18500 N. Allied Way / Phoenix, AZ 85054

480.627.2700 / 480.627.2701 FAX 

### Issues which can be corrected in short term:

• Control Device Downtime Landfills NSPS SSM Provisions

• General Landfill NESHAP SSM changes

• Temperature Monitoring for Enclosed Combustor

• Definition of Household Waste

• Removal of GCCS Require ments for Closed Landfills

• Design Plan Approvals

Control Device Downtime Landfills NSPS SSM Provisions

Republic supports EPA’s determination t hat a GCCS often cannot be reasonably brought back on-line after a dow ntime event in less than one hour. In fact, during

most downtime events it could take mu ltiple days to return the GCCS to operating condition. We also support EPA’s decision to clearly define that the 1- hour threshold should only be applied to free venting of LFG after a control device goes off-line and before the gas mover equipment can be shutdown to prevent untreated gas from passing through the control device.

However, we are concerned with language contained within th e draft preamble, which seems to suggest that the current version of the NSPS does contain a 1-

hour limit on control devic e downtime, regardless w hether free venting is occurring. It has been the MSW landfill i ndustry’s position and interpretation since the original NSPS was promulgat ed in 1996 that the 1-hour threshold was always a free venting standard. Republic, therefore, requests that EPA revise the preamble language to clar ify that the 1-hour standard was originally meant to be a free venting standard and that any other interpretation is inaccurate.

Further, 60.757(f)(3) of the NSPS rule sti ll requires sites to report all instances

where the control/treatment device was not operating for more than 1-hour. This appears to contradict the intent of 60.755(e) which eliminates the 1-hour requirement. Wording of 60.757(f)(3) should be revis ed to require reporting of all instances where free-venting of Landf ill gas occurred for more than 1-hour in

duration.

With respect to the proposed elimination of the 5-day provision, Republic is appreciative of EPA’s efforts to give th e landfills flexibi lity in determining a

reasonable limit on total downtime for a GCCS through the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions of the NESHAPs rule. However, we are concerned that the proposed language would give too much discretion to state or local agencies in determining a maxi mum downtime limit, and those agencies could select something less than 5 days. The MSW landfill industry has always felt that 5 days is a reasonable maximu m limit for GCCS downtime and areDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 Page 2

willing to commit to it as a regulatory threshold. Keeping the 5-day limit will ensure that there is a upper end time limit for downtim e allowed under the rule, allow consistency across the country, and prevent state or local agencies from selecting shorter time frames , thereby eliminating the fl exibility EPA is trying to

create.

As an alternative, Republ ic would support the use of the SSM process for determining a maximum allowable downtime for a particular site as long as there is a provision in the rule which specifies that the a llowable downtim e cannot be less than 5 days.

On another note, in order to make the remainder of the NSPS regulations

consistent with the removal of the 1- hour downtime limitati on, the reporting

section of the NSPS needs to be revised as follows:

40 CFR 60.757(f)(3): Description and duration of all periods when the control device or treatment syst em was not operating for a period exceeding one hour and length of time the control device or treatment system was not operating, only if the valves in the collection and control system contributing to venti ng of gas to the atmosphere

were not closed within one hour.

General Landfill NESHAP SSM Changes

The proposed rulemaking makes several c hanges to the SSM provisions within the NESHAPs rule, beyond the 1-hour and 5- day requirements. One of these changes is the clear delin eation that routine maintenance events should be included in the SSM plan. The MSW l andfill industry has always believed that the SSM requirements includ e routine maintenance, so we do not take issue with your inclusion of this requirement in the rule. Because of this, it is unnecessary to require that a routine mainten ance plan be added to each SSM plan, which has already been developed by MSW landfill ow ners/operators. Instead, making

it clear that routine maintenance event s are regulated SSM events should be

sufficient for this rulemaki ng. Further, the industry already includes routine

maintenance events in semi-annual SSM r eports, so this change is unnecessary but acceptable to us.

The second change to the SSM require ments is the removal of the crossreferencing table to the NESHAPs general provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) and replacement with al l specific requirements cont ained within 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAA. Republic is support ive of this change as the crossreferencing element was always unclear and hard to follow.

