However, the EPA solicits 

comment on ways to streamline the 

design plan submission and approval 

procedures as part of its review of the 

Emission Guidelines. Examples of 

streamlining may include the potential 

development of a process by which 

approved alternative operating 

parameters could be automatically 

linked to updates of design plans or 

development of a process by which 

alternative operating parameters and 

updated design plans could be approved 

on a similar schedule. 

D. Submitting Corrective Action 

Timeline Requests 

We have included provisions in 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf (40 

CFR 60.36f(a)(3)) to clarify our intent 

that agency approval of corrective action 

timelines is required only if a landfill 

does not fix an exceedance in 15 days 

and is unable to or does not plan to 

expand the gas collection system within 

120 days. The EPA is clarifying that 

‘‘expansion’’ of the GCCS means a 

permanent change that increases the 

capacity of the GCCS, such as increasing 

the size of header pipes, increasing the 

blower sizes and capacity, and 

increasing the number of wells. 

Excluding system expansion, all other 

types of corrective actions expected to 

exceed 15 calendar days should be 

submitted to the agency for approval of 

an alternate timeline. In addition, if a 

landfill owner or operator expects the 

system expansion to exceed the 120-day 

allowance period, it should submit a 

request and justification for an 

alternative timeline. We have not 

proposed a specific schedule for 

submitting these requests for alternative 

corrective action timelines because 

investigating and determining the 

appropriate corrective action, as well as 

the schedule for implementing the 

corrective action, will be site specific 

and depend on the reason for the 

exceedance. We clarify that a landfill 

should submit an alternative timeline 

request as soon as possible (i.e., as soon 

as the owner or operator knows that it 

would not be able to correct the 

exceedance in 15 days or expand the 

system in 120 days) to avoid being in 

violation of the rule. If the landfill were 

to wait until 120 days after the 

exceedance to submit an alternative 

timeline, then by the time the regulatory 

agency has the chance to review the 

timeline and determine if it is 

approvable, the landfill will already be 

in violation of the requirement to 

expand the system within 120 days. 

After submitting the alternative timeline 

request, the landfill should work with 

its permitting authority to communicate 

the reasons for the exceedances, status 

of the investigation, and schedule for 

corrective action. 

To address implementation concerns 

associated with the time allowed for 

corrective action, the EPA requests 

comment on an alternative that extends 

the requirement for notification from 15 

days to as soon as practicable, but no 

later than 60 days from when an 

exceedance is identified. Many requests 

for an alternative compliance timeline 

express the need for additional time to 

make necessary repairs to a well that 

requires significant construction 

activities. Extending the time period to 

as soon as practicable, but no later than 

60 days, may reduce the burden 

associated with the approval of an 

alternative timeline and ensure 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52127 

sufficient time for correction without 

significant environmental detriment. If 

the EPA were to extend the time period 

to as soon as practicable, but no later 

than 60 days, then the EPA is also 

considering the removal of the provision 

to submit an alternative timeline for 

correcting the exceedance. Thus, by no 

later than day 60, the landfill would 

have to either have completed the 

adjustments and repairs necessary to 

correct the exceedance, or be prepared 

to have the system expansion completed 

by day 120. The EPA is also requesting 

input on whether 60 days is the 

appropriate amount of time to allow 

owners or operators to make the 

necessary repairs. 

E. Electronic Reporting 

In this proposal, the EPA is describing 

a process to increase the ease and 

efficiency of performance test data 

submittal while improving data 

accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing that owners or operators of 

MSW landfills submit electronic copies 

of required performance test and 

performance evaluation reports by 

direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer using the EPA-provided 

software. The direct computer-tocomputer electronic transfer is 

accomplished through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CDX is 

the EPA’s portal for submittal of 

electronic data. The EPA-provided 

software is called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT), which is used to 

generate electronic reports of 

performance tests and evaluations. The 

ERT generates an electronic report 

package that will be submitted using the 

CEDRI. The submitted report package 

will be stored in the CDX archive (the 

official copy of record) and the EPA’s 

public database called WebFIRE. All 

stakeholders will have access to all 

reports and data in WebFIRE and 

accessing these reports and data will be 

very straightforward and easy (see the 

WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval 

link at http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/

index.cfm?action=fire.

searchERTSubmission). A description 

and instructions for use of the ERT can 

be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/ert/index.html, and CEDRI can be 

accessed through the CDX Web site at 

www.epa.gov/cdx. A description of the 

WebFIRE database is available at http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?

action=fire.main. 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to the EPA 

applies only to those performance tests 

conducted using test methods that are 

supported by the ERT. The ERT 

supports most of the commonly used 

EPA reference methods. A listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported 

by the ERT is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. 

We believe that industry would 

benefit from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Specifically, 

by using this approach, industry will 

save time in the performance test 

submittal process. Additionally, the 

standardized format that the ERT uses 

allows sources to create a more 

complete test report resulting in less 

time spent on data backfilling if a source 

failed to include all data elements 

required to be submitted. Also through 

this proposal, industry may only need to 

submit a report once to meet the 

requirements of the applicable subpart 

because stakeholders can readily access 

these reports from the WebFIRE 

database. This also benefits industry by 

cutting back on recordkeeping costs as 

the performance test reports that are 

submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are 

no longer required to be retained in hard 

copy, thereby, reducing staff time 

needed to coordinate these records. 

Since the EPA will already have 

performance test data in hand, another 

benefit to industry is that fewer or less 

substantial data collection requests in 

conjunction with prospective required 

residual risk assessments or technology 

reviews will be needed. This would 

result in a decrease in staff time needed 

to respond to data collection requests. 

State, local, and tribal air pollution 

control agencies will also benefit from 

having electronic versions of the reports 

they are now receiving because they 

will be able to conduct a more 

streamlined and accurate review of 

electronic data submitted to them. For 

example, the ERT would allow for an 

electronic review process, rather than a 

manual data assessment, making review 

and evaluation of the source provided 

data and calculations easier and more 

efficient. In addition, the public will 

also benefit from electronic reporting of 

emissions data because the electronic 

data will be easier for the public to 

access. How the air emissions data are 

collected, accessed, and reviewed will 

be more transparent for all stakeholders. 

One major advantage of the proposed 

submittal of performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. The ERT clearly 

states what testing information would 

be required by the test method and has 

the ability to house additional data 

elements that might be required by a 

delegated authority. 

In addition, the EPA must have 

performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA section 111 

standards, as well as for many other 

purposes, including compliance 

determinations, emission factor 

development, and annual emission rate 

determinations. In conducting these 

required reviews, the EPA has found it 

ineffective and time consuming, not 

only for us, but also for regulatory 

agencies and source owners or 

operators, to locate, collect, and submit 

performance test data. In recent years, 

stack testing firms have typically 

collected performance test data in 

electronic format, making it possible to 

move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. 

A common complaint from industry 

and regulators is that emission factors 

are outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. With timely 

receipt and incorporation of data from 

most performance tests, the EPA would 

be able to ensure that emission factors, 

when updated, represent the most 

current range of operational practices. 

Finally, another benefit of the proposed 

data submittal to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data would 

greatly improve the overall quality of 

existing and new emissions factors by 

supplementing the pool of emissions 

test data for establishing emissions 

factors 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development, and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would save industry, state/

local/tribal agencies, and the EPA 

significant time, money, and effort 

while also improving the quality of 

emission inventories, air quality 

regulations, and enhancing the public’s 

access to this important information. 

VII. Rationale for Proposed Alternative 

Emission Threshold Determination 

Techniques 

The EPA is proposing an emission 

threshold determination based on sitespecific surface emissions monitoring 

(SEM) that provides flexibility for when 

a landfill must install and operate a 

GCCS. If the owner or operator limits 

landfill surface methane emissions and 

can demonstrate that those emissions 

are below 500 ppm methane for 4 

consecutive quarters, then the 

requirement to install a GCCS is not 

triggered even though estimates using 

Tiers 1, 2, and/or 3 may show that the 

landfill’s annual NMOC emissions have 

exceeded the regulatory threshold. In 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52128 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

64Environmental Defense Fund. 

Recommendations and Considerations for EPA’s 

Forthcoming Revisions to Section 111 Standards for 

MSW Landfills. January 2, 2013. See EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2003–0215–0050. 

addition, the Tier 4 surface emission 

approach could also be used as one of 

the criteria for determining when a 

GCCS can be removed or partially 

removed or decommissioned at closed 

landfills or closed areas of active 

landfills, as discussed in sections IV.D 

and VIII.C of this preamble. 

The idea to measure site-specific 

surface emissions to help determine the 

timing of GCCS installation was 

presented while the EPA was 

conducting outreach with small entities 

during its review of the landfills 

regulations in 2014. Small entities 

recommended a new Tier 4 surface 

emission demonstration to allow 

increased flexibility for landfills that 

exceed modeled NMOC emission rates 

to demonstrate that site-specific 

methane emissions are actually low 

prior to being required to install a 

GCCS. In addition, the Environmental 

Defense Fund (EDF) presented the idea 

of a surface concentration threshold as 

one of many potential alternatives to 

increase emission reductions from 

landfills in its January 2013 

whitepaper.64 The EPA presented and 

solicited comments on potential Tier 4 

procedures in both the NSPS proposal 

for new landfills and the ANPRM for 

existing landfills (79 FR 41772). 

Many commenters, representing both 

industry and environmental interests, 

supported the Tier 4 SEM approach for 

determining when a GCCS must be 

installed. These commenters stated that 

the option to conduct site-specific 

measurements using SEM is a more 

accurate indication of when gas 

collection is necessary to reduce 

emissions, compared to modeled 

emission rates. However, one 

commenter on the NSPS proposed rule 

opposed the inclusion of a Tier 4 option 

for new landfills, stating that it allows 

a subset of new landfills to delay 

methane capture requirements when 

these landfills will be required to install 

a GCCS in the future and should have 

a GCCS designed and installed during 

landfill construction. Other commenters 

expressed concern about state agencies 

lack of experience and time to 

determine whether Tier 4 monitoring 

requires a GCCS to be installed and 

requested guidance for Tier 4 

implementation procedures. 

Many commenters identified the 

potential benefits of a Tier 4 option. 

Commenters representing both industry 

and environmental interests noted that 

the SEM option will encourage landfill 

owners and operators to implement 

methane reduction practices, such as 

the use of oxidative landfill covers, 

organic waste diversion, and interim gas 

control measures (horizontal gas 

collectors, connecting a leachate 

collection recovery system into a GCCS), 

noting that such practices can be 

implemented more quickly and more 

cost-effectively than a GCCS installed in 

accordance with the design plan 

requirements of the current Emission 

Guidelines. Commenters indicated that 

a SEM method reflects actual sitespecific emissions data that account for 

gas generation differentials attributed to 

climate variations, waste acceptance 

rates, and cover soil materials that vary 

between landfills in different regions of 

the U.S. One commenter indicated that 

the use of SEM in determining the need 

to install a GCCS would reduce costs 

and energy consumption for landfills 

otherwise required to install controls, 

that would not generate a sufficient 

amount of gas to support a collection 

system but would remain below surface 

emission thresholds based on sitespecific measurements. Another 

commenter added that a Tier 4 approach 

grants additional flexibility and a 

potential cost savings compared to the 

Tier 2 method, but cautioned that a 

surface monitoring methodology needs 

to be developed that is functional 

during windy conditions. 

Commenters also considered how to 

implement a Tier 4 approach, including 

the hierarchy of the new tier relative to 

the existing tiers, procedures for 

conducting the SEM, the level of the 

appropriate exceedance, and what to do 

upon an exceedance. Several 

commenters suggested that Tier 4 could 

be employed at any point following a 

Tier 1 or Tier 2 test where the calculated 

NMOC emission rate is greater than the 

NMOC threshold for installing a GCCS. 

These same commenters suggested that 

landfill owners and operators have the 

option to perform Tier 4 SEM testing in 

the same areas and using the same 

methods currently established in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW. These 

commenters recommended that if an 

exceedance occurs during Tier 4 SEM 

testing, then landfill owners or 

operators should follow the same 

procedures and timelines for 

remediation and re-monitoring as 

outlined in subpart WWW. These 

commenters further suggested that if an 

exceedance cannot be remediated under 

the existing subpart WWW procedures, 

then the landfill would be required to 

prepare a GCCS design plan within 1 

year of the initial exceedance and install 

a GCCS within the monitored area 

within 30 months of the initial 

exceedance. These commenters further 

suggested that if during the initial 

monitoring event methane surface 

emissions do not exceed 500 ppm over 

background, then the installation of a 

GCCS is not required and routine SEM 

should be performed until the landfill or 

area of the landfill is closed. One 

commenter requested that the EPA 

propose a surface concentration level of 

200 ppm and indicated that this level 

provides empirical confirmation that the 

landfill is ready to install a GCCS. 

After considering public comments 

and input from small entity outreach, 

the EPA is proposing Tier 4 SEM 

procedures for determining when a 

landfill must install a GCCS. Tier 4 

allows landfill owners or operators to 

demonstrate that site-specific surface 

methane emissions are low. Under Tier 

4, as proposed in this proposed rule, if 

the site-specific surface methane 

emissions are below 500 ppm for 4 

consecutive quarters, then the 

requirement to install and operate a 

GCCS has not been triggered even in 

circumstances where emission estimates 

using Tiers 1, 2, and/or 3 are above the 

regulatory threshold. However, any 

quarterly surface emissions value over 

500 ppm would trigger the requirement 

to install and begin operating a GCCS. 

If the landfill opts to use Tier 4 for its 

emission threshold determination and 

there is any measured concentration of 

methane of 500 parts per million or 

greater from the surface of the landfill, 

the owner or operator must install a 

GCCS, and it cannot go back to using 

Tiers 1, 2 or 3. The landfill owner or 

operator would be required to submit a 

design plan within 1 year of reporting 

the surface emissions value over 500 

ppm to the implementing authority in 

an annual report and would be required 

to install and start up a GCCS within 30 

months of reporting the surface 

emissions value over 500 ppm. 

The SEM demonstration would be 

conducted using the SEM procedures 

described in sections IV.B and VI.A of 

this preamble. SEM would be conducted 

around the perimeter of the landfill and 

the required traverse every 30 meters for 

the entire landfill. Note that the EPA is 

requesting comment on enhanced 

surface monitoring, including the 30 

meter traverse pattern, in section X.B of 

this preamble. The Tier 4 provisions can 

be utilized by any landfill that has 

exceeded the design capacity threshold. 

The Tier 4 provisions provide an 

incentive for a landfill owner or 

operator to keep surface emissions low 

as described later in this section. 

Under this proposal, if a landfill 

exceeds the modeled NMOC emission 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52129 

rate under Tier 1, then the landfill may 

choose to estimate the NMOC emission 

rate by using the Tier 2 or 3 procedures 

or measure actual surface emissions 

using Tier 4. If a landfill failed a Tier 

4 test, the landfill would trigger the 

requirement to submit a design plan and 

to install and operate a GCCS. However, 

if a landfill failed a Tier 2 or 3 test, 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf 

allows the landfill to test using a 

‘‘higher’’ tier, including Tier 4. For 

example, if a landfill exceeds the 

proposed NMOC emission rate of 34 

Mg/yr using Tier 2, then the landfill 

may choose to calculate the NMOC 

emission rate using Tier 3, or the 

landfill may choose to demonstrate that 

site-specific surface methane emissions 

are below 500 ppm using Tier 4. Tier 1 

is the most conservative method for 

estimating NMOC emissions and models 

NMOC emissions based on default 

values for methane generation rate (k), 

methane generation potential (Lo), and 

NMOC concentration (CNMOC). Tier 1 

takes the least effort and expense to 

conduct, but tends to overestimate 

NMOC emissions given the conservative 

default parameters. A landfill would 

likely use Tier 1 for its initial estimate 

of NMOC emissions. Tier 2 models 

NMOC emissions based on the same 

default values for methane generation 

rate and methane generation potential, 

which are in turn based on waste 

composition and climate data, but 

allows the landfill owner or operator to 

determine a site-specific NMOC 

concentration. Under Tier 2, landfills 

would incur a more substantial cost to 

determine the site-specific NMOC 

concentration. Tier 3 also models 

NMOC emissions, but adds another sitespecific measurement for a methane 

generation rate using Method 2E. Under 

Tier 3, landfills would incur a 

substantial cost to determine the sitespecific methane generation rate. 

Industry experience and public 

comments indicate that sites do not 

frequently use Tier 3 because of the 

expense. Commenters stated that the 

Tier 3 test is extremely rare because of 

the high cost and the fact that in many 

geographical areas the ‘‘k’’ factor 

(methane generation rate constant) is 

not reduced via testing. There are a 

significant number of landfills reporting 

under the Tier 2 method, which allows 

the site to measure a site-specific NMOC 

concentration instead of using the 

higher default NMOC concentrations 

required under the Tier 1 calculations, 

however, Tier 3 is not widely used. 

Thus, we are proposing to allow 

landfills to conduct Tier 4 testing after 

a failed Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 test. 

A landfill owner or operator may 

undertake Tier 4 SEM testing upon 

submitting an annual NMOC emission 

rate report that shows an NMOC 

emission rate greater than 34 Mg/yr 

using Tier 1, 2, or 3 procedures. If the 

landfill owner or operator chooses to 

undertake Tier 4 SEM instead of 

submitting a design plan and installing 

and operating a GCCS or estimating the 

NMOC emission rate using the next 

higher tier, then the landfill owner or 

operator would begin keeping records of 

all Tier 4 SEM readings and submit a 

‘‘Tier 4 SEM report’’ as its next annual 

report. The report would include and 

identify the number of SEM readings 

above 500 ppm. If the report shows any 

SEM readings above 500 ppm methane, 

then the landfill would be required to 

submit a GCCS design plan within one 

year and install and begin operating a 

GCCS within 30 months. (The landfill 

could not take corrective action to 

correct the Tier 4 exceedance and could 

not estimate the annual NMOC emission 

rate using Tiers 1, 2, or 3.) 

If the Tier 4 SEM report shows no 

SEM readings above 500 ppm for 4 

consecutive quarters, then the landfill 

may continue Tier 4 monitoring at a 

reduced semi-annual frequency or 

return to Tier 1, 2, or 3. This approach 

allows owners or operators some 

flexibility to select the tier that is most 

applicable to their landfill, based on the 

point each landfill is in its lifecycle, and 

other site-specific factors. Note that a 

landfill can recalculate NMOC using 

Tiers 1, 2, or 3 only if it has 4 

consecutive quarters with no SEM 

readings above 500 ppm. 

The EPA selected a 500 ppm 

threshold for Tier 4 because it is 

consistent with the level the EPA 

determined to be appropriate to 

demonstrate that a GCCS is welldesigned and well operated. In other 

words, when conducted properly, SEM 

is a good indicator of how well a GCCS 

is operating overall. For landfills 

without a GCCS (including those that 

may be using other LFG mitigation 

strategies), the level of 500 will 

demonstrate that site-specific surface 

methane emissions are as low as those 

allowed at a landfill with a welloperated and well-designed GCCS in 

place. See the docketed memorandum 

‘‘Establishing a Site-Specific Emission 

Threshold Alternative for MSW 

Landfills, 2015.’’ Therefore the EPA 

believes this alternative site-specific 

concentration threshold will achieve the 

goal of minimizing methane emissions 

to the atmosphere. The EPA is aware 

that the surface emission threshold for 

installing a GCCS under the CA LMR is 

200 ppm. However, the EPA also notes 

that CA LMR retains the 500 ppm level 

as an appropriate level for instantaneous 

SEM readings for areas already 

controlled by a GCCS. California ARB 

initially proposed a 200 ppm SEM 

threshold for both GCCS installation 

and for GCCS operation in its 

regulation, but finalized 500 ppm for 

GCCS operation because a lower 

threshold could cause an operator to 

overdraw the vacuum on the GCCS (to 

avoid a surface exceedance), which in 

turn could draw in too much oxygen 

and possibly cause fires. The EPA 

recognizes the concerns with setting the 

threshold too low, which may cause 

operators of voluntary GCCS to 

overdraw the vacuum on the GCCS, and 

has proposed a level of 500 ppm. The 

EPA requests comment on whether a 

level between 200 and 500 ppm is 

appropriate for the Tier 4 provisions, 

and whether setting the level below a 

specific point in this range poses fire or 

other safety concerns for operating a 

GCCS. The EPA also requests data that 

might support a different surface 

emissions threshold. 

The EPA requests comments on 

whether landfill owners or operators 

should provide notification to EPA 

when conducting Tier 4 surface 

emissions monitoring. Such notification 

would be similar to the performance test 

notification required by 40 CFR 60.8(d), 

wherein the owner or operator of an 

affected facility provides the 

Administrator at least 30 days prior 

notice of any performance test to afford 

the Administrator the opportunity to 

have an observer present. 

As noted earlier in this section, 

commenters representing both industry 

and environmental interests noted that 

the Tier 4 SEM option would encourage 

landfill owners or operators to 

implement alternative methane 

reduction practices, such as the use of 

oxidative landfill covers, interim gas 

control measures, and organic waste 

diversion. The EPA agrees. Such 

measures can directly affect surface 

emissions and when employed would 

help a landfill ensure that surface 

emissions are low, enabling a landfill to 

delay the regulatory requirement to 

install a GCCS without a significant 

negative impact on public health or the 

environment. Section V.A of this 

preamble discusses alternative methane 

reduction practices, such as the use of 

oxidative landfill covers, interim gas 

control measures, and organic waste 

diversion. 

VIII. Proposed Changes To Address 

Closed or Non-Producing Areas 

The EPA recognizes that many 

landfills or landfill areas are closed or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52130 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

65 22 closed landfills plus 29 closed landfills. 

66 36 closed landfills plus 29 closed landfills. 

have inactive areas that do not produce 

as much LFG. The production of LFG 

naturally declines over time as an area 

stops accepting waste and the amount of 

degradable organic content declines. In 

the ANPRM for the Emission Guidelines 

(79 FR 41772), the EPA requested input 

on ways to ensure emissions are 

minimized in the later stages of a 

landfill’s lifecycle (79 FR 41783). 

Specifically, the EPA sought input on 

whether the current criteria for capping 

or removing a GCCS are appropriate: (1) 

The landfill is closed, (2) the GCCS has 

been in operation for 15 years, and (3) 

three successive tests for NMOC 

emissions are below the NMOC 

emission threshold. We also sought 

input on alternative approaches to 

determining when it is appropriate to 

cap or remove a GCCS, such as 

consecutive quarterly measurements 

that would demonstrate that surface 

emissions are low. 

A. Subcategory for Closed Landfills 

The EPA notes that many existing 

landfills in our dataset closed at various 

points since 1987, including landfills 

that closed as many as 18 years prior to 

this proposed action. In the ANPRM, the 

EPA presented the distribution of 

existing landfills by closure date (see 

Table 3, 79 FR 41792). These data 

showed that nearly 80 percent of the 

existing landfills with a design capacity 

of at least 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 

million m3 were active landfills as of 

2014. Similarly, 77 percent of the 

cumulative waste disposed in these 

existing landfills were at active 

landfills. The EPA recognizes that these 

active landfills are the most significant 

sources of LFG emissions at existing 

landfills. 

The EPA evaluated the costs and 

benefits of controlling emissions at a 

level between 34 Mg/yr and 40 Mg/yr at 

both open and closed landfills. Table 3 

of section V.E of this preamble presents 

the number of landfills affected and the 

corresponding emission reductions and 

costs. The EPA also considered how 

closed landfills would be affected by 

this proposal. We are considering 

‘‘closed’’ landfills to be those that closed 

after 1987 but on or before the date of 

this proposal. 

At the baseline NMOC emission 

threshold of 50 Mg/yr, the EPA 

estimates that 29 of the 233 closed 

landfills with a design capacity of at 

least 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3

would be required to install controls. At 

an NMOC emission threshold of 40 Mg/ 

yr, the EPA estimates that an additional 

22 landfills beyond the baseline would 

be required to install controls, resulting 

in controls at approximately 51 65 closed 

landfills in 2025. The LFG controlled at 

these 51 closed landfills represents 

approximately 6 percent of the total 

emission reductions achieved from all 

active and closed landfills expected to 

control emissions at a level of 

40 Mg/yr NMOC in year 2025. At the 

proposed NMOC emission threshold of 

34 Mg/yr, the EPA estimates that an 

additional 36 landfills beyond the 

baseline would be required to install 

controls, resulting in controls at 

approximately 65 66 closed landfills in 

2025. The LFG controlled at these 65 

closed landfills represents less than 7 

percent of the total emission reductions 

achieved from all active and closed 

landfills expected to control emissions 

at a level of 34 Mg/yr NMOC in year 

2025. 

An NMOC emission rate threshold of 

34 Mg/yr NMOC at closed landfills 

would achieve an additional 1,260 Mg 

NMOC and 5 million mtCO2e as 

compared to retaining the threshold of 

50 Mg/yr NMOC for these closed sites. 

These reductions would be achieved at 

an incremental control cost 

effectiveness of $23,700 per Mg NMOC 

and $6 per mtCO2e for closed landfills 

in 2025 (excluding additional testing 

and monitoring costs). 

See the docketed memorandum 

‘‘Revised Cost and Emission Impacts 

Resulting from the Landfill EG Review 

(2015)’’ for additional detail on the 

impacts on closed landfills. In addition 

to these control costs, the EPA estimates 

that 160 closed landfills that are not 

controlling in 2025 would be required to 

estimate and report NMOC emissions 

under the proposed option because they 

have a design capacity of at least 2.5 

million Mg and 2.5 million m3. 

After closure, the gas flows at landfills 

decline and the ability to achieve 

additional reductions also declines. The 

EPA received input from SERs that 

many closed landfills supplement their 

flare with pilot (fossil) fuels in order to 

maintain flare operation despite 

declining gas quantities and quality. 

These SERs were concerned that a lower 

threshold at these closed landfills 

would extend the amount of pilot fuel 

necessary for flame stability. The EPA 

notes that closed landfills may have 

limited access to additional revenue 

because they are no longer collecting 

tipping fees and the cost for GCCS and 

regulatory compliance were not factored 

into their closure plans. Further, many 

SERs expressed concerns that many 

compliance costs are fixed cost items, 

regardless of the operating status of the 

landfill, such as permitting fees, drill rig 

mobilization fees, and others, as 

discussed in section V.D.1 of this 

preamble. Many SERs also expressed 

concerns about staffing limitations at 

closed landfills, who may have limited 

staff to oversee extended GCCS design, 

operations, maintenance, and 

compliance. For landfills that closed 

after August 27, 2015, the EPA 

understands that gas quality will remain 

a concern and it has provided an 

alternative set of GCCS removal criteria 

based on site-specific emissions, as 

discussed in section VIII.B of this 

preamble. 

