P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

88) IV-C-2 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:22 A M Sheet 88 of 142 
P.2 

•. 

mt^k \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711 

COPY 

%^o/ 

SEP I 8 1997 AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

AND STANDARDS 

Mr. Michael J. Sangiacomo 

President & Chief Executive Officer f • Q 

Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. ! 

Five Thomas Mellon Circle - ;; ; "~— 

San Francisco, California 94134-2501 EPAsi.-s UOCXEJ 

Dear Mr. Sangiacomo: 

Your letter dated August 22,1997 to Carol Browner has been referred to me for response. 

In your letter you urge the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take into 

consideration the impacts that new source review (NSR) regulations have on controlling air 

emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. Your major concern is the NSR offset 

implications associated with complying with EPA's new source performance standards (NSPS), 

40 CFR Subparts WWW and Cc, which generally require the collection of non-methane and 

methane emissions and that non-metliane emissions be reduced. You urge EPA in the upcoming 

final NSR Reform regulations to codify as proposed the general exemption of pollution control 

projects from major NSR applicability and to seriously consider options that provide more 

flexibility for applying the NSR requirements at landfills, including not requiring any NSR 

offsets for pollution control projects at landfills. You also express concerns about emissions 

estimation and measurement at landfills and how these complicate complying with NSR offset 

requirements. 

As a result of the collection and control requirements of the NSPS, emissions of 

greenhouse gases and ozone-forming gases are significantly reduced from landfills through 

combustion. However, combustion of these emissions at landfills may also result in emissions 

increases of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (S02), and 

particulates. Under EPA's policies on pollution control projects, EPA's implementing 

regulations, and the proposed NSR Reform rulemaking, which implement section 173 of the 

Clean Air Act (Act) in nonattainment areas, significant emissions increases of non-attainment 

pollutants at major stationary sources, including emissions from combustion devices at landfills, 

must be mitigated by offsetting emissions reductions. This offset requirement is needed so that 

existing public health related air quality problems are not worsened by significant increases of 

nonattainment pollutants or precursors to non-attainment pollutants. The EPA understands your 

offset concerns, including issues of cost and availability. However, EPA believes that the 

requirement to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts from significant emissions increases of 
P.3 

-—.•:..'yrzyjT^rrzr:yrr-'.•...... ..-.-•......•...-> ......... . 

v >' •" 

v / K 

pollutants for which an area is nonattainment is a necessary environmental safeguard. Be 

assured that EPA is committed to allowing flexible solutions to securing NSR offsets as allowed 

under the Act. 

Copies of your letter have been forwarded to the appropriate EPA offices so that they are 

aware of the issues you have raised. If you have any questions you may contact Mike Sewell at 

(919)541-0873. 

I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust this information will be helpful to 

you. 

Sincerely, 

\ JohfiSS. Seitz 

4 s Director 

Office cf Air Quality Planning 

and Standards 
P.4 

OAQPS CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING SHEET 

CONTROL NO : AX978833 

SUBJECT 

Date Due to AQPS 

Date Due 

AQPS Received 

AX/AL Assigned 

AX/AL Due 

CONSIDER-IMPACTS OF CURRENT NEW SOURCE 

REVIEW REGULATIONS IN REFORM PROPOSAL 

09/17/97 

09/18/97 

09/05/97 

09/05/97 

09/18/97 

FROM 

FROM ORG. 

TO 

ACTION ASSIGNED TO 

CC's : 

RESPONSE REQUIRED : Y 

PREPARE RESPONSE FOR THE SIGNATURE OF : Seitz 

SANIACOMO, MICHAEL J 

NORCAL WASTE SYSTEMS; INC 

BROWNER 

ITPID 

r = scs=ssessss= £ 

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS : To WCPG - 9/8/97 

To OAQPS - 9/8/97 belongs to Dave 

Solomon (ITPID). 

9/9/97: REASSIGNED TO ITPID 

9/10/97 - Action to IIG - Response due 

9/18 

••••-r.mui; 
Controlltd Correspondence Tor 

OF7ICE 07 AIR AHD RADIATION 

CONTROL NO: AX4706633 

ALT NO: 

'pu biA^-- *//7/<n 

STATUS: 

FROM: 

ORGANIZATION: 

SALUTATION: 

CONSTITUENT; 

TO: 

TO ORG: 

SUBJECT: 

SIGNATURE: 

CCS: 

ASSIGNED: 

EXT. DUE DATE: 

ORIGINAL DUE DATE: Ofl/IS/87 

CORR. DATE; 06/22/97 

REC. DATE: OS/26/87 

CLOSED DATE: 

