1 

### MEMORANDUM

To: Hillary Glover, U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency, OAQPS/SPPD, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01)

From: Ruth Mead and Joe Fanjoy, ERG

Date: December 18, 2007

Subject: Summary of the December 6, 2007 EPA Meeting with Landfills Stakeholders on the Amendments to the Landfills NSPS, Emission Guidelines, NESHAP, and Federal Plan

Attendees List : Hillary Glover, EPA/SPPD/CCG K.C. Hustvedt, EPA/SPPD/CCG Brian Guzzone, EPA/LMOP Bill Held, CT Environmental Frank R. Caponi, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Carter Lee ”Kerry” Kelly, Waste Management Angela Marconi, Delaware Solid Waste Authority Pat Sullivan, SCS Engineers Ed Repa, National Solid Wast es Management Association Amy Van Kolken-Banister, Waste Management Niki Wuestenberg, Allied Waste Ruth Mead, ERG Joe Fanjoy, ERG

EPA reviewed the schedule for promulgati ng the amendments: The overall goal is to promulgate by end of the first quarter of 2008. The EPA Landfills Work Group has been meeting regularly since May 2007.

Definition of Owner/Operator and Allo cation of Compliance Responsibilities

Issue 1a : Allocation of responsibilities

One industry representative pref ers a more flexible approach than proposed. The industry representative found the list of responsibiliti es to be problematic when multiple parties and multiple contracts already list many of the responsibilities. The industry representative believes the best approach would be a case-by-cas e basis. The industry representative finds it acceptabl e if the default is that each owner is responsible for the compliance with the owner’s respective equi pment. The industry representative would

like to have the option of developing a list, but not be required to develop a list.2 Another industry representative stated that a voluntary approach would not work. Unless there is a mandatory requirement that trea tment system owners and control system owners take compliance responsibility for the equipment they own, landfill gas energy project developers will not ta ke on the regulatory responsib ility and risk, and landfills will be left responsible for compliance activitie s over which they have no direct control.

Another industry representative stated that ownership (rather than operation ) should be the driving force in allo cating responsibility. The proposed amendments use the term “own er/operator” and do not separate the two terms. Another industry represen tative stated that EPA needed to be very clear on the

definitions in the final rule.

Industry representatives noted that gas collection, treatment, and control system ownership could be especially complex for some publicly owned landfills with landfill gas energy projects. There are a variet y of complex contractual structures.

Discussion is ongoing within EPA to resolve this issue.

Issue 1b : Title V permits for area sources

This issue was not discussed in the proposed rule, but came up in the public comments. A commenter says a landfill has the opportunity to begin selling landfill gas to a local business for use in heating a greenhouse. Under the proposal, the greenhouse would need to obtain a title V permit, but the commenter says the greenhouse owner has neither the expertise nor finances to obtain a title V permit.

Under the title V program, any source subject to an NSPS or NESHAP must get a title V permit (although for some NESHAP, EPA ha s made a specific finding during rule development to exempt area sources from title V permits). The proposed landfill NSPS amendments apply directly to landfill gas cont rol system owners/opera tors. Therefore, as a result of the proposed amendments, owners/ope rators of control systems that are used to complying with the NSPS and combust untreated landfill gas would be required to get a title V permit for their facility. Examples could include an area source manufacturing facility that is using untreated landfill gas in their boiler or kiln, or the commenter’s example of a greenhouse using landfill gas for space heat. K.C. Hustvedt explained if the source is newly subject to the NSPS, th en the source is subject to title V.

An industry representative stated that the definitions of owner/ope rator in the proposed rule are creating a link to title V that was not otherwise th ere. He cited 40 CFR 70.3(b)(2) and indicated that there is flexibility in the title V program that would allow EPA to exclude area source control system owners from title V permits. He requested that EPA use this flexibility to exempt area sources from title V permits when EPA promulgates

the NSPS amendments.

An EPA representative stated that EPA is sti ll considering how the final rule will address allocation of responsibilities and that multiple offices are involved in this discussion.

Issue 2 : Common control3 EPA representatives said that the EPA/ OAQPS permitting group and some Regions are involved with CCG in resolving the common control issue. Common control is an element of permitting programs. Any decisions on the current rule would not affect any common control determinations previously made during permitting. Future decisions with respect to permits could be made by the permit writers.

The industry representatives reiterated point s from their written comments: the common control issue is critical, and if landfills and entities treating or combusting landfill gas for energy recovery are found to be under common control, this would discourage beneficial use projects. An EPA representa tive noted that SPPD’s goal is to allocate responsibilities to encourage beneficial use.