Commenters expressed concern about 

whether landfills that have closed and 

decommissioned their GCCS should be 

pulled back into control requirements if 

their emissions fall between the current 

50 Mg/yr threshold and a more stringent 

NMOC emission threshold. These 

commenters recommended that the EPA 

exempt these landfills from more 

stringent control requirements. One 

commenter added that it would be 

costly to re-install or refurbish a 

previously shutdown system and noted 

that the system would likely operate for 

only a few more years before the landfill 

fell below the more stringent NMOC 

emission threshold. For example, the 

proposed reduction of the NMOC 

emission rate threshold to 34 Mg/yr 

NMOC could affect landfills that 

installed a GCCS to comply with the 50 

Mg/yr NMOC emissions threshold in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW (or the state 

plans or federal plan implementing 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cc), but whose 

emissions are still above the EPA’s 

proposed 34 Mg/yr NMOC threshold. 

These landfills could have declining gas 

flows, could be closed, or could have 

met the 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW 

criteria for capping or removing the 

GCCS. 

To address concerns about closed 

landfills, the EPA is proposing to create 

a subcategory of closed landfills, to 

which an NMOC emission rate 

threshold of 50 Mg/yr would apply, 

instead of an NMOC emission rate of 34 

Mg/yr. The subcategory of closed 

landfills is proposed to be defined as a 

landfill that has submitted a closure 

report as specified in 40 CFR 60.38f(f) 

on or before August 27, 2015. As noted 

above, the emissions associated with the 

65 closed landfills represents less than 

7 percent of the total emission 

reductions achieved from all active and 

closed landfills expected to control 

emissions at a level of 34 Mg/yr NMOC 

in year 2025. The EPA believes this 

proposed subcategory for closed 

landfills alleviates concerns with 

lowering the threshold for closed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52131 

landfills, while focusing the proposed 

changes to the regulatory framework on 

emission reductions from the existing 

landfills contributing most significantly 

to methane emissions from MSW 

landfills. 

The EPA is requesting input on 

whether the proposed subcategory for 

closed landfills is the most appropriate 

method for controlling emissions and 

addressing concerns with closed 

landfills, or whether the EPA should 

consider exempting closed landfills 

from the proposed subpart Cf entirely. 

The EPA is also requesting comments 

on whether additional provisions 

should be considered for closed 

landfills when establishing the revised 

Emission Guidelines, including whether 

the closed landfill subcategory should 

be expanded to include landfills that 

closed within 13 months after 

publication of the Emission Guidelines 

in the Federal Register. 

B. Criteria for Capping or Removing a 

GCCS 

Several commenters requested that 

the EPA reconsider the 15-year criteria 

for capping or removing a GCCS and 

one commenter stated that the 15-year 

period should be longer, rather than 

shorter. Commenters supported the use 

of Tier 4 SEM procedures to help 

determine the removal or 

decommissioning of existing GCCS. 

Commenters supported the use of SEM 

to allow the flexibility to confirm when 

a closed landfill or closed area of a 

landfill no longer producing gas in 

significant quantities can remove or 

decommission all or a portion of the 

GCCS. Several of these commenters 

referenced a rationale similar to the one 

they provided for supporting the use of 

Tier 4 SEM for determining GCCS 

installation as discussed in section 

VII.A of this preamble. Several 

commenters requested that the EPA 

provide a ‘‘step-down’’ procedure for 

scaling down GCCS operations in nonproducing areas and allowing a GCCS to 

be removed from rule applicability. 

The EPA is proposing two sets of 

criteria for capping and removing the 

GCCS. The first set of criteria is similar 

to the criteria in subpart Cc, but has 

been adjusted to reflect the new NMOC 

emission threshold proposed in this 

proposal: (1) The landfill is closed, (2) 

the GCCS has been in operation for 15 

years, and (3) three successive tests for 

NMOC emissions are below the 

proposed NMOC emission threshold of 

34 Mg/yr for open landfills and 

50 Mg/yr NMOC for closed landfills. 

The EPA is also proposing an alternative 

set of criteria for capping or removing 

the GCCS that employs a SEM 

demonstration: (1) The landfill, or an 

area of an active landfill, is closed, (2) 

the GCCS has operated for at least 15 

years or the landfill owner or operator 

can demonstrate that the GCCS will be 

unable to operate for 15 years due to 

declining gas flows, and (3) the owner 

or operator demonstrates for 4 

consecutive quarters that there are no 

surface emissions of 500 ppm or greater 

from the landfill or closed area. The 

EPA selected a level of 500 ppm to be 

consistent with the operational standard 

for operating a GCCS. The operational 

standard is the surface emissions level 

that cannot be exceeded once a GCCS 

has been installed. 

The EPA proposes the use of SEM 

procedures in section VI.A of this 

preamble for determining when to 

decommission wells and for when the 

landfill can cap or remove a GCCS. If a 

landfill owner or operator can 

demonstrate that surface emissions in 

the closed area of an open landfill or a 

closed landfill are below 500 ppm for 4 

consecutive quarters, then they would 

be able to stop collecting gas from that 

area or the landfill as a whole. After 4 

consecutive quarters of no exceedances, 

the landfill continues to monitor the 

closed area annually for surface 

emission exceedances of 500 ppm or 

greater. If exceedances are found, the 

landfill must restart the GCCS in the 

closed area and the GCCS would be 

required to operate according to 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

As discussed in section VII.A of this 

preamble, surface emissions monitoring 

more closely reflects the site’s actual 

emissions and accounts for differences 

in gas generation due to waste 

composition and local conditions. As 

discussed in section VII.A of this 

preamble, sites will have the incentive 

to employ various technologies or 

practices to minimize surface emissions, 

thus giving the owner or operator 

flexibility at both the installation and 

removal stages of LFG collection and 

control. With these rule provisions, the 

EPA can ensure environmental 

protection is demonstrated through low 

surface emissions and landfill owners or 

operators will have the flexibility to cap 

or remove the GCCS based on sitespecific surface emission readings. 

C. Non-Producing Areas and Wellhead 

Standards 

Commenters have identified the 

difficulty of operating a GCCS in ‘‘nonproducing’’ areas and meeting the 

wellhead operational standards for the 

GCCS. They have also contended that 

the corrective action—expanding the 

GCCS, is counter to a ‘‘well-operated’’ 

GCCS. Several commenters requested 

that the EPA provide flexibility to meet 

the wellhead and other requirements in 

‘‘non-producing’’ areas. Commenters 

generally consider a ‘‘non-producing’’ 

area as one with declining LFG 

generation and gas flow, which in turn 

make it difficult to continuously meet 

the operational standards for a GCCS. 

One commenter stated that when 

landfill gas production decreases 

significantly, even small amounts of 

vacuum can draw air into the waste 

mass causing exceedances of the 

wellhead oxygen parameter. The 

commenter added that the landfill 

owner or operator may address the 

oxygen exceedance by reducing the 

vacuum to a very low level, but then 

may not be able to maintain negative 

pressure. Another commenter stated 

that LFG wells in old waste can be very 

sensitive to vacuum adjustments, easily 

exceeding the 5 percent oxygen 

standard not due to excessive air 

infiltration, but rather due to low LFG 

volume. Other commenters noted that 

the difficulty of meeting the wellhead 

oxygen/nitrogen operational standards 

could be exacerbated if the EPA were to 

reduce the NMOC emissions threshold 

below 50 Mg/yr. 

As discussed in section VI.B of this 

preamble, the EPA proposes to remove 

the requirement to meet wellhead 

operating standards for temperature and 

nitrogen/oxygen. Removing these two 

standards will not only promote earlier 

and more robust collection of LFG as 

discussed in section VI.B of this 

preamble, but will also give owners or 

operators flexibility to operate the GCCS 

in non-producing or closed areas 

without the risk of exceeding the 

oxygen/nitrogen operating standards. 

Removing the requirement to meet the 

oxygen/nitrogen operating standards 

and the need for corrective action, 

including expanding the GCCS, will 

reduce the burden on both the landfill 

owner or operator and the implementing 

authority. As discussed in section VIII.B 

of this preamble, the EPA is also 

providing flexibility for temporary 

decommissioning of wells in closed 

landfills or closed areas of active 

landfills to provide flexibility for 

meeting negative pressure in areas that 

can demonstrate low surface emissions. 

IX. Rationale for the Other Proposed 

Changes 

A. Landfill Gas Treatment 

The EPA is proposing a definition of 

treated landfill gas and treatment 

system. A Treatment system would be 

defined as a system that filters, dewaters, and compresses landfill gas to 

levels determined by the landfill owner 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52132 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

or operator based on the beneficial end 

use of the gas. The EPA is proposing 

this definition to provide compliance 

flexibility and to promote the beneficial 

use of LFG. The approach works in 

conjunction with the EPA’s proposed 

expansion of the use of treated landfill 

gas beyond use as a fuel for a stationary 

combustion device to include other 

beneficial uses such as vehicle fuel, 

production of high-Btu gas for pipeline 

injection, and use as a raw material in 

a chemical manufacturing process. This 

definition would be available for all 

MSW landfill owners or operators. 

The approach is consistent with 

public comments received on previous 

landfills documents (67 FR 36475, May 

23, 2002; 71 FR 53271, September 8, 

2006; 79 FR 41796, July 17, 2014; 79 FR 

41772, July 17, 2014), as well as input 

from participants in small entity 

outreach, who stated that the extent of 

filtration, de-watering, and compression 

can be site- and equipment-dependent, 

and that different sites require different 

levels of gas treatment to protect the 

combustion devices that use treated LFG 

as a fuel and ensure good combustion. 

Commenters on the proposed NSPS 

(79 FR 41796) and ANPRM (79 FR 

41772) supported the expanded use of 

treated LFG. Commenters including 

state/local agencies, a large landfill 

owner or operator, and an industry trade 

association supported the expanded 

beneficial use of LFG to include uses 

beyond subsequent sale or use and 

agreed that a broader definition is 

appropriate. No commenters opposed 

the expanded use. 

Many commenters on the July 17, 

2014 proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796) and 

ANPRM (79 FR 41772) opposed a 

definition of LFG treatment based on 

specific numerical values for filtration 

and de-watering. Numerous commenters 

disagreed with a requirement to meet 

specific absolute filtration and dew 

point suppression values and contended 

that a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach was 

not appropriate, and would not reduce 

emissions. One commenter specifically 

noted the impact that the costs of these 

requirements would have on small 

entities. 

Commenters estimated costs to 

comply with the dew point reduction. 

Based on experience, commenters 

estimated that chillers alone would cost 

$500,000 each. Commenters estimated 

that instrumentation, monitoring, and 

controls would cost an additional 

$150,000 per chiller, plus up to $60,000 

for annual maintenance, monitoring, 

and operation. These commenters also 

expressed concerns about the timeframe 

for installing chillers. Plus, many 

commenters also expressed concern that 

the numerical requirements would be 

detrimental to existing and potential 

beneficial use projects, including 

potentially shutting down existing 

beneficial use projects and preventing 

future ones. 

On the other hand, many commenters 

supported the more flexible definition 

of treatment system that allows the level 

of treatment to be tailored to the type 

and design of the specific project 

equipment. Commenters pointed out 

that owners and operators of 

combustion equipment are already 

motivated to treat landfill gas to 

manufacturer specifications to protect 

equipment and maintain warranties. 

Commenters added that compliance 

with a site-specific definition of 

treatment can be tracked using a 

preventative maintenance plan. 

The EPA recognizes that the landfill 

industry continues to develop new LFG 

beneficial use projects and the EPA 

continues to support the recovery and 

use of LFG as an energy source. Thus, 

the EPA is proposing a simplified 

definition of treatment as filtering, dewatering, and compressing landfill gas, 

but is retaining as alternative a 

definition of LFG treatment based on 

specific numerical values for filtration 

and de-watering. 

The simplified definition of 

treatment, combined with site- and 

equipment-specific monitoring, is 

expected to provide compliance 

flexibility, ensure environmental 

protection, and promote the beneficial 

use of LFG. The proposed definition 

would allow the level of filtration, 

dewatering, and compression to be 

tailored to the type and design of the 

specific equipment in which the LFG is 

used. Owners or operators would need 

to identify monitoring parameters, be 

able to demonstrate that such 

parameters effectively monitor filtration, 

de-watering or compression system 

performance necessary for the end use 

of the treated LFG and keep records to 

demonstrate that the parameters are 

being met. 

Owners or operators would also need 

to develop a site-specific treatment 

system monitoring plan that would not 

only accommodate site-specific and 

end-use specific treatment requirements 

for different energy recovery 

technologies, but would also ensure 

environmental protection. A welloperated system with a level of 

treatment specific to the site and enduse equipment would prevent 

equipment disruptions and limit 

emissions resulting during shutdowns 

or malfunctions. A treatment approach 

that can be tailored to the end use of the 

gas would also promote wider use of 

LFG energy recovery, by limiting the 

compliance burden for those landfills 

opting to include an energy recovery 

component. Landfill gas energy recovery 

protects the environment by not only 

controlling LFG and its components, but 

also by offsetting conventional sources 

of energy with a renewable resource for 

heating, electricity, vehicle fuel, or other 

innovative end uses. The EPA also notes 

that landfills complying with a 

treatment compliance option are also 

subject to the surface emissions 

monitoring requirements discussed in 

section VI.A of this preamble to ensure 

that the GCCS is well operated and 

surface emissions are minimized. 

Preparing the monitoring plan would 

document procedures that landfills are 

likely already following to ensure that 

the LFG has been adequately treated for 

its intended use and provide verifiable 

records of proper operation to the EPA 

or other implementing authorities. 

The plan would be required to 

include monitoring parameters 

addressing all three elements of 

treatment (filtration, de-watering, and 

compression) to ensure the treatment 

system is operating properly for the 

intended end use of the treated LFG. 

The plan would be required to include 

monitoring methods, frequencies, and 

operating ranges for each monitored 

operating parameter based on 

manufacturer’s recommendations or 

engineering analysis for the intended 

end use of the treated LFG. 

Documentation of the monitoring 

methods and ranges, along with 

justification for their use, would need to 

be included in the site-specific 

monitoring plan. In the plan, the owner 

or operator would also need to identify 

who is responsible (by job title) for data 

collection, explain the processes and 

methods used to collect the necessary 

data, and describe the procedures and 

methods that are used for quality 

assurance, maintenance, and repair of 

all continuous monitoring systems. 

The owner or operator would be 

required to revise the monitoring plan to 

reflect changes in processes, monitoring 

instrumentation, and quality assurance 

procedures; or to improve procedures 

for the maintenance and repair of 

monitoring systems to reduce the 

frequency of monitoring equipment 

downtime. 

Promote the Beneficial Use of LFG. 

Technical assistance is available to 

landfill owners and operators who want 

to beneficially use LFG. The EPA LMOP 

is a voluntary assistance program that 

encourages recovery and beneficial use 

of landfill gas, and in turn, helps to 

reduce methane emissions from 

landfills. LMOP has developed many 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52133 

publications and tools to assist 

stakeholders interested in developing 

LFG energy projects or promote landfill 

gas energy recovery to various 

audiences. LMOP also provides 

customized, direct assistance to 

individual Partners to address their 

needs, such as preliminary analyses to 

estimate landfill gas energy project 

feasibility or responses to technical 

questions about particular issues or 

barriers involved with project 

development. LMOP’s Web site has 

become one of the main modes of 

providing LMOP Partners, others in the 

industry, and the public with basic 

information and keeping them abreast of 

the latest LFG energy–related advances 

and opportunities (http://www.epa.gov/ 

lmop/). Many LMOP resources and tools 

are available on the Web site including 

a Project Development Handbook, a 

preliminary economic assessment 

model, and a database of LFG energy 

recovery projects. 

B. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated portions of 

two provisions in the EPA’s CAA 

section 112 regulations governing the 

emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

Periods of Startup or Shutdown. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 

EPA is proposing standards in 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf that apply at all 

times. In proposing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and, for 

the reasons explained below, has not 

proposed alternate standards for those 

periods. 

The part 60 general provisions, which 

define startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction, were written for typical 

industrial or manufacturing sources and 

associated processes. Many of these 

sources and processes may, at times, be 

shut down entirely for clean-out, 

maintenance, or repairs, and then 

restarted. Applying the standards at all 

times, including periods of startup and 

shutdown, is intended to minimize 

excess emissions when the source or 

process ceases operation or commences 

operation, or during malfunctions. 

Landfill emissions, however, are 

produced by a continuous biological 

process that cannot be stopped or 

restarted. For landfills, the primary SSM 

concern is with malfunction of the 

landfill GCCS and associated 

monitoring equipment, not with the 

startup or shutdown of the entire 

source. Thus, SSM provisions in the 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf focus primarily 

on malfunction of the gas collection 

system, gas control system, and gas 

treatment system, which is part of the 

gas control system. 

Periods of Malfunction. Periods of 

startup, normal operations, and 

shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead they 

are, by definition sudden, infrequent 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process or 

monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). 

The EPA interprets CAA section 111 as 

not requiring emissions that occur 

during periods of malfunction to be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA 

section 111 or in case law requires that 

the EPA consider malfunctions when 

determining what standards of 

performance reflect the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

‘‘the application of the best system of 

emission reduction’’ that the EPA 

determines is adequately demonstrated. 

While the EPA accounts for variability 

in setting emissions standards, nothing 

in CAA section 111 requires the agency 

to consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. A malfunction should not be 

treated in the same manner as the type 

of variation in performance that occurs 

during routine operations of a source. A 

malfunction is a failure of the source to 

perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ 

and no statutory language compels EPA 

to consider such events in setting CAA 

section 111 standards of performance. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

in setting emission standards would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the 

category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree, and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 

occur. As such, the performance of units 

that are malfunctioning is not 

‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has 

wide latitude in determining the extent 

of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an 

agency’s decision to proceed on the 

basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘invest the resources to 

conduct the perfect study.’ ’’) See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control 

device with 99 percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as 

might happen if, for example, the bags 

in a baghouse catch fire) and the 

emission unit is a steady state type unit 

that would take days to shut down, the 

source would go from 99 percent control 

to zero control until the control device 

was repaired. The source’s emissions 

during the malfunction would be 100 

times higher than during normal 

operations. As such, the emissions over 

a 4-day malfunction period would 

exceed the annual emissions of the 

source during normal operations. As 

this example illustrates, accounting for 

malfunctions could lead to standards 

that are not reflective of (and 

significantly less stringent than) levels 

that are achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. It is 

reasonable to interpret CAA section 111 

to avoid such a result. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 111 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

111 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 111 

standard was, in fact, sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable 

and was not instead caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless operation 

(40 CFR 60.2 (definition of 

malfunction)). 

If the EPA determines in a particular 

case that an enforcement action against 

a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52134 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

67Although the NRDC case does not address the 

EPA’s authority to establish an affirmative defense 

to penalties that is available in administrative 

enforcement actions, EPA is not including such an 

affirmative defense in the proposed rule. As 

explained above, such an affirmative defense is not 

necessary. Moreover, assessment of penalties for 

violations caused by malfunctions in administrative 

proceedings and judicial proceedings should be 

consistent. Cf. CAA section 113(e) (requiring both 

the Administrator and the court to take specified 

criteria into account when assessing penalties). 

raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of 

the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 

111 is reasonable and encourages 

practices that will avoid malfunctions. 

Administrative and judicial procedures 

for addressing exceedances of the 

standards fully recognize that violations 

may occur despite good faith efforts to 

comply and can accommodate those 

situations. 

In several prior rules, the EPA had 

included an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations caused by 

malfunctions in an effort to create a 

system that incorporates some 

flexibility, recognizing that there is a 

tension, inherent in many types of air 

regulation, to ensure adequate 

compliance while simultaneously 

recognizing that despite the most 

diligent of efforts, emission standards 

may be violated under circumstances 

entirely beyond the control of the 

source. Although the EPA recognized 

that its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion provides sufficient flexibility 

in these circumstances, it included the 

affirmative defense to provide a more 

formalized approach and more 

regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. 

Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

case-by-case enforcement discretion 

approach is adequate); but see Marathon 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 

(9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of 

‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit 

holder’’). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a 

source could demonstrate in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding that it had 

met the requirements of the affirmative 

defense in the regulation, civil penalties 

would not be assessed. Recently, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated an affirmative 

defense in one of the EPA’s CAA section 

112 regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 

1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (vacating 

affirmative defense provisions in the 

CAA section 112 rule establishing 

emission standards for Portland cement 

kilns). The court found that the EPA 

lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits 

and held that under the CAA, the 

authority to determine civil penalty 

amounts in such cases lies exclusively 

with the courts, not the EPA. 

Specifically, the court found: ‘‘As the 

language of the statute makes clear, the 

courts determine, on a case-by-case 

basis, whether civil penalties are 

‘appropriate.’ ’’ See NRDC at 1063 

(‘‘[U]nder this statute, deciding whether 

penalties are ‘appropriate’ in a given 

private civil suit is a job for the courts, 

not EPA.’’). In light of NRDC v. EPA, the 

EPA is not including a regulatory 

affirmative defense provision in this 

rulemaking. As explained above, if a 

source is unable to comply with 

emissions standards as a result of a 

malfunction, the EPA may use its caseby-case enforcement discretion to 

provide flexibility, as appropriate. 

Further, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit 

recognized, in an EPA or citizen 

enforcement action, the court has the 

discretion to consider any defense 

raised and determine whether penalties 

are appropriate. Cf. NRDC, at 1064 

(arguments that violation were caused 

by unavoidable technology failure can 

be made to the courts in future civil 

cases when the issue arises). The same 

is true for the presiding officer in EPA 

administrative enforcement actions.67

Limit on SSM duration. Subpart 

WWW of 40 CFR part 60 limits the 

duration of SSM events for MSW 

landfills to 5 days for the landfill gas 

collection system and 1 hour for 

treatment or control devices. Proposed 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf does not 

include the 5-day and 1-hour time 

limitations because some malfunctions 

cannot be corrected within these 

timeframes. Excluding these provisions 

is consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 

(551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), which 

concluded that that emission standards 

apply at all times, including periods of 

SSM, and 40 CFR 60.11(d), which states 

that at all times, including periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction, 

owners or operators shall, to the extent 

practicable, maintain and operate any 

affected facility including associated air 

pollution control equipment in a 

manner consistent with good air 

pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions. The proposed 

revisions clarify that the NSPS 

standards continue to apply during 

periods of SSM. 

To prevent free venting of landfill gas 

to the atmosphere during control device 

malfunctions, we propose to include a 

requirement in subpart Cf (40 CFR 

60.34f(e)) that states that in the event 

the collection or control system is not 

operating, the gas mover system must be 

shut down and all valves in the 

collection and control system 

contributing to venting of gas to the 

atmosphere must be closed within 1 

hour. The EPA proposes to use the term 

‘‘not operating,’’ which includes periods 

when the gas collection or control 

system is not operating for whatever 

reason, including when the gas 

collection or control system is 

inoperable. The EPA requests comment 

on the technical feasibility of this 

approach as well as alternate ways to 

prevent free venting of landfill gas to the 

atmosphere during control device 

malfunctions. 

Shutting down the gas mover 

equipment and all valves contributing to 

venting of gas to the atmosphere 

minimizes emissions from the landfill 

while the control system is not 

operating and is being repaired. 

Compliance with proposed 40 CFR 

60.34f(e) does not constitute compliance 

with the applicable standards in 

proposed 40 CFR 60.36f; however, as a 

practical matter it is unlikely that there 

would be a violation since no gas would 

be flowing to the control device. 

Compliance with proposed 40 CFR 

60.34f(e) is necessary to demonstrate 

compliance with the general duty to 

minimize emissions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) 

during control or collection system 

malfunctions. 

Under proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf, landfill owners or operators 

must keep records of combustion 

temperature, bypass flow, and periods 

when the flare flame or the flare pilot 

flame is out. However, without 

additional provisions, the EPA would 

have no way to gauge the severity of an 

emissions exceedance that may occur 

when these operating parameters are not 

being met or when the control device is 

not operating. Therefore, the EPA is 

proposing to include provisions for 

landfill owners or operators to estimate 

NMOC emissions when the control 

device or collection system is not 

operating. The landfill owners or 

operators may use whatever information 

is available to estimate NMOC 

emissions during the period, including 

but not limited to, landfill gas flow to 

or bypass of the control device, the 

concentration of NMOC (from the most 

recent performance test or from AP–42), 

and the amount of time the control 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52135 

device is not operating. Landfill owners 

or operators would keep records of the 

estimated emissions and would report 

the information in the annual 

compliance report. 

As discussed above, malfunctions are 

by definition sudden, infrequent and 

not reasonably preventable failures of 

emissions control, process or 

monitoring equipment. Further, there 

are myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur and there 

are significant difficulties associated 

with predicting or accounting for the 

frequency, degree, and duration of 

various malfunctions that might occur. 

As a result, the EPA believes that it is 

generally not technically feasible to 

establish an alternative emission 

standard that would apply during 

periods of malfunction. The EPA also 

believes that it would be difficult to 

defend an alternative standard that does 

not achieve a level of emission 

reduction comparable to that required 

by the standard that applies during 

periods of normal operation in 

circumstances where there are steps that 

an owner or operator could take to 

achieve such reductions such as 

shutting down the process or having a 

second control device. In the immediate 

case, by shutting down the flow to the 

flare or other control device a source is 

unlikely to be in violation of the 98 

percent emission reduction requirement 

since there will be no gas flowing to the 

control device. We are, however, 

interested in comment on whether there 

are alternative ways in which the 

emission limit could be complied with 

when the control device malfunctions. 

C. Definitions and Other Rule Changes 

We propose to include definitions of 

‘‘household waste’’ and ‘‘segregated 

yard waste’’ in proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf to clarify our intent regarding 

the applicability of proposed subpart Cf 

to landfills that do not accept household 

waste, but accept segregated yard waste. 

We also proposed to exclude 

construction and demolition waste from 

the definition of household waste. We 

intend for subpart Cf to apply to MSW 

landfills that accept general household 

waste (including garbage, trash, sanitary 

waste), as indicated in the definitions. 

We do not intend the landfills rules to 

apply to landfills that accept only 

segregated yard waste or a combination 

of segregated yard waste and nonhousehold waste such as construction 

and demolition waste. 

