EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review

**6560 -**  **50 EO12866_Landfills** 

**_ ANPRM**  **2060AS23 ANPRM** 

**_ 201406**  **16**
**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60**  **[EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OAR -**  **2014 -**  **0451 ; FRL**  **- ]**  **RIN 2060 -**  **AS23 Emission Guidelines and Compliance**  **Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills** 
**AGENCY:** Environmental Protection Agency

. **ACTION:** Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

. **SUMMARY** : The purpose of this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANP R M ) is to request public input on methods to reduce emissions from existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The Environment al Protection Agency (EPA) intends to consider the information received in response to the ANPR M in evaluating whether additional changes beyond those in the proposed revisions f or new sources are warranted. MSW landfill emissi ons are commonly referred to as “ landfill gas ” or “ LFG ” and contain methane , carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) , and nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC). Some e xisting landfills are currently subject to control requiremen ts in either the landfill n ew

s ource p erformance s tandards (NSPS) or the federal or state plans implementing the landfill emission guidelines ; both the NSPS and emission guidelines were promulgated in 1996. The EPAEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **2** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left believes that the se guidelines merit revi ew to determine the potential for additional reductions in emissions of LFG
. Such reductions w ould reduce air pollution and the resulting harm to public health and welfare. S ignificant changes have occurred in the landfill industry over time , including changes to the size and number of existing landfills , industry practices , and gas control methods and technologies. The ANPRM recognizes changes
to in the population of landfills and presents preliminary analysis regarding methods for reducing emissions of LFG
. In determining whether changes to the emission guidelines are appropriate, the EPA will, in addition to evaluating the effectiveness of various methods for reducing emissions of LFG , consider the total methane emission reductions that can be achieved in addition to the reductions of NMOC emissions. The EPA is also seeking input on whether it should regulate methane directly. The ANPRM also addresses other regulatory issues including the definition of LFG treatment systems and requirements for closed areas of landfills, among other topics

. **DATES:** Comments . Comments must be received on or before [ INSERT THE DATE 6 0 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER ]

. **ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID
N umber EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 201 4

- 0451 , by one of the following methods:EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **3** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left **•** Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov

. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

**•** Email : A

- and

- R

- Docket@epa.gov
. Include Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2014

- 0451 in the subject line of your message.

**•** Fax : (202) 566

– 9744
. Attention Dock et ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2014

- 0451.

**•** Mail : Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 2822 1 T , Attention Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2014

- 0451 , 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, O ffice of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17 th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.

**•** Hand /Courier Delivery : EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA W JC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions : Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2014

- 0451 . The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the mail or han d/courier delivery address listed above, attention: Mr. Formatted: Default Paragraph FontEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **4** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404

- 02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0451 . The http://www.regulations.gov website is an “ anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your emai l address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact inform ation in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD

– ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption , and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket : All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly avail able, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publiclyEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **5** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building , Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566

– 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566

– 1742.
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** For information concerning this
ANPRM , contact Ms . Hillary Ward , Fuels and Incineration Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) (E143

- 0 5 ), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541

- 3154 ; fax number: (919) 541

- 0246; e mail address: ward .hillary@epa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:** Acronyms and Abbreviations . The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.
ACT Alternative compliance timeline ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking AR4 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report ARB Air Resources Board BMP Best management practice CAA Clean Air Act CBI Confidential business information CFR Code of Federal RegulationsEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **6** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left CO 2 Carbon dioxide CO 2 e Carbon dioxide equivalent CRDS Cavity ringdown spectroscopy DOC Degradable organic carbon EPA Environmental Protection Agency FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared GCCS G as collection and control system GHG Greenhouse gas GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program GWP Global warming potential HAP Hazard ous air pollutants HOV Higher operating value IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRIS Integrated Risk Information System LFG Landfill gas LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program
m 3 Cubic meters Mg Megagram Mg/yr Megagram per year MSW Municipal s olid waste NAAQS National ambient air quality standards NAICS North American Industry Classification System NMOC Nonmethane organic compound s NO x Nitrogen oxides NSPS New source performance standards NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget PM 2.5 Fine particulate matter ppm Parts per million ppmv Parts per million by volume PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RPM Radial plume mapping SEM Surface emissions monitoring SIP State implementation planEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **7** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left Tg Teragram TDL Tunable diode laser Tg Teragram TTN Technology Transfer Network UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act VOC Volatile organic compo und s Organization of This Document . The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this notice

. **I. General Information** A. Does this action apply to me? B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments? C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? **II. Background** A. Landfill Gas Emissions and Climate Change B. What is the EPA’s authority for reviewing the emission guidelines? C. What is the purpose and scope of this action? D. Why are we reviewing the emis sion guidelines? E. What is the statutory authority for landfill emission guidelines? F. What are the landfill emission guidelines and what sources would be affected by a review of the emission guidelines? G. How would changes in applicability affect sourc es currently subject to subpart WWW? **III. Why is the EPA concerned about air quality effects from MSW landfills?**  A. Background on the MSW Landfill Sector B. What emissions are associated with existing MSW landfills? C. What emission reductions are currentl y being achieved from MSW landfills? D. What are the health and welfare effects of LFG emissions? **IV. Topics for Which the EPA is Seeking Input** A. Taking Reductions in Methane Emissions Into Account in Reviewing the Emission GuidelinesEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **8** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left B. Potential Changes to Regulatory Framework for Existing Sources C. Emission Reduction Techniques and GCCS Best Management Practices D. Alternative Monitoring, Reporting, and Other Requirements E. Alternative Emission Threshold Determination Techniques F. Considerations for Implementation at Closed vs. Active Landfills G. Implementation Issues **V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews**

**I . General Information**  A. Does this action apply to me? This ANPRM addresses existing MSW landfills and associated solid waste management programs. Potentially a ffected categories and entities include those listed in Table 1 of this notice

. **Table 1. Regulated Entities**  **Category NAICS**  **a Examples of affected facilities**  Industry: Air and water resource and solid waste management 924110 Solid waste landfills

Industry: Refuse systems

-

- solid waste landfills 562212 Solid waste landfills

State, local and tribal government agencies 924110 A dministration of a ir and water resource and solid waste management programs

a North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be Formatted: TOC 1,TOC 1-GHG Preamble,TOC 1-GHG Rule, Tab stops: 6.49", Right,Leader:

...EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **9** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left regulated
. The EPA is specifically requesting input on MSW landfills subject to s tate plans or f ederal plan (40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG) that implement the emission guidelines at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc. The EPA will also take this information into account in determining if additional changes to the NS PS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW are appropriate. If you have any questions regarding whether the EPA is seeking input regarding a particular MSW landfill , contact the person listed in the preceding **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section.
B . What should I consider as I prepare my comments? 1. Submitting CBI Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specifi c information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public dock et. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **10** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver i nformation identified as CBI to only the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404

- 02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0451
. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the preceding sectio n titled **DATES**
. 2
. Docket The docket number for the review of the municipal solid
waste landfills emission guidelines is Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2014

- 0451. Docket ID Nos. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0215 and A

- 88

- 09 contain supporting information for 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW
. C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? Worldwide World W ide Web (WWW) . In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this ANPRM is available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) website. Following signature, the EPA will post a copy of this notice onEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **11** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ oarpg atw/landfill/landflpg. html . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
**I I**  **. Background**  A. Landfill Gas Emissions and Climate Change
In June 2013, President Obama issued a Climate Action Plan directing the EPA and five other federal agencies to t ake a wide vari e ty of significant steps to reduce methane emissions. The plan , which encompassed a wide range of actions and voluntary initiatives, recognized that methane emissions constitute a significant percentage of domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, highlighted reductions in methane emissions since 1990 , and outlined specific actions that could be taken to achieve additional progress. Specifically, the federal agencies were instructed to focus on “assessing current emi ssions data, addressing data gaps, identifying technologies and best practices for reducing emissions , and identifying existing authorities and incentive

- based opportunities to reduce methane emissions.” The focus on reducing methane emissions reflects the fact that methane is a potent GHG with a global warming potentialEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **12** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left (GWP) that is 25 times greater than that of CO 2 . 1

In response to the directive in the 2013 Climate Action Plan, the “ Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions ” (the Methane Strategy) was releas ed in March 2014. The Methane S trategy noted that the landfill standards at issue here and voluntary programs already in place have considerably reduced methane emissions, while creating jobs and improving public health. With respect to landfills, the Meth ane Strategy directs the agency to build upon progress to date through updates to the EPA’s rules for reducing emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed landfills ; to issu e an ANPRM to explore options to address emissions from existing landfills ; and to encourage energy recovery from LFG through voluntary
programs. Methane has an atmospheric life of 12 years, and because of its potency as a GHG and its atmospheric life, reducing methane emissions is on e of the best ways to achieve a near

- term beneficial impact in mi tigating global climate change.

The EPA has long recognized the climate benefits associated with reducing methane emissions from landfills. In the 1991

1 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **13** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left Landfill NSPS Background Information Document , 2

“An ancillary benefit from regulating air emissions from MSW landfills is a reduction in the contribution of M SW landfill emissions to global emissions of methane. Methane is a major greenhouse gas, and is 20 to 30 times more potent than CO 2 on a molecule

- per - molecule basis. There is a general concern within the scientific community that the increasing emissions o f greenhouse gases could lead to climate change, although the rate and magnitude of these changes are uncertain.” the EPA noted tha t reduction of methane emissions from MSW landfills is one of the many options available to reduce global warming. When the EPA promulgated the NSPS for MSW landfills, which regulates MSW landfill emissions ( landfill gas ), in 1996, the EPA noted the climat e co - benefit of controlling methane, which w as not as well understood at the time as today (61 FR 9917, March 12, 1996). In 1996, the EPA stated:

Since 1996, the EPA and the scientific community have gained a better understanding of GHGs, including methane, and their effects on climate c hange and human health and welfare. In 2009, the EPA Administrator issued the document known as the

2 Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

- Background Information for Proposed Standards and Guidelines, U.S. EPA (EPA

- 450/3

- 9 0

- 011a)(NTIS PB 91

- 197061)EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **14** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1). 3 In the Endangerment Finding, which focused on public health and public welfare impacts within the United States , the Administrator found that elevated concentrations of GHGs 4

The EPA is review ing the MSW l andfills emission guidelines and in light of the President’s Climate Action Plan, the Methane Strategy, and improvements in the science related to GHG emissions, is exploring opportunities to achieve additional reductions in emissions, including methane emissions. The EPA intends to propose issue a propose d review of the emission guidelines by March 2015 and take final action on the proposal by March 2016. in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations. In light of this finding, the EPA has been examin ing regulato ry options for reducing GHG emissions.

Landfill gas is a coll ection of air pollutants, including methane and NMOC. Landfill gas is typically composed of roughly 50

- percent methane , 50

- percent CO 2 , and less than 1 percent NMOC by volume
. The NMOC portion of LFG , although a small amount by

page 2

- 15. 3 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 FR 66496 (December 15 , 2009) ( Endangerment Finding).EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **15** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left volume, can contain a variet y of significant air pollutants. NMOC include s various organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). When 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW were promulgated in 1996, NMOC was selected as a surrogate for MSW landfill emissio ns because NMOC contains the landfill air pollutants that pose more concern due to their adverse health and welfare effects. Today, there is a greater emphasis on methane emissions because of their effects on climate change , resulting in risk to human health and welfare.
. Note that in 2012, landfills represent ed 18.1 percent of total
U.S. methane emissions. 5 Methane represent s 8.7 percent of all GHG emissions (in CO 2 e) in the United States. 6

B . What is the EPA’s authority for reviewing the emission guidelines? For these reasons , the EPA is considering changes to the emiss ion guidelines that

are based on reducing the methane and NMOC components of LFG

. The EPA is seeking input on whether it should regulate methane directly.

4 C arbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 )
. 5 Total U.S. methane emissions were just below 600 million Mg CO 2 e in 2012. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

- 2012. ” Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html 6 U.S. EPA. 2012. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

- 2012. Executive Summary.” Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US

- GHG

- Inventory

- 2014

- Chapter

- Executive

- Summary.pdf
.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **16** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left The EPA is not statutorily ob ligated to conduct a review of the emission guidelines, but has the discretionary authority to do so when circumstances indicate that this is appropriate. Based on changes in the landfills industry and changes to the population in size, ownership, and age of landfills since the emission guidelines were promulgated in 1996 , the EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to review the landfills emission guidelines at this time

. A s part of the data collection efforts for the statutorily mandated review of the M SW landfills NSPS, the EPA received , and has since compiled, new information on existing landfills. That information, together with the information being solicited through this ANPRM , will allow the EPA to conduct a n assessment of the current population of existing landfills, their practices, emissions and the potential for reductions in emission s . Any changes to the emission guidelines that might result from this review will ultimately apply to landfills that accepted waste on or after November 8, 1987 7

7 This date in 1987 is the date on which permit programs were established under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of RCRA. This date was als o selected as the regulatory cutoff in the EG for landfills no longer receiving wastes because EPA judged States would be able to identify active facilities as of this date. , a nd that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification prior to publication of proposed revisions to theEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **17** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left landfills NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX, as discussed in further detail in sections II. F and II. G of this notice

. C . What is the purpose and scope of this action? The purpose of this ANPRM is to request public input on methods to reduce emissions from existing MSW landfills and to request input on potential resolutions or clarifications regarding issues that have arisen during implementatio n of the existing standards

. D . Why are we review ing the emission guidelines? The EPA is considering changes to the emission guidelines for a number of reasons, including the following: (1) The opportunity to build on progress to date and achieve additional reductions of LFG and its components, consistent with the President’s Methane Strategy, (2) changes to the in s ize, ownership, and age of landfills population as reflected in new data, (3) new options for demonstrating compliance , and (4) the completion of efforts regarding implementation issues for which the EPA previously proposed resolution

. The EPA is consideri ng these topics in its review, as discussed in the following sections.
1
. Opportunity to Achieve Additional Reductions from Existing LandfillsEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **18** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left The EPA recognizes the opportunity to build on progress to date and achieve additional reductions of LFG and its components. A subset of e xisting landfills are controlled by either the landfill emission guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc) or by the landfill NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW). Controls installed as a result of these regulations have

succe ssful ly reduced LFG emissions

. Although methane emissions from landfills in 2012 are 30 percent lower than they were in 1990, methane emissions from landfills continue to be a concern. Despite these controls installed to date , i n 2012, landfills emitted 10 2.8 teragrams ( Tg ) (or 102.8 million metric tons)
CO 2 e, making landfills the third largest source of human

- related methane emissions in the United States. The number of existing landfills (> 1 , 8 00 ) is significantly higher than the number of new landfills (21) that are projected to open in the next 5 years. Therefore, any if there are cost effective changes to the for existing landfills , revising these regulations may realize their greatest a great ben efit when applied to given the number of existing landfills

