Municipal Solid Waste Landfills:

Background Information Document for Federal Plan

Public Comments and Responses

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

September 10, 1999
iii kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 DISRUPTED LANDFILLS (§ 62.14351) ...............................2

3.0 STATE PLAN INTERIM APPROVAL (§ 62.14252(b)) ...................4

4.0 INVENTORY OF LANDFILLS (§ 62.14355(a)(1)) ......................8

5.0 CALCULATING EMISSIONS RATE FOR INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

6.0 DESIGN CAPACITY ESTIMATES AND REPORTS (§ 62.14355) . . . . . . . . . 12

7.0 CALCULATING EMISSIONS RATE FOR CONTROL APPLICABILITY

(§ 62.14354(a)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

8.0 INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS (§§ 62.14351 AND 62.14355(b)) . . . . . . . . . . 20

9.0 DELEGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

1.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received comments from the

following individuals on the proposed rule, “Federal Plan Requirements for Municipal

Solid Waste Landfills That Commenced Construction Prior to May 30, 1991 and Have

Not Been Modified or Reconstructed Since May 30, 1991” (63 FR 69364, December 16,

1998). The docket number for this regulation is A-98-03.

Docket number Commenter and affiliation

IV-D-01 C.A. James, Acting Director

Engineering and Technical Services Division 

Bureau of Air Management

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

Hartford, CT

IV-D-02/IV-G-02 M.H. Naylor, Director

Clark County Health District

Las Vegas, NV

IV-D-03 F.R. Caponi, Supervising Engineer

Solid Waste Management Department

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA

IV-D-04 J.W. Brooks, Director

Bureau of Air Quality

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Augusta, ME

IV-D-05 E.J. Skernolis, Director of Government Affairs 

Waste Management

Washington, DC

IV-G-01 B. Guzzone, Technical Divisions Manager

C. Voell, Director of Technical Services 

Solid Waste Association of North America

Silver Springs, MD
2 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

2.0 DISRUPTED LANDFILLS (§ 62.14351) 

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-01) requested that the final rule apply to

landfills for which vertical or horizontal dimensions change, regardless of whether the

change results in an increase or decrease in dimensions. (The commenter is describing

the definition of “modification,” as added to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; see the

landfills direct final rule, 63 FR 32743, June 16, 1998.) The commenter was concerned

about cases where the landfill owner or operator disrupts the landfill by removing all or a

portion of the disposed solid waste. Under this situation, the commenter stated that there

is a potential for a significant increase in air pollutant emissions from the landfill with

corresponding potential adverse effects on the environment and human health. The

commenter requested that these emission increases be subject to the provisions of 40 CFR

part 60, subparts Cc and WWW. (The proposed Federal plan, 40 CFR part 62, subpart

GGG, has the same emission limits and control requirements as 40 CFR part 60, subparts

Cc and WWW.)

Response: The EPA is not revising 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc (emission

guidelines), 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (new source performance standards), nor

40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG (Federal plan) to address reductions in a landfill’s

permitted horizontal or vertical dimensions. The comment period on subparts Cc and

WWW direct final rule clarifications ended on July 16, 1998. The commenter submitted

the same comment after the close of the comment period of the subparts Cc and WWW

direct final rule (63 FR 32743, June 16, 1998). This response is consistent with EPA’s

memorandum dated September 16, 1998 and located in Docket No. A-98-03,

Item No. IV-B-02. 

The EPA is aware of activities involving the removal of waste from municipal

solid waste landfills conducted pursuant to Comprehensive Environmental Response,
3 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA), or State remedial actions. As stated in § 60.750(c) of the subpart WWW, 

activities conducted pursuant to these programs do not by themselves trigger the

applicability of the new source performance standards to these landfills. However, if the

activities do not fall into the categories stated above, EPA would need to consider if

emissions could increase in the situation described by the commenter. The EPA believes

that emissions would not increase under the conditions described because the mass of

solid waste does not increase. Since the mass does not increase, the methane generation

potential, L , does not increase. Therefore, the EPA does not expect an increase of o

emissions. In addition, landfill emissions are typically generated in an anaerobic

environment. Since the removal of waste will introduce oxygen into the landfill,

anaerobic conditions will be retarded. Under these conditions, the potential for an

increase in emissions is decreased rather than increased. Therefore, EPA concludes that

activities to remove waste from a landfill should not be regulated under the emission

guidelines or new source performance standards. The EPA is not revising the Federal

plan because the Federal plan implements the emission guidelines and must be consistent

with the emission guidelines.
4 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