The third change is described as a minor change to the block averaging requirement for 3-hour temperature values in the NESHAPs rule to be consistentDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 Page 3

with what is reportedly c ontained within the NSPS rule. Th is includes the

removal of the allowance to exclude SSM events from the calculation of 3-hour block averages for determining comp liance with the minimum temperature requirement under the NSPS. Republic takes serious issue with this requirement. Inclusion of SSM events in 3-hour block averages will lead to numerous temperature deviations due to low temperature at almost all landfills. When a control device goes off-line for SS M events the temperature will drop to ambient levels (versus operating levels ov er 1400 F for flares), and when this is averaged with any operating time, dev iations will inevitably exist.

This would result in almost any SSM event of more than a few minutes a temperature deviation and leave us at t he mercy of state and local regulators,

who could take enforcement action r egardless whether our SSM plans were implemented or not. As an example, if a flare normally operates and is tested at 1500 F, then its minimum temperature fo r compliance would be 1450 F per the rule. During an SSM event, the flare te mperature would drop quickly toward the ambient temperature of the surrounding area. It is not uncommon for flare temperatures to drop below 500 F within minutes. Assuming an SSM event of 10 minutes (common automatic restart cycle for many flares) and an average temperature during the SSM event of 500 F, the 3-hour block average including this SSM event would be 1444 F, whic h would be a deviation of the minimum temperature requirement. So, in this case, the flare could actually restart as it is designed to do, and yet a temperature deviati on would still result. This is clearly

an unworkable situation.

Even if the regulators used enf orcement discretion in sit uations that clearly do

not warrant enforcement ac tion, the landfill industry could still be subject to citizen suits for any SSM event. The MSW landfill industry has always viewed

the NESHAPs rule la nguage of exclusion of SSM even ts from the block average

calculation as clarification of unworkable rule language within the NSPS With this proposed rulemaking, we would retu rn to this unworkable situation for temperature calculations. As such, R epublic strongly requests that the proposed

rule be revised to continue to allow exclusion of SSM events for the 3-hour block average calculations for both the NSPS and NESHAPs rules

.

Temperature Monitoring for Enclosed Combustor

We agree that eliminating initial performa nce test for source s not of concern, such as the 44 megawatts boilers is a good simplification of the regulatory burden. This principle of not testing insignificant s ources should apply to small

boilers or heaters as well.Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 Page 4

Definition of Household Waste

The definition of hous ehold waste needs to be expanded to not only exclude yard waste but also non-putrescibl e construction and demolition materials. There is a concern, for example, that roof shingle from a resi dential home could be deemed

to make a construction and demolition la ndfill into a “municipal solid waste” landfill for NSPS purposes, and impose unn ecessary and unduly expensive Title V permitting obligations on these facilities and result in enforcement action. Title V permitting for such facilities would pot entially be required even though such facilities would not require gas collect ion and control system s, based solely on

the size of the C&D landfill and the acce ptance of a single roof shingle. If

construction and demolition material from houses after a hurricane or other

disaster are deemed to be “m unicipal waste”, then C& D landfills would have a disincentive to accept such material because they would be unnecessarily subject to Title V permitting as a result of Landfill NSPS applicab ility. Given the public policy implications, the definition of household waste should specifically exclude non-putrescible constructi on and demolition materials.

Removal of GCCS Requirements for Closed Landfills

EPA requested comments on ap proaches for addressing removal of controls in closed landfill areas and spec ific criteria that could be applied to determine which

areas warrant control and whic h may remove control. As stated succinctly in the preamble to the proposed rules, there are many situations in the landfill industry in which an old, closed por tion of a landfill has been inappropriately drawn into

the NSPS due to its location to an adjacent, newer facilit y. This can lead to problems when gas production in the older areas has fallen off so significantly that it is difficult if not impossible for th is portion of the site to comply with the NSPS operational standards.

Further, many closed landfills installed gas collection and control systems prior to the NSPS, EG and Federal GGG requirements. The curr ent rule language states that the minimum 15-year duration for gas system operations begins with the date of the initial performance test requi red by NSPS or EG/Federal GGG rules. For sites subject to the NSPS, initial perfo rmance tests of the control system likely occurred during December 1998 and June 1999. However, for the sites subject to either state/local EG rule s or the Federal GGG Plan, the initial performance test dates occurred as late as October 2002 to Apr il 2003. Typically closed landfills are subject to the state EG or Feder al GGG requirements and not the NSPS requirements. Therefore at m any closed sites the useful life of the equipment (ie. 15 years) has already been surpassed. We believe that the 15- year removal criterion, if based on t he date of the “initial NSPS/EG performance test”, is not appropriate for these closed landfills since many of the sites had existing gas collection systems prior to t he advent of the NSPS/EG regulations.Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 Page 5