. In this ANPRM , the EPA is exploring and requesting input on approaches that have the potential to achieve additional emission reductions from MSW landfills. Some of these approaches are adjustmen ts to the current framework of the landfillsEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **19** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left regulations, others would complement the existing framework, and still others would be entirely outside the current framework. The se approaches are presented in section I V of this notice and include potential ad justments to the design capacity threshold ; the NMOC emissions threshold ; and the timing of installing , expanding and removing the gas collection and control system (GCCS)
. Approaches also include potential changes to emission threshold determinations , consideration of best management practices (BMPs) , and new technologies that could improve collection and control of LFG emissions. The EPA will consider the input and data received on these approaches during the review of the landfills emission guidelines and determine whether it is appropriate to revise the emission guidelines to further reduc e LFG emissions from existing landfills. 2. New D ata Available S ince E mission G uidelines were O riginally
P romulgated in 1996 The EPA collected current data for the s tat utorily required review of the l andfill s NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. Three sources were used for that effort: A landfill and LFG energy project database maintained by EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), a voluntary survey of landfills , and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). The creation of the landfill dataset , including identification of the sources of theEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **20** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left information contained therein, is detailed in the docketed memorandum, “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014.” The EPA used the dataset, which included landfill

- specific data such as landfill open and closure year, landfill design capacity, landfill design area and landfill depth, to examine the effects of potential changes to the size and emission thresholds for installing controls. The dataset also provide s information on landfill practices such as liquids recircul ation, waste composition, presence and type of GCCS and energy recovery projects

. The availability of new data on MSW landfills is discussed in section III.A II. D .2 of this notice. 3 . New O ptions for D emonstrating C ompliance The EPA is considering and reque sting input on potential options for demonstrating compliance. For example, the EPA is considering alternative wellhead monitoring requirements that could include exclusion or reduced frequency of temperature, oxygen/nitrogen monitoring requirements and wh ether such adjustments should be limited only to landfills that beneficially use LFG or should be available to all landfills, including small entities

. T he EPA is considering and requesting public input on potential approaches to surface emission monitoring. A pproaches include changing the walking pattern thatEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **21** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left traverses the landfill, adding an integrated methane concentration measurement and allowing sampling only when wind is below a certain speed. Thes e new options for demonstrating compliance are discussed in s ection I V.D of this notice. The EPA will consider the input and data received on these approaches during the review of the landfills emission guidelines with the intent of further reducing LFG em issions from existing landfills.
4
. Concerns Arising from Implementation of Subparts Cc and WWW that the EPA Plans to Address in a Forthcoming Proposal The landfill emission guidelines were originally promulgated in 1996. Over time, the EPA has become awar e of a number of implementation issues associated with the regulatory requirements and for which landfill owners and operators, as well as regulators, need clarification . The EPA proposed amendments to the landfills NSPS and emission guidelines (40 CFR
par t 60, subpart WWW and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc) on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475) , and September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53271). Those amendments were never finalized. The EPA is not taking final action on either the May 23, 2002 , or the September 8, 2006 , proposed rules through this ANPRM , but we are solicit ing input on the unr esolved implementation issues. These issues include but are not limited to: LFG treatment, accounting for emissionsEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **22** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left from closed areas of landfills, surface monitoring, and corrective action timelines. Note that the EPA addressed some of these implementation issues as they apply to new MSW landfills in the Federal Register notice that proposes a new subpart resulting from the EPA’s review of the landfills NSPS. The EPA plans to address amendments and clarifications resulting from implementation activities as they apply to subparts Cc and WWW in forthcoming amendments to these subparts. See section I V. G of this notice for details.
E . What is the statutory authority for landfill emission guidelines ? Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111, which Congress enacted as part of the 1970 CAA Amendments, establishes mechanisms for controlling emissions of air pollutants from stationary sources. This provision requires the EPA to promulgate a list of
cat egories of stationary sources that the Administrator, in his or her judgment, finds “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” 8 The EPA has listed more than 60 stationary source categories under this provision, including municipal solid waste landfills. 9

8 CAA section 111(b)(1)(A). Once EPA lists a source

9 See 40 CFR part 60 , subparts Cb through OOOO.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **23** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left category, the EPA must, under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), establish “standards of performance” for emissions of air pollutants from new sou rces in the source categories. 10

When the EPA establishes NSPS for new sources in a particular sou rce category, the EPA is also required, under CAA section 111(d)(1), to prescribe regulations for states to submit plans regulating existing sources in that source category for any air pollutant that, in general, is not regulated under the CAA section 109 requirements for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS ) or regulated under the CAA section 112 requirements for HAP. CAA section 111(d)’s mechanism for regulating existing sources differs from the one that CAA section 111(b) provides for new so urces because CAA section 111(d) contemplates states submitting is implemented through
state plans that establish “standards of performance” for the affected sources and that contain other measures to implement and enforce those standards. These standards are known as new source performance standards or NSPS, and they are national requirements that apply directly to the sources subject to them.

“Standards of pe rformance” are defined under CAA section 111(a)(1) as standards for emissions that reflect the emission

10 CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 111(a)(1).EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **24** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left limitation achievable from the “best system of emission reduction,” considering costs and other factors, that “the Administrator determines has been ade quately demonstrated.” CAA section 111(d)(1) grants states the authority, in applying a standard of performance to particular sources, to take into account the source’s remaining useful life or other factors. Under CAA section 111(d), a state must submit its plan to the EPA for approval, and the EPA must approve the state plan if it is “satisfactory.” 11 If a state does not submit a plan, or if the EPA does not approve a state’s plan, then the EPA must establish a plan for that state. 12

The EPA issued regulations implementing CAA section 111(d) in 1975

. Once a state receives the EPA’s approval for its plan, the provisions in the plan become federally enforceable against the entity responsible for noncompliance, in the same manner as the provisions of an approved State Implementation Plan ( SIP ) under CAA section 110.

13

11 CAA section 111(d)(2)(A). These implementing regulations provide that, in promulgating requirements for sources under CAA section 111(d), the EPA first develops regulations known as “emission guidelines,” which establish binding requirements that states

12 CAA section 111(d)(2)(A). 13 “State Plans for the Control of Certain Pollutants From Existing Facilities,” 40 FR 53,340 (November 17, 1975).EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **25** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left must address when they develop their plans. 14 The implementing regulations also establish timetables for state and EPA action: states must submit state plans within 9 months of the EPA’s issuance of the guidelines, 15 and the EPA must take final action on the state plans within 4 months of the due date for those plans, 16 although the EPA has authority to extend those deadlines. 17
Over the last 40 years, under CAA section 111(d), the agency has regulated four pollutants from five source categories (i.e., sulfuric acid plants (acid mist), phosphate fertilizer plants (fluorides), primary aluminum plants (fluorides), Kraft pulp plants (total reduced sulfur), and municipal solid waste landfills ( LFG )). 18

F . What are the landfill emission guidelines and what sources would be affected by a review of the emission guidelines?

14 40 CFR 60.22. In the 1975 rulemaking, the EPA explained that it used the term “emissions guidelines”

– instead of emissions limitations

– to make clear that guidelines would not be binding requirements applicable to the sources, but instead are “criteria for judging th e adequacy of State plans.” 40 F R 53343. 15 40 CFR 60.23(a)(1). 16 40 CFR 60.27(b). 17 See 40 CFR 60.27(a). 18 See “Phosphate Fertilizer Plants; Final Guideline Document Availability,” 42 FR 12022 (March 1, 1977); “Standards of Performance for New Stationary S ources; Emission Guideline for Sulfuric Acid Mist,” 42 FR 55796 (October 18, 1977); “Kraft Pulp Mills, Notice of Availability of Final Guideline Document,” 44 FR 29828 (May 22, 1979); “Primary Aluminum Plants; Availability of Final Guideline Document,” 45 FR 26294 (April 17, 1980); “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Final Rule,” 61 FR 9905 (March 12, 1996).EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **26** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left The Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (emission guidelines) are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc. The emission g uidelines cross reference many provisions in the Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (landfills NSPS) (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW), including control requirements, operational standards , monitoring provisions, and reporting and rec ordkeeping requirements. As a result, many of the proposed changes to the standards of performance for new, reconstructed , and modified MSW landfills could affect subpart Cc. A detailed summary of the
current emission guideline requirements appears in s ect ion IV.B.1 of this notice

. C AA s ection 111(d) calls for a partnership between t he EPA and states , as described above

. To recap , t he EPA establishes

source - category

- specific emission guidelines that specify the minimum requirements for an approvable state plan, including the requisite level of emission reductions that must be achieved

. Each s tate must develop a state plan establishing standards of performance for the affected sources in the state based on the requirements of the emission guidelines

. The s ta te must submit its state plan to the EPA for approval. The EPA reviews the state plan to ensure that it meets at least the minimum requirements of the emission guidelines , and approves the planEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **27** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left if it does

. If the state do es not submit a state plan , or the state plan is disapproved, the EPA would have the authority to promulgate a federal plan under CAA section 111(d)(2)(A)

. MSW landfills constructed, modified or reconstructed prior to proposal of the revised landfills NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987 would be considered “ existing ” and would be affected by any changes to the emission guidelines resulting from this review. States with designated facilities would be required to develop (or revise) and submit a st ate plan to the EPA within 9 months of promulgation of any revisions to the emission guidelines unless the EPA specifies a longer time frame

. Any revisions to an existing state plan and any newly adopted state plan must be established f ollowing the require ments of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B
. Those requirements include mak ing the state plan publically available and provid ing opportunity for public discussion. Once the EPA receives a complete state plan or plan revision and completes its review of that plan or plan revision, the EPA will propose the plan or plan revision for approval or disapproval and must take final action to approve or disapprove the plan or plan revi sion no later than 4 months after the date the plan or plan revision was required to be submitted. The EPA will publish state plan approvals or disapprovals in the FederalEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **28** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left Register and will include a n explanation of its decision . The EPA will also revise t he existing federal plan (40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG) to incorporate any changes and other requirements that the EPA promulgates as a result of its review of the emission guidelines. The revised federal plan will apply in states which have not received ap proval of any necessary revised state plan until such time as the revised state plan is approved.
G . How would changes in applicability affect sources currently subject to subpart WWW? If the EPA were to revise the landfills emission guidelines to i ncreas e their stringency , then a landfill currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW would need to comply with the more stringent requirements i n the revised state plan or federal plan implementing the revised emission guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart C c) as such sources would be existing sources with respect to the revised NSPS

. 19

19 As discussed above, the emission guidelines curren tly rely on subpart WWW for t heir substantive requirements. As a result, any increase in the stringency of the emission guidelines would necessarily make them more stringent than the existing requirements in subpart WWW

. States would have to update their inventory of existing landfills to include these landfills. Note that all MSW landfills that are subject to subpart WWW would continue to comp ly with the requirements found in subpart WWWEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **29** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left unless and until they are covered by a more stringent state or federal plan implementing the amended emission guidelines

. **III. Why is the EPA**  **concerned about air quality effects from MSW landfills?**  The EPA is concerned about LFG emissions because of the public health and welfare effects that result from these emissions. Landfill gas generated from established waste (waste that has been in place for at least a year) is typically composed of roughly 50

- percent methane and 50

- percent CO 2 by volume, with less than 1 percent NMOC. In promulgating the emission guidelines in 1996, the EPA’s concerns regarding the adverse effects of emissions of LFG on human health and welfare were focused primarily on the NM OC portion of LFG. The NMOC portion of LFG can contain a variety of air pollutants, including VOC s and various organic HAP, all of which have various health effects, as discussed in section III.D of this notice. In light of the Methane Strategy, the EPA is considering changes to the emission guidelines that are based on reducing emissions of the methane and NMOC components of LFG . Once emitted into the atmosphere, methane contributes to warming of the atmosphere, which over time leads to increased air and o cean temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, and sea levelEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **30** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left rise, among other impacts, as discussed in section III.D of this notice. A. Background on the MSW Landfill Sector Section 111 of the CAA requires the EPA Administrator to list categories o f stationary sources that in the Administrator’s judgment cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A)). On March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905), under the author ity of CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), the EPA added the MSW landfills source category to the priority list in 40 CFR 60.16 because, in the judgment of the Administrator, the source category contributes significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be antic ipated to endanger public health and welfare. In that same notice, the EPA promulgated the NSPS, which apply to new ( including modified and reconstructed) landfills under the authority of CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), and emission guidelines, which apply to ex isting landfills, under the authority of CAA section 111(d). The EPA also defined the MSW landfills source category, identified municipal solid waste landfill emissions (commonly referred to as LFG ) as the pollutant for which standards should be developed , and determined the applicability thresholds and emission level of the standards.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **31** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left 1. Definition An MSW landfill is defined in the landfills regulations as: “An entire disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household waste is placed in or on land. An MSW landfill may also receive other types of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA ) subtitle D wastes such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and industrial solid wast e. Portions of an MSW landfill may be separated by access roads. An MSW landfill may be publicly or privately owned. An MSW landfill may be a new MSW landfill, an existing MSW landfill or a lateral expansion” (40 CFR 60.32c and 60.751). Household waste is the primary component of MSW, accounting for 55 to 65 percent of total MSW generated, followed by the commercial and institutional sectors. 20

2. Characterization of Existing Landfills Household waste includes solid waste from single

- and multiple

- family homes, hotels and motels, ranger stations, c rew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds and day

- use recreation areas.

Many changes have occurred in the landfill industry since the landfill emission guidelines were originally promulgated inEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **32** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left 1996. Among the cha nges are changes in landfill characteristics and population (i.e., size, ownership, age); proliferation of
LFG energy projects ; the availability of more comprehensive data on landfills from mandatory and voluntary EPA programs ; and the introduction of new techniques for collecting, reducing, and monitoring LFG emissions. Size, Ownership , Age . The number and size distribution of MSW landfills in the United States has evolved changed over the last 25 years, with a trend toward few er active, but larger , landfills. Since 1988, the number of active MSW landfills in the United States has decreased by approximately 75 percent (from approximately 7,900 in 1988 to approximately 1,900 in 2009). 21 , 22 During this time, the overall disposal cap acity has remained fairly constant, indicating a trend towards fewer, but larger landfills 23 in more remote locations.

. 24
The data also show a trend away from public ownership. The share of sites that are publicly owned has decreased from 83

20 U.S. Environmental Protection Age ncy. 2011. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Tables and F igures for 2010. EPA

- 530

- F

- 11

- 005. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. “Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 20 09 Facts and Figures.” 22 O’Brien, Jeremy K. 2006. “Contracting out: Adapting local integrated waste management to regional private landfill ownership.” Waste Management World. 23 Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). 2007. “The Regional Privately

- Owned Landfill Trend and Its Impact on Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems.” February 2007
.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **33** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left percent in 1984 to 64 percent in 2004. 25 , 26 Large Instead, l arge , private companies have the ability to accommodate the increased costs of owning a landfill, because owning used economy of scale for cost expenditures and own multiple sites, many of which have large capacities , provides an economy of scale for cost expenditures.