3.0 STATE PLAN INTERIM APPROVAL (§ 62.14252(b))

Comment: Two commenters (IV-G-01 and IV-D-03) suggested that EPA issue a

final rulemaking to provide interim approval of State plans that have been submitted to

EPA but have not yet been approved or disapproved, while retaining the right to amend

these plans upon its final review. These commenters suggested that if EPA approved

State plans on an interim basis, the landfill owner or operator would be subject to only the

State regulations without duplication of Federal requirements. Similarly, another

commenter (IV-D-05) suggested that in order to avoid the costs and other burdens of

duplicate or inconsistent regulation during the review period, EPA should defer to the

provisions of State plans that have been submitted but not yet approved by EPA. The

commenters were concerned that some States that have submitted State plans already

have existing State requirements that remain in effect while EPA is reviewing the plans. 

If the EPA review is not completed before the final Federal plan takes effect, the Federal

plan would also apply to landfills in these States. The MSW landfills in such States could

then be subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulatory requirements.

One of the commenters (IV-D-05) provided an example of the potential for

concurrent or conflicting requirements. Florida has had State regulations in place since

the end of 1996 that are identical to the emission guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc)

for existing landfills. If the Federal plan is promulgated before the Florida State plan is

approved, the commenter was concerned that these existing landfills may face Federal

and State emission guidelines under two different time lines. He stated that these

landfills should be allowed to follow the State’s compliance deadlines and monitoring,

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 
5 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

One commenter (IV-G-01) stated that the interim approval approach would

simplify rule compliance because only the State would review the site-specific design

plan, rather than EPA first, followed by the State. The commenter contended that 3 days

(24 person-hours) is not enough time for EPA to review a design plan. Two commenters

(IV-G-01 and IV-D-03) contended that the EPA has not committed the resources for

adequate and comprehensive review of design plans. They stated that if EPA does not

have time to review site-specific design plans that propose alternate designs or

monitoring requirements, then the Federal plan may preclude landfill owners or operators

from implementing simpler, less costly, and more effective alternatives on the local level. 

For example, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in California

has implemented a rule to control active landfills. The SCAQMD rule employs a route

monitoring strategy in lieu of grid monitoring. One of the commenters (IV-D-03) and

many other landfill owners and operators undertook an extensive test program to show

the equivalency of route monitoring. The commenter was concerned that if the proposed

Federal plan is promulgated as is, landfill owners and operators could be faced with

administering two separate monitoring programs that are redundant or conflicting. The 

commenters (IV-G-01 and IV-D-03) noted that States are more likely to be familiar with

compelling site-specific issues requiring the need for suitable design plan alternatives and

States have the resources to better verify the equivalency of alternatives.

Response: The EPA will not approve State plans on an interim basis for two

reasons: (1) there is no legal basis for interim approval and (2) overlapping requirements

are not likely. Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60, which was promulgated under authority of

section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, requires States with existing MSW landfills to

submit State plans to EPA within 9 months of EPA’s adoption of the emission guidelines. 

The EPA only has the authority to approve or disapprove a State plan based on whether it

is consistent with subparts B and Cc. While section 502 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR

70.4(d) specifically authorize interim approval for title V permit programs, neither

subpart B nor section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to grant similar interim

approval of State or Tribal plans. The EPA will continue to accept and review State plans

according to the criteria for State plans that are described in “Municipal Solid Waste
6 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

Landfill, Volume 2: Summary of the Requirements for Section 111(d) State Plans for

Implementing the Municipal Solid Waste Emission Guidelines” (guidance document). 

In addition, the EPA does not expect landfill owners or operators to be subject to

duplicate or inconsistent regulation. The EPA expects that State plans that were

submitted by December 1998 (when the Federal plan was proposed) will be approved or

disapproved before the landfills Federal plan becomes effective. Once the State plan is

approved and becomes effective, the owner or operator of a landfill covered by the State

plan will not be subject to the Federal plan. If, as expected, State plans become effective

prior to promulgation of the Federal plan, owners or operators of landfills in those States

will have to comply only with the State plans and will not be subject to two different time

lines or other inconsistent requirements. States like Florida and California that submitted

State plans and are prepared to implement the emission guidelines will not be penalized. 