There are several potential solutions that can be applied which include the following:

For a Closed MSW Landfill, not co-located with other landfill units, the Closed MSW Landfill should be able to remove NSPS control requirements once the site demonstrates it emits less than 25 Mg/yr NM OC based on actual landfill gas flow

in accordance with § 60.754(b) irrespective of the age of the gas collection and control system. The 50 Mg/yr NMOC th reshold should be maintained where sites can demonstrate 15-years of a gas system operations in accordance with the existing rule requirements. R epublic recommends that the NSPS (also applies to the appropriate sections in the EG/GGG rules) rule language be

revised as follows § 60.752:

The collection and control system may be capped or removed provided that the conditions of paragraphs (b)(2)(v)(A), and either (B) or (C) are met:

(A) The landfill shall be a closed landfill as defined in § 60.751 of this subpart. A closure report shall be submitted to the Administrator as provided in § 60.757(d); and (B) The collection and control system shall have been in operations a minimum of 15 years and following the procedures specified in § 60.754(b) of this subpart, the calc ulated NMOC gas produced by the

landfill shall be less t han 50 megagrams per year on three successive

test dates. The test dates sha ll be no less than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart; or (C) For a closed landfill not co-loc ated with other landf ill units, follow the procedures specified in § 60.754(b) of this subpar t, the calculated NMOC gas produced by the landfill shall be less than 25 megagrams per year on

three successive test dates. The te st dates shall be no less than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart.

As for closed landfill units or areas co-l ocated with active landfill units, several options exist within the confines of the existing rules. These include:

1. For a Closed Landfill un it or area co-located with active landfill units the

site should be able to remove N SPS control requirements based on 15-years

from the initial well insta llation date for the affect ed landfill or area, not the date of NSPS or EG performance test. This is similar to the language found in Ohio’s EG program (OAC 3745-76-07(B)(2)(e)). The EPA approved OEPA’s EG program on October 6, 1998

. 2. Include a provision for 10% NMOC threshold for non-producing areas in order to addre ss declining flows

from closed landfill units or areas of an MSW landfill. The 10% NMOC threshold may be determined in accordance with 40 CFR § 60.754(b) as gas

collection is installed in these areas. The closed area(s) would not be subjectDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 Page 6

to monthly monitoring requirements or obligation to meet pressure, temperature and oxygen standards for we lls located in the closed area(s). This proposed provision is in addition to the existing 1% NMOC threshold already provided for in 40 CFR 60.759( a)(3)(2) for non-producing areas.

To demonstrate that the 10% threshold is still protective of the environment,

the site would continue to conduct m onthly cover integrity inspections and quarterly surface emissions monitoring. If no readings above 500 ppm are detected in closed area(s) after three consecutive quarters, then the site

could defer to annual surface emissions monitoring as allowed in 40 CFR 60.756(f). If exceedance(s) are det ected (above 500 ppm), then apply

corrective actions in accordance with 40 CFR 60.755(c)(4). The site would re-initiate quarterly monitoring unt il three consecutive quarterly events demonstrate no exceedances of 500 ppm standard where then the site would defer to annual monitoring as allowed in 40 CFR 60.756(f). Monthly cover integrity inspections and surface emissions monitoring would cease once the landfill meets the following conditions:

When a 1% NMOC threshold is achieved for non-producing area(s)

as determined in accordanc e with 40 CFR 60.754(b).

Following are three case studies, which il lustrate the importance of developing options for addressing closed landfill areas.

Landfill A is located in a mountain region of the West ern United States and has one older, closed area and one active area , which are physically separated on the landfill property. The overall site is subject to the NSPS and has a GCCS in place. Because the older area is such a large distance from t he main active area and because of the poor qualit y of LFG from this area, the older area has its own separate GCCS with an activated carbon unit for a control device.

The older area can only generate appr oximately 30-35 scfm of LFG on a

continuous basis with a methane content of 29-32 % on aver age (about 20 scfm at 50% methane). None of the wells in the older area can m eet NSPS wellhead

standards without an HOV a llowance, and no surface emissions have been detected in this area, even befor e the GCCS was installed.