FENDING 

SANGIACOMO MICHAEL J 

NORCAL WASTE SYSTEMS; INCORPORATED 

DEAR MR. SANGIACOMO 

ADMINISTRATOR 

IPA 

CONSIDER. IMPACTS OF CURRENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW REGULATIONS IN 

REFORM PROPOSAL 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

ADMINISTRATOR 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

SOLID WASTE & EMERG RESP 

REGION 06 

I^H 

OAQPS /esp 

AX INSTRUCTIONS: PREPARE REPLY FOR THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S SIGNATURE. SEND 

COPY OF REPLY TO OEX 

AX ADDTN'L INST: 

OAR INSTRUCTIONS: PREPARE REPLY FOR THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S SIGNATURE. 

OAR ADDTN'L INST: 

OAR COMMENTS: 

P.5 

|tu« 

Assigned 

OAQPS 

D m Assigned 

08/08/87 

Cocte/SUtut 

ACTION 

Oate Completed by Atdonec 

• 

Dele Returned to AX: 

• 

OAR Correspondence • Control No: AX-870SB33 
P.6 

rj 

DMfc 

<&EPA 

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT 

CONTROL SLIP 

CONTROL NO: 

STATUS: 

FROM: 

ORG: 

SALUTATION: 

CONSTITUENT: 

TO: 

TO ORG: 

SUBJECT: 

ASSIGNED: 

COMMENTS: 

SIGNATURE: 

INSTi: 

ADDTN'L JNST: 

CCK -

IMS: 

EMT: 

AX4I708S33 

PENDING 

DUE DATE: 

ORIG. DUE DATE: 09/18/97 

CORREiDATE: OS/22/97 

RECEIVED DATE; 08/26/97 

ASSIGNED DATE: 09/04/97 

CLOSED DATE: 

SANGIACOMO MICHAEL J 

• • 

NORCAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED 

DEAR MR SANGIACOMO 

ADMINISTRATOR 

EPA 

CONSIDER- IMPACTS OF CURRENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW REGULATIONS IN 

REFORM PROPOSAL 

AIR ERADIATION 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

PREPARE REPLY FOR THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S SIGNATURE. 

SEND COPY OF REPLY TO OEXL 

ADMINISTRATOR 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

SOLID WASTE & EMERG RESP 

REGION 09 

SHARITA SHAW 

EARLINE MILLS 

. 

U M 

Assigned 

OAR 

Dale Asslgpad 

C8/M/87 

Code/Status 

ACTION 

D*te Completed by 

Atrigrtot 

• 

Date Returned to 

OCX: 

• 

AX CorrwparukftC4 - Control No: AX-9708833 
P.7 

/ .-

PtopU 'Service •Environment 

NORCAL WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. 

August 22,1997 

Ms. Carol M Browner 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Waterside Mall, Room W1200 

401 M Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Administrator Browner: 

We write to urge you to ensure that the ongoing deliberations to reform the New Source 

Review (NSR) regulations between EPA ofiRces involved with solid waste management, global 

climate change, and air quality regulatory matters take into consideration the impacts current NSR 

regulations have on controlling air emission from municipal solid waste landfills. Norcal Waste 

Systems, Inc., is a California-based, employee-owned company that provides solid waste 

collection, recycling and disposal services, including disposal in landfills, in 38 cities and counties 

in California. Specifically, we ask you to raise the issue of ameliorating the NSR requirement of 

obtaining emission offsets for projects installed at landfills to reduce emissions of greenhouse and 

ozone-forming gasses through combustion. This requirement under the current NSR regulations 

would not be modified by the pending NSR reform proposal published in the Federal Register on 

July 23. 1997 and would frustrate the goals of EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program. The 

problem will become more acute as EPA moves forward with implementation of the new National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and PM2.S. 

Background 

Tn 1987, EPA concluded that "emissions from existing or proposed landfills without gas 

collection systems arc to be considered fugitive emissions"1 and therefore not subject to the 1980 

NSR regulations. In 1994, EPA reversed its decision and concluded that landfill emissions "are 

' see memorandum entitled "Emissjpn from Landfills", from Gerald A Emison, Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to David P. Howekamp, Director, Air Management 

Division, Region IX, dated October 6, 1987. 