X. Request for Comment on Specific 

Provisions 

A. Defining Closed Areas of Open 

Landfills 

In the ANPRM for the Emission 

Guidelines (79 FR 41772), the EPA 

requested input on how non-producing 

areas of the landfill, i.e., areas that are 

no longer generating landfill gas, could 

be excluded from gas collection 

requirements when designing a GCCS 

(79 FR 41792). The EPA also sought 

input on whether the current criteria for 

capping or removing a GCCS are 

appropriate, one of which requires that 

the landfill be closed (79 FR 41783). As 

discussed in section VIII.B of this 

preamble, we are proposing a second set 

of alternative criteria for capping or 

removing the GCCS at closed landfills or 

closed areas of active landfills, based on 

surface emissions monitoring. 

Commenters expressed concern with 

the requirement for closed areas to be 

physically separated in order to be 

excluded from GCCS requirements, 

noting that many closed areas of active 

landfills are non-producing but remain 

physically connected to other areas of 

the landfill. 

To help address the difficulty of 

controlling landfill gas in lowproducing areas, the EPA is proposing 

an alternative set of criteria for capping 

or removing the GCCS that employs a 

SEM demonstration: (1) The landfill is 

closed or an area of an active landfill is 

closed, (2) the GCCS has operated for at 

least 15 years or the landfill owner or 

operator can demonstrate that the GCCS 

will be unable to operate for 15 years 

due to declining gas flows, and (3) the 

landfill or closed area demonstrates for 

4 consecutive quarters that there are no 

surface emissions of 500 ppm or greater. 

The EPA is also requesting comment on 

whether owners or operators of 

physically separated, closed areas of 

landfills may model NMOC emission 

rates, or may determine the flow rate of 

landfill gas using actual measurements, 

to determine NMOC emissions in order 

to identify areas that can be excluded 

from gas collection. The EPA considers 

areas to be physically separated if they 

have separate liners and gas cannot 

migrate between the separate areas. 

To further address non-producing 

areas, proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cf contains procedures for excluding 

areas from gas collection and control. 

Owners or operators of landfills with 

physically separated, closed areas may 

demonstrate that the quantity of NMOC 

emissions from the area is less than 1 

percent of the total NMOC emissions 

from the entire landfill, and thus 

exclude the area from control. Under 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, 

owners or operators of landfills with 

physically separated, closed areas may 

model NMOC emission rates, or may 

determine the flow rate of landfill gas 

using actual measurements, to 

determine NMOC emissions. Using 

actual flow measurements would yield 

a more precise measurement of NMOC 

emissions for purposes of demonstrating 

the closed area represents less than 1 

percent of the landfills total NMOC 

emissions. 

Because both of these topics rely on 

defining a closed area of a landfill, the 

EPA requests comment on how to define 

closed areas of open landfills. 

B. Enhanced Surface Emissions 

Monitoring 

The proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cf collection and control requirements 

are intended to ensure that landfills 

maintain a tight cover that minimizes 

any emissions of landfill gas through the 

surface. The surface emissions 

monitoring procedures in proposed 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf are consistent 

with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and 

require quarterly surface emissions 

monitoring to demonstrate that the 

cover and gas collection system are 

working properly. However, we are also 

considering and requesting additional 

public input on a potential alternative 

approach to surface emissions 

monitoring. 

The alternative surface monitoring 

approach includes changing the walking 

pattern that traverses the landfill from 

30 meters (98 ft) to 25 ft and adding a 

methane concentration limit of 25 ppm 

as determined by integrated surface 

emissions monitoring. This would be in 

addition to the 500 ppm emission 

concentration as determined by 

instantaneous surface emissions 

monitoring. Integrated surface emissions 

monitoring provides an average surface 

emission concentration across a 

specified area. For integrated surface 

emissions monitoring, the specified area 

would be individually identified 50,000 

square ft grids. A tighter walking pattern 

and the addition of an integrated 

methane concentration limit would 

more thoroughly ensure that the 

collection system is being operated 

properly, that the landfill cover and 

cover material are adequate, and that 

methane emissions from the landfill 

surface are minimized in all types of 

climates. As part of these potential 

changes, the EPA is also considering not 

allowing surface monitoring when the 

average wind speed exceeds 5 miles per 

hour (mph) or the instantaneous wind 

speed exceeds 10 mph because air 

movement can affect whether the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52136 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

monitor is accurately reading the 

methane concentration during surface 

monitoring. We are considering this 

change because conducting surface 

emissions monitoring during windy 

periods may not yield readings that are 

representative of the emissions. The 

EPA requested public comment on this 

same enhanced approach in the landfills 

NSPS (79 FR 41822) and ANPRM (79 FR 

41789). 

Many commenters supported the 

enhanced surface monitoring provisions 

for detecting surface emissions. A state 

agency supported reducing the traverse 

pattern to 25 feet, stating that the tighter 

traverse pattern would increase the 

chance of detecting exceedances. An 

environmental organization supported 

all elements of the enhanced surface 

monitoring and contended that the 

current monitoring at 30 meter intervals 

leaves most areas of the landfill 

unmonitored. Both these commenters 

suggested that the walking pattern be 

varied each quarter (i.e., offset by 10 

meters) to monitor additional areas over 

time. The environmental organization 

supported an integrated reading because 

it would be a better indicator of GCCS 

performance and they contended that 

the additional costs were not 

unreasonable. 

Many commenters opposed the 

enhanced surface monitoring 

provisions. Commenters that opposed 

the enhanced surface monitoring 

provisions primarily cited the 

additional costs and contended that the 

additional expense was not warranted 

because of limited environmental 

benefits. Two commenters 

commissioned a study to compare the 

level of effort and monitoring results of 

the CA LMR to the SEM requirements 

under the current NSPS (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW). The CA LMR utilizes a 

25 ft traverse pattern, an instantaneous 

as well as integrated reading, and 

prevents sampling during windy 

conditions (greater than 5 mph average 

and greater than 10 mph instantaneous). 

The study examined monitoring 

results for eight quarters of NSPS 

surface monitoring at 42 California 

landfills, encompassing 27,140 acres. 

Those results were compared to CA 

LMR surface monitoring for 10 quarters 

at 72 California landfills, including the 

42 landfills conducting NSPS surface 

monitoring, encompassing a total of 

57,151 acres. Among other observations, 

the study concludes that although the 

CA LMR surface emission monitoring 

requirements detected 2.1 percent more 

exceedances than NSPS surface 

emission monitoring requirements, 

detecting these additional exceedances 

is not cost effective. The study also 

concluded that under the NSPS 

monitoring, only one landfill was 

required to expand its GCCS, while 

under the CA LMR monitoring, only 

three landfills were required to expand 

the GCCS. The two commenters that 

commissioned the study contended that 

the additional cost to conduct enhanced 

surface monitoring, estimated by the 

EPA to be seven times more expensive 

than NSPS monitoring, was an 

extraordinary amount of money to 

spend detecting exceedances at merely 

an additional 2.8 percent of acres 

monitored, while increasing gas 

collection at only one landfill. 

The EPA examined the data 

supporting the study as provided by one 

of the commenters. The data allowed for 

direct comparison of exceedance data 

from 29 landfills, although for different 

time periods. The study and supporting 

data provide evidence of greater 

exceedances under the California 

approach than the current approach. 

However, the EPA was unable to 

determine the magnitude of emission 

reductions that might result from the 

greater exceedances under the California 

approach. See the docketed 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Analysis of 

Surface Exceedances from California 

Landfills under the New Source 

Performance Standards and the 

California Landfill Methane Rule.’’ 

Many commenters, including many 

state agencies, opposed limiting surface 

monitoring during windy conditions, 

stating that the wind restrictions would 

be a significant inhibitor to completing 

the required monitoring in many regions 

of the country due to typical windy 

conditions. Commenters also stated that 

it would be difficult to schedule and 

reschedule dedicated sampling crews 

and conditions could change quickly 

during sampling events, causing crews 

to stop monitoring. 

For proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cf, the EPA estimated the costs 

associated with both the proposed 

subpart Cf surface monitoring 

requirements (which are the same as the 

surface monitoring requirements in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW) and 

potential changes to the surface 

monitoring provisions under the 

proposed 2.5/34 option and the 

proposed 2.5/40 option and applied 

them to the set of existing landfills that 

would be subject to control 

requirements under the respective 

option. To determine the costs, the EPA 

used the following assumptions: Most 

landfills will hire a contractor to 

conduct the quarterly monitoring. The 

landfill will incur labor costs based on 

the time it takes to walk the traverse 

(hours per acre), the size of the landfill 

(acres), and a labor rate (dollars per 

hour). The landfill will also incur an 

equipment rental rate (dollars per hour) 

as well as a flat fee for purchasing 

calibration gases and hydrogen to fuel 

the equipment. Equipment rental rates 

are dollar per day/week/month, 

depending on the size of the landfill and 

time to traverse the acreage during each 

quarterly period. See the docketed 

memo, ‘‘Updated Methodology for 

Estimating Testing and Monitoring 

Costs for the MSW Landfill Regulations. 

2015,’’ which contains the details for 

determining the costs that a landfill 

would incur to conduct enhanced 

surface monitoring. 

Using the techniques discussed in 

section V.B of this preamble, the EPA 

estimated the number of landfills that 

are expected to install controls under 

the baseline, as well as the proposed 

option 2.5/34 and option 2.5/40. Then, 

the EPA applied surface monitoring 

costs to the respective set of landfills 

because landfills that must install 

controls must also conduct surface 

monitoring. Table 4 of this preamble 

compares the enhanced surface 

monitoring costs that would be incurred 

for new landfills under the baseline and 

proposed option 2.5/34 and proposed 

option 2.5/40. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF BASELINE SURFACE MONITORING VERSUS ENHANCED SURFACE MONITORING IN 2025 

Control option Surface monitoring type 

Number of 

landfills 

controlling 

Annual cost Incremental 

cost 

Total cost per 

controlled 

landfill 

Incremental 

cost per controlled landfill 

Baseline 2.5/50 (2.5 million 

Mg design capacity/50 

Mg/yr NMOC).

No change (30 meter traverse).574 6,327,000 NA 11,000 NA 

Enhanced (25-foot traverse, 

integrated sample).

........................ 43,831,000 37,504,000 76,400 65,300 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52137 

68Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, 

bioreactor means a MSW landfill or portion of a 

MSW landfill where any liquid other than leachate 

(leachate includes landfill gas condensate) is added 

in a controlled fashion into the waste mass (often 

in combination with recirculating leachate) to reach 

a minimum average moisture content of at least 40 

percent by weight to accelerate or enhance the 

anaerobic (without oxygen) biodegradation of the 

waste. 

69EPA/600/R–14/335. Permitting of Landfill 

Bioreactor Operations: Ten Years after the RD&D 

Rule. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF BASELINE SURFACE MONITORING VERSUS ENHANCED SURFACE MONITORING IN 2025— 

Continued 

Control option Surface monitoring type 

Number of 

landfills 

controlling 

Annual cost Incremental 

cost 

Total cost per 

controlled 

landfill 

Incremental 

cost per controlled landfill 

Option 2.5/40 (2.5 million 

Mg design capacity/40 

Mg/yr NMOC).

No change (30 meter traverse).636 6,741,000 414,000 10,600 700 

Enhanced (25-foot traverse, 

integrated sample).

........................ 46,746,000 40,419,000 73,500 63,600 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 (2.5 

million Mg design capacity/34 Mg/yr NMOC).

No change (30 meter traverse).680 7,062,000 735,000 10,400 1,100 

Enhanced (25-foot traverse, 

integrated sample).

........................ 49,037,000 42,710,000 72,100 62,800 

Several factors contribute to the cost 

of enhanced surface monitoring. 

Monitoring along a traverse with a 25 ft. 

interval would increase monitoring 

time, and thus the labor costs, compared 

to monitoring along a 30 meter (98 ft.) 

interval. Monitoring along the tighter 

traverse pattern would take 

approximately 4 times as long, because 

the distance is approximately 4 times 

greater. For a landfill to conduct the 

integrated surface emissions monitoring, 

the EPA assumed the landfill would 

rent a handheld portable vapor analyzer 

with a data logger. The data logger is 

necessary to obtain an integrated 

reading over a single 50,000 square foot 

grid. However, the EPA does not expect 

that requiring an integrated methane 

concentration would add significant 

cost because landfills could use the 

same instrument that they currently use 

for the instantaneous readings and these 

instruments can be programmed to 

provide an integrated value as well as 

an instantaneous value. 

The EPA recognizes that these 

provisions could reduce surface 

emissions and that these emissions 

reductions are difficult to quantify. The 

EPA also understands that there are 

potential implementation concerns with 

these enhanced procedures. Surface 

monitoring is a labor intensive process 

and tightening the grid pattern would 

increase costs. Of the 574 landfills 

expected to be controlling in 2025 under 

the baseline, it would take these 

landfills over 42 hours, on average, to 

complete each quarterly traverse 

pattern. Tightening the traverse pattern 

to 25 ft instead of 30 meters would 

require over 165 hours per quarter, or 

nearly 500 additional hours per year, 

per landfill, compared to the current 30- 

meter traverse pattern. 

At this time, the EPA is not proposing 

surface monitoring provisions that differ 

from those outlined in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW, but we are soliciting 

comment on the various elements of 

enhanced surface emissions monitoring 

(the width of the traverse pattern, 

offsetting the walking pattern each 

quarter (i.e., offset by 10 meters), an 

integrated reading of 25 ppm, and 

restrictions during windy conditions), 

as well as techniques and data to 

estimate the emission reductions 

associated with enhanced surface 

monitoring. 

C. Wet Landfills 

In the ANPRM (79 FR 41784), we 

solicited input on separate thresholds 

for wet landfills and how wet landfills 

might be defined. Among other 

concerns, we received feedback from 

commenters expressing concern on 

potential overlap between wet landfills 

handled under the Emission Guidelines 

and bioreactor landfills handled under 

40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA 

(National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills). A landfill is 

defined as a bioreactor under 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart AAAA if it has added 

liquids other than leachate into the 

waste mass in a controlled fashion; 68

such bioreactor landfills are required to 

install and operate a GCCS on an 

accelerated schedule compared to nonbioreactor landfills. Once a landfill is 

required to install and operate a GCCS 

under either 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

AAAA, or 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

WWW and Cc, the GCCS requirements 

are the same. In addition to bioreactors 

as defined under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart AAAA, the EPA is aware of 31 

bioreactor projects permitted under the 

research, development, and 

demonstration (RD&D) rule in 11 states 

and one project on tribal lands.69 These 

bioreactor landfills generally do not 

meet the 40 percent by weight moisture 

component of the bioreactor definition 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. 

Based on the options analyzed and 

presented in Table 3 of this preamble, 

proposed option 2.5/34 is estimated to 

achieve reductions of NMOC and 

methane emissions at 651 existing open 

landfills in year 2025. Of these 651 

landfills, 18 are identified as having 

RD&D permits, which permit liquids 

addition; 343 are located in areas 

receiving greater than 40 inches of 

precipitation each year; and an 

additional 16 landfills report leachate 

recirculation activities and a k value of 

0.057 year¥1 or greater to subpart HH of 

the GHGRP, but are not located in areas 

receiving 40 inches of precipitation or 

more, for a total of 377 ‘‘wet’’ landfills 

out of those required to control 

emissions. 

Collectively, reductions from these 

377 wet landfills constitute 

approximately 50 percent of the 

incremental reductions achieved by the 

proposed option 2.5/34. Nearly all of 

these incremental reductions are coming 

from the 343 landfills that are located in 

areas receiving 40 inches of 

precipitation or more. Based on this 

analysis, the NMOC threshold of 

34 Mg/yr in this proposal achieves 

significant reduction in emissions from 

wet landfills. 

The EPA conducted a preliminary 

analysis to determine the additional 

reductions that could be achieved if the 

initial lag time was shortened by 1 year 

and the expansion lag time was 

shortened by 2 years and applied to 

open wet landfills in addition to the 

lower NMOC emission threshold of 34 

Mg/yr. The results of this analysis show 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52138 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

70Barlaz, Morton et al., Performance of North 

American Bioreactor Landfills II: Chemical and 

Biological Characteristics. Journal of Environmental 

Engineering. Volume 136, No. 8. August 2010. 

71 Xiaoming Wang et al., Using Observed Data to 

Improve Estimated Methane Collection From Select 

U.S. Landfills, Environ. Sci. Technol. 3251, 3256 

(2013). 

72Hamid R. Amini et al., Comparison of FirstOrder Decay Modeled and Actual Field Measured 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Methane Data, 33 

Waste Management 2720, 2725 (2013). 

73Barlaz et al., Controls on Landfill Gas 

Collection Efficiency: Instantaneous and Lifetime 

Performance 59 J. Air & Waste Mgmt. Ass’n 1399, 

1402–03 (Dec. 2009). 

74U.S. EPA AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, 

Chapter 2, Draft Section 2.4: Solid Waste Disposal 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/

d02s04.pdf. 

75Staley, B.F. and M.A. Barlaz, 2009, 

‘‘Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. 

and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and 

Methane Yield,’’ Journal of Environmental 

Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 10, October 1, 2009. 

76U.S. EPA, Landfill Bioreactor Performance, 

Second Interim Report; EPN600/R–07/060, Office of 

Research and Development, National Risk 

Management Laboratory: Cincinnati, OH, 2006. 

77Tolaymat, T.M., Green, R.B., Hater, G.R., 

Barlaz, M.A., Black, P., Bronston, D., and J. Powell, 

‘‘Evaluation of Landfill Gas Decay Constant for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Operated as 

Bioreactors.’’ Submitted to the Journal of the Air & 

Waste Management Association. 2009. 

that an additional approximately 220 

Mg/yr of reductions in NMOC emissions 

and 35,200 Mg/yr of reductions in 

methane (879,000 mtCO2e/yr) could be 

achieved from these 377 wet landfills in 

2025. 

It is important to note that the impacts 

of the options in Table 3 as well as this 

preliminary analysis of wet landfills 

were conducted using a k value of 0.04 

for any landfill that is located in an area 

with at least 25 inches of rainfall, 

consistent with the analysis discussed at 

79 FR 41805. This modeling parameter 

was used for all but nine of the 377 wet 

landfills discussed above. Those nine 

landfills, which are either RD&D 

landfills or reported significant leachate 

recirculation to subpart HH of the 

GHGRP were modeled using a k value 

of 0.02 because they were located in 

arid areas. 

The results of the impacts analyses 

presented in Table 3 of this preamble 

and above could differ significantly if 

alternative modeling parameters (k and/ 

or Lo) were used to model emissions 

from this group of wet landfills. For 

example, subpart HH of the GHGRP uses 

a k value of 0.057 for landfills that 

exceed 40 inches per year when 

considering both leachate recirculation 

and precipitation. The EPA also 

identified a study containing alternative 

k values for five different bioreactor 

landfills.70 One commenter urged the 

EPA to consider more representative k 

values when calculating emission 

reductions from wet landfills, and cited 

several studies for EPA review.71 72 73

This commenter also requested that the 

EPA adopt shorter lag times for these 

wet landfills. Another commenter urged 

the EPA to finalize the changes 

proposed in 2009 to AP–42 emission 

factors for MSW landfills, which 

included a much higher k value of 0.3 

for wet landfills, among other 

changes.74 Another commenter 

provided input that leachate 

recirculation will have negligible impact 

on the total precipitation value that 

ultimately dictates which k value to use. 

This commenter also referenced its prior 

comments expressing concerns that the 

draft AP–42 k value for wet landfills 

was too high, and provided several 

studies containing alternative k values 

for wet landfills.75 76 77

Given the additional emission 

reductions that could be achieved from 

shortening the lag times at wet landfills 

and in consideration of the President’s 

Methane Strategy, the EPA is soliciting 

input on whether the wet landfills not 

subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart AAAA should be 

subject to different schedules for 

installing and expanding their GCCS 

under the Emission Guidelines. 

Additionally, the EPA requests 

comment on how these wet landfills 

that are not bioreactors (as defined in 

subpart AAAA) might be defined. 

Finally, recognizing the wide range of k 

values used to model emissions at wet 

landfills (0.057 to 0.3), the EPA requests 

comment and data to support revising 

the k value used for assessing the 

impacts on wet landfills, as well as the 

k value landfills should use in Tier 1 

and Tier 2 emission threshold 

determinations. The EPA also requests 

comment on whether revisions to the k 

value for wet landfills would require 

changes to the Lo modeling parameter 

for wet landfills. 

D. Monitoring Wellhead Flowrate 

Based on comments received and 

discussed in section VI.B of this 

preamble, as well as the proposal to 

eliminate the operating standards for 

oxygen/nitrogen and temperature, the 

EPA is requesting input on whether it 

should add a requirement to monitor 

wellhead flowrate to help ensure a welloperated GCCS. Monitoring wellhead 

flow rate would allow the landfill owner 

or operator to detect low gas flow and 

whether a well is waterlogged, clogged, 

or pinched. The EPA is also requesting 

comment on any other wellhead 

monitoring parameters that would help 

ensure a well-operated GCCS. 

E. Third-Party Design Plan Certification 

Program 

In the ANPRM for existing landfills 

(79 FR 41784, July 17, 2014), the EPA 

solicited input on the possibility of 

establishing a third-party design plan 

certification program and provided 

examples of several rules and programs 

with third-party verification 

components. The third-party program 

would supplement or replace the 

current approach of requiring EPA or 

state review and approval of sitespecific design plans and plan revisions 

with a program whereby independent 

third parties would review the design 

plans, determine whether they conform 

to applicable regulatory criteria, and 

report their findings to the approved 

state programs or the EPA (for states 

without approved programs). The 

process of approving site-specific design 

plans and plan revisions can be 

extremely resource-intensive for 

regulators and regulated entities alike. 

The EPA believes modifying the 

regulations to provide for the review 

and approval of the plans by competent 

and independent third parties could 

reduce these burdens. Such an 

independent program would need to be 

designed to ensure that, among other 

things, the third parties are competent, 

accurate, independent, and 

appropriately accredited. The program 

would also need to ensure that the 

reviews are thorough, independent, and 

conducted pursuant to clear and 

objective design plan review criteria. 

Finally, the program would need to 

ensure that the system is transparent, 

including requiring appropriate public 

disclosures, and that there is regular and 

effective oversight of the third-party 

system. Some criteria for auditor 

competence, independence, reporting, 

and oversight requirements provisions 

might include the following: 

• Engaging a third-party inspection 

team (team) and submitting the 

members’ resumes and qualifications to 

EPA; 

• Requiring the team to have at least 

one person with landfill industry 

expertise acceptable to the EPA, one 

expert in environmental compliance 

auditing, and one expert in chemical 

process safety management; 

• Restricting team members to those 

who have not previously performed 

work for the respondents; 

• Restricting team members from 

working for the respondents or any of 

the respondents’ officers for 5 years after 

completion of inspections; 

• After giving the respondents notice 

of the first upcoming inspection, 

restricting the team from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52139 

78Lesley K. McAllister, Regulation by Third-Party 

Verification, 53 Boston C. L Rev. 1, 21–26 (Jan. 

2012). 

communicating with its respondents 

unless EPA is copied on the 

communication (communications 

during on-site inspections are excepted); 

• Unannounced follow-up 

inspections with no notice to 

respondents but advance notice to the 

EPA; 

• Restricting respondents from having 

control over the timing of any of the 

follow-up inspections; 

• Having the EPA or the delegated 

authority retain the right to accompany 

the team on any inspection; 

• Within 15 days of each inspection, 

requiring the team to simultaneously 

submit to the EPA and the respondents 

an inspection report, photographs, and 

digital video of the inspection; 

• Denying the opportunity to review 

any draft or final inspection report 

before its submittal. 

The EPA developed the above 

provisions based on the theoretical and 

empirical research for best practices for 

independent third-party audits. 

Commenters on the ANPRM generally 

did not support a third-party design 

plan certification program and cited 

several reasons. Commenters noted that 

the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) discussion of 

the program was overly general and that 

the EPA did not adequately describe the 

possible design features. One 

commenter expressed concerns that the 

examples of third-party certification 

presented in the ANPRM are neither 

comparable nor relevant to the review of 

MSW landfill GCCS design plans. One 

commenter acknowledged that a thirdparty reviewer system could reduce the 

burden and backlog experienced by 

reviewing agencies, but expressed 

concern that the costs of verification 

would be significant. Another 

commenter indicated the EPA did not 

present any economic and 

implementation impacts concerning 

such a program in the ANPRM and 

requested that EPA provide more 

details. Commenters also expressed 

concern about finding consultants that 

would be free of conflicts of interest 

given the consolidated nature of the 

MSW landfill industry. One commenter 

noted that cost and potential conflicts of 

interest were cited as reasons that the 

EPA did not adopt a third-party 

certification program for the GHGRP. 

Another commenter agreed that there 

was the potential for conflicts of interest 

and stated that design plan review is an 

essential government oversight and 

should not be delegated. Commenters 

also urged the EPA to thoroughly review 

the many issues that could arise with a 

third-party certification program and 

urged the EPA to take further notice and 

comment before promulgating such a 

program. 

Several commenters on the ANPRM 

(79 FR 41772) solicited additional 

details on components of a proposed 

third-party certification program, and 

the EPA is providing further details in 

this proposal. In this document, the EPA 

is also seeking additional input on the 

possibility of establishing a third-party 

design certification program. This 

preamble discussion provides notice of 

the key features the EPA is considering 

in such a program to ensure the integrity 

of such a program, including the use of 

effective auditors and audits. See the 

docketed memorandum ‘‘Using ThirdParty Audits to Improve Compliance’’ 

for additional specificity regarding such 

third-party design features with 

supporting studies, articles, and reports. 

1. Definition and Characteristics of 

Independent Third-Party Compliance 

Verification 

Third-party compliance verification 

occurs when an independent third party 

verifies to a regulator that a regulated 

entity is meeting or conforming to one 

or more compliance obligations (in the 

literature and other regulations, the 

terms ‘‘certifier,’’ ‘‘auditor,’’ or 

‘‘inspector’’ are also used to describe 

such verifiers). Independent third-party 

programs are distinct from programs 

whereby regulated sources employ 

contractors or consultants, even if they 

are separate legal entities from the 

regulated facilities and are highly 

qualified. When contractors or 

consultants report to facilities directly, 

have other non-audit business or 

relationships with the facilities, and/or 

the facilities are able to control or 

influence the audit reports’ form and/or 

content, this is not independent thirdparty verification but rather enhanced 

self-auditing. 