. To offset the cost of constructing and maintaining modern landfills, facility owners construct large facilities that attract high volumes of waste from a large geographic area. By maintaining a high vo lume of incoming waste, landfill owners have the ability to keep tipping fees relatively low, which subsequently attracts more business. 27 LFG Energy Projects . The number of LFG energy projects has also increased substantially over the last two decades. In 1996, there were approximately 160 operational LFG energy projects and approximately 700 candidate landfills according to data obtained by the EPA LMOP
. According to LMOP, as of March 2014, there are 636 operational LFG energy projects and 450 landfills t hat remain candidates for energy recovery. LMOP is a voluntary

24 Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). 2007. “The Regional Privately

- Owned Landfill Trend and Its Impact on Integrated Solid Waste Mana gement Systems.” February 2007
. 25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. “Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 Facts and Figures.” 26 O’Brien, Jeremy K. 2006. “Contracting out: Adapting local integrated waste management to regional private landfill ownership.” Waste Management World

. 27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Solid Waste and Emergency Response. “Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision

- Making.” Formatted: SuperscriptEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **34** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left assistance program that helps to reduce methane emissions from landfills by encouraging recovery and beneficial use of LFG
. Availability of More Comprehensive Data

. In 2010, the EPA GHGRP began collecting information from existing MSW landfills that accepted waste on or after January 1, 1980 . Approximately 1,200 landfills generated and generate methane in amounts equivalent to 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equ ivalent ( CO 2 e ) or more per year
. According to data collected through the GHGRP, a pproximately 1,200 landfills generated methane in amounts equivalent to 25,000 metric tons of CO 2 e or more per
year , using a GWP of 25. (CO 2 e is an expression of methane in

te rms of the carbon dioxide equivalents, given the methane GWP of 25 28 .) 25,000 metric tons of CO 2 e is equal to about 6.5 megagrams ( Mg ) NMOC and 1,000 Mg methane per year. 29

28 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Ph ysical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp

. (A megagram is also known as a metric ton, which is equal to 1.1 U.S. short
tons or a bout 2,205 pounds.) Reporting includes data elements such as annual modeled methane generation and methane emissions from the landfill, as well as annual methane destruction (for landfills with GCCS s). Beginning with reporting year 2013, theEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **35** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left GHGRP data inc ludes additional data elements for which reporting was previously deferred , such as landfill open and closure dates, waste acceptance rates, flow of LFG for destruction, methane concentration and gas collection efficiency

. ; this data

w ill be used to refine the analyses discussed in “Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfill Regulations. 2014” and “ Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfill Regulations. 2014,” both of which are availabl e in the docket

. The EPA plans to incorporate this new information into the proposal for the emission guidelines review. LMOP has collected information on landfills since the program’s inception in 1996 and maintains a database of over 2,000 existing landf ills and LFG energy projects. The database includes landfill information provided to LMOP and from publically available sources, including the GHGRP dataset. In addition, the EPA conducted a voluntary landfill survey in 2010 and received information from 1 67 landfills. A dataset of approximately 2,4 00 landfills resulted from the three sources listed above: The GHGRP, the LMOP database and voluntary survey of landfills. Of these 2,4 00 landfills, approximately 1,8 00 had have sufficient data to use in the

29 Calculated using the AP

- 42 default factor of 595 ppmv and 50 percent methane. U.S. EPA, AP

- 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 1995.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **36** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left prel iminary cost and reduction analysis as the EPA begins its review of the emission guidelines. The creation of the landfill dataset is detailed in the docketed memorandum, “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landf ills Regulations 2014

. ” Based on this dataset, several observations can be made. Location and Size

. The 1,8 00 landfills are located in all 50 states and two territories and range widely in size from 208
tons 189 Mg to 142 129 million tons Mg of waste

- in

- place as of 2014. Approximately half of the landfills have a design capacity of at least 2.5 million Mg. Active vs. Closed . Approximately half of the existing landfills are still accepting waste as of 2014. A pproximately 40 percent of the lan dfills stopped accepting waste prior to 2005. Among landfills that have a design capacity of at least 2.5 million Mg, only 16 percent of the landfills stopped accepting waste prior to 2005

. Leachate Recirculation . Leachate recirculation is used at many lan dfills to manage on

- site leachate. Concurrently, this operational practice accelerates waste decomposition and gas generation rates at the landfills. Under 40 CFR part 98 , subpart HH of the GHGRP, landfills must report whether or not they employ leachate r ecirculation and if so, the frequency of thatEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **37** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left recirculation. Based on GHGRP data from the 2012 reporting year, over 300 landfills accepting waste after 1987 indicated that leachate recirculation was used. Of those, over 200 landfills indicated the leachate was re circulated several times per year over the past 10 years of operation. Other Liquid s Addition . Since 2004, 14 states have received program approval to issue permits to MSW landfills to add liquids other than leachate under the Research Development and Demonstration provisions of 40 CFR 258.4. This operational practice also accelerates waste decomposition and gas generation rates at the landfills. Other Trends
. The estimated annual quantity of waste placed in MSW landfills increased 26 percent from approximately 205 Tg in 1990 to 284 Tg in 2012

. 30 The annual amount of waste generated and subsequently disposed in MSW landfills varies annually and depends on several factors (e.g., the economy, consumer patterns, recycling and composting programs, inclus ion in a waste collection service and the availability of other alternative options for disposal and their price ) ; but the total amount of MSW generated is expected to continue to increase as the U.S. population continues to grow. The composition ofEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **38** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left materi als disposed of in MSW landfills has also changed significantly since 1990. See section I V.C.3 of this notice for additional details on waste composition trends. B. What emissions are associated with existing MSW landfills? The EPA estimates that the potential uncontrolled emissions from the approximately 1,8 00 landfills in its regulatory analysis dataset (as explained in section II. D .2 of this notice ) are approximately 66,400 Mg NMOC and 10 Tg million Mg me thane ( 258 Tg millio n Mg CO 2 e ) in 2014

. Looking beyond the modeled dataset, the 2012 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

- 2012 , shows a growth in uncontrolled emissions from MSW landfills , from 172.6 Tg CO 2 e in 1990 to 280 .0 Tg CO 2 e in 2012. 31 If controls are considered , emissions from landfills have decreased from 147.8 Tg CO 2 e in 1990 to 102.8 CO 2 e in 2012 from both regulatory and voluntary programs
. 32 C. What emission reductions are currently being achieved from MSW landfills? 1. Emission R eductions Due to Subparts Cc and WWW

30 U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

- 2012. April 2014. See Annex 3.14 , Table A

- 261
. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

31 U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Sinks: 1990

- 2012 (Ap ril 2014) Table 8

- 3 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.htmlEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **39** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left To estimate the emission reductions, the EPA applied the current design capacity and NMOC emission rate thresholds in the MSW landfills regulations, and the time allowed for installing, expanding and removing the GCCS to the modeled emission estimates disc ussed in s ection I V .B of this notice. Table 2 of this notice summarizes the reductions currently being achieved at existing landfills in 2014 as a result of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and the f ederal and state plans implementing the emission guidelines. T his table reflects the current baseline level of control at existing landfills: Landfills greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million cubic meters (m 3 ) must install a GCCS when NMOC emissions reach or exceed 50 megagrams per year ( Mg/yr ) . The table includes emission reductions for NMOC and methane. **Table 2. Baseline Emission Reductions in 2014 at Existing Landfills** 

**Option No. of**  **landfills affected**  **No. of landfills**  **controlling No. of**  **landfills reporting**  **but not controlling**  **Annual NMOC**  **Redu ctions** 

**(Mg/yr) Annual**  **Methane Reductions** 

**(million Mg/yr)**  **Annual Methane**  **Reductions**

**(million Mg**  **CO 2**  **e**

**/yr)** Baseline **954 559**  **395 49,600**  **7.7 193**  The emission guidelines in the baseline are estimated to require control at 559 of the 954 affected landfills in 2014 and achieve reductions of 49,600 Mg /yr NMOC and 7.7 million Mg /yr

32 Ibid, Table 8

- 1. Formatted: Don't keep with next, Don't keep lines together

Formatted: Don't keep with next, Don't keep lines together Formatted: Don't keep with next, Don't keep lines togetherEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **40** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left methane ( 193 million Mg /yr CO 2 e )
. The In t he baseline estimates we estimate that 30 percent (559/1,832) of these existing landfills will operate emission controls in 2014 (1,832 is the n umber of landfills in the landfills dataset that had sufficient data to use in the preliminary cost and reduction analysis)

. 2. Other Programs Achieving Emission Reductions from Existing MSW Landfills Landfill owners and operators collect LFG for a variety of

reasons : To t o control odor, to minimize fire and explosion hazards, to recover LFG to be used for energy recovery, to sell carbon credits, and to comply with local, state , or federal air quality standards. This section of this notice disc usses several other major non - EPA programs of which the EPA is aware. These reductions complement the reductions achieved by the current NSPS and emission guidelines framework. i. State and Local Ordinances The EPA is aware that some state or local ordinanc es require LFG combustion for odor or safety reasons. The number of landfills controlling under local ordinances is unknown. In addition, the state of California recently established methaneEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **41** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left regulations 33

ii. Market

- based Mechanisms to require a GCCS to be installed at all landfills

a ccepting waste after January 1, 1977, having at least 450,000 tons of waste

- in

- place, and having a gas heat input capacity threshold of 3.0 MMBtu/hr or greater.

LMOP maintains a voluntary national database of landfills and LFG energy projects, including information on which landfills have a GCCS in place. The EPA compared the list of landfills that are modeled to have installed a GCCS in 2014 in the NSPS/ emission guidelines dataset to the list of landfills that are reported to have a GCCS installed in the LMOP database. While the NSPS/ emission guidelines dataset estimates that approximately 550 landfills have installed controls to meet the requirements of the NSPS or an appr oved state plan or federal plan implementing the emission guidelines , t he LMOP database shows approximately 500 additional landfills as hav ing installed controls , resulting in over 1,000 landfills estimated to have a GCCS installed

. 34

33 California Code of Regulations, title 17, subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, sections 95460 to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Approximately half of these 500 landfills exceed the design capacity of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m 3 , but as of 2014, a re not modeled to exceed the NMOC emissionEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **42** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left threshold that dictates when a GCCS must be installed. M any of these systems may have been installed to recover energy and generate revenue through the sale of electricity or LFG . The LMOP database estimates that almost 200 of the 500 landfills with voluntary systems have an energy recovery component. Among landfills with larger design capacities, approximately 120 of the 260 landfills with a voluntary GCCS have an energy recovery component. Some landfills with voluntary systems may also receive revenues as a result of the creation of carbon credits. Data from the Climate Action Reserve indicates that more than 100 LFG capture projects in 36 states have been issued credits known as Climate Reserve Tonnes (CRTs). 35
D. What are the health and welfare effects of LFG emissions ? 1. Health Impacts of VOC and Various Organic HAP The pollutant regulated under the landfills NSPS is “MSW landfill emissions.” Municipal solid waste landfill emissions, also commonly referred to as LFG , are a collection of air pollutants, including methane and NMOC, some of which are toxic.
LFG generated from established waste (waste that has been in place for at least a year) is typically composed of roughly 50

-

34 See Sections III.B II. D .2 and III. D C of this notice for a detailed discussion of the modeling database and estimated reductions under the current federal regulatory framework
. 35 Climate Action Reserve. Issued List of CRTs as of April 17, 2014. https://thereserve2.apx.com/myModule/rpt/myrpt.asp?r=112
.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **43** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left percent methane and 50

- percent CO 2 by volume, with less than 1 percent NMOC. The NMOC portion of LFG can contain a variety of air pollu tants , includ ing VOC and various organic HAP. VOC emissions are precursors to both fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) and ozone formation. Exposure to PM 2.5 and ozone is associated with significant public health effects. 36 , 37 PM 2.5 is associated
with health eff ects including premature mortality for adults and infants, cardiovascular morbidity such as heart attacks and respiratory morbidity such as asthma attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis, hospital admissions and emergency room visits, work loss days, restric ted activity days and respiratory symptoms, as well as visibility impairment 38 . Ozone is associated with health effects including premature mortality, lung damage, asthma aggravation and other respiratory symptoms, hospital and emergency department visits, and school loss days, as well as injury to vegetation and climate effects 39

36 U.S. EPA. 2009. “Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).” EPA

- 600

- R

- 08

- 139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment

— RTP Division. Available at http://www.e pa.gov/ncea/isa/

. . Nearly 30 organic HAP

37 U.S. EPA. 2013. “Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidents (Final Report).” EPA

- 600

- R

- 10

- 076F. National Center for Environmental Assessment

— RTP Division. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/

. 38 U.S. EPA. 2009. “Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).” EPA

- 600

- R

- 08

- 139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment

— RTP Division. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/

. 39 U.S. EPA. 2013. “Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidents (Final Report).” EPA

- 600

- R

- 10

- 076F. National Center for Environmental Assessment

— RTP Division. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/

.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **44** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left have been identified in uncontrolled LFG , including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and vinyl chloride. 40 2. Climate Impacts of Methane Emissions In addition t o the improvements in air quality and resulting benefits to human health and non

- climate welfare effects discussed above, reducing emissions from landfills is expected to result in climate co

- benefits due to reductions of the methane component of LFG . Meth ane is a potent GHG wit h a GWP 25 t imes greater than CO 2 . 41

40 U.S. EPA. 1998. Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Plannin g and Standards. “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 2: Solid Waste Disposal, Section 2.4: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills”. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch0 2/final/c02s04.pdf

. O nce emitted into the atmosphere,
methane absorbs terrestrial , which accounts for methane’s stronger absorption of infrared radiation , which contributes to warming of per ton in the atmosphere but also its shorter lifetime (on the atmosphere, which over time leads to increased air and ocean temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, melting and thawing order of global glaciers and ice, increasingly severe weather events, such as hurricanes of greater intensity and sea level rise, among other impacts. a

41 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. Formatted: Lowered by 3 pt

Formatted: Lowered by 3 pt

Formatted: Lowered by 3 ptEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **45** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left decade compared to centuries or millennia for carbon dioxide)
. 42 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5 th Assessment Report, methane is th e second leading long

lived climate forcer after CO 2 globally. 43 As discussed in detail in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, climate change threatens public health in a number of ways: direct temperature effects, the effect of higher atmospheric CO 2 concentrations on characteristics of air quality, and changes in
vector

- borne diseases. In addition to direct temperature health effects and climate change induced air quality effects, there is also the potential for increased mortality rates, injuries, i nfectious diseases and stress

- related disorders resulting from more frequent extreme weather events. According to the assessment literature, under changing climate and environmental conditions there will also likely be an increase in the spread

42 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. 43 Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.

- K. Plattner, L.V. Alexander, S.K. Allen, N.L. Bindoff, F.

- M. Bréon, J.A. Church, U. Cubasch, S. Emori, P. Forster, P. Friedlingstein, N. Gillett, J.M. Gregory, D.L. Hartmann, E. Jansen, B. Kirtman, R. Knutti, K. Krishna Kumar, P. Lemke, J. Marotzke, V. Masson

Delmotte, G.A. Meehl, I.I. Mokhov, S. Piao, V. Ramaswamy, D.Randall, M. Rhein, M. Rojas, C. Sabine, D. Shindel l, L.D. Talley, D.G. Vaughan and S.

- P. Xie. 2013: “Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” [Stocker, T.F., D. Q in, G.

