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 Requirements for Closed Landfills 

• Design Plan Approvals 

Control Device Downtime Landfills NSPS SSM Provisions 

Republic supports EPA’s determination that a GCCS often cannot be reasonably 

brought back on-line after a downtime event in less than one hour. In fact, during 

most downtime events it could take multiple 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 the draft preamble, 

which seems to suggest that the current version of the NSPS does contain a 1-

hour limit on control device downtime, regardless whether free venting is 

occurring. It has been the MSW landfill industry’s position and interpretation 

since the original NSPS was promulgated in 1996 that the 1-hour threshold was 

always a free venting standard. Republic, therefore, requests that EPA revise 

the preamble language to clarify 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 still 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 revised to require reporting of 

all instances where free-venting of Landfill 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 the landfills flexibility 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 maximum 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 maximum limit for GCCS downtime and are 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-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 downtime allowed under the rule, 

allow consistency across the country, and prevent state or local agencies from 

selecting shorter time frames, thereby eliminating the flexibility EPA is trying to 

create. 

As an alternative, Republic 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 allowable downtime 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 limitation, 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 system 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 venting of gas to the atmosphere 

were not closed within one hour. 

General Landfill NESHAP SSM Changes

The proposed rulemaking makes several changes to the SSM provisions within 

the NESHAPs rule, beyond the 1-hour and 5-day requirements. One of these 

changes is the clear delineation that routine maintenance events should be 

included in the SSM plan. The MSW landfill industry has always believed that 

the SSM requirements include 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 maintenance plan be added to each SSM plan, which 

has already been developed by MSW landfill owners/operators. Instead, making 

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

sufficient for this rulemaking. Further, the industry already includes routine 

maintenance events in semi-annual SSM reports, so this change is unnecessary 

but acceptable to us. 

The second change to the SSM requirements is the removal of the crossreferencing table to the NESHAPs general provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

A) and replacement with all specific requirements contained within 40 CFR Part 

63, Subpart AAAA. Republic is supportive 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 consistent 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 

Page 3 

 

with what is reportedly contained within the NSPS rule. This includes the 

removal of the allowance to exclude SSM events from the calculation of 3-hour 

block averages for determining compliance 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 SSM events the temperature will drop to 

ambient levels (versus operating levels over 1400 F for flares), and when this is 

averaged with any operating time, deviations will inevitably exist. 

This would result in almost any SSM event of more than a few minutes a 

temperature deviation and leave us at the mercy of state and local regulators, 

who could take enforcement action regardless 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 for compliance would be 1450 F per the 

rule. During an SSM event, the flare temperature 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, which 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 deviation would still result. This is clearly 

an unworkable situation. 

Even if the regulators used enforcement discretion in situations that clearly do 

not warrant enforcement action, the landfill industry could still be subject to 

citizen suits for any SSM event. The MSW landfill industry has always viewed 

the NESHAPs rule language of exclusion of SSM events from the block average 

calculation as clarification of unworkable rule language within the NSPS With 

this proposed rulemaking, we would return to this unworkable situation for 

temperature calculations. As such, Republic 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 performance test for sources not of concern, 

such as the 44 megawatts boilers is a good simplification of the regulatory 

burden. This principle of not testing insignificant sources should apply to small 

boilers or heaters as well. 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 

Page 4 

 

Definition of Household Waste 

The definition of household waste needs to be expanded to not only exclude yard 

waste but also non-putrescible construction and demolition materials. There is a 

concern, for example, that roof shingle from a residential home could be deemed 

to make a construction and demolition landfill into a “municipal solid waste” 

landfill for NSPS purposes, and impose unnecessary and unduly expensive Title 

V permitting obligations on these facilities and result in enforcement action. Title 

V permitting for such facilities would potentially be required even though such 

facilities would not require gas collection and control systems, based solely on 

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

construction and demolition material from houses after a hurricane or other 

disaster are deemed to be “municipal 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 applicability. Given the 

public policy implications, the definition of household waste should specifically 

exclude non-putrescible construction and demolition materials. 