For the above reasons, it wa s felt that this older area of the site would be a good candidate for an exemption from having to operate a GCCS in compliance with the NSPS. However, the only option ava ilable under the rule was to demonstrate

that the area’s NMOC emi ssions were less than 1% of the total NMOC emissions for the site. When this analysis was co mpleted using NSPS protocols, it was

discovered that the older areas was still purportedly generating over 10% of the

site-wide total for NMOCs and would not drop to 1% until the year 2050.Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 Page 7

However, when the actual LFG flow data fr om this area is used to complete an NMOC emissions analysis, the percentage drops to 0.81 % in 2006. Clearly, with all of the above information, this ar ea of the site should not be required to

have a GCCS under the NSPS rule but t he 1% threshold and the requirement to operate the GCCS for a minimum of 15 y ears prevents this exemption from being granted.

Landfill B is located in a desert region of the Southwestern United States and has one recently closed area and one active area, which are physically separated on the landfill property. The overall site is subject to the NSPS and has a GCCS in place for the recently closed area; the ac tive area is not required to have control

under the NSPS at this time.

The site was originally required to install a GCCS under the NSPS due to projected NMOC emissions of greater than 50 Mg/year using NSPS protocols. This was primarily due an ex tremely high NMOC concent ration that was detected during a Tier 2 study. Since the GCCS has been installed, the site is only able to produce approximately 217 scf m of LFG on a continuous basis with a methane content of 29 % on average (about 126 scfm at 50% met hane). Most of the wells

at the site cannot meet NSPS well head standards without an HOV allowance,

and no surface emissions have been detec ted, even before the GCCS was installed. Also, the amount of LFG at the site is not enough to continuously operate the LFG flare, so the GCCS is on a timer system with two hours of operation per day.

For the above reasons, it was felt that t he NSPS applicability for this site should be re-evaluated, and a Tier 2 study was recently conduct using samples

collected from the main header to the LF G system. These data are much more representative of the average NMOC c oncentration for the site (because the

GCCS draws from the entire refuse volume ) as compared to the previous Tier 2 study completed with the probe method where only t he newer, uppermost waste could be sampled.

Using the new Tier 2 value, the site’s NMOC emissions are projected to be less than 50 Mg/year for the landfill’s entir e life with the highest value being 21 Mg/year. In 2006, the NMOC emissions would be 14.1 Mg /year using NSPS protocols but only 0.36 Mg/year using ac tual LFG flow data from the site.

. This site is another exampl e of a landfill that shoul d not be required to have a GCCS under the NSPS but the requirem ent to operate the GCCS for a minimum of 15 years prevents this from changi ng. The NSPS never established any provisions to allow a site that was incorre ctly classified as requiring a GCCS to subsequently demonstrate that the emissi ons are less than 50 Mg/year and avoid the requirement without firs t operating for 15 years.Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 Page 8

Landfill C received a small ex pansion in volume prior to its closure in 1993, and has been subject to the NSPS since promulgation of t he regulations in 1996. The active gas collection system at t he landfill was installed during closure activities in the 1990’s. Collected gas is sent to a five engine plant. An open flare is available to provide backup cont rol. Three gas compressors at the plant are the “gas mover” equipment. A utilit y flare is available as backup.

A site-specific NMOC sample was collect ed several years ago from this facility and based on existing gas flow rates and this concentration, the facility’s NMOC emissions are well below the 50 Mg/year threshold. However, the EPA denied a request to establish the “start date” fo r the gas system operations as when the first well was installed, vs. the date of the initial NSPS performance test, since the facility could not demonstrate that it had conducted all required NSPS monitoring and recordkeeping from the date the gas system was installed (which was prior to the promulgation of the N SPS regulations). NSPS compliance at this facility has cost over $1,000,000 to date.

Design Plan Approvals

We appreciate the EPA for addressing the i ssue of design plan approvals. The review and approval of the NSPS Design Plans has not been consistent from
state to state, or ev en within the same state, from district to di strict. Some states

have never approved design plans, even though we are now on the 10 year anniversary of the N SPS promulgation.

The agency’s suggestion to allow landfills to have a “de facto” approval of their design plan after a certain time period has elapsed is an excellent option, and we support this.

With respect to the time frame for agency review of an initia l design plan, the EPA’s February, 1999 document “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 1: Summary of the Requirements for the New Source Perfo rmance Standards and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Soli d Waste Landfills” stat ed the following (on page 2-38):

“The implementing agency must approve the design of a gas collection and control system prior to installation. The review and comment interval for approving a design plan is expected to take approxim ately 6 months from the date the plan is submitted, leaving approximately 12 months for installing the alternative gas collection and control system.”