FIVE THOUAS UllWH CfftCLE . SAN FRAWClSCO. CA 94134-2501. TELEPHONE (415) 330-1000 

CORPORATE FAX (415) 330-1124/1134/1115 . HUMAN RESOURCES fiU (415) 330-1217. MIS BW (415) 330-1188 

An Emplqyce~'OwTuJ Company 

MifTK ii Herein utri 

\ 
<MM> A W 

_ LS_ 

-TT-. nmwi uuiliX KUU1U 

J 

Ms. Browner 

Augusts 1997 

Page 2 

not fugitive and should be considered in determining whether a major NSR permit is required"1. 

In drawing this conclusion, EPA cited the fact that gas collection technologies had evolved to a 

point where they were reasonable for installation tt landfills and that the agency was in the 

process of promulgating New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines 

(NSPS/EG) for landfills which would require such collection systems. Until the reversal of policy 

in 1994, gas emissions from landfills, as area sources, were not included in the emission 

inventories of State Implementation Plans, precluding the opportunity, in tbe future, for the 

landfill operator to apply for pollution reduction credits. 

The NSPS/EG regulations for landfills issued by EPA on March 12,1996 (Title 40 CFR, 

Part 60, Subparts WWW and Cc) require that non-methane and methane emissions be collected 

and that non-methane organic contaminants (NMOCs), which includes volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), be reduced by 98% through open flares or enclosed combustion devices, 

including IC engines, gas turbines and the like. The agency in the preamble of the regulations 

noted the benefit of controlling VOC emissions on reducing formation of ozone and the benefits 

of methane control on reducing global climate change. The agency noted that methane is 20 to 30 

times more potent, on a molecular basis, as a greenhouse gas than C02, the other major gas of 

concern in the global climate change debate. The agency also noted the byproduct emissions 

generated by the combustion devices used to reduce landfill air emissions, NOx, CO, SOx and 

particulate^, are very low compared to the achievable NMOC and methane emissions reductions. 

In promulgating the NSPS/EG regulations, EPA noted that landfill gas control systems 

would be subject to PSD and NSR compliance. However, the agency's cost analysis of the 

NSPS/EG regulations did not include tbe cost of compliance with PSD and NSR requirements, 

especially the requirement of obtaining offsets for combustion byproduct emissions. Ai discussed 

further below, the cost of offsets for NOx and CO can be considerable and has raised an obstacle 

to the installation of projects that beneficially use the collected landfill gas to generate electricity 

and reduce the need to burn fossil fuels. Installation of these projects is a key objective of EPA's 

Landfill Methane Outreach Program which provides assistance to landfill owners who must 

comply with the NSPS/EG regulations. 

The NSR Reform Proposal 

EPA in its proposed rule for reforming the existing NSR program (61 FR 38250, Jury 23, 

1996) states its intent to reduce costs and regulatory burdens for permit applicants, while ensuring 

that emissions from new or modifying major stationary sources of air pollutants will not interfere 

with efforts to attain and maintain the nation's air quality standards and goals. To this end, the 

NSR reform proposal would expand the current exclusion from major NSR for pollution control 

3

 see memorandum entitled "Classification of Emissions from Landfills for NSR 

Applicability Purposes", from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, to Directors of the Air Divisions in EPA's Regional Offices, dated October 21. 1994. 
_P.9 . 

Ms. Browner 

August 22, 1997 

Page 3 

projects undertaken by utilities to cover all types of pollution control projects. In t policy 

statement issued by EPA Jury 1994 setting forth interim guidance (until EPA takes final action to 

revise its NSR rules) os applying the pollution control project exclusion, (he agency recognizes 

landfill gas control systems which flare the gas or use H to recover energy as pollution control 

projects3. Based on discussions with EPA staff, we understand that the NSR reform proposal 

does not alter the eligibility of such control systems to qualify as pollution control projects. 

(Norcal strongly urges that this concept, which currently exists only as guidance, be incorporated 

in the final NSR reform regulations.) Accordingly, projects installed at landfills to comply with 

the NSPS/EG regulations, should also qualify as pollution control projects excluded from major 

NSR requirements. 

Both the July 1994 policy statement and the NSR reform proposal, state that collateral 

"significant" increases of a criteria pollutant in a non-attainment area for the pollutant resulting 

from a pollution control project must be mitigated through offsets for the criteria pollutant. The 

example given in the July, 1994 policy statement was a pollution control project at a landfill which 

would reduce VOC emissions by 1000 tpy and generate electricity with the collected gas, 

resulting in the emission of 100 tpy of NOx, and would, consequently, be required to obtain NOx 

offsets. 