- K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex andEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **46** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left of serial e pisodes of food and water

- borne pathogens among susceptible populations, depending on the pathogens’ survival, persistence, habitat range and transmission caused by human emissions of GHGs threatens public health in multiple ways. By raising average tempera tures, climate change increases the likelihood of heat waves, which are associated with increased deaths and illnesses. While climate change also increases the likelihood of reductions in cold

- related mortality, evidence indicates that the increases in hea t mortality will be larger than the decreases in cold mortality in the United States. Compared to a future without climate change, climate change is expected to increase ozone pollution over broad areas of the U.S., including in the largest metropolitan ar eas with the worst ozone problems, and thereby increase the risk of morbidity and mortality. Other public health threats also stem from projected increases in intensity or frequency of extreme weather associated with climate change, such as increased hurri cane intensity, increased frequency of intense storms, and heavy precipitation. Increased coastal storms and storm surges due to rising sea levels are expected to cause increased drownings and other health impacts. Children, the elderly, and the poor are

P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **47** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left a mong the most vulnerable to these climate

- related health effects
. As with public health, there are multiple pathways in which
GHG air pollution and resultant climate change affect climate

sensitive economic sectors and environmental media. These sectors i nclude agriculture; forestry; water resources; sea level rise in coastal areas; energy, infrastructure and settlements; and ecosystems and wildlife. As documented in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, climate change caused by human emissions of GHGs also threa tens public welfare in multiple ways. Climate changes are expected to place large areas of the country at serious risk of reduced water supplies, increased water pollution, and increased occurrence of extreme events such as floods and droughts. Coastal are as are expected to face increased risks from storm and flooding damage to property, as well as adverse impacts from rising sea level, such as land loss due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence and habitat loss. Climate change is expected to result i n an increase in peak electricity demand, and extreme weather from climate change threatens energy, transportation, and water resource infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate ongoing environmental pressures in certain settlements, particularly in Ala skan indigenous communities. Climate changeEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **48** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left also is very likely to fundamentally rearrange U.S. ecosystems over the 21st century. Though some benefits may balance adverse effects on agriculture and forestry in the next few decades, the body of evidence poi nts towards increasing risks of net adverse impacts on U.S. food production, agriculture and forest productivity as temperature continues to rise. These impacts are global and may exacerbate problems outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, trade, and nat ional security issues for the U.S. Methane is also a precursor to ground

- level ozone, a health

- harmful air pollutant. Additionally, ozone is a short

lived climate forcer that contributes to global warming. In remote areas, methane is a dominant precursor to tropospheric ozone formation. 44 Approximately 40 50 percent of the global annual mean ozone increase since preindustrial times is believed to be due to anthropogenic methane. 45

44 U.S. EPA. 2013. “ Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidents (Final Report).” EPA

- 600

- R

- 10

- 076F. National Center for Environmental Assessment

— RTP Division. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/

. Projections of future emissions also indicate that methane is likely to be a ke y

45 Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (HTAP). 2010. Hemispheric Transport of Ai r Pollution 2010. Informal Document No.10. Convention on Long

- range Transboundary Air Pollution Executive Body 28th Session. ECE/EB.AIR/2010/10 (Corrected). Chapter 4, pp. 148

- 149. 45 Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.

- M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.

- F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropog enic and Natural Radiative Forc ing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fift h Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.

- K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen,EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **49** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left contributor to ozone concentrations in the future. 46 Unlike NO X and VOC, which affect ozone concentrations regionally and at hourly time scales, methane emissions affect ozone concentrations globally and on decadal time scales given methane’s relatively l ong atmospheric lifetime compared to these other ozone precursors. 47 Reducing methane emissions, therefore,

can may contribute to efforts to reduce global background ozone concentrations , human exposure to ozone and that contribute to the incidence of ozone

- related health effects around the world
. 48 , 49

**I V.**  **Topic s for Which**  **the EPA is Seeking**  **Input** These benefits are global and occur in both urban and rural areas.

The EPA is considering several alternative approaches for achieving additional LFG emission reductions from existing MSW landfills. The EPA requests data and input regarding each of these approaches, or other alternative frameworks that should be considered for existing landfills. The EPA is specifically int erested in input related to new technologies and data on costs and emission reductions for each of these technologies or

J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and N ew York, NY, USA. Pg. 680. 46 Ibid

. 47 Ibid

. 48 West, J.J., Fiore, A.M. 2005. “Management of tropospheric ozone by reducing methane emissions.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:4685

- 4691.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **50** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left practices. The EPA is also interested in ideas regarding how these alternatives may be incorporated into a regulatory framework for exi sting landfills. Sections I V.A through I V.F of this notice describe and request input on alternative approaches for achieving additional LFG reductions from existing landfills. Since the landfills regulations were implemented in 1996, the EPA has become a ware of implementation issues for which landfill owners and operators, as well as regulators, need clarification. In this notice, the EPA is also soliciting input on the implementation issues. Section I V. G of this notice describe s and request s input on the se implementation issues.
A. Taking R eductions in Methane Emissions I nto Account in Reviewing the Emission Guidelines In light of the Methane Strategy discussed in section II of this notice, t he EPA is seeking input on the extent to which methane should be addressed under the revised emissions guidelines. T he EPA is also requesting input on potential implementation issues associated with any adjustments that could be made to the current rule framework or any alternative regulatory frameworks that may achi eve a larger fraction of methane emission reductions from existing landfills than the

49 Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. “Intercontinental impacts of ozone pollution on human mortality,” Environ. Sci. & Technol. 43: 6482

- 6487.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **51** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left current performance

- based standard of a well

- designed and well

operated GCCS. B. Potential Changes to Regulatory Framework for Existing
Sources The EPA is considering pot ential changes within the current regulatory framework of the landfills regulations for existing sources that would achieve further emission reductions. This section outlines the current framework and identifies potential adjustments to that framework. The EPA is requesting input on these potential adjustments, the degree of emission reductions that could be achieved, corresponding cost and implementation. 1. Current Framework The landfills regulations in 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW require an MSW landfill with a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m 3 or greater to install a GCCS once the emissions from the landfill meet or exceed 50 Mg NMOC per year. The landfill has 30 months to install and begin operating the GCCS . This 30

- month “in itial lag time” is the time period between when the landfill exceeds the NMOC emission rate threshold and when controls are required to be installed and started up. A landfill must expand the GCCS as more waste is added to the landfill. This “expansion lag time” is the amount of time allotted for the landfill to expand the GCCS into newEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **52** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left areas of the landfill (5 years for active areas and 2 years for areas that are closed or at final grade). When promulgated in 1996, the best system of emission reduction for MSW landfills was determined to be a well

- designed and well

- operated landfill
GCCS with a control device capable of reducing NMOC by 98 percent by weight

. Enclosed combustion devices have the option of either reducing NMOC by 98 percent by weight or reducing NMOC emissions to 20 parts per million, dry volume. NMOC was established as a surrogate for LFG in the final rule. Without any changes to the framework of the rule, over 950 landfills are affected, and 691 are required to install controls on or be fore 2023. T hese current requirements are estimated to result in NMOC emission reductions of 55,000 Mg/yr and methane emission reductions of 8.5 million Mg/yr (213 million Mg /yr
CO 2 e) , on average over the next 10

- year period (2014

- 2023)
. These reductions a re expected to be achieved at an average cost effectiveness of approximately $7,200 per Mg NMOC or $46 per Mg methane ($1.8 per Mg CO 2 e). Additional information about these estimates can be found in the docketed memo Preliminary Cost and Emissions Impacts Analysis for Review of the MSW Landfills Emission Guidelines 2014

. Within the current framework of 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW, several parameters could be adjusted to potentiallyEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **53** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left achieve additional emission reductions. Those parameters are the des ign capacity, the NMOC emissions threshold, and the timing of installing and expanding the GCCS. The EPA conducted a preliminary analysis as described below to estimate the emissions and cost implications of adjusting rule parameters. Modeling options that varied these parameters showed the following general incremental results as compared to the current regulatory framework over the next 10

- year period (2014

- 2023). These preliminary cost

- effectiveness values presented later in this s ection IV.B include the costs to install and operate GCCS as well as any revenue from energy recovery as discussed in further detail in the docketed memorandum , “ Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulat ions. 2014 .” I nstallation, operation and maintenance of the GCCS represent s over 99 percent of the annual costs, and although the costs presented here do not include testing and monitoring costs, those costs are expected to be nominal relative to the control costs

. i. Reducing or Eliminating the Design Capacity Threshold Options that decrease the design capacity threshold would make more landfills subject to the rule. Such options also would increase the overall reporting burden because more landfills would be required to calculate and report the ir NMOC emissionEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **54** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left rates. Landfills that exceed a a ny lower design capacity threshold and become subject to subpart XXX would also be required to obtain a Title V permit because sources subject to an NSPS must generally obtain a Title V permit . Only a few add itional landfills would be required to install controls because landfills still must exceed the NMOC emission rate threshold before such controls are applied

. , and under the current threshold, about 72 percent of landfills over the design capacity threshol d exceed the NMOC emissions rate

. Thus, options that decrease the design capacity threshold without also lowering the NMOC emission threshold create additional reporting and permitting burden with minimal additional emission reductions. Modeling showed tha t if the EPA decreased the design capacity threshold to 2.0 million Mg or 2.0 million m 3 , then over 90 additional landfills would be affected by the rule and five additional landfills would require controls, resulting in NMOC reductions of 74 Mg/yr and met hane emission reductions of 11,500 million Mg/yr (287,000 Mg /yr CO 2 e). These reductions could be achieved at a cost effectiveness of approximately $9,900 per Mg NMOC or $64 per Mg methane ($2.6 per Mg CO 2 e).

T he EPA also explored decreasing the NMOC emission threshold in conjunction with decreasing the design capacity. Modeling showed that if the EPA decreased the design capacityEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **55** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left threshold to 2.0 million Mg or 2.0 million m 3 and reduced the NMOC emission threshold to betwe en 34 and 40 Mg/yr, then approximately 90 additional landfills would be affected by the rule and 80 to 160 additional landfills would require controls, resulting in additional NMOC reductions of 2,100 to 3,200 Mg/yr and methane reductions of 328,000 to 494 ,000 Mg/yr (8.2 to 12.3 million Mg /yr CO 2 e). These additional reductions could be achieved at an incremental cost effectiveness of between $16,000 and $18,000 per Mg NMOC or $100 to $115 per Mg methane ($4 to $5 per Mg CO 2 e).

I n addition, i f the EPA were t o remove the design capacity threshold, then a significant number of additional landfills would be subject to the rule. Out of the approximately 1,800 existing landfills with sufficient data to include in the preliminary analysis for the review of the emis sion guidelines , over 850 have a design capacity of less than 2.5 million Mg or
2.5 million m 3 . Without a design capacity threshold, the NMOC emission rate would be the only criteri on for installing controls. Thus, these landfills would be required to begi n calculating and reporting their NMOC emission rate. They would also be required to obtain a Title V permit. A smaller number of additional landfills would be required to install controls, because currently only those landfills below the design capacityEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **56** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left t hreshold that exceed the NMOC emission rate would require controls. Note that as landfills continue to add waste and continue to calculate and report the annual NMOC emission rate, over time, more landfills would be required to install controls , which woul d thus achieve additional emission reductions. The EPA requests input on whether or not adjustments to the design capacity threshold should be considered. ii. Reducing NMOC Emission Threshold Decreasing the NMOC emissions threshold would not change the nu mber of landfills subject to the rule or affect the overall reporting burden. However, a lower NMOC emissions threshold would require more landfills to install controls. Although an NMOC emission threshold would continue to use NMOC as a surrogate for LFG, additional methane reductions could be achieved as a result of lowering the NMOC threshold, which is consistent with the President’s Methane Strategy as described in

sec tion II of this notice

. Modeling showed that if the EPA decreased the NMOC threshold to 40 Mg/yr NMOC, then approximately 80 additional landfills would require controls, resulting in additional NMOC reductions of 1,900 Mg/yr and methane reductions of 303,0 00 Mg/yr (7.6 million Mg /yr CO 2 e) as compared to the current rule requirements . These additional reductions could be achieved atEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **57** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left an incremental cost effectiveness of approximately $16,000 per Mg NMOC or $100 per Mg methane ($4 per Mg CO 2 e). The EPA’s preli minary analysis did not include a reduction of N MOC threshold below 40 Mg/yr without also reducing the design capacity threshold. The preliminary emission reduction impacts of reducing both of these parameters are presented in s ection
I V.B.1 of this notice

. The EPA requests input on whether or not adjustments to the NMOC emission threshold should be considered. iii. Adjustments to Initial or Expansion Lag Times As mentioned above, “lag time” is the period between when the landfill exceeds the NMOC emission rate threshold and when controls are required to be initially installed (or expanded) and started up. The emission reductions achieved by reducing the initial or expansion lag time are affected by the size of the landfill, waste placement patterns and annu al acceptance rates. For example, the size of the landfill and the filling cycle affect how much and when emission reductions would be achieved. Based on input received from commenters 50

50 The EPA conducted outreach with small entities, state and local officials, and representative organizations, hereinafter referred to as commenters. , large filling areas at modern landfill designs typically do not close before 7 years. Because the landfills regulations allow two options for expanding the GCCS (2 years after initial waste placement inEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **58** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left closed areas and 5 years after initial waste placement in active areas), any reduction to the 2

- year lag time for closed a reas would not likely achieve any actual additional reductions from larger existing landfills because the majority of landfills are complying with the 5

- year deadline instead of the 2

- year deadline . Some of the smaller landfills may achieve final grade in a shorter time period. Modeling showed that if the EPA decreased the initial lag time to 2 years, then four additional landfills would require control, resulting in an additional NMOC reduction of approximately 600 Mg/yr and methane reductions of 88,000 Mg /yr (2.2 million Mg CO 2 e/yr) would be achieved as compared to the current rule framework. These additional reductions could be achieved at an incremental cost effectiveness of approximately $4,700 per Mg NMOC or $30 per Mg methane ($1.2 per Mg CO 2 e). Modi fying the 5

- year provision may also have a limited effect on emission reductions. Many landfills in wet climates are already installing wells ahead of the 5

- year schedule for odor or energy recovery purposes
. Modeling showed that if the EPA decreased the e xpansion lag time to 2 years, then an additional NMOC reduction of nearly 1,000 Mg/yr and methane reductions of 15 2 ,000 Mg/yr (3.8 million Mg/yr CO 2 e) could be achieved as compared to the current rule framework. TheseEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **59** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left additional reductions could be achieve d at an incremental cost effectiveness of approximately $1 7 ,000 per Mg NMOC or $ 106 per Mg methane ($ 4
. 3 per Mg CO 2 e). The EPA received input from commenters expressing concern about the potential shortening of lag times. The comments indicated that wells located in these areas are more frequently damaged as a result of daily filling operations and the movement of equipment. Damaged wells must be repaired with well extensions and/or re

- drilling of wells. In addition, waste in active fill areas undergoes si gnificant settlement. This settlement affects the alignment of gas header equipment, requiring more frequent repairs, troubleshooting and replacement of equipment. These repairs can add a significant cost to the construction and operation of a GCCS that ar e not currently accounted for in the LFGcost model estimates and also increase the amount of system down time. In addition to the implementation concerns, reducing the lag times would require more frequent mobilization of drill rig equipment , and purchase of GCCS infrastructure and system repairs, which could lead to higher costs. N ote that the preliminary cost effectiveness estimates shown above do not include any cost adjustments to repair wells damaged in active

areas. We seek input on how to ac count for these costs.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **60** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left Commenters also raised several practical concerns with reducing the expansion lag time. Reducing the expansion lag time would result in more wells located in active fill areas because more of the face of the landfill is active after only 2 years of waste acceptance and the landfill owner or operator must add wells into these active areas sooner. In addition, active fill areas are still in the aerobic phase of waste decomposition. Installing wells in areas with high oxygen levels incre ases the chance of subsurface fires. It also leads to more frequent exceedances of the current wellhead monitoring standards for
oxygen. The EPA requests input on the assumptions outlined above and whether or not adjustments to lag times should nonetheless be considered. Horizontal Collectors . Horizontal LFG collection wells may provide some relief to the implementation concerns that have been raised, while also allowing for the wells to be installed more quickly after the waste is placed in the landfill. These types of wells are used in active fill areas and consist of perforated pipe in gravel

- filled trenches constructed within the waste mass as an active area is filled. The wellheads are installed remotely outside of the active fill area to allow landfil l owners/operators to monitor the wells. Although the horizontal collection infrastructure is installed as the wasteEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **61** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left is placed in the fill area, the collectors are not brought online under an active vacuum until a sufficient refuse layer has been placed on top of the collectors. Sufficient refuse is necessary in order to prevent air infiltration in the landfill.
T he time to accumulate sufficient waste is , however, often shorter than the time needed to install vertical wells, and can be as short as a few mon ths after refuse is buried. 51

The EPA is aware of several horizontal collector installations, including at several landfills in California As a result, the installation of horizontal collectors could result in LFG being collected sooner.