2. Third-Party Audit Program 

Considerations and Characteristics 

Based on careful review of the 

literature,78 the EPA believes 

independent third-party programs can 

be effective, but only if properly 

designed and overseen. The most 

critical considerations in designing 

successful third-party auditing programs 

are building in provisions and 

procedures for ensuring auditors are 

competent and independent. The EPA 

seeks comment on the suitability of an 

independent third-party verification 

program for landfills that includes the 

following design elements to ensure its 

effectiveness and integrity: The use of 

competent and independent auditors; 

accurate audits; public transparency; 

and effective regulatory oversight. See 

also the docketed memorandum ‘‘Using 

Third-Party Audits to Improve 

Compliance’’ for a review of additional 

design features the EPA is considering 

and more detailed information on the 

features listed below: 

a. A requirement that the auditing 

(verifying) firm, including any corporate 

parent and/or subsidiaries and the 

actual persons responsible for the audit, 

neither have had any prior business or 

family relationship with the firm being 

audited in the past five years, nor have 

worked on the development or 

implementation of the project/process 

subject to the audit. 

b. A requirement that the auditing 

firm (including its corporate parent and/ 

or subsidiaries, if any) is prohibited 

from engaging in any business 

transactions with the firm it is auditing 

for at least five years after the audit is 

completed. 

c. A requirement that the verifying 

entity and the specific auditors hold 

appropriate professional and 

educational credentials issued by either 

the government entity that would 

otherwise review the plan or an 

independent professional organization 

(accreditation board) neither funded nor 

associated with the regulated sector. 

d. A requirement that the auditing 

firm share all drafts and the final 

version of its audits with the 

government entity before, or at the same 

time, as it shares them with the 

regulated entity. 

e. A requirement that appropriate 

auditing standards and protocols be 

spelled out, including, if possible, by 

reference to identified standards 

established by outside entities, e.g., 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), 

ASTM International (ASTM), etc. 

f. A requirement that audit reports, 

including names of key persons 

involved in the audits, be made 

accessible to the public subject to 

protecting confidential business 

information (CBI) and national security 

information 

g. Requirements to ensure that the 

verifying firms operate with integrity, 

competence, and independence and that 

the regulator audit, i.e., review or 

‘‘backcheck,’’ including some number of 

on-site inspections, a significant 

percentage (e.g., 10 percent) of the 

auditing firms and their audit reports. 

The EPA is requesting comments 

regarding the appropriate professional 

and educational credentials 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52140 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

79Press Release: http://yosemite.epa.gov/OPA/

ADMPRESS.NSF/d0cf6618525a9efb8525

7359003fb69d/15519081fbf4002285257d

8500477615!OpenDocument; Detailed settlement 

info.: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/hyundaiand-kia-clean-air-act-settlement; Consent Decree: 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 

11/documents/hyundai-kia-cd.pdf. 

80 Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety, 

March 2007. CCPS. http://www.aiche.org/ccps/

resources/publications/books/guidelines-risk-basedprocess-safety. 

81Administrative Conference of the United States 

(ACUS); Administrative Conference 

Recommendation 2012–7; Agency Use of ThirdParty Programs to Assess Regulatory Compliance 

(Adopted December 6, 2012) at 3–4. https://

www.acus.gov/recommendation/agency-use-thirdparty-programs-assess-regulatory-compliance. 

82Lesley K. McAllister, Regulation by Third-Party 

Verification, 53 Boston C. L Rev. 1, 21–26 (Jan. 

2012). 

requirements for auditors. For example, 

should auditors be licensed professional 

engineers? In addition based upon 

comments received, the EPA also 

requests information concerning the 

costs associated with third-party 

certification design plans. 

The EPA is also considering defining 

more specifically what it means for an 

auditor to be independent, i.e., what 

potential conflicts of interest such as 

being employees of parent company, 

affiliates, or vendors/contractors that are 

currently working in the landfill 

industry, could exclude an auditor from 

qualifying as independent. Criteria for, 

and research on, competence and 

independence are discussed further 

below. 

The EPA is also considering allowing 

a person at the facility who is a 

registered professional engineer to 

conduct the audit at the facility, i.e., 

first party/self-auditing, instead of 

requiring independent third-party 

audits. If self-auditing is authorized, the 

EPA seeks comment on how best to 

structure it to maximize auditor 

independence and accurate auditing 

outcomes. Under the U.S. CARB v. 

Hyundai Motor Company, et al. consent 

decree, for example, until the consent 

decrees corrective measures are fully 

implemented, the defendants must audit 

their fleets to ensure that vehicles sold 

to the public conform to the vehicles’ 

certification. The consent decree 

provides that the audit team will be in 

the United States, will be independent 

from the group that performed the 

original certification work, and must 

perform their audits without access to or 

knowledge of the defendants’ original 

certification test data, which the consent 

decree-required audits are intended to 

backcheck.79 The EPA seeks comment 

as to whether similar restrictions should 

be placed on any self-auditing 

conducted under the MSW landfills 

Emission Guidelines. 

As another alternative approach, the 

EPA could require auditors to have 

accreditation by a recognized 

accrediting body. Several of the 

examples that have already been 

provided of existing or proposed federal 

or state independent third-party 

auditing programs in rules use this 

approach. The EPA thus seeks comment 

on whether third-party auditors should 

be required to receive accreditation by 

a recognized accrediting body. The EPA 

also seeks comment on the standards 

such accrediting bodies should be 

required to meet, e.g., International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO)/ 

IEC 17011:2004(E), Conformity 

Assessments—General Requirements for 

Accreditation Bodies Accrediting 

Conformity Assessments Bodies (First 

Edition). 

There are advantages to third-party 

auditing, particularly with strong 

auditor competence and independence 

criteria. According to the Center for 

Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 

‘‘Third-party auditors (typically, 

consulting companies who can provide 

experienced auditors) potentially 

provide the highest degree of 

objectivity.’’ 80 The Administrative 

Conference of the United States (ACUS), 

in its Recommendation on Agency Use 

of Third-Party Programs to Assess 

Regulatory Compliance (December 6, 

2012), found that, when well-designed 

and implemented per the 

Recommendation, ‘‘[s]everal broad 

reasons support the growing use of 

third-party programs in federal 

regulation.’’ Specifically, ACUS found 

that ‘‘. . . federal regulatory agencies 

are faced with assuring the compliance 

of an increasing number of entities and 

products without a corresponding 

growth in agency resources. Third-party 

programs may leverage private resources 

and expertise in ways that make 

regulation more effective and less 

costly. In comparison with other 

regulatory approaches, third-party 

programs may also enable more frequent 

compliance assessment and more 

complete and reliable compliance 

data’’ 81 A leading scholar on regulatory 

third-party programs likewise found 

that, when well-designed and 

implemented, ‘‘third-party verification 

could furnish more and better data 

about regulatory compliance’’ while 

providing additional compliance and 

resource savings benefits.82

All independent third-party 

compliance verification programs 

establish criteria and standards for 

auditor competence. Typically, such 

criteria and standards combine specified 

minimum levels of education, 

knowledge, experience, and training. 

Auditors should be knowledgeable and 

experienced with the facility type and 

processes being audited. The applicable 

recognized and generally accepted good 

engineering practices, trained or 

certified in proper third-party auditing 

techniques, and licensed professional 

engineers should be employed where 

appropriate. The EPA seeks comment on 

whether these criteria are appropriate 

and sufficient to ensure that auditors are 

competent to perform high-quality 

auditing. 

3. Public Disclosure/Transparency 

It is EPA policy that both the 

government and the public have 

appropriate access to information about 

regulated entities and their compliance 

status. This includes relevant 

information on the operation of any 

independent third-party programs. The 

EPA seeks comment on what 

information associated with such a 

program for landfills should be publicly 

disclosed and how to disclose it. 

4. E-Reporting of Audit Reports and 

Certifications 

Pursuant to EPA’s Policy Statement 

on E-Reporting in EPA Regulations 

(September 30, 2013), ‘‘[t]he Policy of 

the [EPA] is to [b]egin the regulatory 

development process with the 

assumption that all reporting will be 

electronic, unless there is a compelling 

reason to use paper reporting. 

Consistent with that policy, the EPA is 

requesting comment on requiring 

independent third-party auditors to 

provide their audit reports and 

associated certification statements (see 

discussion below) to EPA electronically 

and seeks comment on how to best 

design the e-reporting system to 

facilitate its use by the regulated 

facilities and third-party auditors. 

5. Facility and Third-Party Auditor 

Certification Statements 

EPA’s experience shows that 

requiring a responsible corporate or 

third-party official to attest to selfmonitoring, reporting, and third-party 

auditing can help ensure that 

appropriate officials are personally 

familiar with the reported information 

and reminds them of the penalties 

associated with knowingly submitting 

false information. The EPA intends to 

require such language for any thirdparty audit reports under these emission 

guidelines and requests comment on its 

wording. The EPA also requests 

comment on whether the Agency 

should, for this rule, require regulated 

facilities and/or third-party auditors to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52141 

83EPA, Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS), http:// 

www.epa.gov/OTAQ/fuels/renewablefuels/. 

84EPA, Wood Heater Compliance Monitoring 

Program, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/

2015/03/16/2015-03733/standards-of-performancefor-new-residential-wood-heaters-new-residentialhydronic-heaters-and. 

publicly post their certifications to their 

qualifications to conduct the audit and/ 

or the accuracy and completeness of the 

audit reports. 

6. Examples of Independent Third-Party 

Programs in Other Rules 

Third-party audits or other forms of 

compliance verification are also 

required by a variety of final or 

proposed EPA programs to promote 

compliance with regulatory standards. 

Examples of proposed or final federal 

environmental regulatory programs with 

built-in third-party verification include 

the following rules and rulemakings: 

• EPA CAA Renewable Fuel Standard 

(RFS) program: The RFS regulations 

include requirements for obligated 

parties to: (1) Meet annual attest 

engagement requirements using 

independent certified public 

accountants (the purpose of attest 

engagements is to provide regulated 

parties an independent review of their 

compliance with both the fuels 

requirements themselves as well as the 

regulated party’s internal systems to 

monitor and document compliance); (2) 

submit independent third-party 

engineering reviews to the EPA before 

generating Renewable Identification 

Numbers.83

• EPA CAA wood stoves rule: 

Residential wood heaters (which 

include stoves) contribute significantly 

to particulate air pollution. Wood stove 

model lines that are in compliance with 

the wood stoves rule are referred to as 

EPA-certified wood stoves. The EPA’s 

certification process requires 

manufacturers to verify that each of 

their wood stove model lines meet a 

specific particulate emission limit by 

undergoing emission testing at an EPAaccredited laboratory.84

F. Use of Portable Analyzers for 

Monitoring Oxygen 

In the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796), 

as well as 40 CFR 60.37f(a)(2) of the 

proposed Emission Guidelines, landfill 

owners or operators must use Method 

3A or Method 3C when monitoring the 

oxygen and nitrogen levels at the 

wellhead, unless an alternative test 

method is established. Several 

commenters on the proposed NSPS 

requested that the EPA specify that 

portable gas composition analyzers are 

an acceptable alternative to Methods 3A 

or 3C, and noted that these devices are 

commonly used in practice to measure 

wellhead parameters and calibrated 

according to the manufacturer’s 

specifications. Currently, approval of 

these analyzers are done on a case-bycase basis. In proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf, the EPA has not listed 

portable gas composition analyzers for 

determining oxygen or nitrogen levels. 

The EPA did not receive any data 

supporting these comments as to why 

the analyzers could not be calibrated 

according to Method 3A and maintains 

that proper calibration of portable gas 

composition analyzers is important for 

generating accurate results. The EPA is 

requesting data or information on the 

use of a portable gas composition 

analyzer according to Method 3A. The 

EPA is also requesting data on other 

reference methods used for calibrating 

these analyzers. 

XI. Impacts of Proposed Revisions 

For most Emission Guidelines, the 

EPA analyzes the impacts in the year 

the standard is implemented. Assuming 

the Emission Guidelines are 

promulgated in the summer of 2016, 

states have 9 months to prepare a state 

plan implementing the guidelines 

(March 2017) and the EPA has 4 months 

to review the plan (July 2017). If 

necessary, the state has an additional 2 

months to revise and submit a corrected 

plan based on any comments from the 

EPA (September 2017). Concurrently, 

the EPA must promulgate a federal plan 

within 6 months after the state plan is 

due, consistent with 60.27(d), or March 

2018. So, the EPA-approved state plan 

and updated federal plan implementing 

the Emission Guidelines are expected to 

become effective in March 2018. While 

2018 is the estimated implementation 

year, the proposed reporting and control 

timeframe allows 3 months to submit 

the first NMOC emission report and 

then 30 months after exceeding the 

NMOC emission threshold before the 

GCCS is required to be installed. So, the 

first year of controls under the proposed 

revisions would be 2021. 

The EPA is assessing impacts in year 

2025 as a representative year for the 

landfills Emission Guidelines. While the 

year 2025 differs somewhat from the 

expected first year of implementation 

for the Emission Guidelines (year 2018), 

the number of existing landfills required 

to install controls under the proposed 

2.5/34 option in year 2025 is 

comparable (within 2 percent of those 

required to control in the estimated first 

year of implementation. Further, year 

2025 represents a year in which several 

of the landfills subject to control 

requirements have had to expand their 

GCCS according the expansion lag times 

set forth in proposed subpart Cf. The 

methodology for estimating the impacts 

of the Emission Guidelines is discussed 

in section V.B of this preamble and in 

the docketed memorandum ‘‘Revised 

Methodology for Cost and Emission 

Impacts of Landfill Regulations (2015).’’ 

The results of applying this 

methodology to the population of 

existing landfills potentially subject to 

each of the regulatory options are in the 

docketed memorandum ‘‘Revised Cost 

and Emission Impacts Resulting from 

the Landfill EG Review (2015).’’ Table 3 

of this preamble summarizes the 

emission reductions and costs 

associated with the control options 

considered. 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

This proposal would achieve nearly 

an additional 5 percent reduction in 

NMOC from existing landfills, or 2,770 

Mg/yr, when compared to the baseline, 

as shown in Table 5 of this preamble. 

The proposal would also achieve 

substantial reductions in methane 

emissions. These reductions are 

achieved by reducing the NMOC 

threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr as 

proposed at open landfills. 

TABLE 5—EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN 2025 FOR EXISTING LANDFILLS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CONTROLS UNDER

PROPOSED OPTION 2.5/34 

Parameter Quantity 

Baseline NMOC Emission Reductions(Mg) a ............................................................................................................................. 57,300. 

Proposed Incremental NMOC Emission Reductions (Mg) ......................................................................................................... 2,770. 

Baseline Methane Emission Reductions (Mg) a ......................................................................................................................... 9,035,000. 

Proposed Incremental Methane Emission Reductions (Mg) ..................................................................................................... 436,100. 

Baseline Methane Emission Reductions (million mtCO2e) a ...................................................................................................... 226. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52142 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN 2025 FOR EXISTING LANDFILLS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CONTROLS UNDER

PROPOSED OPTION 2.5/34—Continued 

Parameter Quantity 

Proposed Incremental Methane Emission Reductions (million mtCO2e) .................................................................................. 10.9. 

% Emission Reduction from Proposal ....................................................................................................................................... 5% below baseline. 

a These are the reductions that would be achieved from existing landfills if 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf retained the same gas collection and 

control requirements that are in 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc. 

B. What are the water quality and solid 

waste impacts? 

Leachate is the liquid that passes 

through the landfilled waste and strips 

contaminants from the waste as the 

leachate percolates. Precipitation 

generates the vast majority of leachate 

volume. Installation of a gas collection 

system will generate additional liquid, 

in the form of gas condensate, and it 

will be routed to the same leachate 

treatment mechanisms in place for 

controlling precipitation-based leachate. 

Collected leachate can be treated on site 

or transported off site to wastewater 

treatment facilities. Some landfills have 

received permits allowing for 

recirculation of leachate in the landfill, 

which may further reduce the volume of 

leachate requiring treatment. Additional 

liquid generated from gas condensate is 

not expected to be significant and 

insufficient data are available to 

estimate the increases in leachate 

resulting from expanded gas collection 

and control requirements. 

The additional GCCS components 

required by this proposal have finite 

lifetimes (approximately 15 years) and 

these pipes and wells will be capped or 

disposed of at the end of their useful 

life. There are insufficient data to 

quantify the solid waste resulting from 

disposal of this control infrastructure. 

Further, the incremental costs of 

control for the proposal are not expected 

to have an appreciable market effect on 

the waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or 

the amount of solid waste disposed in 

landfills because the costs for gas 

collection represent a small portion of 

the overall costs to design, construct, 

and operate a landfill. There is 

insufficient information to quantify the 

effect increased gas control costs might 

have on the amount of solid waste 

disposed of in landfills versus other 

disposal mechanisms such as recycling, 

waste-to-energy, or composting. Note 

that elements of this proposed rule— 

notably lowering the NMOC threshold 

to 34 Mg/yr—provide additional 

incentives to separate waste. 

C. What are the secondary air impacts? 

Secondary air impacts may include 

grid emissions from purchasing 

electricity to operate the GCCS 

components, by-product emissions from 

combustion of LFG in flares or energy 

recovery devices, and offsets to 

conventional grid emissions from new 

LFG energy supply. 

The secondary air impacts are 

presented as net impacts, considering 

both the energy demand and energy 

supply resulting from the proposal. The 

methodology used to prepare the 

estimated secondary impacts for this 

preamble is discussed in the docketed 

memorandum ‘‘Estimating Secondary 

Impacts of the Landfills Emission 

Guidelines Review. 2015.’’ 

While we do expect NOX and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emission changes as a 

result of these guidelines, we expect 

these changes to be small and these 

changes have not been estimated. The 

net impacts were computed for CO2e. 

After considering the offsets from LFG 

electricity, the impacts of the proposal 

are expected to reduce CO2 emissions by 

238,000 metric tons per year. These CO2

emission reductions are in addition to 

the methane emission reductions 

achieved from the direct destruction of 

methane in flares or engines presented 

in Table 3 of this preamble. 

D. What are the energy impacts? 

The proposal is expected to have a 

very minimal impact on energy supply 

and consumption. Active gas collection 

systems require energy to operate the 

blowers and pumps and the proposal 

will increase the volume of landfill gas 

collected. When the least cost control is 

a flare, energy may be purchased from 

the grid to operate the blowers of the 

landfill gas collection system. However, 

when the least cost control option is an 

engine, the engine may provide this 

energy to the gas control system and 

then sell the excess to the grid. 

Considering the balance of energy 

generated and demanded from the 

estimated least cost controls, the 

proposal is estimated to supply 0.4 

million megawatt hours (MWh) of 

additional energy per year. 

E. What are the cost impacts? 

To meet the proposed control 

requirements, a landfill is expected to 

install the least cost control for 

combusting the landfill gas. The cost 

estimates (described in sections V of 

this preamble) evaluated each landfill to 

determine whether a gas collection and 

flare or a gas collection with flare and 

engine equipment would be least cost, 

after considering local power buyback 

rates and whether the quantity of 

landfill gas was sufficient to generate 

electricity. The control costs include the 

costs to install and operate gas 

collection infrastructure such as wells, 

header pipes, blowers, and an enclosed 

flare. For landfills where the least cost 

control option was an engine, the costs 

also include the cost to install and 

operate one or more reciprocating 

internal combustion engines to convert 

the landfill gas into electricity. Revenue 

from electricity sales was incorporated 

into the net control costs using statespecific data on wholesale purchase 

prices, where engines were deemed to 

be the least cost control option. Testing 

and monitoring costs at controlled 

landfills include the cost to conduct 

initial performance tests on the enclosed 

flare or engine control equipment, 

quarterly surface monitoring, 

continuous combustion monitoring, and 

monthly wellhead monitoring. At 

uncontrolled landfills, the testing and 

monitoring costs include calculation 

and reporting of NMOC emission rates. 

The nationwide incremental 

annualized net cost for the proposal is 

$46.8 million, when using a 7 percent 

discount rate, of which $0.7 million is 

testing and monitoring costs. Table 6 of 

this preamble presents the costs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52143 

85Previous analyses have commonly referred to 

the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions as the 

social cost of carbon or SCC. To more easily 

facilitate the inclusion of non-CO2 GHGs in the 

discussion and analysis the more specific SC-CO2

nomenclature is used to refer to the social cost of 

CO2 emissions. 

86Both the 2010 SC-CO2 TSD and the current TSD 

are available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

oira/social-cost-of-carbon. 

TABLE 6—INCREMENTAL COST IMPACTS IN 2025 FOR EXISTING LANDFILLS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CONTROLS UNDER

THE PROPOSAL

Option 

Total number 

of landfills 

incurring cost a

Annualized 

control cost 

Average 

annualized 

revenue 

Average 

annualized 

testing and 

monitoring 

cost 

Average 

net total 

annualized 

cost 

Total Costs of Baseline ($2012) 

Baseline 2.5/50 (2.5 million Mg design capacity/50 Mg/yr 

NMOC) ............................................................................. 785 1,700 1,408 7.3 299 

Incremental Costs Above Baseline ($2012) 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 (2.5 million Mg design capacity/34 

Mg/yr NMOC) ................................................................... 0 101 55.3 0.7 46.8 

aAt the baseline, 574 of the landfills are controlling in 2025 and an additional 211 landfills are expected to submit NMOC emission reports, but 

are not yet controlling for a total of 785. In the proposed option, the total landfills incurring cost are also 785, but the proposal is estimated to require controls at 680 landfills and the remaining 105 landfills are expected to submit NMOC emission reports, but are not yet controlling. 

F. What are the economic impacts? 

Because of the relatively low net cost 

of the proposed option compared to the 

overall size of the MSW industry, as 

well as the lack of appropriate economic 

parameters or model, the EPA is unable 

to estimate the impacts of the options on 

the supply and demand for MSW 

landfill services. However, because of 

the relatively low incremental costs of 

the proposal, the EPA does not believe 

the proposal would lead to substantial 

changes in supply and demand for 

landfill services or waste disposal costs, 

tipping fees, or the amount of waste 

disposed in landfills. Hence, the overall 

economic impact of the proposal should 

be minimal on the affected industries 

and their consumers. 

G. What are the benefits? 

The proposal is expected to result in 

significant emissions reductions from 

existing MSW landfills. By lowering the 

NMOC emissions threshold to 34 Mg/yr, 

the proposal would achieve reductions 

of 2,770 Mg/yr NMOC and 436,100 Mg/ 

yr methane (10.9 million mtCO2e/yr). In 

addition, the proposal is expected to 

result in the net reduction of 238,000 

Mg CO2, due to reduced demand for 

electricity from the grid as landfills 

generate electricity from landfill gas. 

This rule is expected to result in 

significant health and welfare benefits 

resulting from the climate benefits due 

to anticipated methane and CO2

reductions. Methane is a potent GHG 

that, once emitted into the atmosphere, 

absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation that 

contributes to increased global warming 

and continuing climate change. 

Methane reacts in the atmosphere to 

form tropospheric ozone and 

stratospheric water vapor, both of which 

also contribute to global warming. When 

accounting for the impacts of changing 

methane, tropospheric ozone, and 

stratospheric water vapor 

concentrations, the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th 

Assessment Report (2013) found that 

historical emissions of methane 

accounted for about 30 percent of the 

total current warming influence 

(radiative forcing) due to historical 

emissions of greenhouse gases. Methane 

is therefore a major contributor to the 

climate change impacts described in 

section III.B of this preamble. The 

remainder of this section discusses the 

methane reductions expected from this 

proposed rule and the associated 

monetized benefits. 

As discussed in section IV of this 

preamble, this rulemaking proposes 

several changes to the Emission 

Guidelines for MSW landfills that 

would decrease methane emissions from 

this sector. Specifically, the proposed 

changes are expected to reduce methane 

emissions from all landfills annually by 

about 436,100 metric tons of methane. 

We estimate the global social benefits 

of these methane emission reductions 

using estimates of the social cost of 

methane (SC-CH4), a metric that 

estimates the monetary value of impacts 

associated with marginal changes in 

methane emissions in a given year. The 

SC-CH4 estimates applied in this 

analysis were developed by Marten et 

al. (2014) and are discussed in greater 

detail below. 

A similar metric, the social cost of 

CO2 (SC-CO2), provides important 

context for understanding the Marten et 

al. SC-CH4 estimates.85 The SC-CO2 is a 

metric that estimates the monetary value 

of impacts associated with marginal 

changes in CO2 emissions in a given 

year. It includes a wide range of 

anticipated climate impacts, such as net 

changes in agricultural productivity and 

human health, property damage from 

increased flood risk, and changes in 

energy system costs, such as reduced 

costs for heating and increased costs for 

air conditioning. Estimates of the SCCO2 have been used by the EPA and 

other federal agencies to value the 

impacts of CO2 emissions changes in 

benefit cost analysis for GHG-related 

rulemakings since 2008. 

The SC-CO2 estimates were developed 

over many years, using the best science 

available, and with input from the 

public. Specifically, an interagency 

working group (IWG) that included the 

EPA and other executive branch 

agencies and offices used three 

integrated assessment models (IAMs) to 

develop the SC-CO2 estimates and 

recommended four global values for use 

in regulatory analyses. The SC-CO2

estimates were first released in February 

2010 and updated in 2013 using new 

versions of each IAM. 

The 2010 SC-CO2 Technical Support 

Document (TSD) provides a complete 

discussion of the methods used to 

develop these estimates and the current 

SC-CO2 TSD presents and discusses the 

2013 update (including recent minor 

technical corrections to the estimates).86

The SC-CO2 TSDs discuss a number of 

limitations to the SC-CO2 analysis, 

including the incomplete way in which 

the IAMs capture catastrophic and noncatastrophic impacts, their incomplete 

treatment of adaptation and 

technological change, uncertainty in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52144 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

87U.S. EPA. 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Final New Source Performance Standards and 

Amendments to the National Emissions Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Oil and Natural 

Gas Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts 

Division. April. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/

regdata/RIAs/oil_natural_gas_final_neshap_nsps_

ria.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

88See Waldhoff et al (2011); Marten and Newbold 

(2012); and Marten et al. (2014). 

89Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. 

Newbold & A. Wolverton (2014). Incremental CH4

and N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the 

U.S. Government’s SC-CO2 estimates, Climate 

Policy, DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2014.912981. 

extrapolation of damages to high 

temperatures, and assumptions 

regarding risk aversion. Current IAMs 

do not assign value to all of the 

important physical, ecological, and 

economic impacts of climate change 

recognized in the climate change 

literature due to a lack of precise 

information on the nature of damages 

and because the science incorporated 

into these models understandably lags 

behind the most recent research. 