Removal of GCCS Requirements for Closed Landfills

EPA requested comments on approaches for addressing removal of controls in 

closed landfill areas and specific criteria that could be applied to determine which 

areas warrant control and which 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 portion of a landfill has been inappropriately drawn into 

the NSPS due to its location to an adjacent, newer facility. 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 this 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 current rule language states 

that the minimum 15-year duration for gas system operations begins with the 

date of the initial performance test required by NSPS or EG/Federal GGG rules. 

For sites subject to the NSPS, initial performance tests of the control system 

likely occurred during December 1998 and June 1999. However, for the sites 

subject to either state/local EG rules or the Federal GGG Plan, the initial 

performance test dates occurred as late as October 2002 to April 2003. Typically 

closed landfills are subject to the state EG or Federal GGG requirements and not 

the NSPS requirements. Therefore at many 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 the 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 the advent of the NSPS/EG regulations. 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-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 NMOC 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 threshold should be maintained where 

sites can demonstrate 15-years of a gas system operations in accordance with 

the existing rule requirements. Republic 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 calculated NMOC gas produced by the 

landfill shall be less than 50 megagrams per year on three successive 

test dates. The test dates shall be no less than 90 days apart, and no 

more than 180 days apart; or 

(C) For a closed landfill not co-located with other landfill units, follow the 

procedures specified in § 60.754(b) of this subpart, the calculated NMOC 

gas produced by the landfill shall be less than 25 megagrams per year on 

three successive test dates. The test dates shall be no less than 90 days 

apart, and no more than 180 days apart. 

As for closed landfill units or areas co-located with active landfill units, several 

options exist within the confines of the existing rules. These include: 

 

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

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

from the initial well installation date for the affected 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 address 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 subject 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 

Page 6 

 

to monthly monitoring requirements or obligation to meet pressure, 

temperature and oxygen standards for wells 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 monthly 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 detected (above 500 ppm), then apply 

corrective actions in accordance with 40 CFR 60.755(c)(4). The site would 

re-initiate quarterly monitoring until 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 accordance with 40 CFR 60.754(b). 

Following are three case studies, which illustrate the importance of developing 

options for addressing closed landfill areas. 

Landfill A is located in a mountain region of the Western 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 the main active area 

and because of the poor quality 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 approximately 30-35 scfm of LFG on a 

continuous basis with a methane content of 29-32 % on average (about 20 scfm 

at 50% methane). None of the wells in the older area can meet NSPS wellhead 

standards without an HOV allowance, and no surface emissions have been 

detected in this area, even before the GCCS was installed. 

For the above reasons, it was 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 available under the rule was to demonstrate 

that the area’s NMOC emissions were less than 1% of the total NMOC emissions 

for the site. When this analysis was completed 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-OAR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 

Page 7 

 

However, when the actual LFG flow data from 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 area of the site should not be required to 

have a GCCS under the NSPS rule but the 1% threshold and the requirement to 

operate the GCCS for a minimum of 15 years 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 active 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 extremely high NMOC concentration that was detected 

during a Tier 2 study. Since the GCCS has been installed, the site is only able to 

produce approximately 217 scfm of LFG on a continuous basis with a methane 

content of 29 % on average (about 126 scfm at 50% methane). Most of the wells 

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

and no surface emissions have been detected, 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 the 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 LFG system. These data are much more 

representative of the average NMOC concentration 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 the 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 entire 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 actual LFG flow data from the site. 

. 

This site is another example of a landfill that should not be required to have a 

GCCS under the NSPS but the requirement to operate the GCCS for a minimum 

of 15 years prevents this from changing. The NSPS never established any 

provisions to allow a site that was incorrectly classified as requiring a GCCS to 

subsequently demonstrate that the emissions are less than 50 Mg/year and avoid 

the requirement without first operating for 15 years. 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 

Page 8 

 

Landfill C received a small expansion in volume prior to its closure in 1993, and 

has been subject to the NSPS since promulgation of the regulations in 1996. 

The active gas collection system at the 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 control. Three gas compressors at the plant 

are the “gas mover” equipment. A utility flare is available as backup. 

A site-specific NMOC sample was collected 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” for 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 NSPS regulations). NSPS compliance at 

this facility has cost over $1,000,000 to date. 