52

The shorter length of time associated with bringing horizontal collectors online can be especially important at landfills employing liquids recirculation techniques or located in wetter climates, given the higher LFG generation rates at those sites ( as dis cussed earlier in this s ection I V.B.1). and 18 different l andfills reporting using horizontal collectors in the voluntary data collection effort for this rulemaking , ; see “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulat ions. 2014 .”

51 Barlaz et al., Controls on Landfill Gas Colle ction Efficiency: Instantaneous and Lifetime Performance

. 59 J. Air & Waste Mgmt. Ass’n 1399, 1402

- 03 (Dec. 2009). 52 SCS Engineers, Technology and Management Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Prepared for California Integrated Waste Management Board.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **62** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left Quickly bringing these collectors online has added the benefit of proactively address ing odor concerns at landfills. These systems are also useful in landfills that practice “over

filling,” where new waste is placed on top of a section of the landfill that was capped temporarily. Some implementation concerns with horizontal collectors have been expressed , particularly regarding their shorter lifetime than vertical wells and the need for more frequent replacement. The EPA requests input on the assumptions outlined above and whether adjustments to lag times should nonetheless be considered

. iv. Adjustments to the Length of Time That Control Equipment Must Remain Operational The EPA is requesting input on the criteria an d timing for capping or removing the GCCS . Under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, a landfill may cap or remove the GCCS if the following three criteria are met: ( 1) the landfill is closed; ( 2) the GCCS has been in operation for 15 years; and ( 3) three successive tests for NMOC emissions are below the NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg/yr. Depending on the waste

- in

- place of the landfill at closure and other site

- specific factors (e.g., waste composition, climate), it may take greater than 30 years after closure for a large modern landfill to emit less than the 50 MgEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **63** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left per year NMOC emission threshold, and in turn qualify for capping or removing the GCCS. Although some commenters expressed concerns about the quantity of emissions after landfills have closed and the GCCS has ceased to operate, the preliminary analysis the EPA conducted demonstrated that approximately 130 landfills that have closed or will close by 2023 will require a GCCS to be operated for between 15 and nearly 70 years after the land fill has stopped accepting waste. The exact length of the period after landfill closure is commensurate with the size and corresponding emissions profile of each affected landfill. Nonetheless, the EPA is requesting input on whether there are other ways to ensure emissions are minimized in the later stages of a landfill’s lifecycle. Specifically, the EPA is seeking input on whether the three criteria listed above are appropriate , and if

. We also seek input on alternative criteria approaches , such as consecut ive quarterly measurements below a surface emission threshold should also be considered

. Note that RCRA, specifically subpart F of part 258, also requires supplemental basic post

- closure care to maintain cover integrity, which includes cover material requi rements, design criteria for final cover systems, and post

- closure care such as maintaining the integrity of the final cover and maintaining andEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **64** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left operating a gas monitoring system. The California landfill methane regulation 53

v. Other Potential Adjustments requires that systems stay in place until the landfill has operated the equipment for at least 15 years and the surface methane concentration measurement (instead of the measured NMOC emission cutoff rate) do es not exceed a 500 parts per million ( ppm ) ins tantaneous reading or a 25 ppm integrated reading.

The California landfill methane regulation 54

The Climate Action Reserve also incorporated waste

- in

- place criteria in version 4.0 of its Landfill Protocol. uses a combination of waste

- in

- place and gas heat input capacity in lieu of design capacity and NMOC thresholds to determine whic h landfills are subject to GCCS requirements. Under the California regulation, a GCCS must be installed at all landfills accepting waste after January 1, 1977, having at least 450,000 tons of
waste

- in

- place, and having a gas heat input capacity threshold

o f 3.0 MMBtu/hr or greater.

55

53 California Code of Regulations, title 17, subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, section 95467, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. This protocol includes waste

- in

- place thresholds for landfills that recover

54 California Code of Regulations, title 17, subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, sections 95460 to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **65** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left energy and those thresholds vary from 0.7 2 million Mg for landfills located in a non

- arid area (receiving 25 inches or greater precipitation per year) to 2.17 million Mg for landfills located in an arid area (receiving less than 25 inches of precipitation per year) to determine what offset projec ts are eligible. Coupling a precipitation indicator with a waste

- in

place threshold recognizes that LFG emission generation rates are affected by the quantity of waste disposed as well as the moisture present in the landfill, either due to the local climat e, or other liquids added to a landfill, as discussed in earlier in this s ection I V.B. 1
. The EPA requests input on whether it should pursue an alternative set of thresholds to determine which landfills are subject to the revised emission guidelines and wh at criteria trigger the installation of a GCCS. vi. Potential Unique Treatment of Landfills Located in wet W et Climates or Those Employing Leachate Recirculation or Other Liquids Addition The EPA also seeks input on whether it should consider reducing the design capacity thresholds or initial and expansion lag times for landfills that are located in a wet climate or

55 Climate Action Reserve. Landfill Project Protocol. Version 4.0. June 29, 2011.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **66** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left that recirculate leachate or add other liquids to the landfills to accelerate decomposition of the waste. Wetter wastes decompose more quickly than drier wastes and as a result generate more LFG in the short term. Therefore, it may be appropriate to require these landfills to install and expand the gas collection system sooner. Similarly, smaller landfills in wetter climates, or those employing leachate recirculation (or other liquids addition) , may also generate earlier spikes in LFG emissions that could exceed the NMOC threshold. Although these landfills are not affected by the current design capacity threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m 3 , if a smaller design capacity threshold or an alternative waste

- in

- place based threshold were adopted for these wet landfills, more emission reductions may be achieved. If a separate set of thresholds and/or lag times were to apply to these wet landfi lls, or if an adjusted modeling provision were adopted (see section I V.E.1 of this notice ), the EPA requests input on how a wet landfill might be defined. For example, a wet landfill could be defined as a landfill that has precipitation of greater than 25 inches per year and/or recirculate s leachate or adds other liquids to the landfill

. vii. Defini tion of ModificationEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **67** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left The EPA in this ANPR M is seeking input on options to achieve additional emissions reductions from existing landfills under CAA s ection 111(d). In light of our interest in reducing the methane and NMOC components of LFG , the EPA is also seeking input on whether it is reasonable to review the definition of modification for landfills. A revision to the definition may result in additional reductions in LFG emissions at little or no additional cost because of the close relationship of control strategies that may apply to both modified landfills and existing sources. The EPA solicits input on changes that may be appropriate and whe ther these changes should be enacted to achieve additional emission reductions. C. Emission Reduction Techniques and GCCS Best Management Practices As mentioned previously, t he EPA is considering potential changes within the current regulatory framework of the landfills regulations for existing sources that would achieve further emission reductions. This section discusses specific LFG control technologies and BMPs for GCCS and landfill operations to improve gas collection efficiencies. The EPA is solicit ing input to evaluate the emission reductions achieved by the specific technologies and BMPs discussed later in this section to assess whether anyEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **68** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left technologies and practices could be applied to the landfills regulations for existing sources to achieve furt her reductions of LFG
. The EPA will review the performance data, practical application, and cost of these BMPs or technologies to determine if and how they could be incorporated in conjunction with the current performance

- based standard. Promotion of techn ologies and practices to achieve reductions of GHG from landfills complements the recently issued Methane Action Plan discussed in section II of this notice. The EPA is also requesting input on other technologies or BMPs that might be appropriate to encou rage under the emission guidelines, the cost and emission reduction potential of each of these alternatives, and how each of these other approaches might be incorporated into the current rule framework or a new alternative rule framework. 1. Oxidation Tech nologies The EPA is considering whether any emerging technologies may achieve additional emission reductions for existing landfills. As part of its consideration, the EPA will evaluate the extent to which the technology is adequately demonstrated for exis ting landfills.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **69** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left The EPA is aware of several technologies that increase the methane oxidation rate, thereby reducing the amount of methane that could escape through the surface of the landfill. The principle of these technologies is the use of methanotrophi c bacteria, commonly found in most soils and compost, to oxidize methane into water, carbon dioxide , and biomass. A biocover is a cover material designed to enhance methane oxidation and is typically made of two layers

— a permeable layer that consists of gravel, broken glass, sand or other media to evenly distribute the LFG to the oxidation media and an oxidation layer that typically consists of soil, compost, mulch or other organic media. The oxidation media contains
met hanotrophic bacteria from the waste decomposition process. One disadvantage of alternative cover technologies is their sensitivity to environmental conditions because the productivity of methanotrophic bacteria is highly dependent on the bacteria’s

surroun dings. Certain conditions, including temperature, moisture and pH, must be maintained to optimize methane oxidation rates. 56 Methane oxidation occurs to some degree in various types of traditional landfill covers, including simple soil covers. Some

56 BAAQMD. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Landfill Gas and Industrial, Institutional and Commer cial Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **70** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left landfill s use compost, yard waste and other organic wastes and materials as a type of naturally occurring biocover. Chipped rubber tires, Styrofoam and yard waste are other common types of waste that could serve as good methanotrophic media when mixed with soil or compost. 57
The most common biocover in use at landfills is shredded yard waste used as alternative daily cover. 58

The MSW landfills subpart of the GHGRP (40 CFR part 98, subpart HH) had use d a default value of 10 percent for the amount of methane oxidized when calculating methane emissions from MSW landfills. However, recent resear ch studies indicate that a default value of 10 percent may be underestimating the Biocovers consisting of naturally occurring and often readily available materials may provide a cost effective method to increase methane oxid ation, thus decreasing methane emissions, at the surface of existing landfills. The EPA is requesting information to characterize the prevalence of the practice of using these types of naturally occurring biocovers at existing U.S. landfills and the costs to manage and apply these materials.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, prepared by URS Corporation. April 2008. 57 BAAQMD. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Landfill Gas and Industrial, Institutional and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, prepared by URS Corporation. April 2008.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **71** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left level of oxidation occurring at existing landfills and the amount of methane oxidized may be considerably higher, depending on cover type and other site

- specific conditions. 59 A 2009 publication indicated that a literature review resulted in found an average value of 35 percent for traditional landfill cover methane oxidation rates. 60 A 2011 article documents a 4

- year research study of over 37 seasonal sampling events at 20 landf ills across the United States with intermediate covers reported up to 37 percent average oxidation for soil covers. 61 In addition, recent research demonstrates that daily soil covers oxidize methane to a greater degree than many low permeability final soil covers, suggesting oxidation rates of 20 to 55 percent. 62

58 Sullivan, P. The Importance of Landfill Gas Capture and Utilization in the U.S. April 6, 2010. As a result, recent final revisions to the GHGRP published in the Federal Register on November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71904) , now allow for the use of higher oxidation values (25 percent and 35 percent), in addition to the 10 percent value, if methane flux through the soil cover is of a certain amount and

59 Sullivan, P. The Importance of Landfill Gas Capture a nd Utilization in the U.S. April 6, 2010. 60 Chanton, J.; Powelson, D.; Green, R. Methane oxidation in landfill cover soils, is a 10% default value reasonable? Journal of Environmental Quality

. 38, 654

– 663 (2009). 61 Chanton, J.; Abichou, T.; Langford, C.; H ater, G.; Green, R.; Goldsmith, D.; Swan, N. Landfill Methane Oxidation Across Climate Types in the U.S. Environmental Science And Technology . 45, 313

– 319 (2011). 62 Sullivan, P. The Importance of Landfill Gas Capture and Utilization in the U.S. April 6, 2010.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **72** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left there is 24 inches or more of soil cover. 63 Co

- oxidation of NMOC has been observed during use of these alternative landfill cover materials, which has the p otential to reduce odors and toxic air pollutants. 64 The estimated cost of biocover installation (including geomembrane and gas distribution layer) for Yolo County (CA) Central Landfill’s full scale bioreactor was approximately $48,000 per acre. Biocover ap plication costs may vary widely depending upon availability of material and the level of monitoring , and many materials would most likely be on site or easily obtained for free or for a nominal cost associated with transporting the materials from a nearby or co - located yard waste or compost facility. 65 RCRA Subtitle D addresses cover and capping requirements for MSW landfills. Specific requirements address the frequency and type of covers allowed, including provisions for requesting the use of alternative m aterials (40 part 258, subpart C). These operating parameters are in place to control disease vectors,

63 If methane flux is less than 10 grams per square meter per day, then a 35 percent oxidation fraction can be used. If methane flux is between 10 to 70 grams pe r square meter per day, then a 25 percent oxidation fraction can be used. If methane flux is greater than 70 grams per square meter per day, then a 25 percent oxidation fraction can be used. 64 U.S. EPA. Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing Gree nhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. June 2011. 65 BAAQMD. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Landfill Gas and Industrial, Institutional and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **73** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left fires, odors, blowing litter and scavenging at the landfill, but are not covers that specifically promote oxidation of LFG
. Design criteria for final cov er systems (40 part 258, subpart F) were also established to minimize water infiltration and erosion of the landfill, rather than release of LFG or its constituents.
R ules regarding the use of daily, intermediate and final cover

are governed by RCRA Subtit le D ; however, research indicates that biocovers may help to reduce emissions of methane, a primary constituent of LFG

. Another method for increasing the oxidation rate is to route passively vented LFG through a vessel containing methane

oxidizing media, commonly referred to as a biofiltration beds or biofilters. Biofilter media have included compost or chipped yard waste mixed with recycled shredded tires or Styrofoam peanuts as well as sand and soil mixtures. Choosing the proper media with sufficient gas conductivity is important to reduce the possibility of back pressure in the landfill. 66

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, pr epared by URS Corporation. April 2008. Biofilters have been tested for use at landfills over only the past 10 to 15 years. Studies of passively

- aerated methane biofilters have

66 BAAQMD. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Landfill Gas and Industrial, Institutional and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, prepared by URS Corporation. Apri l 2008.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **74** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left shown methane oxidation rates v ary widely by type of biofilter media but could reach values between 19 and 98 percent. 67 , 68 Biofilters are likely feasible for use at small existing landfills or existing landfills with passive gas collection systems due to the size of the biofiltration bed required to treat the mixture of air and LFG . Due to the nature of passive gas collection systems, this technology lacks the ability to control and monitor the oxidation of methane in the LFG
. 69

No data exist on the long

- term performance, effectiveness, or maintenance requirements of biocovers or biofilters. In general, biofilter costs are expected to be lower than biocover costs due to their smaller scale and utilization of existing passive vents.