Nonetheless, these estimates and the 

discussion of their limitations represent 

the best available information about the 

social benefits of CO2 reductions to 

inform benefit-cost analysis. The EPA 

and other agencies continue to engage in 

research on modeling and valuation of 

climate impacts with the goal to 

improve these estimates, and continue 

to consider feedback on the SC-CO2

estimates from stakeholders through a 

range of channels, including public 

comments received on Agency 

rulemakings, a separate recent OMB 

public comment solicitation, and 

through regular interactions with 

stakeholders and research analysts 

implementing the SC-CO2 methodology. 

See the docketed Regulatory Impacts 

Analysis (RIA) for additional details. 

A challenge particularly relevant to 

this proposal is that the IWG did not 

estimate the social costs of non-CO2

GHG emissions at the time the SC-CO2

estimates were developed. In addition, 

the directly modeled estimates of the 

social costs of non-CO2 GHG emissions 

previously found in the published 

literature were few in number and 

varied considerably in terms of the 

models and input assumptions they 

employed 87 (EPA 2012). As a result, 

benefit-cost analyses informing U.S. 

federal rulemakings to date have not 

fully considered the monetized benefits 

associated with CH4 emissions 

mitigation. To understand the potential 

importance of monetizing non-CO2 GHG 

emissions changes, the EPA has 

conducted sensitivity analysis in some 

of its past regulatory analyses using an 

estimate of the GWP of CH4 to convert 

emission impacts to CO2 equivalents, 

which can then be valued using the SCCO2 estimates. This approach 

approximates the social cost of methane 

(SC-CH4) using estimates of the SC-CO2

and the GWP of CH4. 

The published literature documents a 

variety of reasons that directly modeled 

estimates of SC-CH4 are an analytical 

improvement over the estimates from 

the GWP approximation approach. 

Specifically, several recent studies 

found that GWP-weighted benefit 

estimates for CH4 are likely to be lower 

than the estimates derived using 

directly modeled social cost estimates 

for these gases.88 The GWP reflects only 

the relative integrated radiative forcing 

of a gas over 100 years in comparison 

to CO2. The directly modeled social cost 

estimates differ from the GWP-scaled 

SC-CO2 because the relative differences 

in timing and magnitude of the warming 

between gases are explicitly modeled, 

the non-linear effects of temperature 

change on economic damages are 

included, and rather than treating all 

impacts over a hundred years equally, 

the modeled damages over the time 

horizon considered (2300 in this case) 

are discounted to present value terms. A 

detailed discussion of the limitations of 

the GWP approach can be found in the 

RIA. 

In general, the commenters on 

previous rulemakings strongly 

encouraged the EPA to incorporate the 

monetized value of non-CO2 GHG 

impacts into the benefit cost analysis. 

However they noted the challenges 

associated with the GWP approach, as 

discussed above, and encouraged the 

use of directly modeled estimates of the 

SC-CH4 to overcome those challenges. 

Since these previous rulemakings, a 

paper by Marten et al. (2014) has 

provided the first set of published SCCH4 and social cost of nitrous oxide (SCN2O) estimates in the peer-reviewed 

literature that are consistent with the 

modeling assumptions underlying the 

SC-CO2 estimates.89 Specifically, the 

estimation approach of Marten et al. 

used the same set of three IAMs, five 

socioeconomic-emissions scenarios, 

equilibrium climate sensitivity 

distribution, three constant discount 

rates, and aggregation approach used to 

develop the SC-CO2 estimates. 

The SC-CH4 estimates from Marten, et 

al. (2014) are presented in Table 7 of 

this preamble. More detailed discussion 

of the methodology, results, and a 

comparison to other published estimates 

can be found in the RIA and in Marten, 

et al. 

TABLE 7—SOCIAL COST OF CH4, 2012–2050 a

[In 2012$ per metric ton; (Source: Marten et al., 2014 b)] 

Year 

SC-CH4

5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th 

percentile 

2012 ................................................................................................................. $430 $1000 $1400 $2800 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 490 1100 1500 3000 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 580 1300 1700 3500 

2025 ................................................................................................................. 700 1500 1900 4000 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 820 1700 2200 4500 

2035 ................................................................................................................. 970 1900 2500 5300 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 1100 2200 2800 5900 

2045 ................................................................................................................. 1300 2500 3000 6600 

2050 ................................................................................................................. 1400 2700 3300 7200 

aThe values are emissions-year specific. Estimates using several discount rates are included because the literature shows that estimates of 

the SC-CO2 (and SC-CH4) are sensitive to assumptions about the discount rate, and because no consensus exists on the appropriate rate to use 

in an intergenerational context (where costs and benefits are incurred by different generations). The fourth value is the 95th percentile of the SCCH4 estimates across three models using a 3 percent discount rate. It is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the SC-CH4 distribution. bThe estimates in this table have been adjusted to reflect the recent minor technical corrections to the SC-CO2 estimates described above. 

See the RIA for more details. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52145 

90Previous studies have estimated the monetized 

benefits-per-ton of reducing VOC emissions 

associated with the effect that those emissions have 

on ambient PM2.5 levels and the health effects 

associated with PM2.5 exposure (Fann, Fulcher, and 

Hubbell, 2009). While these ranges of benefit-perton estimates can provide useful context, the 

geographic distribution of VOC emissions from the 

MSW landfills sector are not consistent with 

emissions modeled in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell 

(2009). In addition, the benefit-per-ton estimates for 

VOC emission reductions in that study are derived 

from total VOC emissions across all sectors. 

Coupled with the larger uncertainties about the 

relationship between VOC emissions and PM2.5 and 

the highly localized nature of air quality responses 

associated with HAP and VOC reductions, these 

factors lead us to conclude that the available VOC 

benefit-per-ton estimates are not appropriate to 

calculate monetized benefits of these rules, even as 

a bounding exercise. 

The application of these directly 

modeled SC-CH4 estimates from Marten 

et al. (2014) in a benefit-cost analysis of 

a regulatory action is analogous to the 

use of the SC-CO2 estimates. In addition, 

the limitations for the SC-CO2 estimates 

discussed above likewise apply to the 

SC-CH4 estimates, given the consistency 

in the methodology. 

The EPA recently conducted a peer 

review of the application of the Marten, 

et al. (2014) non-CO2 social cost 

estimates in regulatory analysis and 

received responses that supported this 

application. See the RIA for a detailed 

discussion. 

In light of the favorable peer review 

and past comments urging the EPA to 

value non-CO2 GHG impacts in its 

rulemakings, the agency has used the 

Marten et al. (2014) SC-CH4 estimates to 

value methane impacts expected from 

this proposed rulemaking and has 

included those benefits in the main 

benefits analysis. The EPA seeks 

comments on the use of these directly 

modeled estimates, from the peerreviewed literature, for the social cost of 

non-CO2 GHGs in this rulemaking. 

The CH4 benefits based on Marten 

et al. (2014) are presented for the year 

2025. Applying this approach to the 

methane reductions estimated for this 

proposal, the 2025 methane benefits 

vary by discount rate and range from 

about $310 million to approximately 

$1.7 billion; the mean SC-CH4 at the 3- 

percent discount rate results in an 

estimate of about $660 million in 2025, 

as presented in Table 8 of this preamble. 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED GLOBAL BENEFITS OF CH4 REDUCTIONS IN 2025 

[In millions, 2012$] 

Million metric tons CH4

Discount rate and statistic 

5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average 3% 95th 

percentile 

0.44 .................................................................................................................. $310 $660 $850 $1,700 

The vast majority of this proposal’s 

climate-related benefits are associated 

with methane reductions. Additional 

climate-related benefits are expected 

from the proposal’s secondary air 

impacts, specifically, a net reduction in 

CO2 emissions. Monetizing the net CO2

reductions with the SC-CO2 estimates 

described in this section yields benefits 

of $12 million in the year 2025 (average 

SC-CO2, 3 percent discount rate). See 

the RIA for more details. 

In addition to the limitation discussed 

above, and the referenced documents, 

there are additional impacts of 

individual GHGs that are not currently 

captured in the IAMs used in the 

directly modeled approach of Marten et 

al. (2014), and therefore not quantified 

for the rule. For example, the NMOC 

portion of LFG can contain a variety of 

air pollutants, including VOC and 

various organic HAP. VOC emissions 

are precursors to both PM2.5 and ozone 

formation, while methane is a GHG and 

a precursor to global ozone formation. 

These pollutants are associated with 

substantial health effects, welfare 

effects, and climate effects, which are 

discussed in section III.B of this 

preamble. The ozone generated by 

methane, has important non-climate 

impacts on agriculture, ecosystems, and 

human health. The RIA describes the 

specific impacts of methane as an ozone 

precursor in more detail and discusses 

studies that have estimated monetized 

benefits of these methane generated 

ozone effects. The EPA continues to 

monitor developments in this area of 

research and seeks comment on the 

potential inclusion of health impacts of 

ozone generated by methane in future 

regulatory analysis. 

Finally, this proposal is also expected 

to result in improvements in air quality 

and resulting benefits to human health. 

With the data available, we are not able 

to provide health benefit estimates for 

the reduction in exposure to HAP, 

ozone, and PM2.5 for this rule. This is 

not to imply that there are no benefits 

of the rules; rather, it is a reflection of 

the difficulties in modeling the direct 

and indirect impacts of the reductions 

in emissions for this sector with the data 

currently available.90 In addition to 

health improvements, there will be 

improvements in visibility effects, 

ecosystem effects, and climate effects. 

Although we do not have sufficient 

information or modeling available to 

provide quantitative estimates of the 

health benefits associated with HAP, 

ozone, and PM2.5 reductions, we include 

a qualitative assessment of the health 

effects associated with exposure to HAP, 

ozone, and PM2.5 in the RIA for this 

rule. These qualitative impact 

assessments are briefly summarized in 

section III.B of this preamble, but for 

more detailed information, please refer 

to the RIA, which is available in the 

docket. 

XII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statues and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is an economically 

significant regulatory action that was 

submitted to OMB for review. Any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. The EPA 

prepared an economic analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with the proposed Emission Guidelines. 

The analysis is documented in the RIA, 

which is available in docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0451 and is briefly 

summarized in section V.E of this 

preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in the proposed Emission 

Guidelines have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the PRA. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document that the EPA prepared for the 

proposed Emission Guidelines has been 

assigned EPA ICR number [2522.01]. 

You can find a copy of the ICR in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52146 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

docket for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. 

The information required to be 

collected is necessary to identify the 

regulated entities subject to the 

proposed rule and to ensure their 

compliance with the proposed Emission 

Guidelines. The recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are mandatory 

and are being established under 

authority of CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 

7414). All information other than 

emissions data submitted as part of a 

report to the agency for which a claim 

of confidentiality is made will be 

safeguarded according to CAA section 

114(c) and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

Respondents/affected entities: MSW 

landfills that accepted waste after 

November 8, 1987 and commenced 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification on or before July 17, 2014. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf). 

Estimated number of respondents: 989 

MSW landfills. 

Frequency of response: Initially, 

occasionally and annually. 

Total estimated burden: 621,947 

hours (per year) for the responding 

facilities and 16,054 hours (per year) for 

the agency. These are estimates for the 

average annual burden for the first 3 

years after the rule is final. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $41,755,793 (per 

year), which includes annualized 

capital or operation and maintenance 

costs, for the responding facilities and 

$1,029,658 (per year) for the agency. 

These are estimates for the average 

annual cost for the first 3 years after the 

rule is final. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs via email to oira_

submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than September 28, 2015. The EPA 

will respond to any ICR-related 

comments in the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. Specifically, Emission 

Guidelines established under CAA 

section 111(d) do not impose any 

requirements on regulated entities and, 

thus, will not have a significant 

economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities. After Emission 

Guidelines are promulgated, states and 

U.S. territories establish standards on 

existing sources, and it is those state 

requirements that could potentially 

impact small entities. 

Our analysis here is consistent with 

the analysis of the analogous situation 

arising when the EPA establishes 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), which do not impose any 

requirements on regulated entities. As 

here, any impact of a NAAQS on small 

entities would only arise when states 

take subsequent action to maintain and/ 

or achieve the NAAQS through their 

state implementation plans. See 

American Trucking Assoc. v. EPA, 175 

F.3d 1029, 1043–45 (D.C. Cir. 1999) 

(NAAQS do not have significant 

impacts upon small entities because 

NAAQS themselves impose no 

regulations upon small entities). 

Nevertheless, the EPA is aware that 

there is substantial interest in the rule 

among small entities. The EPA has 

conducted stakeholder outreach as 

detailed in section XI.C and XI.E of the 

preamble to the proposed Standards of 

Performance for MSW Landfills (79 FR 

41828–41829; July 17, 2014) and in 

sections XII.D and XII.E of this 

preamble. The EPA convened a Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 

Panel in 2013 for the landfills 

rulemaking. The EPA originally planned 

a review of the Emission Guidelines and 

NSPS in one action, but the actions 

were subsequently divided into separate 

rulemakings. The SBAR Panel evaluated 

the assembled materials and smallentity comments on issues related to the 

rule’s potential effects and significant 

alternative regulatory approaches. A 

copy of the Summary of Small Entity 

Outreach is available in the rulemaking 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0451. 

While formulating the provisions of the 

rule, the EPA considered the input 

provided over the course of the 

stakeholder outreach as well as the 

input provided in the many public 

comments, and we have incorporated 

many of the suggestions in this 

proposal. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538. The proposed Emission 

Guidelines apply to landfills that were 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed 

after November 8, 1987, and that 

commenced construction, 

reconstruction, or modification on or 

before July 17, 2014. Impacts resulting 

from the proposed Emission Guidelines 

are below the applicable threshold. 

We note however, that the proposed 

Emission Guidelines may significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments 

because small governments operate 

landfills. The EPA consulted with small 

governments concerning the regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect them. In developing this 

rule, the EPA consulted with small 

governments pursuant to a plan 

established under section 203 of the 

UMRA to address impacts of regulatory 

requirements in the rule that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The EPA also held 

meetings as discussed in section XII.E of 

this preamble under Federalism 

consultations. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

The EPA has concluded that the 

proposed Emission Guidelines have 

federalism implications, because the 

rule imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on state or local 

governments, and the federal 

government will not provide the funds 

necessary to pay those costs. 

The EPA conducted a Federalism 

Consultation Outreach Meeting on 

September 10, 2013. Due to interest in 

that meeting, additional outreach 

meetings were held on November 7, 

2013 and November 14, 2013. With the 

pending proposal of these Emission 

Guidelines, an additional Federalism 

outreach meeting was conducted on 

April 15, 2015. Participants included 

the National Governors’ Association, the 

National Conference of State 

Legislatures, the Council of State 

Governments, the National League of 

Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 

the National Association of Counties, 

the International City/County 

Management Association, the National 

Association of Towns and Townships, 

the County Executives of America, the 

Environmental Council of States, 

National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies, Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management 

Officials, environmental agency 

representatives from 43 states, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52147 

approximately 60 representatives from 

city and county governments. Concerns 

raised during the consultations include: 

Implementation concerns associated 

with shortening of gas collection system 

installation and/or expansion 

timeframes, concerns regarding 

significant lowering of the design 

capacity or emission thresholds, the 

need for clarifications associated with 

wellhead operating parameters and the 

need for consistent, clear and rigorous 

surface monitoring requirements. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action has tribal implications. 

However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

federally recognized tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. The database 

used to estimate impacts of the 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf 

identified one tribe, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, which 

owns three landfills potentially subject 

to the proposed Emission Guidelines. 

One of these landfills is open, the Salt 

River Landfill, and is already 

controlling emissions under the current 

NSPS/EG framework, so while subject to 

this subpart, the costs of this proposal 

are not substantial. The two other 

landfills are closed and anticipated to 

meet the definition of the closed landfill 

subcategory. One of the closed landfills, 

the Tri Cities Landfill, is already 

controlling emissions under the current 

NSPS/EG framework and will not incur 

substantial additional compliance costs 

under Cf. The other landfill, North 

Center Street Landfill, is not estimated 

to install controls under the current 

NSPS/EG framework. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. The proposed 

Emission Guidelines are not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because they do 

not concern an environmental health 

risk or safety risk. We also note that the 

methane and NMOC reductions 

expected from the proposed Emission 

Guidelines will have positive health 

effects including for children as 

previously discussed in section XII.G of 

this preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Further, we have concluded that the 

proposed Emission Guidelines are not 

likely to have any adverse energy effects 

because the energy demanded to operate 

these control systems will be offset by 

additional energy supply from landfill 

gas energy projects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

The proposed Emission Guidelines 

involve technical standards. For the 

proposed Emission Guidelines, the EPA 

has decided to use EPA Methods 2, 2E, 

3, 3A, 3C, 21, 25, 25A, and 25C of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A. While the 

EPA identified 10 VCS as being 

potentially applicable (ANSI/ASME 

PTC 19–10–1981 Part 10, ASME 

B133.9–1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 

(2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835– 

95 (2013), ASTM D6522–11, CAN/CSA 

Z223.2–M86 (1999), ASTM D6060–96 

(2009), ISO 14965:2000(E), EN 

12619(1999)), the agency decided not to 

use these methods. The EPA determined 

that the 10 candidate VCS identified for 

measuring emissions of pollutants or 

their surrogates subject to emission 

standards in the rule would not be 

practical due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data, and 

other important technical and policy 

considerations. The agency identified 

no such standards for Methods 2E, 21, 

and 25C. The EPA’s review, including 

review of comments for these 10 

methods, is documented in the 

memorandum, ‘‘Voluntary Consensus 

Standard Results for Emission 

Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills’’ in the 

docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0451). 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by the 

proposed Emission Guidelines will not 

have potential disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, lowincome, or indigenous populations 

because the proposed subpart would 

reduce emissions of landfill gas, which 

contains both nonmethane organic 

compounds and methane. These 

avoided emissions will improve air 

quality and reduce public health and 

welfare effects associated with exposure 

to landfill gas emissions. The results of 

the proximity analysis conducted for the 

proposed Emission Guidelines are 

located in the April 22, 2015 document 

entitled, ‘‘2015 Environmental Justice 

Screening Report for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills,’’ a copy of which is 

available in the docket (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 14, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR part 60 as follows: 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. Part 60 is amended by adding 

Subpart Cf to read as follows: 

Subpart Cf—Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills 

Sec 

60.30f Scope and delegated authorities. 

60.31f Designated facilities. 

60.32f Compliance times. 

60.33f Emission Guidelines for municipal 

solid waste landfill emissions. 

60.34f Operational standards. 

60.35f Test methods and procedures. 

60.36f Compliance provisions. 

60.37f Monitoring of operations. 

60.38f Reporting guidelines. 

60.39f Recordkeeping guidelines. 

60.40f Specifications for active collection 

systems. 

60.41f Definitions. 

Subpart Cf—Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills 

§ 60.30f Scope and delegated authorities. 

This subpart establishes Emission 

Guidelines and compliance times for the 

control of designated pollutants from 

certain designated municipal solid 

waste (MSW) landfills in accordance 

with section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 

and subpart B of this part. 

(a) If you are the Administrator of an 

air quality program in a State or United 

States protectorate with one or more 

existing MSW landfills that commenced 

construction, modification, or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52148 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

reconstruction on or before July 17, 

2014, you must submit a State plan to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) that implements the 

Emission Guidelines contained in this 

subpart. The requirements for State 

plans are specified in subpart B of this 

part. 

(b) You must submit a State plan to 

EPA by [date 9 months after the final 

rule is published in the Federal 

Register]. 

(c) The following authorities will not 

be delegated to state, local, or tribal 

agencies: 

(1) Approval of alternative methods to 

determine the NMOC concentration or a 

site-specific methane generation rate 

constant (k). 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 60.31f Designated facilities. 

(a) The designated facility to which 

these Emission Guidelines apply is each 

existing MSW landfill for which 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification was commenced on or 

before July 17, 2014. 

(b) Physical or operational changes 

made to an existing MSW landfill solely 

to comply with an emission guideline 

are not considered a modification or 

reconstruction and would not subject an 

existing MSW landfill to the 

requirements of a standard of 

performance for new MSW landfills. 

(c) For purposes of obtaining an 

operating permit under title V of the 

Clean Air Act, the owner or operator of 

an MSW landfill subject to this subpart 

with a design capacity less than 2.5 

million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic 

meters is not subject to the requirement 

to obtain an operating permit for the 

landfill under part 70 or 71 of this 

chapter, unless the landfill is otherwise 

subject to either part 70 or 71. For 

purposes of submitting a timely 

application for an operating permit 

under part 70 or 71, the owner or 

operator of an MSW landfill subject to 

this subpart with a design capacity 

greater than or equal to 2.5 million 

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters 

on the effective date of EPA approval of 

the State’s program under section 111(d) 

of the Clean Air Act, and not otherwise 

subject to either part 70 or 71, becomes 

subject to the requirements of 

§§ 70.5(a)(1)(i) or 71.5(a)(1)(i) of this 

chapter 90 days after the effective date 

of such section 111(d) program 

approval, even if the design capacity 

report is submitted earlier. 

(d) When an MSW landfill subject to 

this subpart is closed as defined in this 

subpart, the owner or operator is no 

longer subject to the requirement to 

maintain an operating permit under part 

70 or 71 of this chapter for the landfill 

if the landfill is not otherwise subject to 

the requirements of either part 70 or 71 

and if either of the following conditions 

are met: 

(1) The landfill was never subject to 

the requirement to install and operate a 

gas collection and control system under 

§ 60.33f; or 

(2) The landfill meets the conditions 

for control system removal specified in 

§ 60.33f(f). 

(e) When an MSW landfill subject to 

this subpart is in the closed landfill 

subcategory, the owner or operator is 

not subject to the following reports of 

this subpart, provided the owner or 

operator submitted these reports under 

the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 62, subpart 

GGG; or a state plan implementing 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cc on or before 

August 27, 2015: 

(1) Initial design capacity report 

specified in §§ 60.33f(d) and 60.38f(a) 

(2) Initial or subsequent NMOC 

emission rate report specified in 

§§ 60.33f(e) and 60.38f(c), provided that 

the most recent NMOC emission rate 

report indicated the NMOC emissions 

were below 50 Mg/yr. 

(3) Collection and control system 

design plan specified in § 60.38f(d). 

(4) Closure report specified in 

§ 60.38f(f). 

(5) Equipment removal specified in 

§ 60.38f(g). 

(6) Initial annual report specified in 

§ 60.38f(h). 

(7) Initial performance test report in 

§ 60.38f(i). 

§ 60.32f Compliance times. 

Planning, awarding of contracts, 

installing, and starting up MSW landfill 

air emission collection and control 

equipment that is capable of meeting the 

Emission Guidelines under § 60.33f 

must be completed within 30 months 

after the date an NMOC emission rate 

report shows NMOC emissions equal or 

exceed 34 megagrams per year (50 

megagrams per year for the closed 

landfill subcategory) or within 30 

months after the date Tier 4 surface 

emissions monitoring shows a surface 

emission concentration of 500 parts per 

million methane or greater. 

§ 60.33f Emission Guidelines for municipal 

solid waste landfill emissions. 

(a) Landfills. For approval, a State 

plan must require each owner or 

operator of an MSW landfill having a 

design capacity greater than or equal to 

2.5 million megagrams by mass and 2.5 

million cubic meters by volume to 

collect and control MSW landfill 

emissions at each MSW landfill that 

meets the following conditions: 

(1) The landfill has accepted waste at 

any time since November 8, 1987, or has 

additional design capacity available for 

future waste deposition. 

(2) The landfill commenced 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification on or before July 17, 2014. 

(3) The landfill has an NMOC 

emission rate greater than or equal to 34 

megagrams per year or the Tier 4 surface 

emissions report shows a surface 

emission concentration of 500 parts per 

million methane or greater. 

(4) A landfill in the closed landfill 

subcategory that has an NMOC emission 

rate greater than or equal to 50 

megagrams per year or the Tier 4 surface 

emissions report shows a surface 

emission concentration of 500 parts per 

million methane or greater. 

(b) Collection system. For approval, a 

State plan must include provisions for 

the installation of a collection and 

control system meeting the 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (3) and (c) of this section at 

each MSW landfill meeting the 

conditions in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(1) Install and start up a collection 

and control system that captures the gas 

generated within the landfill within 30 

months after: 

(i) The first annual report in which 

the emission rate equals or exceeds 34 

megagrams per year, unless Tier 2 or 

Tier 3 sampling demonstrates that the 

emission rate is less than 34 megagrams 

per year, as specified in § 60.38f(c)(5)(i) 

or (ii), 

(ii) The emission rate at a landfill in 

the closed landfill subcategory equals or 

exceeds 50 megagrams per year, unless 

Tier 2 or Tier 3 sampling demonstrates 

that the emission rate is less than 50 

megagrams per year, as specified in 

§ 60.38f(c)(5)(iv)(A) or (B), or 

(iii) The Tier 4 surface emissions 

report shows that surface methane 

emissions are below 500 parts per 

million methane for four consecutive 

quarters, as specified in 

§ 60.38f(c)(5)(iii). 

(2) An active collection system must: 

(i) Be designed to handle the 

maximum expected gas flow rate from 

the entire area of the landfill that 

warrants control over the intended use 

period of the gas control system 

equipment. 

(ii) Collect gas from each area, cell, or 

group of cells in the landfill in which 

the initial solid waste has been placed 

for a period of 5 years or more if active; 

or 2 years or more if closed or at final 

grade. 

(iii) Collect gas at a sufficient 

extraction rate. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52149 

(iv) Be designed to minimize offsite 

migration of subsurface gas. 

(3) A passive collection system must: 

(i) Comply with the provisions 

specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (ii), and 

(iv) of this section. 

(ii) Be installed with liners on the 

bottom and all sides in all areas in 

which gas is to be collected. The liners 

must be installed as required under 

§ 258.40. 

(c) Control system. For approval, a 

State plan must include provisions for 

the control of the gas collected from 

within the landfill through the use of 

control devices meeting the following 

requirements, except as provided in 

§ 60.24. 

(1) A non-enclosed flare designed and 

operated in accordance with the 

parameters established in § 60.18 except 

as noted in § 60.37f(c); or 

(2) A control system designed and 

operated to reduce NMOC by 98 weight 

percent; or when an enclosed 

combustion device is used for control, 

to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight 

percent or reduce the outlet NMOC 

concentration to less than 20 parts per 

million by volume, dry basis as hexane 

at 3 percent oxygen or less. The 

reduction efficiency or concentration in 

parts per million by volume must be 

established by an initial performance 

test to be completed no later than 180 

days after the initial startup of the 

approved control system using the test 

methods specified in § 60.35f(d). The 

performance test is not required for 

boilers and process heaters with design 

heat input capacities equal to or greater 

than 44 megawatts that burn landfill gas 

for compliance with this subpart. 