The "Offsets" Problem 

It is the requirement to obtain emission offsets for collateral emissions in the NSR reform 

proposal, and the problems it creates for landfill owners, that Norcal believes must be reconciled 

by EPA with the overall benefit to the environment that it desires to achieve through the 

NSPS/EG, and through its Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). The LMOP has as its 

objective the installation of gas to energy projects to reduce combustion of fossil fuels. The cost 

of offsets for NOx and CO, depending on the degree of non-attainment of an area, ranges from 

15,000 to J 15,000 per ton per year (tpy). At one Norcal landfill facility the cost of NOx offsets 

alone would cost almost $1,000,000. This is a considerable cost and is likely to increase as EPA 

implements the new NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5. The cost of NOx offsets would be even more 

if the collected gas was used as a fuel to generate electricity with an IC engine or gas turbine. 

Norcal believes that these costs frustrate, and may surely delay, implementation for the NSPS/EG 

and are a major disincentive to installation of energy recovery systems. 

EPA has determined that NSPS/EG control requirements produce a net environmental 

benefit since collateral emissions from combustion are very low compared to the achievable 

1

 sec Example 5 in memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, to Directors of Air Divisions in all EPA Regional Offices, entitled 

'Pollution Control Projects and New Source Review (NSR) Applicability", dated Jury I, 1994. 
P.10 

. «*V05/fi7 FRI 12:41 FAI 802 401 05OS OAR 10 .**» SANDY CAHILL Q012 

Ms. Browner 

August 22,1997 

Page 4 

NMOC and methane emission reductions. Yet it has not attempted to address the possibility of 

VOC-NOx netting and trading in the NSR reform proposal for pollution control projects. There 

is an element of unfairness to this. During, as well as before, the seven years between the 

conflicting agency conclusions on the fiigitrve/non-fugrtive nature of landfill emissions, those 

emissions were not subject to permit requirements and landfill openiori bad no reason to measure 

the quantity of emission from landfills. The gas emissions from landfills, as area sources, were not 

included in the emission tnvemories of State Implementation Plans. The fact that there is likely no 

actual emissions baselines for a landfUL has precluded the opportunity for a landfill operator to 

now apply for pollution reduction credits for emission reductions achieved by the gas control 

projects. 

There are also complications in applying NSR requirements for establishing the number of 

necessary offsets for pollution control projects at landfills. Unlike at typical industrial emission 

sources, it is not possible to measure the actual emissions at a landfill. Landfill emissions have 

until recently been based on an engineer's estimate with accuracies of +/- 25%. EPA's new 

estimation model, on the other hand, has been demonstrated by Norcal to overestimate landfill gas 

emissions by an order of magnitude. An additional complication is that, unlike emissions from a 

typical industrial source which are relatively constant under normal operating conditions, landfill 

emissions are negligible at first, but slowly build up over time and then eventually taper off over 

time. The rate of emissions is also entirely a function of the unique characteristics of the landfill, 

such as the depth of burial and moisture content of the waste. These complications buttress the 

difficulty that landfill operators face in complying with the NSR offset requirements. 

Conclusion 

Norcal is pleased that EPA intends to reform its NSR regulations. We also support the 

agencies efforts to assist landfill owners in implementing the NSPS/EG to reduce greenhouse 

gasscs through its Landfill Methane Outreach Program. However. EPA should attempt to 

reconcile conflicts in its efforts to develop sound solid waste management programs, maintain air 

quality, and address global climate change. Norcal believes that the most significant of these 

conflicts is posed by the NSR offset requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. We urge 

EPA to seriously consider options such as not requiring any offsets at landfills, as the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District in our state has done in recognition of the "essential public 

service" aspects of those facilities; VOC-NOx netting and trading for landfill gas emission control 

projects; allowing offset requirements to track actual landfill gas emissions as they slowly increase 

then decrease over time; and to allow adoption of emission measuring methods which take into 

consideration the unique characteristics which at each landfill. At a minimum, EPA should adopt 

a policy that provides flexibility in the application of NSR requirements at landfills. Such a policy 

will allow the NSR requirements to be implemented in a manner by which an optimum economic 

efficiency and environmental benefit can be realized in the concurrent implementation of the 

agency's solid waste management, air quality and greenhouse gas control programs. 
P.11 

OS/05/87 FRI 12:41 FAX 20l M #5l5OA R 10 -•••-• SANDY CAHILL I^Oljl 

Ms. Browner 

August 22, 1997 

Page 5 

We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this nutter. If you would like additional 

information or have any questions regarding this information, please contact Don Gambelin at 

(415)330-1194. 

Very truly yours. 

/kuJuu/ 

Michael J. Sarkricor 

President k Chief Executive Officer 

cc: Don Gambelin, Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. 

MJS/ep