70 , 71 , 72

67 Abichou, T.; Chanton, J.; Powelson, D. Field Performance of Biocells, Biocovers, and Biofilters to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills. Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, University of Florida. March 2006. Therefore, the EPA is requesting information about application of these technologies to better understand these characteristics for full

- scale use of biocovers and biofilters. The EPA is also

68 Mor ales, J.J. Mitigation of Landfill Methane Emissions from Passive Vents by Use of Oxidizing Biofilters . Fall 2006. 69 U.S. EPA. Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. June 2011. 70 U.S. EPA. Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. June 2011. 71 Abichou, T.; Chanton, J.; Powelson, D. Field Performance of Biocells, Biocovers, and Biofilters to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emi ssions from Landfills. Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, University of Florida. March 2006.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **75** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left seeking input on biocover parameters and their effect on oxidation. Such parameters may include depth, soil charact er istics, measurement and their a ffect on percent oxidation. The EPA is also seeking input on appropriate mechanisms to monitor the performance of these alternatives. 2. Best Management Practices The EPA is considering how certain BMPs that achieve additi onal emission reductions for existing landfills may be encouraged under a revised regulatory framework. T he EPA seeks input on how to demonstrate that the BMPs are properly implemented and what additional maintenance records or other requirements might dem onstrate that the BMPs can ensure the same level of environmental protection as the current framework. The EPA also invites input on other requirements that could be adjusted to encourage BMPs. i. LFG Collection from Leachate Removal Systems The EPA is a ware of landfills that have connected the LFG collection system and leachate collection system; however, references suggest that connection of these systems is not common at landfills that do not employ leachate recirculation. 73

72 Yazdani, R, and Imhoff, P. Contractor’s report to CalRecycle: Biocovers at Landfills for Methane Emissions Reduction Demonstration. October 2010. 73 SCS Engineers, Technology and Management Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Prepared for California Integrated Waste Management Board. Prepared by SCS Engineers. April 2008.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **76** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left The efficiency of capturing LFG emissions through this BMP depends on the efficiency of both the LFG collection system and the leachate recirculation system. Section 6 0.752(b)(2)(i)(D) of subpart WWW recognizes that leachate collection components may be part of a site

- specific collection and control system design plan. Because the design plan is not prescriptive and instead contains design and operational standards that are site

specific, the design plan has the flexibility t o include collection of LFG from leachate collection systems. The cost of each connection of GCCS to a leachate removal system would include $400 to $650 for a LFG wellhead and $10 to $15 per foot for a 3

- or 4

- inch HDPE pipe (2008 cost estimates). 74

74 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Technologies and Management Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Landfills, April 2008. Howeve r, there are currently no broad mandates for requiring gas collection from leachate removal systems. The EPA request s input on the efficacy and costs of enhancing gas collection systems to collect LFG from leachate removal or storage systems. The EPA also requests information on the types of landfills currently collecting gas from leachate removal systems and the specifics of the gas collection systems used in practice. The EPA will use this information to evaluate if andEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **77** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left when the use of an enhanced gas col lection system that collects
LFG from the leachate removal system may be appropriate. ii. Preventing Waterlogged Wells
T he EPA is also consider ing seeks input on requiring a gas collection system to more proactively prevent waterlogged wells, perhaps throug h the use of leachate removal pumps or alternative GCCS infrastructure. Leachate and condensate can accumulate in collection wells, blocking LFG capture. Because a flooded well cannot collect gas, fixing a flooded well would have a high emission reduction potential. The most practical and cost effective method for keeping liquid out of gas extraction wells is to prevent its entry in the first place by ensuring proper sealing and grading at the surface. Infiltration of leachate from within the waste mass is more difficult to control. Once liquid is inside the well, it often must be removed via pumping to restore the gas collection capability of the well. When performed in conjunction with effective leachate removal, it may be possible to dewater wells with a portable pump and a mobile storage tank that can be used to transport liquid removed from the well to a suitable leachate disposal point. Multiple iterations of dewatering could be required at each well because liquid often seeps back into the well after pumping. While labor intensive, this approachEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **78** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left alleviates the need for a dedicated pump and piping at multiple wells. If liquid accumulation in wells is an ongoing issue, then a dedicated pumping system may be suitable. Long term costs for a dedicated pumpi ng system are still high, including the initial cost of pumps and piping, as well as ongoing operation and maintenance costs and disposal of the leachate. A single well dewatering pump system could cost over $3,000, 75

Another method for reducing GHG emissions at landfills with waterlogged wells is to install a surface collector. A surface collector usually consists of perforated pipes laid across the top of the waste mass and covered by an impermeable geomembrane or by final cover. Surface collectors can be used to collect gas from a wet landfil l where traditional horizontal and vertical wells fail due to water infiltration. Surface collectors can be used with or instead of horizontal collector systems. but could also have a high impact on imp rove LFG collection and GHG emission reduction.

76

75 Kaminski, D. and M. Varljen. Increasing LFG Collection Rates Using Gas Well Dewatering Systems: Lessons Learned. 15 th Annual LMOP Conference. January 2012. Because surface collectors are installed after final waste acceptance, they are not effective in controlling LFG emissions while the landfill is open and accepting waste. Surface collectors also do

76 Califo rnia Integrated Waste Management Board, Technologies and Management Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Landfills, April 2008.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **79** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left not apply a vacuum into the waste so they are only effective at controlling gas that has escaped other collection systems. Their impact on emissions is therefore expected to be low in cases where a well

- designed and well

- operated LFG collection system already exists. The overall cost of surface collectors is comparatively high due to additional geomembrane material costs, if they are not already required by regulations . One 2008 study estimates the cost of installing a geomembrane to be $40,000 to $50,000 per acre of landfill surface . If a landfill already has a geomembrane, the added cost would be $25 to $35 per linear foot for a 6

- foot deep trench and g ravel backfill. 77 Wellhead operating parameters in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW require that each owner or operator of an MSW landfill either operate the collection system with a negative pressure at each wellhead or, in areas with a geomembrane or synthetic cover, establish acceptable pressure limits in the design plan. These performance standards help identify any inoperable wells resulting from flooding. S urface emissions monitoring would also help identify any elevated methane levels resultin g from an inoperable well. Because some of the wells at existing landfills may have been installed for 15 years or more, the EPA requests

77 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Technologies and Management Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Em issions From Landfills, April 2008.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **80** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left input on whether the current combination of wellhead monitoring and surface emission monitoring is sufficient for iden tifying inoperable wells, especially in cases where wells have been installed for a significant amount of time. If the monitoring systems in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW are deficient for identifying flooded wells, the EPA also asks for input on whether any additional recordkeeping, such as periodic measurement of liquid levels in gas wells , might be useful to identify flooded wells that are not collecting gas. The EPA requests input on whether any more specific corrective action guidance should be developed , such as the need to dewater the well or employ alternative GCCS technologies such as surface collectors if a flooded well is identified. iii. Redundant Seals The EPA is also considering a BMP of requiring redundant seals and the use of enhanced sealing materials on wellheads. One study includes a survey using a forward

- looking infrared
survey camera suggesting that LFG wellheads and other surface penetrations present high potential for concentrated leaks of organic compounds. 78

78 ARCADIS. Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Prepared for U.S. EPA/ORD. January 2012. The use of advanced seals at wellheads may help to ensure that the well can apply sufficient vacuum to theEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **81** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left landfill to facilitate gas extraction while preventing leaks of
LFG to the atmosphere. The design for vertical wells typically includes the use of bentonite or bentonite soil mi xtures near the surface as part of the well boring backfill to reduce the potential for air to be pulled into the well. 79

Because a good seal is critical for proper well performance, multiple seals are often used. One reference i ndicates that many M any engineers already require two and sometimes three seals in a well when preparing design plans for
GCCS. Compacted backfill soil can also be considered, but may not be practicable and adds risk of damaging the well casing pipe. A well’s

con necting pipes are typically sealed using three different techniques: ( 1) Bentonite clay seal, ( 2) compacted clay seal or ( 3) plastic well bore seal.

80

79 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Technologies and Management Options f or Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Landfills, April 2008. However, for wells that are not properly sealed, their zone of influence is likely reduced, resulting in LFG between wells not b eing collected

. In such cases, the e ffect on emissions reduction is high while the relative cost of adding

80 Ibid.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **82** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left seals is low. Costs can range from $500 to $2500 per well based on 2008 estimates depending on the type of seal used. 81 Because the design plan is not prescriptive and instead contains design and operational standards that are site

specific, the design plan has the flexibility to determine the number or type of seals in order to accommodate the conditions and climates at different landfills. This sit e - specific approach also provides for continued flexibility for future design plans to incorporate new sealing materials that may be more efficient than those currently available. The design plan, coupled with wellhead and surface monitoring requirements , ensure s that leaks from wells are minimized. The EPA is soliciting input on what mechanisms , if any, might be appropriate to further promote or mandate enhanced seals in this emission guidelines review

. iv. Early Installation of Final Cover Early installa tion of final cover systems can also reduce methane emissions. Current rules for landfills under RCRA Subtitle D require intermediate cover (typically at least 12 inches of native soil) to be installed in areas of the landfill that are no longer receiving waste or will not be used for over 12 months within 180 days of final waste placement (40 CFR part

81 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Technologies and Management Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Landfills, April 2008. 81EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **83** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left 258, subpart C). The final cover system must consist of an infiltration layer of at least 18 inches of earthen material covered by an erosion layer of at lea st 6 inches of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native plant growth. An alternative cover design may be used as long as it provides equivalent protection against infiltration and erosion (40 CFR part 258, subpart F). Once a landfill has recei ved its final shipment of waste, it must begin closure operations within 30 days. A landfill, however, may delay closure for up to 1 year if additional capacity remains. Any further delays after 1 year require approval from the appropriate state agency . Af ter beginning, all closure activities must be completed within 180 days. Despite these rules, landfill operators often leave intermediate cover in place for years or even decades and intermediate cover frequently is the only cover on the m ajority of the la ndfill surface. Recent studies indicate that installation of intermediate and final cover has a direct and significant e ffect on LFG emissions. 82

Ibid

. Intermediate cover significantly reduces emissions compared to daily cover on working faces. Final cover has th e ability to reduce emissionsEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **84** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left even further compared to intermediate cover. By installing these more rigorous cover systems sooner, significant emissions may be prevented from being released. Furthermore, final cover has been shown to increase LFG collectio n efficiency at landfills with a gas collection system. 83

3. Organics Diversion and Source Separation Early installation of cover should not incur any additional cost to the landfill as long as waste acceptance or placement plans do not change after the cover (particularly final cover) is installed. Early installation of cover could result in a cost savings due to the general increase in the cost of materials over time and the added gas collection realized when more rigorous cover systems are installed

– especially if the gas is collected for beneficial use.

LFG is a by

- product of the decomposition of organic material in MSW under anaerobic conditions in landfills. The amount of LFG created primarily depends on the quantity of waste and its composition and moisture content , as well as the design and management practices at the site. Decreasing the amount of organics disposed in landfills would decrease the generation of
LFG.

82 Goldsmith et al., Methane Emissions from 20 Landfills Across the United States Using Vertical Radial Plume Mapping, Journal of the Air & Waste Mgmt. Association , 62:2, 183

- 197 (2012).EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **85** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left Organic materials are historically t he largest component of materials discarded in the MSW stream, constituting nearly 49 percent of discarded material in 2012. Food waste is the largest portion of the organic materials, followed by paper and paperboard, yard trimmings and wood wastes. **84** Mate rial recovery, including composting and recycling, has been increasing over time for all materials , except rubber and leather. For example, the percent of paper and paperboard that is recovered has increased from 16.9 percent in 1960 to 62.5 percent in 201 2. The amount of recovered yard trimmings has increased from negligible amount in 1960 to 57.7 percent in 2012. Recovered food waste has increased less significantly from negligible amounts in 1960 to 4.8 percent in 2012. **85** Although material recovery has i ncreased over time, there is potential to further increase the recovery of materials. Yard trimmings , paper , and paperboard recover y already exceed 50 percent of the generated amount, but states and cities with vigorous recovery programs have proven that a greater percentage

83 Barlaz et al., Controls on Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency: Instan taneous and Lifetime Performance, Journal of the Air & Waste Mgmt. Association , 59, 1399

- 1404 (2009). 84 U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Tables and Figures for 2012. February 2014. http://www.epa.gov/ waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_dat_tbls.pdf

. 85 U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Tables and Figures for 2012. February 2014. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_dat_tbls.pdf

.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **86** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left recovery is possible. Recovery is still a small percentage of the amount of generated waste for some organic materials; for example, only 4.8 percent of generated food waste is recovered and only 15.2 percent of wood is recovered. Org anic waste diversion regulations and zero waste programs are currently in effect in multiple U.S. states and cities, with 183 municipalities providing separate curbside collection of residential food waste. 86 For example, state programs in California, Conne cticut, and Massachusetts focus on diversion from commercial or certain multifamily residential waste generators. 87 , 88 , 89 Vermont’s Universal Recycling Law implements a phased material ban beginning in 2016 for leaf and yard debris and food waste in 2020. Cit y ordinances in New York City and Portland , Oregon , mandate materials separation from commercial and multifamily generators. 90 , 91

86 Residential Food Waste Collection in the U.S. Biocycle . 54:3, 23, March 2013. Ordinances in Seattle

87 California Code of Regulations, title 14, division 7, chapter 9.1, article 4, subarticle 6, section 18835, Mandatory Commercial Recycling. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/ 88 General Statutes of Connecticut, title 22a, chapter 446d, sections 22a

226e, Recycling of Source

- Separated Organic Materials. http://cga.ct.gov/2014/sup/chap_446d.htm#sec_22a

- 226e 89 Code of Massachusetts Regulations, title 310 CMR 19.000. January 2014 amendments. http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/service/regulations/wbreg14.pdf 90 City of Portland Administrative Rules, Business Solid Waste, Recycling and Composting, ENN

- 2.06 http:// www.portlandonline.com/auditor/?c=27430&a=294923 91 Administrative Code of the city of New York. Title 16, chapter 3, subchapter 2, section 1 (16

- 306.1). http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1482542&GUID=DDD940 82

- C0E5

- 4BF9

- 976B

- BBE0CD858F8FEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **87** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left and San Francisco extend the separation mandate to single family dwellings. 92 , 93 In the 1996 Landfills NSPS Background Information Document (page 1