(i) If a boiler or process heater is used 

as the control device, the landfill gas 

stream must be introduced into the 

flame zone. 

(ii) The control device must be 

operated within the parameter ranges 

established during the initial or most 

recent performance test. The operating 

parameters to be monitored are 

specified in § 60.37f. 

(iii) For the closed landfill 

subcategory, the initial or most recent 

performance test conducted to comply 

with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 

CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a state 

plan implementing subpart Cc of this 

part on or before August 27, 2015 is 

sufficient for compliance with this 

subpart. 

(3) Route the collected gas to a 

treatment system that processes the 

collected gas for subsequent sale or 

beneficial use such as fuel for 

combustion, production of vehicle fuel, 

production of high-Btu gas for pipeline 

injection, or use as a raw material in a 

chemical manufacturing process. 

Venting of treated landfill gas to the 

ambient air or combustion in a flare is 

not allowed under this option. (If flares 

are used, they must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) 

of this section.) 

(4) All emissions from any 

atmospheric vent from the gas treatment 

system are subject to the requirements 

of paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. 

For purposes of this subpart, 

atmospheric vents located on the 

condensate storage tank are not part of 

the treatment system and are exempt 

from the requirements of paragraph (b) 

or (c) of this section. 

(d) Design capacity. For approval, a 

State plan must require each owner or 

operator of an MSW landfill having a 

design capacity less than 2.5 million 

megagrams by mass or 2.5 million cubic 

meters by volume to submit an initial 

design capacity report to the 

Administrator as provided in § 60.38f(a). 

The landfill may calculate design 

capacity in either megagrams or cubic 

meters for comparison with the 

exemption values. Any density 

conversions must be documented and 

submitted with the report. Submittal of 

the initial design capacity report fulfills 

the requirements of this subpart except 

as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) 

of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator must 

submit an amended design capacity 

report as provided in § 60.38f(b). 

[Guidance: Note that if the design 

capacity increase is the result of a 

modification, as defined in this subpart, 

that was commenced after July 17, 2014, 

the landfill will become subject to 

subpart XXX of this part instead of this 

subpart. If the design capacity increase 

is the result of a change in operating 

practices, density, or some other change 

that is not a modification as defined in 

this subpart, then the landfill remains 

subject to this subpart.] 

(2) When an increase in the maximum 

design capacity of a landfill with an 

initial design capacity less than 2.5 

million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic 

meters results in a revised maximum 

design capacity equal to or greater than 

2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million 

cubic meters, the owner or operator 

must comply with paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(e) Emissions. For approval, a State 

plan must require each owner or 

operator of an MSW landfill having a 

design capacity equal to or greater than 

2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million 

cubic meters to either install a 

collection and control system as 

provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section or calculate an initial 

NMOC emission rate for the landfill 

using the procedures specified in 

§ 60.35f(a). The NMOC emission rate 

must be recalculated annually, except as 

provided in § 60.38f(c)(3). 

(1) If the calculated NMOC emission 

rate is less than 34 megagrams per year, 

the owner or operator must: 

(i) Submit an annual NMOC emission 

rate report according to § 60.38f(c); and 

(ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission 

rate annually using the procedures 

specified in § 60.35f(a) until such time 

as the calculated NMOC emission rate is 

equal to or greater than 34 megagrams 

per year, or the landfill is closed. 

(A) If the NMOC emission rate, upon 

initial calculation or annual 

recalculation, is equal to or greater than 

34 megagrams per year, the owner or 

operator must either: submit a gas 

collection and control system design 

plan as specified in § 60.38f(d) and 

install a collection and control system 

as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section; calculate NMOC emissions 

using the next higher tier in § 60.35f; or 

conduct a surface emission monitoring 

demonstration using the procedures 

specified in § 60.35f(a)(6). 

(B) If the landfill is permanently 

closed, a closure report must be 

submitted to the Administrator as 

provided in § 60.38f(f), except for 

exemptions allowed under 

§ 60.31f(e)(4). 

(C) For the closed landfill 

subcategory, if the most recently 

calculated NMOC emission rate is equal 

to or greater than 50 megagrams per 

year, the owner or operator must either: 

submit a gas collection and control 

system design plan as specified in 

§ 60.38f(d), except for exemptions 

allowed under 60.31f(e)(3), and install a 

collection and control system as 

provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of 

this section; calculate NMOC emissions 

using the next higher tier in § 60.35f; or 

conduct a surface emission monitoring 

demonstration using the procedures 

specified in § 60.35f(a)(6). 

(2) If the calculated NMOC emission 

rate is equal to or greater than 34 

megagrams per year using Tier 1, 2, or 

3 procedures, the owner or operator 

must either: submit a collection and 

control system design plan prepared by 

a professional engineer to the 

Administrator within 1 year as specified 

in § 60.38f(d); calculate NMOC 

emissions using a higher tier in § 60.35f; 

or conduct a surface emission 

monitoring demonstration using the 

procedures specified in § 60.35f(a)(6). 

(3) For the closed landfill subcategory, 

if the calculated NMOC emission rate is 

equal to or greater than 50 megagrams 

per year using Tier 1, 2, or 3 procedures, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52150 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the owner or operator must either: 

submit a collection and control system 

design plan prepared by a professional 

engineer to the Administrator within 1 

year as specified in § 60.38f(d), except 

for exemptions allowed under 

60.31f(e)(3); calculate NMOC emissions 

using a higher tier in § 60.35f; or 

conduct a surface emission monitoring 

demonstration using the procedures 

specified in § 60.35f(a)(6). 

(f) Removal criteria. The collection 

and control system may be capped or 

removed if the criteria in paragraph 

(f)(1), (f)(2), and either (f)(3), (f)(4), or 

(f)(5) of this section are met: 

(1) The landfill is closed or an area of 

an open landfill is closed as defined in 

§ 60.41f. A closure report must be 

submitted to the Administrator as 

provided in § 60.38f(f); 

(2) The collection and control system 

must have been in operation a minimum 

of 15 years or the landfill owner or 

operator must demonstrate that the 

GCCS will be unable to operate for 15 

years due to declining gas flow; and 

(3) The landfill or closed area 

demonstrates for four consecutive 

quarters that there are no surface 

emissions of 500 parts per million or 

greater as determined using procedures 

specified in § 60.36f(d); 

(4) Following the procedures 

specified in § 60.35f(b), the calculated 

NMOC emission rate at the landfill must 

be less than 34 megagrams per year on 

three successive test dates. The test 

dates must be no less than 90 days 

apart, and no more than 180 days apart; 

or 

(5) For the closed landfill subcategory, 

following the procedures specified in 

§ 60.35f(b), the calculated NMOC 

emission rate at the landfill must be less 

than 50 megagrams per year on three 

successive test dates. The test dates 

must be no less than 90 days apart, and 

no more than 180 days apart. 

§ 60.34f Operational standards. 

For approval, a State plan must 

include provisions for the operational 

standards in this section for an MSW 

landfill with a gas collection and control 

system used to comply with the 

provisions of § 60.33f(b) and (c). Each 

owner or operator of an MSW landfill 

with a gas collection and control system 

used to comply with the provisions of 

§ 60.33f(b) must: 

(a) Operate the collection system such 

that gas is collected from each area, cell, 

or group of cells in the MSW landfill in 

which solid waste has been in place for: 

(1) 5 years or more if active; or 

(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final 

grade; 

(b) Operate the collection system with 

negative pressure at each wellhead 

except under the following conditions: 

(1) A fire or increased well 

temperature. The owner or operator 

must record instances when positive 

pressure occurs in efforts to avoid a fire. 

These records must be submitted with 

the annual reports as provided in 

§ 60.38f(h)(1); 

(2) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic 

cover. The owner or operator must 

develop acceptable pressure limits in 

the design plan; 

(3) A decommissioned well. A well 

may experience a static positive 

pressure after shut down to 

accommodate for declining flows. All 

design changes must be approved by the 

Administrator as specified in 

§ 60.38f(d); 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) Operate the collection system so 

that the methane concentration is less 

than 500 parts per million above 

background at the surface of the landfill. 

To determine if this level is exceeded, 

the owner or operator must conduct 

surface testing around the perimeter of 

the collection area and along a pattern 

that traverses the landfill at no more 

than 30-meter intervals and where 

visual observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas, such as 

distressed vegetation and cracks or 

seeps in the cover and all cover 

penetrations. Thus, the owner or 

operator must monitor any openings 

that are within an area of the landfill 

where waste has been placed and a gas 

collection system is required. The 

owner or operator may establish an 

alternative traversing pattern that 

ensures equivalent coverage. A surface 

monitoring design plan must be 

developed that includes a topographical 

map with the monitoring route and the 

rationale for any site-specific deviations 

from the 30-meter intervals. Areas with 

steep slopes or other dangerous areas 

may be excluded from the surface 

testing. 

(e) Operate the system such that all 

collected gases are vented to a control 

system designed and operated in 

compliance with § 60.33f(c). In the 

event the collection or control system is 

not operating, the gas mover system 

must be shut down and all valves in the 

collection and control system 

contributing to venting of the gas to the 

atmosphere must be closed within 1 

hour; and 

(f) Operate the control system at all 

times when the collected gas is routed 

to the system. 

(g) If monitoring demonstrates that the 

operational requirements in paragraphs 

(b) or (d) of this section are not met, 

corrective action must be taken as 

specified in § 60.36f(a)(3) through (4) or 

§ 60.36f(c). If corrective actions are 

taken as specified in § 60.36f, the 

monitored exceedance is not a violation 

of the operational requirements in this 

section. 

§ 60.35f Test methods and procedures. 

For approval, a State plan must 

include provisions in this section to 

calculate the landfill NMOC emission 

rate or to conduct a surface emission 

monitoring demonstration. 

(a)(1) The landfill owner or operator 

must calculate the NMOC emission rate 

using either the equation provided in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section or the 

equation provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 

of this section. Both equations may be 

used if the actual year-to-year solid 

waste acceptance rate is known, as 

specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this 

section, for part of the life of the landfill 

and the actual year-to-year solid waste 

acceptance rate is unknown, as 

specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section, for part of the life of the 

landfill. The values to be used in both 

equations are 0.05 per year for k, 170 

cubic meters per megagram for Lo, and 

4,000 parts per million by volume as 

hexane for the CNMOC. For landfills 

located in geographical areas with a 30- 

year annual average precipitation of less 

than 25 inches, as measured at the 

nearest representative official 

meteorologic site, the k value to be used 

is 0.02 per year. 

(i)(A) The following equation must be 

used if the actual year-to-year solid 

waste acceptance rate is known. 

Where: 

MNMOC = Total NMOC emission rate from the 

landfill, megagrams per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, 

year¥1. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic 

meters per megagram solid waste. 

Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section, 

megagrams. 

ti = Age of the ith section, years. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27AU15.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52151 

CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per 

million by volume as hexane. 

3.6 × 10¥9 = Conversion factor. 

(B) The mass of nondegradable solid 

waste may be subtracted from the total 

mass of solid waste in a particular 

section of the landfill when calculating 

the value for Mi if documentation of the 

nature and amount of such wastes is 

maintained. 

(ii)(A) The following equation must be 

used if the actual year-to-year solid 

waste acceptance rate is unknown. 

MNMOC = 2LoR (e¥kc¥e¥kt) CNMOC(3.6 

× 10¥9) 

Where: 

MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, 

megagrams per year. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic 

meters per megagram solid waste. 

R = Average annual acceptance rate, 

megagrams per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, 

year¥1. 

t = Age of landfill, years. 

CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per 

million by volume as hexane. 

c = Time since closure, years; for an active 

landfill c = 0 and e¥kc = 1. 

3.6 × 10¥9 = Conversion factor. 

(B) The mass of nondegradable solid 

waste may be subtracted from the total 

mass of solid waste in a particular 

section of the landfill when calculating 

the value of R, if documentation of the 

nature and amount of such wastes is 

maintained. 

(2) Tier 1. The owner or operator must 

compare the calculated NMOC mass 

emission rate to the standard of 34 

megagrams per year. 

(i) If the NMOC emission rate 

calculated in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section is less than 34 megagrams per 

year, then the owner or operator must 

submit an NMOC emission rate report 

according to § 60.38f(c), and must 

recalculate the NMOC mass emission 

rate annually as required under 

§ 60.33f(e). 

(ii) If the NMOC emission rate 

calculated in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section is equal to or greater than 34 

megagrams per year, then the landfill 

owner or operator must either: 

(A) Submit a gas collection and 

control system design plan as specified 

in § 60.38f(d) within 1 year and install 

and operate a gas collection and control 

system according to § 60.33f(b) and (c) 

within 30 months; 

(B) Determine a site-specific NMOC 

concentration and recalculate the 

NMOC emission rate using the Tier 2 

procedures provided in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section; 

(C) Determine a site-specific methane 

generation rate constant and recalculate 

the NMOC emission rate using the Tier 

3 procedures provided in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section; or 

(D) Conduct a surface emission 

monitoring demonstration using the 

Tier 4 procedures specified in paragraph 

(a)(6) of this section. 

(3) Tier 2. The landfill owner or 

operator must determine the sitespecific NMOC concentration using the 

following sampling procedure. The 

landfill owner or operator must install 

at least two sample probes per hectare 

of landfill surface that has retained 

waste for at least 2 years. If the landfill 

is larger than 25 hectares in area, only 

50 samples are required. The sample 

probes should be located to avoid 

known areas of nondegradable solid 

waste. The owner or operator must 

collect and analyze one sample of 

landfill gas from each probe to 

determine the NMOC concentration 

using Method 25 or 25C of appendix A 

of this part. Taking composite samples 

from different probes into a single 

cylinder is allowed; however, equal 

sample volumes must be taken from 

each probe. For each composite, the 

sampling rate, collection times, 

beginning and ending cylinder 

vacuums, or alternative volume 

measurements must be recorded to 

verify that composite volumes are equal. 

Composite sample volumes should not 

be less than one liter unless evidence 

can be provided to substantiate the 

accuracy of smaller volumes. Terminate 

compositing before the cylinder 

approaches ambient pressure where 

measurement accuracy diminishes. If 

more than the required number of 

samples is taken, all samples must be 

used in the analysis. The landfill owner 

or operator must divide the NMOC 

concentration from Method 25 or 25C of 

appendix A of this part by six to convert 

from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as 

hexane. If the landfill has an active or 

passive gas removal system in place, 

Method 25 or 25C samples may be 

collected from these systems instead of 

surface probes provided the removal 

system can be shown to provide 

sampling as representative as the two 

sampling probe per hectare requirement. 

For active collection systems, samples 

may be collected from the common 

header pipe. The sample location on the 

common header pipe must be before any 

gas moving, condensate removal, or 

treatment system equipment. For active 

collection systems, a minimum of three 

samples must be collected from the 

header pipe. 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of 

determining the NMOC concentration 

and corresponding NMOC emission 

rate, the owner or operator must submit 

the results according to § 60.38f(j). 

(ii) The landfill owner or operator 

must recalculate the NMOC mass 

emission rate using the equations 

provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section using the average 

site-specific NMOC concentration from 

the collected samples instead of the 

default value provided in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

(iii) If the NMOC mass emission rate 

is less than 34 megagrams per year, then 

the owner or operator must submit an 

NMOC emission rate report according to 

§ 60.38f(c), and must recalculate the 

NMOC mass emission rate annually as 

required under § 60.33f(e). The sitespecific NMOC concentration must be 

retested every 5 years using the methods 

specified in this section. 

(iv) If the NMOC mass emission rate 

as calculated using the Tier 2 sitespecific NMOC concentration is equal to 

or greater than 34 megagrams per year, 

the owner or operator must either: 

(A) Submit a gas collection and 

control system design plan as specified 

in § 60.38f(d) within 1 year and install 

and operate a gas collection and control 

system according to § 60.33f(b) and (c) 

within 30 months; 

(B) Determine a site-specific methane 

generation rate constant and recalculate 

the NMOC emission rate using the sitespecific methane generation rate using 

the Tier 3 procedures specified in 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section; or 

(C) Conduct a surface emission 

monitoring demonstration using the 

Tier 4 procedures specified in paragraph 

(a)(6) of this section. 

(4) Tier 3. The site-specific methane 

generation rate constant must be 

determined using the procedures 

provided in Method 2E of appendix A 

of this part. The landfill owner or 

operator must estimate the NMOC mass 

emission rate using the equations in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section and using a site-specific 

methane generation rate constant, and 

the site-specific NMOC concentration as 

determined in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section instead of the default values 

provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. The landfill owner or operator 

must compare the resulting NMOC mass 

emission rate to the standard of 34 

megagrams per year. 

(i) If the NMOC mass emission rate as 

calculated using the Tier 2 site-specific 

NMOC concentration and Tier 3 sitespecific methane generation rate is 

equal to or greater than 34 megagrams 

per year, the owner or operator must 

either: 

(A) Submit a gas collection and 

control system design plan as specified 

in § 60.38f(d) within 1 year and install 

and operate a gas collection and control 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52152 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

system according to § 60.33f(b) and (c) 

within 30 months; or 

(B) Conduct a surface emission 

monitoring demonstration using the 

Tier 4 procedures specified in paragraph 

(a)(6) of this section. 

(ii) If the NMOC mass emission rate 

is less than 34 megagrams per year, then 

the owner or operator must recalculate 

the NMOC mass emission rate annually 

using the equations in paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section and using the sitespecific Tier 2 NMOC concentration and 

Tier 3 methane generation rate constant 

and submit a periodic emission rate 

report as provided in § 60.38f(c). The 

calculation of the methane generation 

rate constant is performed only once, 

and the value obtained from this test 

must be used in all subsequent annual 

NMOC emission rate calculations. 

(5) The owner or operator may use 

other methods to determine the NMOC 

concentration or a site-specific methane 

generation rate constant as an 

alternative to the methods required in 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this 

section if the method has been approved 

by the Administrator. 

(6) Tier 4. The landfill owner or 

operator may demonstrate that surface 

methane emissions are below 500 parts 

per million by conducting surface 

emission monitoring on a quarterly 

basis using the following procedures. 

(i) The owner or operator must 

measure surface concentrations of 

methane along the entire perimeter of 

the landfill and along a pattern that 

traverses the landfill at no more than 30- 

meter intervals using an organic vapor 

analyzer, flame ionization detector, or 

other portable monitor meeting the 

specifications provided in paragraph 

(a)(6)(iv) of this section. 

(ii) The background concentration 

must be determined by moving the 

probe inlet upwind and downwind at 

least 30 meters from the waste mass 

boundary of the landfill. 

(iii) Surface emission monitoring 

must be performed in accordance with 

section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix 

A of this part, except that the probe inlet 

must be placed within 5 to 10 

centimeters of the landfill surface. 

Monitoring must be performed during 

typical meteorological conditions. 

(A) Surface emission monitoring must 

be terminated when the average wind 

speed exceeds 5 miles per hour or the 

instantaneous wind speed exceeds 10 

miles per hour. The Administrator may 

approve alternatives to this wind speed 

surface monitoring termination for 

landfills consistently having measured 

winds in excess of these specified 

limits. Average wind speed must be 

determined on a 15-minute average 

using an onsite anemometer with a 

continuous recorder for the entire 

duration of the monitoring event. 

(B) Landfill surface areas where visual 

observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas, such as 

distressed vegetation and cracks or 

seeps in the cover, and all cover 

penetrations must also be monitored 

using a device meeting the 

specifications provided in paragraph 

(a)(6)(iv) of this section. 

(iv) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with the provisions in 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section must 

comply with the following 

instrumentation specifications and 

procedures for surface emission 

monitoring devices. 

(A) The portable analyzer must meet 

the instrument specifications provided 

in section 3 of Method 21 of appendix 

A of this part, except that ‘‘methane’’ 

replaces all references to ‘‘VOC’’. 

(B) The calibration gas is methane, 

diluted to a nominal concentration of 

500 parts per million in air. 

(C) To meet the performance 

evaluation requirements in section 3.1.3 

of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, 

the instrument evaluation procedures of 

section 4.4 of Method 21 of appendix A 

of this part must be used. 

(D) The calibration procedures 

provided in section 4.2 of Method 21 of 

appendix A of this part must be 

followed immediately before 

commencing a surface monitoring 

survey. 

(v) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with the Tier 4 provisions in 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section must 

maintain records of surface emission 

monitoring as provided in § 60.39f(g) 

and submit a Tier 4 surface emissions 

report as provided in § 60.38f(c)(5)(iii). 

(vi) If there is any measured 

concentration of methane of 500 parts 

per million or greater from the surface 

of the landfill, the owner or operator 

must submit a gas collection and control 

system design plan within 1 year of the 

first measured concentration of methane 

of 500 parts per million or greater from 

the surface of the landfill according to 

§ 60.38f(d) and install and operate a gas 

collection and control system according 

to § 60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months 

of the first measured concentration of 

methane of 500 parts per million or 

greater from the surface of the landfill. 

(vii) If after four consecutive quarterly 

monitoring periods there is no measured 

concentration of methane of 500 parts 

per million or greater from the surface 

of the landfill, the owner or operator 

must either conduct semi-annual 

surface emission monitoring using the 

methods specified in this section or 

recalculate the NMOC mass emission 

rate annually as provided in § 60.33f(e). 

(A) If conducting semi-annual surface 

emissions monitoring and there is any 

measured concentration of methane of 

500 parts per million or greater from the 

surface of the landfill, the owner or 

operator must submit a gas collection 

and control system design plan within 

1 year of the first measured 

concentration of methane of 500 parts 

per million or greater from the surface 

of the landfill according to § 60.38f(d) 

and install and operate a gas collection 

and control system according to 

§ 60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months of 

the first measured concentration of 

methane of 500 parts per million or 

greater from the surface of the landfill. 

(B) [Reserved] 

(b) After the installation and startup 

of a collection and control system in 

compliance with this subpart, the owner 

or operator must calculate the NMOC 

emission rate for purposes of 

determining when the system can be 

capped or removed as provided in 

§ 60.33f(f), using the following equation: 

MNMOC = 1.89 × 10¥3QLFGCNMOC

Where: 

MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, 

megagrams per year. 

QLFG = Flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters 

per minute. 

CNMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per 

million by volume as hexane. 

(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, 

must be determined by measuring the 

total landfill gas flow rate at the 

common header pipe that leads to the 

control system using a gas flow 

measuring device calibrated according 

to the provisions of section 4 of Method 

2E of appendix A of this part. 

(2) The average NMOC concentration, 

CNMOC, must be determined by 

collecting and analyzing landfill gas 

sampled from the common header pipe 

before the gas moving or condensate 

removal equipment using the 

procedures in Method 25 or Method 25C 

of appendix A of this part. The sample 

location on the common header pipe 

must be before any condensate removal 

or other gas refining units. The landfill 

owner or operator must divide the 

NMOC concentration from Method 25 or 

Method 25C of appendix A of this part 

by six to convert from CNMOC as 

carbon to CNMOC as hexane. 

(3) The owner or operator may use 

another method to determine landfill 

gas flow rate and NMOC concentration 

if the method has been approved by the 

Administrator. 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of 

calculating the NMOC emission rate for 

purposes of determining when the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52153 

system can be capped or removed, the 

owner or operator must submit the 

results according to § 60.38f(j). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(c) When calculating emissions for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) purposes, the owner or operator 

of each MSW landfill subject to the 

provisions of this subpart must estimate 

the NMOC emission rate for comparison 

to the PSD major source and 

significance levels in §§ 51.166 or 52.21 

of this chapter using Compilation of Air 

Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: 

Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP– 

42) or other approved measurement 

procedures. 

(d) For the performance test required 

in § 60.33f(c)(1), the net heating value of 

the combusted landfill gas as 

determined in § 60.18(f)(3) is calculated 

from the concentration of methane in 

the landfill gas as measured by Method 

3C. A minimum of three 30-minute 

Method 3C samples are determined. The 

measurement of other organic 

components, hydrogen, and carbon 

monoxide is not applicable. Method 3C 

may be used to determine the landfill 

gas molecular weight for calculating the 

flare gas exit velocity under 

§ 60.18(f)(4). 

(1) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 60.8), the owner or operator 

must submit the results of the 

performance tests required by 

§ 60.35f(b) or (d), including any 

associated fuel analyses, according to 

§ 60.38f(j). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(e) For the performance test required 

in § 60.33f(c)(2), Method 25 or 25C 

(Method 25C may be used at the inlet 

only) of appendix A of this part must be 

used to determine compliance with the 

98 weight-percent efficiency or the 20 

parts per million by volume outlet 

NMOC concentration level, unless 

another method to demonstrate 

compliance has been approved by the 

Administrator as provided by 

§ 60.38f(d). Method 3 or 3A must be 

used to determine oxygen for correcting 

the NMOC concentration as hexane to 3 

percent. In cases where the outlet 

concentration is less than 50 ppm 

NMOC as carbon (8 ppm NMOC as 

hexane), Method 25A should be used in 

place of Method 25. The following 

equation must be used to calculate 

efficiency: 

Control Efficiency = (NMOCin ¥ 

NMOCout)/(NMOCin) 

Where: 

NMOCin = Mass of NMOC entering control 

device. 

NMOCout = Mass of NMOC exiting control 

device. 

(1) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 60.8), the owner or operator 

must submit the results of the 

performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, according to 

§ 60.38f(j). 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 60.36f Compliance provisions. 

For approval, a State plan must 

include the compliance provisions in 

this section. 

(a) Except as provided in 

§ 60.38f(d)(2), the specified methods in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 

section must be used to determine 

whether the gas collection system is in 

compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2). 

(1) For the purposes of calculating the 

maximum expected gas generation flow 

rate from the landfill to determine 

compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2)(i), one of 

the following equations must be used. 

The k and Lo kinetic factors should be 

those published in the most recent AP– 

42 or other site-specific values 

demonstrated to be appropriate and 

approved by the Administrator. If k has 

been determined as specified in 

§ 60.35f(a)(4), the value of k determined 

from the test must be used. A value of 

no more than 15 years must be used for 

the intended use period of the gas 

mover equipment. The active life of the 

landfill is the age of the landfill plus the 

estimated number of years until closure. 

(i) For sites with unknown year-toyear solid waste acceptance rate: 

Qm = 2LoR (e¥kc¥e¥kt) 

Where: 

Qm = Maximum expected gas generation 

flow rate, cubic meters per year. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic 

meters per megagram solid waste. 