An industry representative cited an example where a potential landfill gas energy project that would have used gas from two landfills did not go forward because of common control issues. The two landfills are entirely se parate and do not want to be tied together for permitting and regulatory compliance purposes.

One industry representative sa id that regarding common c ontrol and ownership of gas collection wells, some state permit writers cons ider all landfill equipment (gas collection wells, treatment systems, combustion equipment, etc.) to be a single source, while other state permit writers write separate pe rmits for each piece of equipment.

Another industry representative stated that in EPA Region 9, the permit writers look at the landfill and other entities ( onsite or offsite) as separate entities for all Clean Air Act responsibilities. Industry repr esentatives said some other regions appear to be pushing

states to determine that there is common c ontrol. They recommended that EPA use the Region 9 approach as a model.

Some industry representatives suggested dele ting the common cont rol concep t entirely from the NSPS. Others pointed out that if common control wording is simply removed,

the states will still make common control de terminations under t itle V and NSR permit programs, so it would be preferable to make it clear that landfills and gas users are not

under common control if EPA is willing to do that.

Treated Landfill Gas

Issue 1 : Moisture removal, Issue 3: Existing Treatment Systems, and Issue 4 : Continuous Monitoring

One industry representative reiterated LA County’s written comments on the proposal: the requirement to reduce the dew point te mperature by 20 degrees F is arbitrary and could be difficult to measure accurately. He said that boilers are getting over 99% destruction using only simple coalescing filters for treatment and that many engines also operate reliably without chil lers. He indicated that EP A should not rely on what manufacturer’s specifications recommend but should consider what is actually being built4 and operated successfully. He stated that un treated landfill gas can damage a boiler, engine, or turbine so sources have a str ong incentive to design a nd operate treatment systems correctly. He suggested that EPA grandfather existing projects because it woul d be difficult to reengineer them.

Another industry representative reiterate d SWANA’s comments at proposal: Require owners/operators to develop a site-specific preventive maintenance plan or operation plan for the treatment system based on the manufact urer’s specifications for performance. Let the owner/operator show evidence of following the plan.

Another industry representative reiterated Waste Management’s comments at proposal: Allow periodic monitoring instead of conti nuous monitoring. For ex ample, for coalescing filters, measure pressure drop weekly and clean as needed.

An EPA representative noted that the rule is simple and enforceable as written. He is concerned that the types of changes being s uggested would make the rule more complex. He asked how many landfills are using the treatment option to comply. For landfills using the treatment option, how are they demonstrating continuous compliance?

Regarding the comment that boilers are achie ving high destruction efficiencies, the EPA representative reminded the group that for boilers larger than 44 MW, performance testing and temperature monitoring are not re quired (even if they burn untreated landfill gas). One industry representative indicated th at boilers at his landfills are smaller so would not qualify for this monitoring exemption. An ERG representative indicated that in the LMOP database, there are a relatively larg e number of boilers using landfill gas, and many are smaller than 44 MW. Many are located at industrial plants and landfill gas is piped to them.

Action items for treatment systems : Industry representatives will provide information on:

1. How many landfills currently have approval to use treatment systems to comply (i.e., because they do treatment they are exempt from testing and monitoring the subsequent combustion device)?

2. What are the treatment systems (e.g., type of equipment used for filtration and moisture removal and any numerical sp ecifications they must meet)?

3. What monitoring is done to show continuous compliance?

Action item regarding boilers: Industry representatives will provide test resu lts showing NMOC destruction efficiencies for landfill gas-fired boilers that are smaller than 44 MW.

Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction5 Issue 1 : Removal of 1-hour/5-day provision

An industry representative noted that there are current enfor cement cases that claim that if a control device is down for one hour, th en it is a violation, even if the landfill owner/operator turns off the co llection system blowers and cl oses any vents that could result in emissions to the atmosphere. He woul d like the NSPS to clarif y that this in not a

violation.

The industry representatives suggested that EPA keep the five day limit as the time allowed for repair of malfunctions of co llection systems and control devices.

Issue 2 : Exclusion of SSM events for 3-hour block averages

One industry representative reiterated writt en comments that including temperature monitoring data during short flare shutdowns may lead to many instances when the 3- hour average temperature is below the specified limit. This will require more reporting and could be interpreted as non- compliance. He requested that EPA clarify its intent and prefers the original NESHAP approach rather than the proposed amendment.