This six month time frame for review and approval of the initial design plans is very reasonable, since it leaves at l east one year for the landfill to prepare construction level drawings and specifications for the first phase of the approvedDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 Page 9

design, as well as solicit bids, and ultima tely install the system . Therefore, since the design plan has to be pr ofessionally designed and cert ified by a Professional Engineer along with ultimately achiev ing compliance through quarterly surface emissions monitoring and monthly testi ng and monitoring, we strongly support the De Facto approval of design plans if no approval is provided by the

Administrator after 6 m onths of submittal.

With respect to time frames for updates or revisions to design plans, a four

month time frame should be more than adequate, as the proposed revisions to an existing plan should require a less extensive review than a brand new plan prepared from scratch.

A related issue, is the absence of consis tent regulatory review and approval of higher operating value demonstrations, al ternative timeline requests, and well decommissioning requests. Some stat e agencies have established internal procedures to review and approve these r equests on a timely basis, while other state agencies have no internal programs. The lack of response by an agency leaves a site in an awkward compliance position. If an alternative timeline as allowed in 40 CFR §60.755( a) and (c) is requested and no written response provided by the Agency, is the facility operating in or out of compliance with NSPS? Because facilities have only two options for addressing wellhead and surface emission exceedances, ie expand the system within 120 days of the initial exceedance or seek appr oval for an alternative remedy/timeline, the facility

could be considered out of compliance if the approval is never granted and the system is not expanded within the 120 da y timeframe. Since expanding the system is not always the best way to co rrect an exceedance, and a facility may not be able to determine the appropriate c ourse of action wit hin 15 days of an initial well exceedance, we propose two different options to address these situations. One is to replace the 15-day timeframe with 60 days to address the initial exceedance prior to having to s ubmit an alternative timeline request or decommission a well. Secondly if the we ll or area still exhibits an exceedance of the operating criteria which will occur for more than 60 days we believe that the Agency should have a much shorter timefr ame to review the requests before a “de facto” approval would be allowed; i.e. 30 days. If t he approval is not granted within an expeditious timefr ame, it would leave little time to perform the expansion activity. Again, si nce the wellfield is requir ed to be monitored monthly along with performing quarterly surface emissi ons monitoring, we believe that the performance of the wellfield will not be impacted.18500 N. Allied Way / Phoenix, AZ 85054

480.627.2700 / 480.627.2701 FAX 

### Issues which may require additional time, but are still critical:

• Definition of Landfill Owner / Operator and Allowance for Off-Site Control or Treatment Option

• Definition of Ownership for the Landfill Gas Collection, Control, or Treatment System

Definition of Landfill Owner / Operator and Allowance for Off-Site Control or Treatment Option

Republic was encouraged that the EPA is promoting benef icial use projects from the recovery of landfill gas. We support beneficial use projects as the ultimate landfill gas management goal. Finding a cons tructive resolution to the “Third Party” issue has always been one of the more important issues facing the landfill industry because of the dam pening effect unresolved li ability has on current and future beneficial use projects. The ability for owners and/or operators to segregate liability with respect to co mpliance with the NSPS/EG/NESHAP is consistent with historical practices and is a vital step forward for a workable regulatory approach. We believe the cu rrent EPA proposal needs to address a few more issues to ensure equitable division of compliance responsibilities for multiple owner/operators to promote beneficial use projects as well as provide resolution in resolving t he “Third Party” issue.

Republic has a concern with the require ment, as outlined in §60.758 (g) and, §63.1980 (j) that all entities involved are responsib le for compliance with missing

items . It is the situation where all entities involved hold responsibility regardless of whether or not the entity has ownersh ip of the collection and control equipment that the proposed ame ndments are trying to avoid. This leads to difficult contract disputes and legal bickering that event ually could discourage landfills from attempting to utilize landfill gas in a beneficial manner. Republic recommends that liability remain with owner/operator of the affected equipment, as later defined below. We believe this approac h will help distinguish between the third parties who are serious about compliance and beneficial use an d those that are only in it for the short haul.

In §60.750 (a) and §62.14352 (g ), if the MSW landfill and the associated gas collection, control and/or treatment system are under common control, the entity exercising such control is responsible fo r specified requirements. This language is contrary to the goal of clearly spec ifying who has liability for compliance.

Common control is never clearly defined as it applies to the proposed regulations and can only add a significant level of am biguity to the propos al. Often, common control issues are so complex that it ta kes the EPA a great deal of research intoDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 Page 2

site specific situations in order to co me up with a determination. As stated above,

it is the situation where all entities involved hold responsi bility, that the proposed amendments are trying to avoid, yet the introduction of the concept of common control, as explained in the Preamble to t he proposed regulation, does just that. More specifically, it is stat ed on page 53275 of the Preamble that:

It is important to note that in ca ses of common control, although the owner/operator of the singl e source (e.g., the owner /operator of the landfill and/or gas collection, c ontrol, and/or treatment system) is ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance at the source, enforcement action could be taken by EPA or a Stat e against the owners/operators of

individual affected sources/emission units in addition to the owner/operator of the single source.

