1

MEMORANDUM

To: Hillary Glover, U.S. Environmental 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 Wastes Management Association 

Amy Van Kolken-Banister, Waste Management 

Niki Wuestenberg, Allied Waste 

Ruth Mead, ERG 

Joe Fanjoy, ERG 

EPA reviewed the schedule for promulgating 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 Allocation of Compliance Responsibilities

Issue 1a: Allocation of responsibilities 

One industry representative prefers a more flexible approach than proposed. The industry 

representative found the list of responsibilities 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-case basis. The industry 

representative finds it acceptable if the default is that each owner is responsible for the 

compliance with the owner’s respective equipment. 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 treatment system owners and control system 

owners take compliance responsibility for the equipment they own, landfill gas energy 

project developers will not take on the regulatory responsibility and risk, and landfills 

will be left responsible for compliance activities over which they have no direct control. 

Another industry representative stated that ownership (rather than operation) should be 

the driving force in allocating responsibility. 

The proposed amendments use the term “owner/operator” and do not separate the two 

terms. Another industry representative 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 variety 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 has 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 control system owners/operators. Therefore, as 

a result of the proposed amendments, owners/operators 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, then the source is subject to title V. 

An industry representative stated that the definitions of owner/operator in the proposed 

rule are creating a link to title V that was not otherwise there. 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 still considering how the final rule will address 

allocation of responsibilities and that multiple offices are involved in this discussion. 

Issue 2: Common control 
3

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 points 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 representative 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 separate and do not want to be tied together 

for permitting and regulatory compliance purposes. 

One industry representative said that regarding common control and ownership of gas 

collection wells, some state permit writers consider all landfill equipment (gas collection 

wells, treatment systems, combustion equipment, etc.) to be a single source, while other 

state permit writers write separate permits 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 representatives said some other regions appear to be pushing 

states to determine that there is common control. They recommended that EPA use the 

Region 9 approach as a model. 

Some industry representatives suggested deleting the common control concept entirely 

from the NSPS. Others pointed out that if common control wording is simply removed, 

the states will still make common control determinations under title 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 temperature 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 chillers. He indicated that EPA should not rely on what 

manufacturer’s specifications recommend but should consider what is actually being built 
4

and operated successfully. He stated that untreated landfill gas can damage a boiler, 

engine, or turbine so sources have a strong incentive to design and operate treatment 

systems correctly. 

He suggested that EPA grandfather existing projects because it would be difficult to reengineer them. 

Another industry representative reiterated 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 manufacturer’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 continuous monitoring. For example, 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 suggested 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 achieving high destruction efficiencies, the EPA 

representative reminded the group that for boilers larger than 44 MW, performance 

testing and temperature monitoring are not required (even if they burn untreated landfill 

gas). One industry representative indicated that 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 large 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 specifications they must meet)? 

3. What monitoring is done to show continuous compliance? 

Action item regarding boilers: 

Industry representatives will provide test results showing NMOC destruction efficiencies 

for landfill gas-fired boilers that are smaller than 44 MW. 

Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction
5

Issue 1: Removal of 1-hour/5-day provision 

An industry representative noted that there are current enforcement cases that claim that 

if a control device is down for one hour, then it is a violation, even if the landfill 

owner/operator turns off the collection system blowers and closes any vents that could 

result in emissions to the atmosphere. He would like the NSPS to clarify 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 collection systems and control devices. 

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

One industry representative reiterated written 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 some landfill owner/operators have tried to 

demonstrate that the closed area has NMOC emissions that are less than 1% of the entire 

landfill but modeling results have indicated that the area is generating much more than 

1%. If you use actual measured values in the 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 that that meeting the surface monitoring 

requirements is not a problem. 

An industry representative stated that meeting 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 the three example cases cited in the Waste 

Management, SWANA, and Allied Waste comment letters and to the suggestions in the 

letters to alleviate the problems. Solutions 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 system 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 than the date the NSPS/emission guidelines 

initial performance test was required (one state 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 area 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 for 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 the penetrations where there is this type of visible evidence 

should be monitored quarterly. Or perhaps landfill owner/operators could examine each 

penetration once per year. Monitoring 1,000 penetrations 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 leachate cleanout risers. 

Issue 3. Design plan approval 

An industry representative cited an issue regarding requests for approval of alternative 

timelines, which was included in Allied Waste’s public comment letter. An EPA regional 

office says the landfill owner/operator must submit a request for an alternative timeline to 

collect a wellhead temperature, oxygen, or nitrogen exceedance by the 15th day of the 

exceedance or the well field has to be expanded 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 15th 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 interpreting the current rule language correctly. He suggested 

that industry could provide additional information that elaborates on their comment letter 
7

and today’s discussion, and noted that compelling 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 prevent leakage to meet the wellhead operating 

parameters. She explained that oxygen levels in leachate systems cannot be kept below 

the wellhead oxygen levels in the 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 that EPA could consider this issue. 

An EPA representative asked whether landfill 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 covered under both or to switch from one to other for various 

aspects of the rules. Industry 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 replied 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 temperature and oxygen monitoring. One of his 

landfills will be expanding, which will make 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, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 

Wrap up

Hillary Glover asked that any additional information and clarifications must be submitted 

to EPA by December 20, 2007.