- 25) the EPA “decided not to include materials separation requirements within the final rules because the EPA continues to believe RCRA and local regulations are the most appropriate vehicle to address wide

- ranging issues associated with solid waste management for landfills.” Although the EPA is not requesting input on mandating source separation under the upcoming emission guidelines review, the EPA is soliciting input and ideas for encoura ging organic waste diversion under the revised emission guidelines, including the specific mechanisms described below and in section I V.E of this notice or other ideas in general. One method to encourage organic waste diversion under the revised emission g uidelines is to provide rule exemptions for landfills diverting 100 percent of organic wastes. The emission threshold determination provisions currently in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW allow non

- degradable wastes to be excluded from the

92 San Francisco Environment Code. Chapter 19, sections 1901

- 1912. Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance. http://www.sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/policy/sfe_zw_sf_mandatory_r ecycling_composting_ord_100

- 09.pdf 93 Seattle Municipal Code. Chapters 21.40 and 21.76. http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/FoodYard/BldgOwnersManagers_FoodYard/i ndex.htmEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **88** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left total waste mass whe n computing the NMOC emission rate. If only

non - degradable wastes were accepted, then the waste inputs for the model would be zero, the emission thresholds would not be exceeded, and thus GCCS would not be required. The EPA solicits input on the methane em ission reduction s from organic and inorganic waste diversion and whether adjustments should be made
to the annual NMOC reporting requirements for landfills not accepting organic materials. 4. Encouraging New Technologies and Practices The EPA understands that the technologies, BMPs, and source separation practices discussed above can achieve reductions in emissions from landfills. T he EPA is seeking input on whether the use of any of the technologies or practices discussed in this section in conjunction wi th a well

- designed and well

operated GCCS should be considered as the EPA reviews the emission guidelines

. Section I V.E of this notice discuss es other mechanisms to encourage wider use of these technologies and practices such as emission threshold determination flexibilities.
5. Gas Control System Technology Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 60 currently requires all control devices other than enclosed combustion devices to demonstrate 98

- percent reduction by weight of NMOC. EnclosedEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **89** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left c ombustion devices have the option of reducing emissions to 20
ppm , dry volume o f NMOC, as hexane. Both enclosed and non

enclosed flares as well as a suite of other energy recovery devices are used to meet the control requirements under the current regulato ry framework.
N on - enclosed flares used at landfills meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 60.18(b) are thought to have destruction efficiencies similar to enclosed flares and incinerators, and devices that burn LFG to recover energy, such as boilers, turbines and internal combustion engines. However, in April 2012 the EPA conducted an external peer review on flaring efficiency and made available to the public a draft technical report, “Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares
. ” 94

94 U.S. EPA, Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, Report for Flare Review Panel, April 2012. In the draft report, the EPA evaluated test data and identified a variety of parameters that may affect flare performance and that could be monitored to help assure good combustion efficiency. None of the flare performance data used in the report c ome s from flares used at MSW landfills, however, and the report does not provide any new test data on

non - assisted flare types, which to our knowledge, are the only

non - enclosed flare type found in this source category. Thus,EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **90** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left while we have no new information to suggest that fl ares at MSW landfills complying with 40 CFR 60.18(b) will not achieve at least 98

- percent destruction, we solicit input and additional information on flare performance specifically for this source category. Examples of information requested for this source category include: prevalence of flaring; number and types of flares used; waste gas characteristics such as flow rate, composition and heat content; use of flare gas recovery and other flare minimization practices; and existing flare monitoring systems

. D. Alternative Monitoring , Reporting , and Other Requirements In addition to the technologies, BMPs, and other approaches discussed in s ection I V.C of this notice, the EPA is considering whether alternative monitoring and reporting requirements would be appropriate for existing landfills. These alternative approaches address concerns that have arisen in implementation of subpart WWW and state and federal plans implementing subpart Cc and provide an opportunity to increase the effectiveness of the regulation. 1. Wellhead Monitoring The EP A is requesting public input on alternative wellhead monitoring requirements. Commenters have expressed concerns about the ability to consistently meet these parameters. OneEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **91** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left alternative monitoring provision could be in the form of an exclusion from the tem perature and oxygen/nitrogen monitoring requirements, or a reduction in the frequency of monitoring. For example, the EPA could reduce the frequency of wellhead monitoring for these three parameters (temperature and oxygen/nitrogen) from monthly to a quart erly or semi

- annual schedule. Owners or operators would continue to monitor the wellhead for negative pressure. The EPA is specifically requesting input on whether any such adjustment should apply only to landfills that beneficially

use LFG , and if so whe ther there should be a threshold for the quantity of LFG put to beneficial use above which sources would qualify for alternative wellhead monitoring ( and below which they would not ), or whether the beneficial use of any quantity of the recovered LFG should qualify for alternative wellhead monitoring. Alternatively, the EPA is requesting input on whether it would be more appropriate to require a certain percentage of the overall recovered LFG to be beneficially used in order to exempt landfills from or reduc e the frequency of the wellhead monitoring requirements. If EPA were to limit adjusted monitoring to landfills that beneficially use LFG , these alternatives could encourage new landfills to beneficially use LFG . Both of these alternativeEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **92** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left options (exclusio n or reduced monitoring frequency) would provide monitoring relief to these landfills. Landfill owners and operators must continue to operate their GCCS in a manner that collects the most LFG and minimizes losses of LFG through the surface of the landfill. In addition, landfills would still have to prepare and submit to the regulating authority a gas collection design plan, prepared by a professional engineer. Subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR part 60 require landfill owners and operators to operate each inter ior wellhead in the collection system with a LFG temperature less than 55°C and with either a nitrogen level less than 20 percent or an oxygen level less than 5 percent. Compliance with these requirements is demonstrated through monthly monitoring. Instead of having the landfill owner or operator conduct monthly monitoring of temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at the wellheads, the EPA is requesting input on relying on landfill surface emission monitoring requirements in combination with maintenance of negativ e pressure at wellheads to indicate proper operation of the GCCS and minimization of surface emissions. The potential removal of the temperature and nitrogen/oxygen operational standards and associated wellhead monitoring requirements for these three param eters would be complemented by the addition ofEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **93** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left the surface monitoring provisions discussed in s ection I V.D.2 of this notice. Given recent technological advancements in data storage and transmission, the EPA is also considering an alternative to
automate t he wellhead monthly monitoring provisions. Automation could reduce long

- term burden on landfill owner/operators as well as state authorit ies by allowing for more frequent, but less labor

- intensive, data collection through the use of a system consisting of remote wellhead sensors (i.e. , thermistors, electronic pressure transducers, oxygen cells) and a centralized data logger. The use of continuous monitoring would allow more immediate detection and repair. This would eliminate the time between when the exce edance of the parameter occurs and when it is detected. It could also improve enforceability of the rule by allowing inspectors to review information on the data logger in real time during a site visit. Another advantage to automating the monitoring is tha t it could provide flexibility for incorporating additional parameters into the monitoring program. The EPA is soliciting input on this alternative in general, including : ( 1) T he types of parameters that are best suited for an automated monitoring alternat ive ; ( 2) examples of successful automated monitoring programs at MSW landf ills and theirEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **94** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left associated costs; ( 3) additional considerations for equipment calibration ; and ( 4) input on any averaging times that might be appropriate to determine when one or more monitored parameters have been exceeded. 2. Surface Emissions Monitoring

. The EPA is requesting input on potential alternative approaches to the surface emission monitoring specified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. Subpart WWW collection and control
requ irements are intended for landfills to maintain a tight cover that minimizes any emissions of LFG through the surface. The surface emissions monitoring procedures in subpart WWW require quarterly surface emissions monitoring to demonstrate that the cover a nd gas collection system are working properly. The operational requirements in subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.753(d)) specify that the landfill must “* * * operate the collection system so that the methane concentration is less than 500 parts per million above bac kground at the surface of the landfill. To determine if this level is exceeded, the owner or operator shall conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 meter intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of LFG , such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover.”EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **95** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 60 i nclude s provisions for increased monitoring and corrective procedures if readings above 500 ppm are detected. Instrumentation specifications, monitoring frequencies, and monitoring patterns are structured to provide clear and straightforward procedures that are the minimum necessary to assure compliance. We are requesting public input on potential alte rnatives to the surface monitoring procedures in 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW. Potential alternatives could include provisions such as those in the California landfill methane regulation 95

W e are requesting input on reducing the interval for the walking pattern that traverses the landfill from 30 met ers (98 ft.) to 25 ft. We are also requesting input on the addition of an average methane concentration limit of 25 ppm as determined by integrated surface emissions monitoring. This would be in addition to the 500 ppm emission concentration as determined by instantaneous surface emissions monitoring. Integrated surface and include changing the walking pattern for inspecting the s urface of the landfill, adding an integrated methane concentration measurement, and allowing sampling only when wind is below a certain speed.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **96** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left emissions monitoring provides an average surface emission concentration across a specified area. For integrated surface emissions monitoring, the specif ied area would be individually identified 50,000 square foot grids. A tighter walking pattern and the addition of an integrated methane concentration would more thoroughly ensure that the collection system is being operated properly, that the landfill cove r and cover material are adequate, and that methane emissions from the landfill surface are minimized. As part of these potential changes, the EPA is also requesting input on not allowing surface monitoring when the average wind speed exceeds 5 miles per h our or the instantaneous wind speed exceeds 10 miles per hour because air movement can affect whether the monitor is accurately reading the methane concentration during surface monitoring. We are considering this change because measurements during windy
pe riods are usually not representative of emissions. We are also soliciting information and associated data on the cost and assumptions for conducting enhanced surface monitoring as described here. Several factors contribute to the cost of enhanced surface m onitoring. Monitoring along a traverse with a 25 ft. interval would increase monitoring time, and ,

95 California Code of Regulations, title 17, subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, sections 95460 to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal SolidEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **97** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left thus , the labor costs, compared to monitoring along a 30 meter (98 ft.) interval. Monitoring along the tighter traverse pattern would take approximately four times as long, because the distance is approximately four times when covering a 50,000 square foot grid . For a landfill to conduct the integrated surface emissions monitoring, the EPA assumes the landfill would rent a handheld portable vapor analyzer with a data logger. The data logger would be necessary to obtain an integrated reading over a single 50,000 square foot grid. However, the EPA does not expect that requiring an integrated methane concentration would add significant cost because landfills could use the same instrument that they currently use for the instantaneous readings

. T hese instruments can be programmed to provide an integrated value as well as an instantaneous value. The EPA recognizes that while these provisions could minimize surface em issions , the actual reduction in emissions is difficult to quantify. Surface monitoring is a labor intensive process and tightening the grid pattern would increase costs. Thus, the EPA is soliciting input on techniques and data to estimate the reductions a ssociated with enhanced surface monitoring.

Waste Landfills.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **98** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left The EPA is also requesting input on allowing the use of alternative remote measurement and monitoring techniques for landfills that exceed the surface monitoring concentrations in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc. The EPA would like information to determine whether t o allow these alternative techniques to be used to demonstrate that surface emissions are below the specified methane surface concentrations. Alternative remote measurement and monitoring techniques may inc lude radial plume mapping (RPM), optical remote sensing, Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, cavity ringdown spectroscopy (CRDS), tunable diode laser (TDL), tracer correlation, micrometeorological eddy

- covariance, static flux chamber or differe ntial absorption. The EPA is also seeking input on the frequency of testing and the format of the standard if we allow the use of these technologies as an alternative to average surface concentrations as measured by Method 21. Incorporation of these techno logies would require a change in format of the standard to be consistent with the technology. 3. Alternative Monitoring Provisions for L FG Treatment The EPA is requesting input on defining t reatment system as a system that filters, dewaters and compresses LFG
. This alternative approach would be consistent with public commenters on previous landfills notices ( 67 FR 36475, May 23, 2002; 71 FREO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **99** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left 53271, September 8, 2006) . It is also consistent with input from participants in governmental outreach, who stated tha t the extent of filtration, de

- watering and compression can be site dependent, and that different sites require different levels of gas treatment to protect the combustion devices that use treated
LFG as a fuel and ensure good combustion. The alternative d efinition of treatment system would allow the level of treatment to be tailored to the type and design of the specific combustion equipment in which the LFG is used. If t reatment system was defined in this manner, o wners/operators would need
to identify mo nitoring parameters and keep records that demonstrate that such parameters effectively monitor filtration, de

- watering or compression system performance necessary for the end use of the treated LFG
. Owners/operators would also need to develop a site

- speci fic treatment system monitoring plan that would not only accommodate site

- specific and end

- use specific treatment requirements for different energy recovery technologies, but would also ensure environmental protection. P reparing the monitoring plan would d ocument procedures that landfills are likely already following to ensure that the LFG has been adequately treated for its intended use.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **100** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left The plan would be required to include monitoring parameters addressing all three elements of treatment (filtration, de

watering, and compression) to ensure the treatment system is operating properly for the intended end use of the treated LFG
. The plan would be required to include monitoring methods, frequencies and operating ranges for each monitored operating parameter b ased on manufacturer’s recommendations or engineering analysis for the intended end use of the treated LFG
. Documentation of the monitoring methods and ranges, along with justification for their use , would need to be included in the site

- specific monitorin g plan. In the plan, the owner/operator would also need to identify who is responsible (by job title) for data collection, explain the processes and methods used to collect the necessary data, and describe the procedures and methods that are used for quali ty assurance, maintenance, and repair of all continuous monitoring systems. The owner or operator would be required to revise the monitoring plan to reflect changes in processes, monitoring instrumentation and quality assurance procedures; or to improve
p rocedures for the maintenance and repair of monitoring systems to reduce the frequency of monitoring equipment downtime. The EPA requests input on the definition of t reatment system and the creation of site

- specific treatment system monitoring plans.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **101** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left 4. Monitoring and Reporting F lexibility Regulatory agencies and landfill owners and operators have expressed concerns about the burden and response time of agencies responsible for reviewing and approving design plans, Alternative Compliance Timeline (ACT) r equests , alternative remedies and h igher operating v alue (HOV) requests. One way to minimize the need for such reviews would be to provide more flexibility in wellhead monitoring provisions, as described in s ection I V.D.1 of this notice. The EPA also soli cits input on other ways to streamline the monitoring, reporting and notification provisions as part of its review of the emission guidelines. For example, currently the subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR part 60 require site

- specific design plan review and app roval procedures, recognizing the unique site

- specific topography, climate and other factors affecting the design of a GCCS. However, the EPA solicits input on ways to streamline the design plan submission and approval procedures as part of its review of t he emissions guidelines. Examples of streamlining may include the potential development of a process by which approved alternative operating parameters could be automatically linked to updates of design plans or development of a process by which alternativ e operatingEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **102** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left parameters and updated design plans could be approved on a similar schedule. The EPA is also seeking input on the possibility of establishing a third

- party design plan certification program. The third

- party program would supplement or replace t he current approach of requiring the EPA or state review and approval of site

- specific design plans and plan revisions with a program by which independent third parties would review the design plans, determine whether they conform to applicable regulatory criteria, and report their findings to the approved state programs or the EPA (for states without approved programs). The program would be designed to ensure that the third