Regarding review of design plans, the EPA expects that State plans will certainly

be in effect before it is time to review site-specific design plans. Therefore, the State will

in all likelihood be the only reviewer. Site-specific design plans are due within 1 year of

first reporting NMOC emissions of 50 megagrams per year or more. For a landfill subject

to the Federal plan, the earliest this date could be is 1 year and 90 days after the effective

date of the Federal plan, or the fall of 2000. The EPA expects that State plans that have

been submitted would have become effective well before this time. 

If a State does not submit a State plan and EPA reviews the site-specific design

plan, it will commit the necessary resources to ensure an expeditious review. The EPA

has increased the estimate of the time required to review site-specific design plans to

30 hours. (See the revised Information Collection Request, ICR No. 1893.01 and

Docket No. A-98-03, Item No. IV-B-04). The EPA did further analysis and determined

that increasing the time allocated for reviewing and approving the design plan to 30 hours

would be appropriate. The EPA based this estimate on a survey of EPA Regional Offices

and several States. The EPA will fully consider simpler, less costly, and more effective

alternatives at the local level as proposed in the site-specific design plans. The EPA

intends to review design plans as expeditiously as possible so that there is sufficient time

after approval of the plans for the landfills to install controls prior to the compliance date. 

(See 63 FR 69375.)
7 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

The EPA has designed the landfills Federal plan to facilitate the transfer of

authority from EPA to States, Tribes, and local agencies. Parts of the Federal plan

enforcement can be delegated to the State, including review of the design plans if a State

requests delegation of that authority and demonstrates that it meets the criteria for

delegation.
8 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

4.0 INVENTORY OF LANDFILLS (§ 62.14355(a)(1)) 

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-04) stated that one purpose of the Federal plan

appears to be to create a database of MSW landfills in order to estimate emissions. The

commenter stated that the vast majority of small, closed landfills in Maine will never be

able to be assessed due to lack of information. The commenter stated that the remaining

operational landfills could keep records from this time forward, and where feasible,

calculate their existing fill; however, there is little or nothing to be gained. The

commenter provided a list of 396 landfills in Maine that are subject to the emission

guidelines.

Response: The EPA will continue to require States that develop State plans to

submit an inventory of existing landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 1987,

consistent with 40 CFR 60.25, subpart B. The purpose of the inventory is to provide a

record to the public of the existing MSW landfills in a State or Indian country. As part of

the Federal plan, EPA prepared an inventory of landfills in States without State plans. 

The updated inventory can be found in Docket No. A-98-03, Item No. IV-B-03,

supplemented by Item Nos. IV-J-04 and IV-J-15. The EPA appreciates the commenter’s

information on landfills in Maine. The information provided by the commenter is a

useful supplement to EPA’s inventory. The EPA is encouraging States to continue work

on State plans, including inventories.

 The EPA believes it is reasonable to expect States to know what landfills are in

their geographic area and to provide this information in their State plans. While the

inventory should list landfills of all sizes, it does not necessarily need to include

estimated emissions for landfills with design capacities less than 2.5 million megagrams
9 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

or 2.5 million cubic meters where it may be unreasonable or impractical. This

determination is explained in a memorandum from Bruce C. Jordan, Director of the

Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA. 

The January 27, 1997 memorandum allows States, in limited circumstances, to submit

emission inventories as part of State plans without requiring in all cases, that States

develop emissions data for smaller landfills, if development of such data is unreasonable

or impractical. For example, it may be unreasonable or impractical for a State to estimate

emissions for an MSW landfill below 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters

when the landfill is closed and there are no records of waste in place. The memo is

available on the EPA Technology Transfer Website (TTN Web) at

 or in Docket No. A-98-03,

Item No. IV-B-1).
10 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

5.0 CALCULATING EMISSIONS RATE FOR INVENTORY

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-04) contended that volatile organic compounds