R = Average annual acceptance rate, 

megagrams per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, 

year¥1. 

t = Age of the landfill at equipment 

installation plus the time the owner or 

operator intends to use the gas mover 

equipment or active life of the landfill, 

whichever is less. If the equipment is 

installed after closure, t is the age of the 

landfill at installation, years. 

c = Time since closure, years (for an active 

landfill c = 0 and e¥kc = 1). 

(ii) For sites with known year-to-year 

solid waste acceptance rate: 

Where: 

QM = Maximum expected gas generation flow 

rate, cubic meters per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, 

year¥1. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic 

meters per megagram solid waste. 

Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section, 

megagrams. 

ti = Age of the ith section, years. 

(iii) If a collection and control system 

has been installed, actual flow data may 

be used to project the maximum 

expected gas generation flow rate 

instead of, or in conjunction with, the 

equations in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) 

of this section. If the landfill is still 

accepting waste, the actual measured 

flow data will not equal the maximum 

expected gas generation rate, so 

calculations using the equations in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section 

or other methods must be used to 

predict the maximum expected gas 

generation rate over the intended period 

of use of the gas control system 

equipment. 

(2) For the purposes of determining 

sufficient density of gas collectors for 

compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2)(ii), the 

owner or operator must design a system 

of vertical wells, horizontal collectors, 

or other collection devices, satisfactory 

to the Administrator, capable of 

controlling and extracting gas from all 

portions of the landfill sufficient to meet 

all operational and performance 

standards. 

(3) For the purpose of demonstrating 

whether the gas collection system flow 

rate is sufficient to determine 

compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2)(iii), the 

owner or operator must measure gauge 

pressure in the gas collection header 

applied to each individual well 

monthly. If a positive pressure exists, 

action must be initiated to correct the 

exceedance within 5 calendar days, 

except for the three conditions allowed 

under § 60.34f(b). If negative pressure 

cannot be achieved without excess air 

infiltration within 15 calendar days of 

the first measurement, the gas collection 

system must be expanded to correct the 

exceedance within 120 days of the 

initial measurement of positive 

pressure. Any attempted corrective 

measure must not cause exceedances of 

other operational or performance 

standards. An alternative timeline for 

correcting the exceedance may be 

submitted to the Administrator for 

approval. 

(4) Owners or operators are not 

required to expand the system as 

required in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section during the first 180 days after 

gas collection system startup. 

(5) [Reserved] 

(6) An owner or operator seeking to 

demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.33f(b)(2)(iv) through the use of a 

collection system not conforming to the 

specifications provided in § 60.40f must 

provide information satisfactory to the 

Administrator as specified in 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27AU15.000</GPH>
52154 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

§ 60.38f(d)(3) demonstrating that offsite 

migration is being controlled. 

(b) For purposes of compliance with 

§ 60.34f(a), each owner or operator of a 

controlled landfill must place each well 

or design component as specified in the 

approved design plan as provided in 

§ 60.38f(d). Each well must be installed 

no later than 60 days after the date on 

which the initial solid waste has been 

in place for a period of: 

(1) 5 years or more if active; or 

(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final 

grade. 

(c) The following procedures must be 

used for compliance with the surface 

methane operational standard as 

provided in § 60.34f(d): 

(1) After installation and startup of 

the gas collection system, the owner or 

operator must monitor surface 

concentrations of methane along the 

entire perimeter of the collection area 

and along a pattern that traverses the 

landfill at no more than 30-meter 

intervals (or a site-specific established 

spacing) for each collection area on a 

quarterly basis using an organic vapor 

analyzer, flame ionization detector, or 

other portable monitor meeting the 

specifications provided in § 60.36f(d). 

(2) The background concentration 

must be determined by moving the 

probe inlet upwind and downwind 

outside the boundary of the landfill at 

a distance of at least 30 meters from the 

perimeter wells. 

(3) Surface emission monitoring must 

be performed in accordance with 

section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix 

A of this part, except that the probe inlet 

must be placed within 5 to 10 

centimeters of the ground. Monitoring 

must be performed during typical 

meteorological conditions. 

(4) Any reading of 500 parts per 

million or more above background at 

any location must be recorded as a 

monitored exceedance and the actions 

specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through 

(v) of this section must be taken. As long 

as the specified actions are taken, the 

exceedance is not a violation of the 

operational requirements of § 60.34f(d). 

(i) The location of each monitored 

exceedance must be marked and the 

location and concentration recorded. 

For location, you must determine the 

latitude and longitude coordinates using 

an instrument with an accuracy of at 

least 3 meters. Your coordinates must be 

in decimal degrees with at least five 

decimal places. 

(ii) Cover maintenance or adjustments 

to the vacuum of the adjacent wells to 

increase the gas collection in the 

vicinity of each exceedance must be 

made and the location must be remonitored within 10 calendar days of 

detecting the exceedance. 

(iii) If the re-monitoring of the 

location shows a second exceedance, 

additional corrective action must be 

taken and the location must be 

monitored again within 10 days of the 

second exceedance. If the re-monitoring 

shows a third exceedance for the same 

location, the action specified in 

paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section must 

be taken, and no further monitoring of 

that location is required until the action 

specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this 

section has been taken. 

(iv) Any location that initially showed 

an exceedance but has a methane 

concentration less than 500 parts per 

million methane above background at 

the 10-day re-monitoring specified in 

paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this section 

must be re-monitored 1 month from the 

initial exceedance. If the 1-month remonitoring shows a concentration less 

than 500 parts per million above 

background, no further monitoring of 

that location is required until the next 

quarterly monitoring period. If the 1- 

month re-monitoring shows an 

exceedance, the actions specified in 

paragraph (c)(4)(iii) or (v) of this section 

must be taken. 

(v) For any location where monitored 

methane concentration equals or 

exceeds 500 parts per million above 

background three times within a 

quarterly period, a new well or other 

collection device must be installed 

within 120 calendar days of the initial 

exceedance. An alternative remedy to 

the exceedance, such as upgrading the 

blower, header pipes or control device, 

and a corresponding timeline for 

installation may be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval. 

(5) The owner or operator must 

implement a program to monitor for 

cover integrity and implement cover 

repairs as necessary on a monthly basis. 

(d) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with the provisions in 

paragraph (c) of this section must 

comply with the following 

instrumentation specifications and 

procedures for surface emission 

monitoring devices: 

(1) The portable analyzer must meet 

the instrument specifications provided 

in section 3 of Method 21 of appendix 

A of this part, except that ‘‘methane’’ 

must replace all references to ‘‘VOC’’. 

(2) The calibration gas must be 

methane, diluted to a nominal 

concentration of 500 parts per million in 

air. 

(3) To meet the performance 

evaluation requirements in section 3.1.3 

of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, 

the instrument evaluation procedures of 

section 4.4 of Method 21 of appendix A 

of this part must be used. 

(4) The calibration procedures 

provided in section 4.2 of Method 21 of 

appendix A of this part must be 

followed immediately before 

commencing a surface monitoring 

survey. 

(e) The provisions of this subpart 

apply at all times, including periods of 

startup, shutdown or malfunction. 

§ 60.37f Monitoring of operations. 

For approval, a State plan must 

include the monitoring provisions in 

this section, except as provided in 

§ 60.38f(d)(2). 

(a) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.33f(b)(2) for an active 

gas collection system must install a 

sampling port and a thermometer, other 

temperature measuring device, or an 

access port for temperature 

measurements at each wellhead and: 

(1) Measure the gauge pressure in the 

gas collection header on a monthly basis 

as provided in § 60.36f(a)(3); and 

(2) Monitor nitrogen or oxygen 

concentration in the landfill gas on a 

monthly basis as follows: 

(i) The nitrogen level must be 

determined using Method 3C, unless an 

alternative test method is established as 

allowed by § 60.38f(d)(2). 

(ii) Unless an alternative test method 

is established as allowed by 

§ 60.38f(d)(2), the oxygen must be 

determined by an oxygen meter using 

Method 3A or 3C except that: 

(A) The span must be set between 10 

and 12 percent oxygen; 

(B) A data recorder is not required; 

(C) Only two calibration gases are 

required, a zero and span; 

(D) A calibration error check is not 

required; 

(E) The allowable sample bias, zero 

drift, and calibration drift are ±10 

percent. 

(3) Monitor temperature of the landfill 

gas on a monthly basis. The temperature 

measuring device must be calibrated 

annually using the procedure in 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix A–1, Method 2, 

Section 10.3. 

(b) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.33f(c) using an 

enclosed combustor must calibrate, 

maintain, and operate according to the 

manufacturer’s specifications, the 

following equipment: 

(1) A temperature monitoring device 

equipped with a continuous recorder 

and having a minimum accuracy of ±1 

percent of the temperature being 

measured expressed in degrees Celsius 

or ±0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is 

greater. A temperature monitoring 

device is not required for boilers or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52155 

process heaters with design heat input 

capacity equal to or greater than 44 

megawatts. 

(2) A device that records flow to or 

bypass of the control device. The owner 

or operator must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a 

gas flow rate measuring device that 

must record the flow to the control 

device at least every 15 minutes; and 

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the 

closed position with a car-seal or a lockand-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure 

mechanism must be performed at least 

once every month to ensure that the 

valve is maintained in the closed 

position and that the gas flow is not 

diverted through the bypass line. 

(c) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.33f(c) using a nonenclosed flare must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate according to the 

manufacturer’s specifications the 

following equipment: 

(1) A heat sensing device, such as an 

ultraviolet beam sensor or 

thermocouple, at the pilot light or the 

flame itself to indicate the continuous 

presence of a flame. 

(2) A device that records flow to or 

bypass of the flare. The owner or 

operator must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a 

gas flow rate measuring device that 

must record the flow to the control 

device at least every 15 minutes; and 

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the 

closed position with a car-seal or a lockand-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure 

mechanism must be performed at least 

once every month to ensure that the 

valve is maintained in the closed 

position and that the gas flow is not 

diverted through the bypass line. 

(d) Each owner or operator seeking to 

demonstrate compliance with § 60.33f(c) 

using a device other than a nonenclosed flare or an enclosed combustor 

or a treatment system must provide 

information satisfactory to the 

Administrator as provided in 

§ 60.38f(d)(2) describing the operation of 

the control device, the operating 

parameters that would indicate proper 

performance, and appropriate 

monitoring procedures. The 

Administrator must review the 

information and either approve it, or 

request that additional information be 

submitted. The Administrator may 

specify additional appropriate 

monitoring procedures. 

(e) Each owner or operator seeking to 

install a collection system that does not 

meet the specifications in § 60.40f or 

seeking to monitor alternative 

parameters to those required by § 60.34f 

through § 60.37f must provide 

information satisfactory to the 

Administrator as provided in 

§ 60.38f(d)(2) and (3) describing the 

design and operation of the collection 

system, the operating parameters that 

would indicate proper performance, and 

appropriate monitoring procedures. The 

Administrator may specify additional 

appropriate monitoring procedures. 

(f) Each owner or operator seeking to 

demonstrate compliance with the 500 

parts per million surface methane 

operational standard in § 60.34f(d) must 

monitor surface concentrations of 

methane according to the procedures 

provided in § 60.36f(c) and the 

instrument specifications in § 60.36f(d). 

Any closed landfill that has no 

monitored exceedances of the 

operational standard in three 

consecutive quarterly monitoring 

periods may skip to annual monitoring. 

Any methane reading of 500 parts per 

million or more above background 

detected during the annual monitoring 

returns the frequency for that landfill to 

quarterly monitoring. 

(g) Each owner or operator seeking to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

control system requirements in 

§ 60.33f(c) using a landfill gas treatment 

system must calibrate, maintain, and 

operate according to the manufacturer’s 

specifications a device that records flow 

to or bypass of the treatment system. 

The owner or operator must: 

(1) Install, calibrate, and maintain a 

gas flow rate measuring device that 

records the flow to the treatment system 

at least every 15 minutes; and 

(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the 

closed position with a car-seal or a lockand-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure 

mechanism must be performed at least 

once every month to ensure that the 

valve is maintained in the closed 

position and that the gas flow is not 

diverted through the bypass line. 

§ 60.38f Reporting guidelines. 

For approval, a State plan must 

include the reporting provisions listed 

in this section, as applicable, except as 

provided under §§ 60.24 and 

60.38f(d)(2). 

(a) Design capacity report. For 

existing MSW landfills subject to this 

subpart, the initial design capacity 

report must be submitted no later than 

90 days after the effective date of EPA 

approval of the State’s plan under 

section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The 

initial design capacity report must 

contain the following information: 

(1) A map or plot of the landfill, 

providing the size and location of the 

landfill, and identifying all areas where 

solid waste may be landfilled according 

to the permit issued by the state, local, 

or tribal agency responsible for 

regulating the landfill. 

(2) The maximum design capacity of 

the landfill. Where the maximum design 

capacity is specified in the permit 

issued by the state, local, or tribal 

agency responsible for regulating the 

landfill, a copy of the permit specifying 

the maximum design capacity may be 

submitted as part of the report. If the 

maximum design capacity of the landfill 

is not specified in the permit, the 

maximum design capacity must be 

calculated using good engineering 

practices. The calculations must be 

provided, along with the relevant 

parameters as part of the report. The 

landfill may calculate design capacity in 

either megagrams or cubic meters for 

comparison with the exemption values. 

If the owner or operator chooses to 

convert the design capacity from 

volume to mass or from mass to volume 

to demonstrate its design capacity is less 

than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 

million cubic meters, the calculation 

must include a site-specific density, 

which must be recalculated annually. 

Any density conversions must be 

documented and submitted with the 

design capacity report. The state, local, 

or tribal agency or the Administrator 

may request other reasonable 

information as may be necessary to 

verify the maximum design capacity of 

the landfill. 

(b) Amended design capacity report. 

An amended design capacity report 

must be submitted providing 

notification of an increase in the design 

capacity of the landfill, within 90 days 

of an increase in the maximum design 

capacity of the landfill to or above 2.5 

million megagrams and 2.5 million 

cubic meters. This increase in design 

capacity may result from an increase in 

the permitted volume of the landfill or 

an increase in the density as 

documented in the annual recalculation 

required in § 60.39f(f). 

(c) NMOC emission rate report. For 

existing MSW landfills covered by this 

subpart with a design capacity equal to 

or greater than 2.5 million megagrams 

and 2.5 million cubic meters, the NMOC 

emission rate report must be submitted 

following the procedure specified in 

paragraph (j) of this section no later than 

90 days after the effective date of EPA 

approval of the State’s plan under 

section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The 

NMOC emission rate report must be 

submitted annually following the 

procedure specified in paragraph (j) of 

this section, except as provided for in 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The 

Administrator may request such 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52156 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

additional information as may be 

necessary to verify the reported NMOC 

emission rate. 

(1) The NMOC emission rate report 

must contain an annual or 5-year 

estimate of the NMOC emission rate 

calculated using the formula and 

procedures provided in § 60.35f(a). 

(2) The NMOC emission rate report 

must include all the data, calculations, 

sample reports and measurements used 

to estimate the annual or 5-year 

emissions. 

(3) If the estimated NMOC emission 

rate as reported in the annual report to 

the Administrator is less than 34 

megagrams per year in each of the next 

5 consecutive years, the owner or 

operator may elect to submit, following 

the procedure specified in paragraph (j) 

of this section, an estimate of the NMOC 

emission rate for the next 5-year period 

in lieu of the annual report. This 

estimate must include the current 

amount of solid waste-in-place and the 

estimated waste acceptance rate for each 

year of the 5 years for which an NMOC 

emission rate is estimated. All data and 

calculations upon which this estimate is 

based must be provided to the 

Administrator. This estimate must be 

revised at least once every 5 years. If the 

actual waste acceptance rate exceeds the 

estimated waste acceptance rate in any 

year reported in the 5-year estimate, a 

revised 5-year estimate must be 

submitted to the Administrator. The 

revised estimate must cover the 5-year 

period beginning with the year in which 

the actual waste acceptance rate 

exceeded the estimated waste 

acceptance rate. 

(4) Each owner or operator subject to 

the requirements of this subpart is 

exempted from the requirements to 

submit an NMOC emission rate report, 

after installing a collection and control 

system that complies with § 60.33f(b) 

and (c), during such time as the 

collection and control system is in 

operation and in compliance with 

§§ 60.34f and 60.36f. 

(5) Each owner or operator of an MSW 

landfill having a design capacity equal 

to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams 

and 2.5 million cubic meters must 

submit a collection and control system 

design plan to the Administrator within 

1 year of the first NMOC emission rate 

report in which the NMOC emission 

rate equals or exceeds 34 megagrams per 

year, except as follows: 

(i) If the owner or operator elects to 

recalculate the NMOC emission rate 

after Tier 2 NMOC sampling and 

analysis as provided in § 60.35f(a)(3) 

and the resulting rate is less than 34 

megagrams per year, annual periodic 

reporting must be resumed, using the 

Tier 2 determined site-specific NMOC 

concentration, until the calculated 

emission rate is equal to or greater than 

34 megagrams per year or the landfill is 

closed. The revised NMOC emission 

rate report, with the recalculated 

emission rate based on NMOC sampling 

and analysis, must be submitted, 

following the procedure specified in 

paragraph (j) of this section, within 180 

days of the first calculated exceedance 

of 34 megagrams per year. 

(ii) If the owner or operator elects to 

recalculate the NMOC emission rate 

after determining a site-specific 

methane generation rate constant k, as 

provided in Tier 3 in § 60.35f(a)(4), and 

the resulting NMOC emission rate is less 

than 34 megagrams per year, annual 

periodic reporting must be resumed. 

The resulting site-specific methane 

generation rate constant k must be used 

in the emission rate calculation until 

such time as the emissions rate 

calculation results in an exceedance. 

The revised NMOC emission rate report 

based on the provisions of § 60.35f(a)(4) 

and the resulting site-specific methane 

generation rate constant k must be 

submitted, following the procedure 

specified in paragraph (j) of this section, 

to the Administrator within 1 year of the 

first calculated NMOC emission rate 

equaling or exceeding 34 megagrams per 

year. 

(iii) If the owner or operator elects to 

demonstrate that site-specific surface 

methane emissions are below 500 parts 

per million methane, then the owner or 

operator must submit annually a Tier 4 

surface emissions report as specified in 

this paragraph following the procedure 

specified in paragraph (j) of this section. 

If the Tier 4 surface emissions report 

shows no surface emissions readings of 

500 parts per million methane or greater 

for four consecutive quarters, then the 

landfill may continue Tier 4 monitoring 

at a reduced semi-annual frequency or 

return to Tier 1, 2, or 3. An owner or 

operator may elect to recalculate NMOC 

using Tier 1, 2, or 3 only if it has four 

consecutive quarters with no surface 

emissions monitoring readings of 500 

parts per million or greater. The NMOC 

emission rate report must be submitted 

annually, following the procedure 

specified in paragraph (j) of this section, 

except as provided for in paragraph 

(c)(3) of this section. The Administrator 

may request such additional 

information as may be necessary to 

verify the reported instantaneous 

surface emission readings. The Tier 4 

surface emissions report must clearly 

identify the location, date, and reading 

(in parts per million) of any value 500 

parts per million methane or greater, 

other than non-repeatable, momentary 

readings. For location, you must 

determine the latitude and longitude 

coordinates using an instrument with an 

accuracy of at least 3 meters. Your 

coordinates must be in decimal degrees 

with at least five decimal places. 

(iv) If the landfill is in the closed 

landfill subcategory, the owner or 

operator must submit a collection and 

control system design plan to the 

Administrator within 1 year of the first 

NMOC emission rate report in which 

the NMOC emission rate equals or 

exceeds 50 megagrams per year, except 

as follows: 

(A) If the owner or operator elects to 

recalculate the NMOC emission rate 

after Tier 2 NMOC sampling and 

analysis as provided in § 60.35f(a)(3) 

and the resulting rate is less than 50 

megagrams per year, annual periodic 

reporting must be resumed, using the 

Tier 2 determined site-specific NMOC 

concentration, until the calculated 

emission rate is equal to or greater than 

50 megagrams per year or the landfill is 

closed. The revised NMOC emission 

rate report, with the recalculated 

emission rate based on NMOC sampling 

and analysis, must be submitted, 

following the procedure specified in 

paragraph (j) of this section, within 180 

days of the first calculated exceedance 

of 50 megagrams per year. 

(B) If the owner or operator elects to 

recalculate the NMOC emission rate 

after determining a site-specific 

methane generation rate constant k, as 

provided in Tier 3 in § 60.35f(a)(4), and 

the resulting NMOC emission rate is less 

than 50 megagrams per year, annual 

periodic reporting must be resumed. 

The resulting site-specific methane 

generation rate constant k must be used 

in the emission rate calculation until 

such time as the emissions rate 

calculation results in an exceedance. 

The revised NMOC emission rate report 

based on the provisions of § 60.35f(a)(4) 

and the resulting site-specific methane 

generation rate constant k must be 

submitted, following the procedure 

specified in paragraph (j) of this section, 

to the Administrator within 1 year of the 

first calculated NMOC emission rate 

equaling or exceeding 50 megagrams per 

year. 

(C) The landfill owner or operator 

elects to demonstrate surface emissions 

are low, consistent with the provisions 

in § 60.38(c)(5)(iii). 

(D) The landfill has already submitted 

a gas collection and control system 

design plan consistent with the 

provisions of subpart WWW of this part; 

40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a state 

plan implementing subpart Cc of this 

part. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52157 

(d) Collection and control system 

design plan. The State plan must 

include a process for state review and 

approval of the site-specific design plan 

for each gas collection and control 

system. The collection and control 

system design plan must meet the 

following requirements: 

(1) The collection and control system 

as described in the design plan must 

meet the design requirements in 

§ 60.33f(b) and (c). 

(2) The collection and control system 

design plan must include any 

alternatives to the operational 

standards, test methods, procedures, 

compliance measures, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, or reporting provisions 

of §§ 60.34f through 60.39f proposed by 

the owner or operator. 

(3) The collection and control system 

design plan must either conform to 

specifications for active collection 

systems in § 60.40f or include a 

demonstration to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction of the sufficiency of the 

alternative provisions to § 60.40f. 

(4) If the owner or operator chooses to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission control requirements of this 

subpart using a treatment system as 

defined in this subpart, then the owner 

or operator must prepare a site-specific 

treatment system monitoring plan as 

specified in § 60.39f(b)(5)(ii). 

(5) The Administrator must review 

the information submitted under 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this 

section and either approve it, 

disapprove it, or request that additional 

information be submitted. Because of 

the many site-specific factors involved 

with landfill gas system design, 

alternative systems may be necessary. A 

wide variety of system designs are 

possible, such as vertical wells, 

combination horizontal and vertical 

collection systems, or horizontal 

trenches only, leachate collection 

components, and passive systems. 

(e) Revised design plan. The owner or 

operator who has already been required 

to submit a design plan under paragraph 

(d) of this section, or under subpart 

WWW of this part; 40 CFR part 62, 

subpart GGG; or a state plan 

implementing subpart Cc of this part, 

must submit a revised design plan to the 

Administrator for approval as follows: 

(1) Within 90 days of expanding 

operations to an area not covered by the 

previously approved design plan. 

(2) Prior to installing or expanding the 

gas collection system in a way that is 

not consistent with the design plan that 

was submitted to the Administrator 

according to paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(f) Closure report. Each owner or 

operator of a controlled landfill must 

submit a closure report to the 

Administrator within 30 days of ceasing 

waste acceptance. The Administrator 

may request additional information as 

may be necessary to verify that 

permanent closure has taken place in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR 258.60. If a closure report has been 

submitted to the Administrator, no 

additional wastes may be placed into 

the landfill without filing a notification 

of modification as described under 

§ 60.7(a)(4). 

(g) Equipment removal report. Each 

owner or operator of a controlled 

landfill must submit an equipment 

removal report to the Administrator 30 

days prior to removal or cessation of 

operation of the control equipment. 

(1) The equipment removal report 

must contain the following items: 

(i) A copy of the closure report 

submitted in accordance with paragraph 

(f) of this section; and 

(ii) A copy of the initial performance 

test report demonstrating that the 15- 

year minimum control period has 

expired, unless the report of the results 

of the performance test has been 

submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s 

CDX, or information that demonstrates 

that the GCCS will be unable to operate 

for 15 years due to declining gas flows. 

In the equipment removal report, the 

process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) 

tested, and the date that such 

performance test was conducted may be 

submitted in lieu of the performance 

test report if the report has been 

previously submitted to the EPA’s CDX; 

and 

(iii) Dated records of surface 

emissions monitoring data of the 

landfill or closed area that demonstrates 

that there are no surface emissions of 

500 parts per million or greater for four 

consecutive quarters, unless the reports 

have been submitted to the EPA via the 

EPA’s CDX. If the surface emissions 

monitoring reports have been previously 

submitted to the EPA’s CDX, a statement 

that the reports have been submitted 

electronically and the dates that the 

reports were submitted to the EPA’s 

CDX may be submitted in the 

equipment removal report in lieu of the 

surface emissions monitoring reports; or 

(iv) Dated copies of three successive 

NMOC emission rate reports 

demonstrating that the landfill is no 

longer producing 34 megagrams or 

greater of NMOC per year; or 

(v) For the closed landfill subcategory, 

dated copies of three successive NMOC 

emission rate reports demonstrating that 

the landfill is no longer producing 50 

megagrams or greater of NMOC per year. 

(2) The Administrator may request 

such additional information as may be 

necessary to verify that all of the 

conditions for removal in § 60.33f(f) 

have been met. 

(h) Annual report. The owner or 

operator of a landfill seeking to comply 

with § 60.33f(e)(2) using an active 

collection system designed in 

accordance with § 60.33f(b) must submit 

to the Administrator, following the 

procedures specified in paragraph (j) of 

this section, an annual report of the 

recorded information in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (6) of this section. The 

initial annual report must be submitted 

within 180 days of installation and 

startup of the collection and control 

system. The initial annual report must 

include the following information 

pertaining to the initial performance test 

report required under § 60.8: The 

process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) 

tested, and the date that such 

performance test was conducted. The 

initial performance test report must be 

submitted, following the procedure 

specified in § 60.8(j), no later than the 

date that the initial annual report is 

submitted. For enclosed combustion 

devices, flares, and treatment systems 

reportable exceedances are defined 

under § 60.39f(c)(1). 

(1) Value and length of time for 

exceedance of applicable parameters 

monitored under § 60.37f(a)(1), (b), (c), 

(d), and (g). 