In the absence of any examples or explanations to the contrary, common control under this proposed wording, appears to pr ovide EPA all the rights to take enforcement action against all entities owning or operating a source. Common control is complex when dealing with multip le parties and the proposed regulation undercuts the ability to separate comp liance responsibilities and promote

beneficial use. Landfills wil l be discouraged to enter into an agreement for beneficial use if it is determined that by doing so will cause the entities to be tied together under common control. Further , we believe that because of the ambiguous use of common control in the proposal, individual EPA Regions may draw different interpretations on how to apply common control decisions. Once again, this is contrary to the need fo r clarity on NSPS liability with the goal to encourage beneficial use projects. Therefore, we recommend all references to

common control be removed.

If EPA decides not to proceed with our recommendation, we suggest the EPA specifically state that “ separately owned and/or operat ed landfill gas control and/or treatment operations should not be considered to be under common

control of the landf ill owner/operator. ”

Republic would also recommend in the event of a third party ceasing to accept the landfill gas for any reas on, that the landfill be gi ven a minimum of 30 days to assume compliance responsibility. We propose that the landfill be given the opportunity to establish an alternative comp liance plan because in some cases it will be difficult, if not impossible for the landfill to regain control. In cases of bankruptcy the landfi ll owner may be legally prohibi ted or constrained from assuming compliance responsibility becaus e they do not own the equipment.

From our experience, tying responsibility with ownership requires both parties to be responsible for what they have physica l control over. It is difficult for the landfill or the third party to be responsible for something in which they do not have ownership. Therefor e, Republic advocates that liability and responsibilityDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 Page 3

of NSPS compliance should remain with the owner/operator of the affected equipment.

In the Preamble, EPA requests comment on two alternatives to the proposed approach. In both approaches, and much more so for Alternative #2, ultimate liability is placed on the landfill owner, although each individual source maintains its responsibility for day to day compliance. In Alternative #1, for instance, it is proposed that in cases of flagrant violations , future liability shift back to the landfill owner/operator. The use of subjective terminology such as flagrant and

even minor with regard to violations, bring uncer tainty to contractual relationships and set the stage for abuse by both indivi dual owner/operators and regulators. In Alternative #2, it is very clear that all parties will be hel d responsible for noncompliance with landfill owner/operators being held responsible for ultimate compliance should the gas treatment system operators for some reason fail to comply. There are potential notice and access problems with EPA’s two alternative approaches. Specif ically, at what point woul d a landfill operator know that it is now responsible for all compliance activities at a facility due to the landfill gas treatment system operator’s failures? And how will the landfill operator accomplish this, if access to the landf ill gas treatment syst em property is restricted (i.e. via judgments from a bank ruptcy court)? Both of these can be obstacles to allowing the landfill owner/ operator to comply with the regulations immediately. As EPA correctly points out, There are some concerns that this alternative approach could inhibit the beneficial use of landfill gas. We agree, and strongly recommend that EPA not consider either al ternative since both are counter to encouraging energy pr oduction from landfill gas.

Definition of Ownership for the La ndfill Gas Collection, Control, or Treatment System

We are encouraged by EPA’s attempt to define gas collection and control system operating responsibilities thr ough the proposed definition of Municipal solid waste landfill gas collection, control, or treatment system owner/operator. In order to further clarify the division of owner/operator compliance responsibilities, Republic recommends that the proposed definit ion be replaced with three distinct definitions, as presented below:

“landfill gas collection system owner /operator” means an entity that owns or operates any stationary equipment for the collection of landfill gas pursuant to §60.752(b)(2)(ii).

“landfill gas treatment system owner /operator” means an entity that purchases the landfill gas from t he municipal solid waste landfill owner/operator and owns or operates any stationary equipment for the treatment of landfill gas pursuant to §60.752(b)(2)(iii)(D).Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-O AR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 Page 4

“landfill gas combustion system owner/operator” means an entity that purchases landfill gas from the municipal solid waste landfill owner/operator and owns or operates any stationary equipment for the combustion of landfill gas pursuant to §60.752(b)(2)(iii)(E).