(VOC) cannot reliably or meaningfully be estimated from Maine municipal solid waste

landfills and that there are likely other rural States with the same situation. (The landfills

regulations measure emissions of landfill gas as nonmethane organic compounds or

NMOC.) The commenter claimed that calculations to estimate the amount of future VOC

emissions from Maine’s landfills will be inaccurate and misleading because in many

landfills the carbon has been driven off by legal and illegal open burning. The

commenter stated that the “dumps” and then the small landfills in rural Maine had most

of their trash burned during the 1980s and even in the early 1990s. The commenter stated

that even after the State prohibited open burning of municipal solid waste in 1989, afterhour visitors commonly ignited trash on their own. The commenter also cited an article,

“A Dirty Business,” concluding that much of the wood and paper placed in landfills never

decomposes, so emissions may be less than estimated. A copy of the article, which

appeared in the January 23, 1999 edition of “New Scientist,” was attached. 

Response: States or EPA must develop inventories of landfills and their

emissions as part of State plans or the Federal plan. The States should use whatever

information is available to develop a reasonable estimate of emissions, and document the

basis of the estimate. As explained in Section 4.0, under certain circumstances, States do

not need to estimate emissions from small landfills in their inventory.

The EPA appreciates the article, “A Dirty Business.” The article, which addresses

the decomposition of paper and wood in landfills, however, is not relevant to this Federal
11 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

plan rulemaking. This Federal plan rulemaking implements, but does not revise, the

emission guidelines.
12 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

6.0 DESIGN CAPACITY ESTIMATES AND REPORTS (§ 62.14355)

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-04) contended that it is a meaningless task for

towns to create design capacity reports based on uncertain data and where the landfills are

no longer operating. Many of the small towns of Maine do not know and cannot

determine the design capacity of their landfills. The commenter provided limited data on

the 400 landfills in Maine: name, closure date, acreage, and population served. However,

the height and density, which would be used to calculate the design capacity, are not

available. The commenter stated that there is no way to recreate the history needed to get

the height or density. However, based on the landfill acreage, the waste would need to be

36 to 4000 feet deep to reach the 2.5 million cubic meter design capacity cutoff. The

commenter stated that there is at least one existing (and closed) landfill that would be

covered by this rule. Most of the landfills are much smaller than the design capacity

cutoff. In addition, most of Maine’s landfills have been closed and have no additional

capacity for future waste disposal. The commenter estimates that by the end of the year,

358 of Maine’s 400 landfills will be closed. 

The commenter (IV-D-04) also stated that in the final emission guidelines,

municipalities were required to report regularly. The commenter stated that in this

proposed rule, that reporting requirement is dropped.

Response: The emission guidelines require owners and operators subject to the

Federal plan to submit design capacity reports, regardless of the size of the landfill. The

Federal plan must be as stringent as the emission guidelines, therefore, the requirement to

submit a design capacity report remains in the final Federal plan. The purpose of the

design capacity report is to help determine which landfills may be subject to the
13 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

requirement to install a collection and control system. Closed landfills that accepted

waste since 1987 are included because landfills continue to emit NMOC years after they

have closed and are subject to the emission guidelines that are implemented by the

Federal plan.

If data are not available on waste acceptance rates, then owners and operators

should estimate their landfill’s design capacity based on the best information available. 

For example, if owners or operators know the acreage of their landfills (the commenter

provided the acreage for 396 landfills in the State), they could estimate the depth of waste

based on available information, and document their assumption on depth. Then they

could calculate the approximate volumetric design capacity of the landfill and submit the

report. If capacity is clearly below 2.5 million cubic meters (or 2.5 million megagrams)

no further action is required. Based on the data provided by Maine, it appears that most

of the landfills in Maine would fall well below the design capacity cutoff for installing

controls. For the larger landfills, the owner or operator would estimate NMOC emissions

to determine whether a collection and control system would need to be installed.

Regarding the commenter’s belief that the reporting requirements are not the same

as the final emission guidelines, the EPA intended to and believes it has incorporated all

of the requirements of the emission guidelines in the Federal plan, including reporting

requirements.
14 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

7.0 CALCULATING EMISSIONS RATE FOR 

CONTROL APPLICABILITY (§ 62.14354(a))

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-02/IV-G-02) suggested that the nonmethane

organic compound (NMOC) emissions at the Sunrise Mountain Landfill may not be as

high as the emissions calculated using EPA methodology. The commenter noted that

because of Nevada’s dry climate, the actual emissions may be closer to the 50 metric tons

(50 megagrams) threshold for installing a collection and control system, rather than the

calculated amount of 859 megagrams per year. However, the commenter noted that as

the installation of the collection system proceeds, a better estimate will accrue.