Other Issues

Issue 1 : Closed areas of landfills

An industry representative stated that so me landfill owner/operators have tried to

demonstrate that the closed area has NMOC emi ssions that are less th an 1% of the entire landfill but modeling results have indicated th at the area is generating much more than 1%. If you use actual measured values in th e calculations, then you may get close to or

below 1%. He stated that it is difficult to continuously collect and combust very small amounts of gas from closed areas, but th at that meeting the surface monitoring requirements is not a problem.

An industry representative stated that m eeting the wellhead monitoring limits (e.g., for oxygen, nitrogen, and pressure) is difficult in some closed areas with little gas.

Industry representative referred EPA to th e three example cases cited in the Waste Management, SWANA, and Allied Waste commen t letters and to the suggestions in the letters to alleviate the problems. Soluti ons suggested during the meeting included:

 Use actual flow data to determine if the area is less than 1% of total NMOC

 Waive the requirement that a control syst em must have been in place at least 15 years before it can be removed. Or allow removal of systems that have been in place less than 15 years if they meet a lower emission threshold (e.g., 25 Mg instead of 50 Mg).

 Determine the length of time the control system has been in place from the date

the first wells were installed rather th an the date the NSPS/emission guidelines initial performance test was required (one st ate allows this under their state plan).6  Consider 10% instead of 1% NMOC as the threshold to determine nonproductive areas, but continue surface monitoring of there areas

 Waive wellhead monitoring of areas less than 10%, but continue gas collection and surface monitoring

 Consider using a combination of NMOC and flow criteria

 Consider whether gas production from an ar ea declines to less than a specified % of its peak flow

An EPA representative noted that surface monitoring is for identifying leaks in the landfill cover, not for determining emissions fo r that area of the landfill. Gas from one area of a landfill can migrate underground and being emitted from adjacent areas.

Issue 2 . Surface Monitoring

Industry representatives suggested not making quarterly surface monitoring of every cover penetration a requirement.

They stated that you can usually see gaps or cracks around seals or distressed vegetation if there is a leak, and only th e penetrations where there is this type of visible evidence should be monitored quarterly. Or perhaps la ndfill owner/operators could examine each penetration once per year. Monitoring 1,000 pe netrations quarterly would be very time consuming and costly.

An EPA representative indicated that EPA has observed that cover penetrations are frequently sources of leaks and high methane readings. For example, there can be leaks

around wellheads and leach ate cleanout risers.

Issue 3 . Design plan approval

An industry representative ci ted an issue regarding request s for approval of alternative timelines, which was included in Allied Wast e’s public comment letter. An EPA regional office says the landfill owner/operator must s ubmit a request for an alternative timeline to collect a wellhead temperature, oxygen, or nitrogen exceedance by the 15 th day of the

exceedance or the well field has to be e xpanded within 120 days according to the rule. The industry representative stated that it can take 15 days or more to determine whether operational adjustments have succeeded in correcting a wellhead exceedance or whether another remedy is necessary. A landfill may determine after the 15 th day that an option other than collection system expansion is the best and quickest way to correct an

exceedance.

An EPA representative stated that it was EPA’ s original intent for the owner/operator to fix the exceedance within 15 days or expand the system. He said that in reading the rule it appears that the region is in terpreting the current rule la nguage correctly. He suggested that industry could provide a dditional information that ela borates on their comment letter7 and today’s discussion, and noted that compe lling information would be needed for EPA

to revise the rule.

Other.

An industry representative indicated that one state requires landfills that collect gas from leachate collection risers in order to prev ent leakage to meet the wellhead operating parameters. She explained that oxygen levels in leachate systems cannot be kept below the wellhead oxygen levels in th e rule. She stated that there are some determinations on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI) that say a leachate well must monitor oxygen. An EPA representative indicated th at EPA could consider this issue.

An EPA representative asked whether landf ill requirements under State plans that implement the emission guidelines are much different from the NSPS and if it would be

difficult for a landfill to be c overed under both or to switch from one to other for various aspects of the rules. Indust ry representatives indicated the answer to EPA’s question depends on the landfill location and whether and how the applicable State plan is

different from the NSPS /emission guidelines.

One industry representative repl ied that this would be complicated in some areas. For example, the California SCAQMD plan that implements the emission guidelines for existing landfills is much different than the NSPS. It requires more intensive surface monitoring but does not require wellhead te mperature and oxygen monitoring. One of his landfills will be expanding, which will ma ke the entire landfill subject to the NSPS instead of the State plan. They will have to make a significant change in their operations to meet the different operational, monitori ng, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

Wrap up

Hillary Glover asked that any additional info rmation and clarifications must be submitted to EPA by December 20, 2007.