(2) Description and duration of all 

periods when the gas stream is diverted 

from the control device or treatment 

system through a bypass line or the 

indication of bypass flow as specified 

under § 60.37f. 

(3) Description and duration of all 

periods when the control device or 

treatment system was not operating and 

length of time the control device or 

treatment system was not operating. 

(4) All periods when the collection 

system was not operating. 

(5) The location of each exceedance of 

the 500 parts per million methane 

concentration as provided in § 60.34f(d) 

and the concentration recorded at each 

location for which an exceedance was 

recorded in the previous month. For 

location, you must determine the 

latitude and longitude coordinates using 

an instrument with an accuracy of at 

least 3 meters. Your coordinates must be 

in decimal degrees with at least five 

decimal places. 

(6) The date of installation and the 

location of each well or collection 

system expansion added pursuant to 

§ 60.36f(a)(3), (b), and (c)(4). 

(i) Initial performance test report. 

Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.33f(c) must include 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52158 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the following information with the 

initial performance test report required 

under § 60.8: 

(1) A diagram of the collection system 

showing collection system positioning 

including all wells, horizontal 

collectors, surface collectors, or other 

gas extraction devices, including the 

locations of any areas excluded from 

collection and the proposed sites for the 

future collection system expansion; 

(2) The data upon which the sufficient 

density of wells, horizontal collectors, 

surface collectors, or other gas 

extraction devices and the gas mover 

equipment sizing are based; 

(3) The documentation of the 

presence of asbestos or nondegradable 

material for each area from which 

collection wells have been excluded 

based on the presence of asbestos or 

nondegradable material; 

(4) The sum of the gas generation flow 

rates for all areas from which collection 

wells have been excluded based on 

nonproductivity and the calculations of 

gas generation flow rate for each 

excluded area; 

(5) The provisions for increasing gas 

mover equipment capacity with 

increased gas generation flow rate, if the 

present gas mover equipment is 

inadequate to move the maximum flow 

rate expected over the life of the 

landfill; and 

(6) The provisions for the control of 

offsite migration. 

(j) Electronic reporting. The owner or 

operator must submit the results of each 

performance test according to the 

following procedures: 

(1) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html), you must submit the results 

of the performance test to the EPA via 

the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (http://

cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in a file format generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you 

may submit performance test data in an 

electronic file format consistent with the 

extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, once the XML schema is available. 

If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI), you must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, including information claimed to 

be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, 

or other commonly used electronic 

storage media to the EPA. The electronic 

media must be clearly marked as CBI 

and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE 

CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same ERT or alternate file 

with the CBI omitted must be submitted 

to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, you must submit the results of 

the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 60.4. 

§ 60.39f Recordkeeping guidelines. 

For approval, a State plan must 

include the recordkeeping provisions in 

this section. 

(a) Except as provided in 

§ 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or operator of 

an MSW landfill subject to the 

provisions of § 60.33f(e) must keep for at 

least 5 years up-to-date, readily 

accessible, onsite records of the design 

capacity report that triggered § 60.33f(e), 

the current amount of solid waste inplace, and the year-by-year waste 

acceptance rate. Offsite records may be 

maintained if they are retrievable within 

4 hours. Either paper copy or electronic 

formats are acceptable. 

(b) Except as provided in 

§ 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or operator of 

a controlled landfill must keep up-todate, readily accessible records for the 

life of the control system equipment of 

the data listed in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (b)(5) of this section as 

measured during the initial performance 

test or compliance determination. 

Records of subsequent tests or 

monitoring must be maintained for a 

minimum of 5 years. Records of the 

control device vendor specifications 

must be maintained until removal. 

(1) Where an owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

seeks to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.33f(b): 

(i) The maximum expected gas 

generation flow rate as calculated in 

§ 60.36f(a)(1). The owner or operator 

may use another method to determine 

the maximum gas generation flow rate, 

if the method has been approved by the 

Administrator. 

(ii) The density of wells, horizontal 

collectors, surface collectors, or other 

gas extraction devices determined using 

the procedures specified in 

§ 60.40f(a)(1). 

(2) Where an owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

seeks to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.33f(c) through use of an enclosed 

combustion device other than a boiler or 

process heater with a design heat input 

capacity equal to or greater than 44 

megawatts: 

(i) The average temperature measured 

at least every 15 minutes and averaged 

over the same time period of the 

performance test. 

(ii) The percent reduction of NMOC 

determined as specified in § 60.33f(c)(2) 

achieved by the control device. 

(3) Where an owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

seeks to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.33f(c)(2)(i) through use of a boiler 

or process heater of any size: a 

description of the location at which the 

collected gas vent stream is introduced 

into the boiler or process heater over the 

same time period of the performance 

testing. 

(4) Where an owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

seeks to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.33f(c)(1) through use of a nonenclosed flare, the flare type (i.e., steamassisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted), 

all visible emission readings, heat 

content determination, flow rate or 

bypass flow rate measurements, and exit 

velocity determinations made during 

the performance test as specified in 

§ 60.18; and continuous records of the 

flare pilot flame or flare flame 

monitoring and records of all periods of 

operations during which the pilot flame 

or the flare flame is absent. 

(5) Where an owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

seeks to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.33f(c)(3) through use of a landfill 

gas treatment system: 

(i) Bypass records. Records of the flow 

of landfill gas to, and bypass of, the 

treatment system. 

(ii) Site-specific treatment monitoring 

plan, to include: 

(A) Records of filtration, de-watering, 

and compression parameters that ensure 

the treatment system is operating 

properly for the intended end use of the 

treated landfill gas. 

(B) Monitoring methods, frequencies, 

and operating ranges for each monitored 

operating parameter based on 

manufacturer’s recommendations or 

engineering analysis for the intended 

end use of the treated landfill gas. 

(C) Documentation of the monitoring 

methods and ranges, along with 

justification for their use. 

(D) Identify who is responsible (by job 

title) for data collection. 

(E) Processes and methods used to 

collect the necessary data. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52159 

(F) Description of the procedures and 

methods that are used for quality 

assurance, maintenance, and repair of 

all continuous monitoring systems. 

(c) Except as provided in 

§ 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or operator of 

a controlled landfill subject to the 

provisions of this subpart must keep for 

5 years up-to-date, readily accessible 

continuous records of the equipment 

operating parameters specified to be 

monitored in § 60.37f as well as up-todate, readily accessible records for 

periods of operation during which the 

parameter boundaries established 

during the most recent performance test 

are exceeded. 

(1) The following constitute 

exceedances that must be recorded and 

reported under § 60.38f: 

(i) For enclosed combustors except for 

boilers and process heaters with design 

heat input capacity of 44 megawatts 

(150 million British thermal unit per 

hour) or greater, all 3-hour periods of 

operation during which the average 

temperature was more than 28 °C below 

the average combustion temperature 

during the most recent performance test 

at which compliance with § 60.33f(c) 

was determined. 

(ii) For boilers or process heaters, 

whenever there is a change in the 

location at which the vent stream is 

introduced into the flame zone as 

required under paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(2) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart must keep 

up-to-date, readily accessible 

continuous records of the indication of 

flow to the control system and the 

indication of bypass flow or records of 

monthly inspections of car-seals or lockand-key configurations used to seal 

bypass lines, specified under § 60.37f. 

(3) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart who uses 

a boiler or process heater with a design 

heat input capacity of 44 megawatts or 

greater to comply with § 60.33f(c) must 

keep an up-to-date, readily accessible 

record of all periods of operation of the 

boiler or process heater. (Examples of 

such records could include records of 

steam use, fuel use, or monitoring data 

collected pursuant to other state, local, 

tribal, or federal regulatory 

requirements.) 

(4) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart by use of a non-enclosed flare 

must keep up-to-date, readily accessible 

continuous records of the flame or flare 

pilot flame monitoring specified under 

§ 60.37f(c), and up-to-date, readily 

accessible records of all periods of 

operation in which the flame or flare 

pilot flame is absent. 

(5) Each owner or operator of a 

landfill seeking to comply with 

§ 60.33f(e) using an active collection 

system designed in accordance with 

§ 60.33f(b) must keep records of 

estimates of NMOC emissions for 

periods when the collection system or 

control device is not operating. 

(d) Except as provided in 

§ 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

must keep for the life of the collection 

system an up-to-date, readily accessible 

plot map showing each existing and 

planned collector in the system and 

providing a unique identification 

location label on each collector that 

matches the labeling on the plot map. 

(1) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart must keep 

up-to-date, readily accessible records of 

the installation date and location of all 

newly installed collectors as specified 

under § 60.36f(b). 

(2) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart must keep 

readily accessible documentation of the 

nature, date of deposition, amount, and 

location of asbestos-containing or 

nondegradable waste excluded from 

collection as provided in § 60.40f(a)(3)(i) 

as well as any nonproductive areas 

excluded from collection as provided in 

§ 60.40f(a)(3)(ii). 

(e) Except as provided in 

§ 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

must keep for at least 5 years up-to-date, 

readily accessible records of all 

collection and control system 

exceedances of the operational 

standards in § 60.34f, the reading in the 

subsequent month whether or not the 

second reading is an exceedance, and 

the location of each exceedance. 

(f) Landfill owners or operators who 

convert design capacity from volume to 

mass or mass to volume to demonstrate 

that landfill design capacity is less than 

2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million 

cubic meters, as provided in the 

definition of ‘‘design capacity’’, must 

keep readily accessible, onsite records 

of the annual recalculation of sitespecific density, design capacity, and 

the supporting documentation. Offsite 

records may be maintained if they are 

retrievable within 4 hours. Either paper 

copy or electronic formats are 

acceptable. 

(g) Landfill owners or operators 

seeking to demonstrate that site-specific 

surface methane emissions are below 

500 parts per million by conducting 

surface emission monitoring under the 

Tier 4 procedures specified in 

§ 60.35f(a)(6) must keep for at least 5 

years up-to-date, readily accessible 

records of all surface emissions 

monitoring and information related to 

monitoring instrument calibrations 

conducted according to sections 8.1.2 

and 10 of Method 21 of Appendix A of 

this part including all of the following 

items: 

(1) Calibration records. 

(i) Date of calibration and initials of 

operator performing the calibration. 

(ii) Calibration gas cylinder 

identification, certification date, and 

certified concentration. 

(iii) Instrument scale(s) used. 

(iv) A description of any corrective 

action taken if the meter readout could 

not be adjusted to correspond to the 

calibration gas value. 

(v) If an owner or operator makes their 

own calibration gas, a description of the 

procedure used. 

(2) Timestamp of each surface scan 

reading, to the nearest minute. 

(3) Location of each surface scan 

reading. The owner or operator must 

determine the coordinates using an 

instrument with an accuracy of at least 

3 meters. Coordinates must be in 

decimal degrees with at least five 

decimal places. 

(4) Monitored methane concentration 

(parts per million) of each reading. 

(5) Background methane 

concentration (parts per million) after 

each instrument calibration test. 

(6) Adjusted methane concentration 

using most recent calibration (parts per 

million). 

(7) For readings taken at each surface 

penetration, the unique identification 

location label matching the label 

specified in § 60.39f(d). 

(h) Except as provided in 

§ 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

must keep for at least 5 years up-to-date, 

readily accessible records of all 

collection and control system 

monitoring data for parameters 

measured in § 60.37f(a)(2) and (3). 

(i) Any records required to be 

maintained by this subpart that are 

submitted electronically via the EPA’s 

CDX may be maintained in electronic 

format. 

§ 60.40f Specifications for active collection 

systems. 

For approval, a State plan must 

include the specifications for active 

collection systems in this section. 

(a) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.33f(b) must site active 

collection wells, horizontal collectors, 

surface collectors, or other extraction 

devices at a sufficient density 

throughout all gas producing areas using 

the following procedures unless 

alternative procedures have been 

approved by the Administrator. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(1) The collection devices within the 

interior must be certified to achieve 

comprehensive control of surface gas 

emissions by a professional engineer. 

The following issues must be addressed 

in the design: Depths of refuse, refuse 

gas generation rates and flow 

characteristics, cover properties, gas 

system expandability, leachate and 

condensate management, accessibility, 

compatibility with filling operations, 

integration with closure end use, air 

intrusion control, corrosion resistance, 

fill settlement, resistance to the refuse 

decomposition heat, and ability to 

isolate individual components or 

sections for repair or troubleshooting 

without shutting down entire collection 

system. 

(2) The sufficient density of gas 

collection devices determined in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section must 

address landfill gas migration issues and 

augmentation of the collection system 

through the use of active or passive 

systems at the landfill perimeter or 

exterior. 

(3) The placement of gas collection 

devices determined in paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section must control all gas 

producing areas, except as provided by 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Any segregated area of asbestos or 

nondegradable material may be 

excluded from collection if documented 

as provided under § 60.39f(d). The 

documentation must provide the nature, 

date of deposition, location and amount 

of asbestos or nondegradable material 

deposited in the area, and must be 

provided to the Administrator upon 

request. 

(ii) Any nonproductive area of the 

landfill may be excluded from control, 

provided that the total of all excluded 

areas can be shown to contribute less 

than 1 percent of the total amount of 

NMOC emissions from the landfill. The 

amount, location, and age of the 

material must be documented and 

provided to the Administrator upon 

request. A separate NMOC emissions 

estimate must be made for each section 

proposed for exclusion, and the sum of 

all such sections must be compared to 

the NMOC emissions estimate for the 

entire landfill. 

(A) The NMOC emissions from each 

section proposed for exclusion must be 

computed using the following equation: 

Where: 

Qi = NMOC emission rate from the ith 

section, megagrams per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, 

year¥1. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic 

meters per megagram solid waste. 

Mi = Mass of the degradable solid waste in 

the ith section, megagram. 

ti = Age of the solid waste in the ith section, 

years. 

CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per 

million by volume. 

3.6×10¥9 = Conversion factor. 

(B) If the owner or operator is 

proposing to exclude, or cease gas 

collection and control from, 

nonproductive physically separated 

(e.g., separately lined) closed areas that 

already have gas collection systems, 

NMOC emissions from each physically 

separated closed area must be computed 

using either the equation in § 60.35f or 

the equation in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) of 

this section. 

(iii) The values for k and CNMOC 

determined in field testing must be used 

if field testing has been performed in 

determining the NMOC emission rate or 

the radii of influence (the distance from 

the well center to a point in the landfill 

where the pressure gradient applied by 

the blower or compressor approaches 

zero). If field testing has not been 

performed, the default values for k, Lo, 

and CNMOC provided in § 60.35f or the 

alternative values from § 60.35f must be 

used. The mass of nondegradable solid 

waste contained within the given 

section may be subtracted from the total 

mass of the section when estimating 

emissions provided the nature, location, 

age, and amount of the nondegradable 

material is documented as provided in 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section. 

(b) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.33f(b) must construct 

the gas collection devices using the 

following equipment or procedures: 

(1) The landfill gas extraction 

components must be constructed of 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density 

polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, fiberglass, 

stainless steel, or other nonporous 

corrosion resistant material of suitable 

dimensions to: Convey projected 

amounts of gases; withstand 

installation, static, and settlement 

forces; and withstand planned 

overburden or traffic loads. The 

collection system must extend as 

necessary to comply with emission and 

migration standards. Collection devices 

such as wells and horizontal collectors 

must be perforated to allow gas entry 

without head loss sufficient to impair 

performance across the intended extent 

of control. Perforations must be situated 

with regard to the need to prevent 

excessive air infiltration. 

(2) Vertical wells must be placed so as 

not to endanger underlying liners and 

must address the occurrence of water 

within the landfill. Holes and trenches 

constructed for piped wells and 

horizontal collectors must be of 

sufficient cross-section so as to allow for 

their proper construction and 

completion including, for example, 

centering of pipes and placement of 

gravel backfill. Collection devices must 

be designed so as not to allow indirect 

short circuiting of air into the cover or 

refuse into the collection system or gas 

into the air. Any gravel used around 

pipe perforations should be of a 

dimension so as not to penetrate or 

block perforations. 

(3) Collection devices may be 

connected to the collection header pipes 

below or above the landfill surface. The 

connector assembly must include a 

positive closing throttle valve, any 

necessary seals and couplings, access 

couplings and at least one sampling 

port. The collection devices must be 

constructed of PVC, HDPE, fiberglass, 

stainless steel, or other nonporous 

material of suitable thickness. 

(c) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.33f(c) must convey the 

landfill gas to a control system in 

compliance with § 60.33f(c) through the 

collection header pipe(s). The gas mover 

equipment must be sized to handle the 

maximum gas generation flow rate 

expected over the intended use period 

of the gas moving equipment using the 

following procedures: 

(1) For existing collection systems, the 

flow data must be used to project the 

maximum flow rate. If no flow data 

exist, the procedures in paragraph (c)(2) 

of this section must be used. 

(2) For new collection systems, the 

maximum flow rate must be in 

accordance with § 60.36f(a)(1). 

§ 60.41f Definitions. 

Terms used but not defined in this 

subpart have the meaning given them in 

the Clean Air Act and in subparts A and 

B of this part. 

Active collection system means a gas 

collection system that uses gas mover 

equipment. 

Active landfill means a landfill in 

which solid waste is being placed or a 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27AU15.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52161 

landfill that is planned to accept waste 

in the future. 

Administrator means the 

Administrator of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency or 

his/her authorized representative or the 

Administrator of a State Air Pollution 

Control Agency. 

Closed landfill means a landfill in 

which solid waste is no longer being 

placed, and in which no additional 

solid wastes will be placed without first 

filing a notification of modification as 

prescribed under § 60.7(a)(4). Once a 

notification of modification has been 

filed, and additional solid waste is 

placed in the landfill, the landfill is no 

longer closed. 

Closed landfill subcategory means a 

closed landfill that has submitted a 

closure report as specified in § 60.38f(f) 

on or before August 27, 2015. 

Closure means that point in time 

when a landfill becomes a closed 

landfill. 

Commercial solid waste means all 

types of solid waste generated by stores, 

offices, restaurants, warehouses, and 

other nonmanufacturing activities, 

excluding residential and industrial 

wastes. 

Controlled landfill means any landfill 

at which collection and control systems 

are required under this subpart as a 

result of the NMOC emission rate. The 

landfill is considered controlled at the 

time a collection and control system 

design plan is submitted in compliance 

with § 60.33f(e)(2). 

Design capacity means the maximum 

amount of solid waste a landfill can 

accept, as indicated in terms of volume 

or mass in the most recent permit issued 

by the state, local, or tribal agency 

responsible for regulating the landfill, 

plus any in-place waste not accounted 

for in the most recent permit. 

Disposal facility means all contiguous 

land and structures, other 

appurtenances, and improvements on 

the land used for the disposal of solid 

waste. 

Emission rate cutoff means the 

threshold annual emission rate to which 

a landfill compares its estimated 

emission rate to determine if control 

under the regulation is required. 

Enclosed combustor means an 

enclosed firebox which maintains a 

relatively constant limited peak 

temperature generally using a limited 

supply of combustion air. An enclosed 

flare is considered an enclosed 

combustor. 

Flare means an open combustor 

without enclosure or shroud. 

Gas mover equipment means the 

equipment (i.e., fan, blower, 

compressor) used to transport landfill 

gas through the header system. 

Household waste means any solid 

waste (including garbage, trash, and 

sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived 

from households (including, but not 

limited to, single and multiple 

residences, hotels and motels, 

bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew 

quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, 

and day-use recreation areas). 

Household waste does not include fully 

segregated yard waste. Segregated yard 

waste means vegetative matter resulting 

exclusively from the cutting of grass, the 

pruning and/or removal of bushes, 

shrubs, and trees, the weeding of 

gardens, and other landscaping 

maintenance activities. Household 

waste does not include construction, 

renovation, or demolition wastes. 

Industrial solid waste means solid 

waste generated by manufacturing or 

industrial processes that is not a 

hazardous waste regulated under 

Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, parts 264 and 265 of 

this chapter. Such waste may include, 

but is not limited to, waste resulting 

from the following manufacturing 

processes: Electric power generation; 

fertilizer/agricultural chemicals; food 

and related products/by-products; 

inorganic chemicals; iron and steel 

manufacturing; leather and leather 

products; nonferrous metals 

manufacturing/foundries; organic 

chemicals; plastics and resins 

manufacturing; pulp and paper 

industry; rubber and miscellaneous 

plastic products; stone, glass, clay, and 

concrete products; textile 

manufacturing; transportation 

equipment; and water treatment. This 

term does not include mining waste or 

oil and gas waste. 

Interior well means any well or 

similar collection component located 

inside the perimeter of the landfill 

waste. A perimeter well located outside 

the landfilled waste is not an interior 

well. 

Landfill means an area of land or an 

excavation in which wastes are placed 

for permanent disposal, and that is not 

a land application unit, surface 

impoundment, injection well, or waste 

pile as those terms are defined under 

§ 257.2 of this title. 

Lateral expansion means a horizontal 

expansion of the waste boundaries of an 

existing MSW landfill. A lateral 

expansion is not a modification unless 

it results in an increase in the design 

capacity of the landfill. 

Modification means an increase in the 

permitted volume design capacity of the 

landfill by either lateral or vertical 

expansion based on its permitted design 

capacity as of July 17, 2014. 

Modification does not occur until the 

owner or operator commences 

construction on the lateral or vertical 

expansion. 

Municipal solid waste landfill or 

MSW landfill means an entire disposal 

facility in a contiguous geographical 

space where household waste is placed 

in or on land. An MSW landfill may 

also receive other types of RCRA 

Subtitle D wastes (§ 257.2 of this title) 

such as commercial solid waste, 

nonhazardous sludge, conditionally 

exempt small quantity generator waste, 

and industrial solid waste. Portions of 

an MSW landfill may be separated by 

access roads. An MSW landfill may be 

publicly or privately owned. An MSW 

landfill may be a new MSW landfill, an 

existing MSW landfill, or a lateral 

expansion. 

Municipal solid waste landfill 

emissions or MSW landfill emissions 

means gas generated by the 

decomposition of organic waste 

deposited in an MSW landfill or derived 

from the evolution of organic 

compounds in the waste. 

NMOC means nonmethane organic 

compounds, as measured according to 

the provisions of § 60.35f. 

Nondegradable waste means any 

waste that does not decompose through 

chemical breakdown or microbiological 

activity. Examples are, but are not 

limited to, concrete, municipal waste 

combustor ash, and metals. 

Passive collection system means a gas 

collection system that solely uses 

positive pressure within the landfill to 

move the gas rather than using gas 

mover equipment. 

Protectorate means American Samoa, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the 

Virgin Islands. 

Sludge means the term sludge as 

defined in 40 CFR 258.2. 

Solid waste means the term solid 

waste as defined in 40 CFR 258.2. 

State means any of the 50 United 

States and the protectorates of the 

United States. 

State plan means a plan submitted 

pursuant to section 111(d) of the Clean 

Air Act and subpart B of this part that 

implements and enforces subpart Cf of 

this part. 

Sufficient density means any number, 

spacing, and combination of collection 

system components, including vertical 

wells, horizontal collectors, and surface 

collectors, necessary to maintain 

emission and migration control as 

determined by measures of performance 

set forth in this part. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

52162 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Sufficient extraction rate means a rate 

sufficient to maintain a negative 

pressure at all wellheads in the 

collection system without causing air 

infiltration, including any wellheads 

connected to the system as a result of 

expansion or excess surface emissions, 

for the life of the blower. 

Treated landfill gas means landfill gas 

processed in a treatment system as 

defined in this subpart. 

Treatment system means a system that 

filters, de-waters, and compresses 

landfill gas for sale or beneficial use. 

Untreated landfill gas means any 

landfill gas that is not treated landfill 

gas. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20899 Filed 8–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215; FRL–9928–96– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AM08 

Standards of Performance for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental proposal. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is issuing this 

supplemental proposal for the 

Standards of Performance for Municipal 

Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills to address 

the nonmethane organic compound 

(NMOC) emission rate threshold at 

which an affected MSW landfill must 

install controls. The EPA is in the 

process of reviewing the Standards of 

Performance for MSW Landfills based 

on changes in the landfills industry 

since the standards were promulgated in 

1996 and issued a proposed rulemaking 

on July 17, 2014. The EPA’s review of 

the Standards of Performance for MSW 

Landfills (also referred to as the New 

Source Performance Standards or NSPS 

for MSW Landfills) applies to landfills 

that commenced construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

July 17, 2014. 

This document proposes to achieve 

additional reductions of landfill gas 

(LFG) and its components, including 

methane, through a lower emission 

threshold at which MSW landfills must 

install and operate a gas collection and 

control system (GCCS). This document 

supplements the proposed July 17, 

2014, rulemaking by further lowering, 

from 40 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) to 

34 Mg/yr, the proposed NMOC 

emissions threshold at which controls 

would be required. This change to the 

2014 proposed threshold is based on 

additional data we have reviewed that 

indicate greater potential for reductions 

in methane emissions from these 

sources than we originally estimated 

that can be achieved at reasonable cost. 

Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to 

establish the NMOC emission rate 

threshold for installing a GCCS at 34 

Mg/yr and is requesting comment 

specifically on whether this is 

appropriate. The EPA is also soliciting 

comment on the number of facilities 

that might ultimately become subject to 

proposed new subpart XXX. The EPA 

intends to consider the information 

received in response to this 

supplemental proposal prior to 

finalizing revised Standards of 

Performance for MSW Landfills. The 

EPA is seeking comment only on the 

two issues addressed by this 

supplemental proposal and the 

supplemental proposal does not 

otherwise reopen the comment period 

for the July 17, 2014, proposed rule. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before October 26, 2015. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA), comments on the information 

collection provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before September 28, 2015. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

September 1, 2015, the EPA will hold a 

public hearing on September 11, 2015 

from 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) 

to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) at 

the location in the ADDRESSES section. If 

no one contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing to be held concerning 

this proposed rule by September 1, 

2015, a public hearing will not take 

place. Information regarding whether or 

not a hearing will be held will be posted 

on the rule’s Web site located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/

landflpg.htm. Please contact Ms. Aimee 

St. Clair at (919) 541–1063 or at 

stclair.aimee@epa.gov to register to 

speak at the hearing. The last day to preregister to speak at the hearing will be 

September 8, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2003–0215, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will be at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

building located at 109 T.W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711. Information regarding whether or 

not a hearing will be held will be posted 

on the rule’s Web site located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/

landflpg.htm. 

Please see section I.C of the 

Supplementary Information for detailed 

information on the public hearing. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA 

WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Docket Center is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning this 

supplemental proposal, contact Ms. 

Hillary Ward, Fuels and Incineration 

Group, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (E143–05), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–3154; fax 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2