Response: It is unlikely that dry climate alone would result in a difference of

emissions from 859 megagrams to 50 megagrams. However, EPA recognizes that

landfills in dry climates have lower emission rates. The recent amendments to the landfill

new source performance standards and emission guidelines (63 FR 32743, June 16, 1998)

include a separate default methane generation rate (k) value to be used to calculate the 

NMOC emission rate in arid areas (those with 30-year average annual precipitation of

less than 25 inches as measured at the nearest representative meteorological site). The

arid (k) value is also included in the proposed and final Federal plan. The arid (k) value

accounts for the slower decomposition rate of waste in those areas. The Federal plan

includes a 3-tier procedure to calculate NMOC emission rates to determine whether a

landfill is required to install controls. The commenter does not specify which “EPA

methodology” they used to calculate emissions of 859 megagrams per year and whether

or not they used the arid (k) value if they performed Tier 1 calculations. Tier 1

calculations, which the commenter may have used, tend to overstate NMOC emission

rates for most landfills and are intended to indicate the need to install a collection and
15 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

control system or perform a more detailed Tier 2 analysis. Many factors can influence

site-specific emissions. Tier 2 or 3 emission estimation procedures allow any owner or

operator to measure and use site-specific values instead of Tier 1 default values for

NMOC concentration and (k). The site-specific values would reflect any unique

characteristics that would affect the emission rate of NMOC for that particular landfill. 

Tier 3 testing is, however, expensive, so if a landfill is well above 50 megagrams per year

under Tier 2, they will want to consider whether to do Tier 3 testing or simply install

controls.

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) recommended that the landfills Federal

plan defer to alternative emission estimation methods, particularly State-approved

methods. This would ensure that consistent and accurate emissions estimates are used in

determining actions under the emission guidelines and new source performance standards

(40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW) and related State programs, such as Title V

permitting and New Source Review. Under the Federal plan as proposed, the EPA

Administrator retains the authority to approve alternative methods to determine sitespecific NMOC concentrations (and does not transfer this authority to the State or Tribe

upon delegation of authority to implement and enforce the Federal plan). The commenter

stated that facilities should be allowed to employ the most accurate emissions estimates. 

The commenter also expressed concern that EPA may rely on default estimates

based on AP-42 estimation methodology while States are using more recent and

sophisticated emission methods that are proving more accurate. The commenter included

a document on landfill emissions prepared by the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency. The document highlights the potential differences between methods of

calculating landfill emissions.

The commenter also suggested that emission estimation procedures in AP-42,

“Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors,” as well as tiered estimation procedures

in 40 CFR 60.754 be modified to establish more precise default values and calculation

methods. (The landfills Federal plan, 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG cross references the

emission estimation procedures in 40 CFR 60.754.) Also, the commenter suggested that
16 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

new scientific methods must be agreed upon and used in the guidance document and the

regulation.

The commenter (IV-D-05) made the following points and recommendations:

& Develop better gas generation rate estimates for MSW.

& Give credit to reduction in emissions already achieved by existing gas

collection and control systems. Once an appropriate gas generation model

is chosen, then the gas collection and control system reductions in

emissions can be more appropriately used in calculating potential net

emissions.

& Recognize that the reduction of gas constituents occurs within the landfill

and the soil cover and/or capping materials.

& The 1:1 correlation of methane generation and NMOCs has not been

observed.

& There are temporal and spatial differences in gas generation rates and

emissions even within the same landfill.

Response: The emission guidelines require the MSW landfill owner or operator

to use the tiered calculation procedure described in 40 CFR 60.754 of subpart WWW to

determine the eventual need for controls. The guidelines do not allow the use of AP-42

emission factors to determine whether a landfill must install controls. The tier calculation

procedure was established during development of the new source performance standards

and emission guidelines. The Federal plan implements the emission guidelines and must

therefore use the same procedure. The EPA is not revising the new source performance

standards or emission guidelines as part of this Federal plan rulemaking. The appropriate

time to comment on the tier calculation procedure was during the public comment period

for these regulations.