- party reviewers are competent, independent, and accredited, apply clear and objecti ve criteria to their design plan reviews, and report appropriate information to regulators. Additionally, there would need to be mechanisms to ensure regular and effective oversight of third

- party reviewers by the EPA and/or states that may include public disclosure of information concerning the third parties and their performance and determinations. Utilizing a third

- party certification program could help to standardize and expedite design plan reviews, and reduce the burden on state regulators. The EPA is considering a broad range of possible design features for such a program. SuchEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **103** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left features include those discussed or included in several articles, 96 , 97 , 98 rules 99 , 100 , 101 and programs
. 102 , 103 We are considering the possibility of requiring sources to make design plans (including revisions) available online and easily accessible to the public as well as any impediment to doing so. We are also seeking input on what constitutes a reasonable time p eriod for sources to mak e the design plans available online. In addition to electronic storage of design plans, t he EPA also plans to include electronic reporting in a the forthcoming proposal amending that could amend subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR part 60 as a result of this review

. E. Alternative Emission Threshold Determination Techniques

96 McAllister, Lesley K., Third

- Party Programs to Assess Regulatory Compliance, Presented at the Administrative Conference of the United States, October 22, 2012. 97 Esther Duflo , et al., Truth

- Telling By Third

- Party Auditors and the Response of Polluting Firms: Experimental Evidence From India, 128 Quarterly Journal of Economics 4 at 1499

- 1545 (2013). 98 First Annual Oversight Report of the Decentralized Gateway Vehicle Inspection Program, Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Missouri State Highway Patrol, 2008. http://www.dnr.mo.gov/gatewayvip/docs/enforcementrpt.pdf

. 99 R enewable Fuel Standard program. http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ/fu els/renewablefuels/
. 100 Wood Heater Compliance Monitoring Program

. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/woodheaters.html

. 101 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissi ons Reporting, California Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg

- rep/ghg

- rep.htm
. 102 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Third

- Party Underground Storage Tank Inspection Program. http://www.mass.gov/eea/agen cies/massdep/toxics/ust/third

- party

- ust

inspection

- program.htmlEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **104** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left The EPA is considering adjusting the emission threshold determinations that dictate when a GCCS must be installed, including variations in the modeling parameters as w ell as adding site

- specific emission threshold determination. These alternatives may provide additional reporting and compliance flexibilities for owners and operators of affected landfills, including those that use new technologies to increase oxidation

o f emissions, employ BMPs to increase the effectiveness of GCCS, or increase organics diversion and source separation practices. 1. Modeling Adjustments An affected landfill currently has three different options (tiers) for estimating whether the landfill e xceeds the NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg per year. The simplest of these, the Tier 1 calculation method, uses default values for the potential methane generation capacity (L 0 ) and methane generation rate (k) to determine when the landfill exceeds the 50 Mg NMOC per year emission threshold. The default L 0 is 170 m 3 per Mg of waste (equal to 5,458 cubic feet methane per ton of waste) and the k values are 0.05 per year for areas receiving 25 inches or more of rainfall per year and 0.02 per year for areas re ceiving less than 25 inches of rainfall. The Tier 1 default NMOC

103 Massachusetts Licensed Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professional Program , http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/cleanup/licensed

- site

-EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **105** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left concentration is 4,000 parts per million by volume ( ppmv ) as hexane. If the Tier 1 calculated NMOC exceeds 50 Mg per year, the landfill must install controls or demonstrate, using more comple x Tier 2 or 3 procedures, that NMOC emissions are less than 50 Mg per year.
A revised rule could allow for alternative Tier 1 default values and modeling techniques based on the amount of organics in the waste. For example, the L 0 is a function of the mois ture content and organic content of the waste and L 0 decreases as the amount of organic matter decreases. Recent studies have shown that average U.S. landfill L 0 values have decreased 22 percent between 1990 and 2012 (from 102.6 m 3 per Mg of waste to 79.8 m 3 per Mg of waste) due to increased recovery of organic materials. 104

Subpart HH of the GHGRP also provides separate k

- values for different types of materials, which could be used as alternate Tier 1 default values in revised emission guidelines. Sewage A revised rule could allow for landfill

- specific L 0 values to be calculated based on the amount of degradable organic carbon (DOC), similar to components of Equation HH

- 1 in the GHGRP for MSW landfills (40 CFR part 98 , subpart HH).

professionals.html

. 104 Stege, Alex. The Effects of Or ganic Waste Diversion on LFG Generation and Recovery from U.S. Landfills. SWANA’s 37 th Annual Landfill Gas Symposium. 2014.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **106** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left sludge and food waste have the highest k values, followed by garden waste, diapers, paper, textiles and wood and straw. 11
The IPCC model employs a modeling method to accommodate separate k and DOC modeling parameters as well as separate calculations for six different categories of organic wastes. 105 If the EPA pursues incorporating alternative Tier 1 modeling values in any revised emission guidelines, the EPA would also need to allow for an alternative first

- order decay model structure to compute a total methane generation rate for
t he landfill based on the sum of the methane generated from each separate waste stream. This alternative model may incorporate material

- specific k and L 0 values, instead of a single pair of k
and L 0 values applied to bulk MSW. The EPA requests input on whet her the alternative modeling parameters and model structure in subpart HH of 40 CFR part 98 , or other default parameters or modeling procedures would be appropriate to use for emission threshold determinations in revised emission guidelines. The EPA also requests input on whether such an alternative modeling procedure would be limited to only those landfills that are employing organic diversion or source separation. 2. Site

- specific MeasurementsEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **107** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left As indicated above, u nder the current emission guidelines, th ere are three different tiers available to an affected landfill to estimate whether the landfill exceeds the NMOC emission threshold of 50 M g/yr . If an affected landfill fails a Tier 2 test (i.e., the calculated NMOC emissions are greater than 50 Mg/yr ), t hen the landfill must conduct Tier 3 testing or install and operate an active GCCS. The EPA received input recommending the addition of a new Tier 4 surface emission monitoring (SEM) demonstration to allow increased flexibility for landfills that exceed mo deled NMOC emission rates if they can demonstrate that site

- specific methane emissions are actually low. This SEM demonstration would be conducted using procedures similar to those currently in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (see 40 CFR 60.755(d)). If the monitoring finds that methane emissions are below a level that the EPA adopts in the revised emission guidelines, then installation of a GCCS could be delayed. As an example, the California Air Resources Board (A RB) adopted the Methane Emissions from MSW Landfills regulation in

105 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories . Volume 5 (Waste), Chapter 3 (Solid Waste Disposal). 2006.EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **108** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left 2009. 106 Under this rule, if a landfill exceeds the waste

- in

place and heat input thresholds, the landfill may conduct an SEM demonstration prior to being required to install a GCCS. If the

m easured surface methane emissions exceed 200 ppm , the landfill must install a GCCS. This SEM demonstration is similar to the Tier 4 option being considered by EPA. The EPA is soliciting input about this new Tier 4 option or other ideas for more flexible em ission threshold determination “Tiers” and what implementation procedures may be appropriate for each determination. As the EPA takes this new Tier 4 option under consideration, there are some implementation procedures that would need to be established. Th e EPA requests input on all aspects of implementing a new Tier 4 option, including the following specific items: (1) Which areas of the landfill would be subject to SEM requirements because these areas would no longer be limited to areas with GCCS installe d; (2) what number of exceedances over a specified time period would require GCCS installation ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW specifies a new well must be installed at three or more exceedances in a quarter); (3) what frequency of SEM demonstration (e.g., qu arterly monitoring for landfills accepting waste, annual monitoring for

106 California Code of Regulations, title 17, subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, section 95463, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid WasteEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **109** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left closed landfills) is appropriate; (4) what exceedance level is appropriate for determining if a GCCS must be installed (200 ppm or some other level) ; and (5) whether the Tier 4 option would apply to all landfills that could demonstrate surface emissions less than the determined exceedance level, regardless of how this level was achieved; or, whether this option would be made available to only those landfills employing and maintaining

ox idative cover practices, utilizing biofiltration cells, or implementing other established best practices or organics diversion programs as discussed later in this section

. F. Considerations for Implementation at Closed vs. Active Landfills The landfills i ncluded as part of this review include landfills that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987 , and that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification before [ DATE OF PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED 40 CFR PART 60, SUBPART
XXX RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGIST ER ]. Table 3 of this notice summarizes the closure patterns of the approximately 1,8 00 landfills potentially affected by 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW. 107

Landfills. 107 See Docketed Memorandum “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used i n the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulat ions. 2014 .”EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **110** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left **Table 3. Age Distribution of Existing Landfills**

**When did landfill**  **stop accepting** 

**waste? All**  **Landfills Landfills with Design**  **Capacity of 2.5 Million**  **Mg or Greater** 
**Number of Landfills**  **Cumulative Waste**  **- in**  **- Place**  **(tons) in 2014 Number of**  **Landfills Cumulative**  **Waste -**  **in -**  **Place (tons) in 2014**  Before 1990 a 33 84,300,000 10 63,200,000 Between 1990 and 1995 335 662,300,000 62 465,500,000
Between 1995 and 2000 242 583,300,000 56 429,500,000
Between 2000 and 2005 97 402,300,000 29 343,000,000
Between 2005 and 2010 82 310,900,000 27 250,500,000
Between 2010 and 2013 77 469,800,000 31 408,400,000 N/A. Active as of 2014 b 966 6,695,300,000 739 6,493,000,000 **Total 1,832**  **9,208,200,000 954**  **8,453,100,000**
a But accepted waste after November 8, 1987. b Excludes model landfills that began operating in 2014 and are expected to be subject to the proposed s ubpart XXX NSPS for MSW Landfills. The EPA recognizes that existing landfills represent a wide range of points in the life cycle of a typical landfill. Approximately 39 percent of the existing landfills (707/1,832) closed prior to 2005 and those landfills colle ctively account for approximately 19 percent of the total waste disposed through 2014. Because these wastes were disposed of between 10 and 25 years ago, the LFG emission rates from these older sites areEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **111** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left decreasing and have a significantly smaller contribu tion to emissions from this source category. Given the wide range of points within a lifecycle that are represented by potentially affected existing landfills, and recognizing that some of the affected sites have not disposed of waste in over 25 years, th e EPA believes that the implementation of any adjustments to the current framework or incorporation of alternative control frameworks or monitoring requirements may affect active landfills differently than inactive landfills. Therefore, the EPA requests in put on how adjusting the current framework, selecting an alternative framework or modifying the monitoring requirements should be evaluated in terms of practicality, cost and emission reductions as these adjustments affect landfills of various ages and act ivity levels.
G. I mplementation Issues Since t he landfills emission guidelines were promulgated in 1996 , the EPA has become aware of a number of implementation issues for which landfill owners and operators, as well as regulators, need clarification. Thi s section presents those issues and requests input on those clarifications and potential resolutions. 1. LFG TreatmentEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **112** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left In this notice, the EPA is soliciting input on what constitutes sufficient LFG treatment. In the Federal Register notice proposing a new subpart resulting from its review of the landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX), the EPA refined a numeric definition of LFG treatment and solicited input on a

non - numeric definition that required compression, dewatering , and filtration of LFG , as well as the creation of a site

specific monitoring plan. The EPA requests input on whether a

non - numeric or numeric treatment requirement is appropriate for landfills subject to the emission guidelines. Further, the EPA requests input on whether previously proposed definitions of LFG treatment should be adopted or if other approaches to LFG treatment should be explored. We are also requesting input on expanding the use of treated LFG fuel for a stationary combustion device, as some peo ple have previously interpreted this compliance option, but also include other uses such as the production of vehicle fuel, production of high

- Btu gas for pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process. 2. Closed Areas
To determine whether NMOC emissions from nonproductive areas of a landfill are less than 1 percent of the total landfill NMOC emissions (and hence controls are not required),EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **113** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left the landfills regulations ( 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW) rely on modeled NMO C rates. To refine the measurements of these nonproductive areas, the EPA is requesting input on allowing landfill owners or operators to use either the measured or modeled flow of LFG to determine if an area is nonproductive. The EPA is also requesting in put on what criteria and procedures would be considered acceptable for making these estimates. The provisions would apply to physically separated, closed areas of landfills. 3 . Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests If a landfill exceeds a wellhead operating parameter, the landfill owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 5 days and follow the timeline in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW for correcting the exceedance. During implementation of subpart WWW, the question has been raised whet her a landfill needs agency approval of corrective action timelines that exceed 15 calendar days but are less than the 120 days allowed for installing a GCCS

. The EPA is seeking input on whether a specific schedule for submitting these requests for alterna tive corrective action timelines is appropriate because investigating and determining the appropriate corrective action, as well as the schedule for implementing the corrective action, will be site specific andEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **114** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left depend on the reason for the exceedance. We a lso solicit input on whether any clarifications should be included in the revised emission guidelines to expedite the submission of any alternative time line requests (i.e., as soon as they know that they would not be able to correct the exceedance in 15 d ays or expand the system in 120 days) to avoid being in violation of the rule. To address implementation concerns associated with the time allowed for corrective action, the EPA requests input on an approach that extends the requirement for notification from 15 days to as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days. Many requests for an alternative compliance timeline express the need for additional time to make necessary repairs to a well t hat requires significant construction activities. Extending the time period to as soon as practicable but no later than 60 days may reduce the burden and ensure sufficient time for correction. If the EPA were to extend the time period, then the EPA also wo uld consider removing the requirement to submit an alternative timeline for correcting the exceedance. Thus, by no later than d ay 60, the landfill would have to either have completed the adjustments and repairs necessary to correct the exceedance, or be pr epared to have the system expansion completed by day 120. The EPA is also requesting input on whether 60 days is theEO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **115** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left appropriate amount of time that would allow owners or operators to make the necessary a repairs. **V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews**
U nder Executive Order 12866, titled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this is a “significant regulatory action” because the action raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. Because this action does not propose or impose any requirements, other statutory and Executive Order reviews that apply to rulemaking do not apply. Should the EPA subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking, the EPA will address the statues and Executive Orders as applicable to that rulemaking. Nevertheless, the EPA welcomes input a nd/or information that would help the EPA to assess any of the following: The potential impact of a rule on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .); potential impacts on federal, state , or local governments
pu rsuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ((UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531

- 1538); federalism implications pursuant to Executive Order 13132, titled Federalism (64 FR 43255, November 2, 1999);EO12866 Review

– Draft

- Do Not Cite, Quote , or Release During Review page Page **116** of **117** 109 Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font Formatted: Left availability of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) o f the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104

- 113; tribal implications pursuant to Executive Order 13175, titled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000); environm ental health or safety effects on children pursuant to Executive Order 13045, titled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); energy effects pursuant to Executive Order 13211, titled Actions Con cerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22,2001); p aperwork burdens pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
§ 3501); or human health or environmental effects on minority or low

- inc ome populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, titled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The EPA will consider such comments during the development of any subsequent rulemaking.**Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills**  page **117** of **117** Formatted: Font: Bold Formatted: Font: Bold **List of Subjects in**  **40 CFR Part 60** Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

. Dated:

Gina McCarthy, Administrator.