The tiered calculation procedure involves the calculation of the NMOC emission

rate from a landfill. If the emission rate equals or exceeds a specified threshold (50 Mg

NMOC/yr), the landfill owner or operator must install a gas collection and control

system.
17 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

The first tier of the tiered calculation procedure is purposefully conservative to

ensure that landfill emissions are controlled as appropriate. Tiers 2 and 3 allow sitespecific measurements to determine emissions more accurately. Tier 2 calculations are

based on site-specific measured NMOC concentrations (C ) and yield a more accurate NMOC

estimate of the NMOC emission rate. Tier 3 calculations are based on both site-specific

NMOC concentrations and a site-specific methane generation rate constant (k) and

provide the most accurate NMOC emission rate estimate using the tiered procedures.

In addition, the Federal plan allows flexibility for States and landfill owners and

operators to apply to use other more accurate methods to determine the NMOC

concentration or a site-specific (k) as an alternative to the methods required in the

regulation (§ 62.14354(b)). Section 60.754(b)(3) of subpart WWW (which is crossreferenced by § 62.14354 of Subpart GGG) allows an alternative method if the method

has been approved by the Administrator. The EPA provides the mechanism for

approving alternatives (§ 62.14350(b)). The landfill owner or operator can use the

approved alternative methods to provide a better estimate of emissions for a particular

landfill.

To ensure national consistency, the Administrator is retaining the authority to

approve alternative methods to determine site-specific NMOC concentrations and

methane generation rate constants and is not transferring this authority to the State or

Tribe upon delegation of authority to implement and enforce the Federal plan. The EPA

will review and consider any applications for site-specific methods that it receives.

For estimating emissions for State inventories and related State programs, such as

Title V permitting and New Source Review, a State may use its own procedures. Tier 1

default values are not recommended for inventories because they tend to overestimate

emissions from many landfills. As mentioned previously, the default values are

purposely conservative because they serve as an indicator of the need to install a

collection and control system.

Although AP-42 emission factors are not allowed in the calculations for

determining the need for controls, the Federal plan, emission guidelines, and guidance

document recommend using AP-42, which has values that are more typical than Tier 1

defaults, for permitting and inventories. AP-42 is referenced in the Federal plan,
18 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

emission guidelines and new source performance standards in two cases. First,

§ 60.764(c) of the new source performance standards (which is referenced by the Federal

plan and emission guidelines), states that when calculating emissions for Prevention of

Significant Deteriorization (PSD) permitting purposes, AP-42 or other approved

procedures should be used. Second, § 60.755(a)(1) states that AP-42 default values for

(k) and L or site-specific values demonstrated to be appropriate and approved by the o

Administrator should be used for calculating the maximum expected gas generation flow

rate in preparing the design plan for collection system equipment.
19 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

8.0 INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS (§§ 62.14351 AND 62.14355(b))

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) stated that the proposed Federal plan

increments of progress are more stringent than the emission guidelines for existing

landfills and the new source performance standards for new landfills. The commenter

contended that the proposed Federal plan would impose a more burdensome regulatory

requirement on existing landfills above and beyond that which is included in the emission

guidelines. The commenter recommended eliminating the increments of progress and in

their place requiring owners or operators to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting

provisions of the new source performance standards. The commenter stated that existing

landfills should be given the same flexibility for achieving compliance with Federal plan

emission guidelines as are new landfills under the new source performance standards. 

Response: The requirements for existing landfills under the emission guidelines

and the Federal plan are essentially the same as the requirements for new landfills under

the new source performance standards. For existing MSW landfills, five increments of

progress are required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. These five increments of progress

are:

(1) Submit final control plan (collection and control system design plan); 

(2) Award contracts; 

(3) Begin construction;
While subpart B does not apply to new MSW landfills, the general provisions (40 CFR 1

60.7) do and they require owners or operators of affected facilities (which include new MSW

landfills) to provide notification to EPA of certain actions they plan to take or have taken. One

of these actions is when they begin construction. This notification requirement for new MSW

landfills is not altered by EPA’s promulgation of the MSW landfills Federal plan.

20 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

(4) Complete construction, and

(5) Reach final compliance. 

Increments 1, 4, and 5 are also required by the emission guidelines for existing

landfills. For new MSW landfills, three increments of progress are required by the new

source performance standards. These three increments of progress are:

• Submit final control plan;

• Complete construction; and

• Reach final compliance. 

Subpart B does not apply to new landfills, thus, the increments to award contracts

and begin construction are not required for new landfills. Although these two increments 1

of progress do apply to existing landfills, there is flexibility in the dates for meeting them. 

Unlike the compliance time periods for increments 1, 4, and 5, which are specified in the

emission guidelines, no time periods are specified for increments 2 and 3 in either

subpart B or the emission guidelines. Thus, the Federal plan allows the State, local or

Tribal authority, or the landfill owner or operator to request different time periods for

these increments versus the generic time periods specified in the Federal plan.

The EPA believes the proposed interim dates for increments 2 and 3 are

achievable, but the landfill owner or operator also has the flexibility to submit alternative

interim dates under § 62.14356(d) of the Federal plan. This option (option 3) is discussed

in detail in the proposal preamble (see 63 FR 69374).

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) suggested that the final control plan

(collection and control system design plan or design plan) should be consistent with the

new source performance standards. The commenter noted that the last sentence of the

definition of final control plan in § 62.14351 could be deleted without consequence. That
21 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

sentence reads: “The final control plan also must include the same information that will

be used to solicit bids to install the collection and control system.”

The commenter (IV-D-05) stated that this requirement is inconsistent with the

commenter’s conversations with EPA in 1997 during negotiations over technical

corrections to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc and WWW. The commenter says that those

conversations clarified that the new source performance standards design plans should

show the gas collection system for sites at final grade only.

The commenter provided the following reasons for deleting the bid information in

the design plan.

& The requirement is more stringent than the new source performance

standards requirement.

& Bid information in the design plan would not be practical for sites that still

have several additional years of life, and whose gas systems will be

installed in multiple phases.

& Bid information would have to be prepared before the design plan is

approved, therefore the bid information might have to be redone if EPA

disapproves the plan.

& It was not the intent of the new source performance standards to utilize the

design plan as a tool for bidding purposes. Rather, the design plan is a

technical document with the specific purpose of demonstrating that the

landfill gas collection system planned for the facility will meet the control

requirements of the regulations.

Response: The EPA agrees that it is appropriate to delete the last sentence from 

the proposed definition of final control plan to make the definition consistent with the

emission guidelines and the guidance document. However, other requirements for

submitting the final control plan remain the same. The owner or operator must submit

the final control plan within 1 year after the NMOC emission rate first equals or exceeds

50 megagrams per year. 

The design plan must cover the area to be controlled over the intended period of

use (lifetime) of the gas control system, not just areas at final grade. As specified in

§ 60.752(b)(2)(ii), the collection system must be designed to handle the maximum
22 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

expected gas generation rate from the entire area of the landfill that warrants control over

the intended period of use of the gas control or treatment system. Active areas in which

the initial waste has been in place 5 years and closed or final grade areas where the initial

waste has been in place 2 years must be controlled. As the landfill expands, the

collection system must be expanded into areas that meet these criteria. Thus, if a control

system is expected to last 15 years (for example), the design plan must take into account

all active areas of the landfill that are expected to meet the 2-year/5-year criteria within

the next 15 years, given the expected waste acceptance rate. The design plan should

include the initial design and plans for system expansion.
23 kam\K:\0106-01\001\003\LNDFCOM7.#2

9.0 DELEGATION

Comment: One commenter (IV-D-04) recommended that States should not be the

enforcement agent under the Federal plan. The commenter, a State agency, noted that it

did not want to take delegation of the Federal plan, especially if it requires collection of

design capacity reports from hundreds of rural towns with small, closed landfills.

Response: A State is not obligated to take delegation of the Federal plan. 

However, the EPA believes that the State, Tribal, and local agencies are in the best

position to design, adopt, and implement the control programs needed to meet the

requirements of the MSW landfills Federal plan in their jurisdictions. This is consistent

with Congress’ overarching intent that the primary responsibility for air pollution control

rests with State and local agencies. See 63 FR 69375, December 16, 1998 and the Clean

Air Act section 101(a)(3). 

The EPA continues to strongly encourage States, Tribes, and local agencies to

submit approvable State plans. For States that are unable to submit plans, the EPA

strongly encourages them to request delegation of the Federal plan, if feasible. The EPA

has designed the Federal plan to facilitate the transfer of authority from EPA to States,

Tribes, and local agencies.