Design Plan Approvals 

We appreciate the EPA for addressing the issue of design plan approvals. The 

review and approval of the NSPS Design Plans has not been consistent from 

state to state, or even within the same state, from district to district. Some states 

have never approved design plans, even though we are now on the 10 year 

anniversary of the NSPS 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 initial design plan, the 

EPA’s February, 1999 document “Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 1: 

Summary of the Requirements for the New Source Performance Standards and 

Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” stated 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 approximately 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 least one year for the landfill to prepare 

construction level drawings and specifications for the first phase of the approved 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 

Page 9 

 

design, as well as solicit bids, and ultimately install the system. Therefore, since 

the design plan has to be professionally designed and certified by a Professional 

Engineer along with ultimately achieving compliance through quarterly surface 

emissions monitoring and monthly testing and monitoring, we strongly support 

the De Facto approval of design plans if no approval is provided by the 

Administrator after 6 months 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 consistent regulatory review and approval of 

higher operating value demonstrations, alternative timeline requests, and well 

decommissioning requests. Some state agencies have established internal 

procedures to review and approve these requests 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 approval 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 day timeframe. Since expanding the 

system is not always the best way to correct an exceedance, and a facility may 

not be able to determine the appropriate course of action within 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 submit an alternative timeline request or 

decommission a well. Secondly if the well 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 timeframe to review the requests before a 

“de facto” approval would be allowed; i.e. 30 days. If the approval is not granted 

within an expeditious timeframe, it would leave little time to perform the 

expansion activity. Again, since the wellfield is required to be monitored monthly 

along with performing quarterly surface emissions 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 beneficial use projects from 

the recovery of landfill gas. We support beneficial use projects as the ultimate 

landfill gas management goal. Finding a constructive resolution to the “Third 

Party” issue has always been one of the more important issues facing the landfill 

industry because of the dampening effect unresolved liability has on current and 

future beneficial use projects. The ability for owners and/or operators to 

segregate liability with respect to compliance with the NSPS/EG/NESHAP is 

consistent with historical practices and is a vital step forward for a workable 

regulatory approach. We believe the current 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 the “Third Party” issue. 

Republic has a concern with the requirement, as outlined in §60.758 (g) and, 

§63.1980 (j) that all entities involved are responsible for compliance with missing 

items. It is the situation where all entities involved hold responsibility regardless 

of whether or not the entity has ownership of the collection and control equipment 

that the proposed amendments are trying to avoid. This leads to difficult contract 

disputes and legal bickering that eventually 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 approach will help distinguish between the third 

parties who are serious about compliance and beneficial use and 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 for specified requirements. This language 

is contrary to the goal of clearly specifying 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 ambiguity to the proposal. Often, common 

control issues are so complex that it takes the EPA a great deal of research into 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 8/26/2009 

Page 2 

 

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

it is the situation where all entities involved hold responsibility, that the proposed 

amendments are trying to avoid, yet the introduction of the concept of common 

control, as explained in the Preamble to the proposed regulation, does just that. 

More specifically, it is stated on page 53275 of the Preamble that: 

It is important to note that in cases of common control, although the 

owner/operator of the single source (e.g., the owner/operator of the landfill 

and/or gas collection, control, and/or treatment system) is ultimately 

responsible for ensuring compliance at the source, enforcement action 

could be taken by EPA or a State 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 provide EPA all the rights to take 

enforcement action against all entities owning or operating a source. Common 

control is complex when dealing with multiple parties and the proposed regulation 

undercuts the ability to separate compliance responsibilities and promote 

beneficial use. Landfills will 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 for 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 operated landfill gas control 

and/or treatment operations should not be considered to be under common 

control of the landfill owner/operator.” 

Republic would also recommend in the event of a third party ceasing to accept 

the landfill gas for any reason, that the landfill be given a minimum of 30 days to 

assume compliance responsibility. We propose that the landfill be given the 

opportunity to establish an alternative compliance plan because in some cases it 

will be difficult, if not impossible for the landfill to regain control. In cases of 

bankruptcy the landfill owner may be legally prohibited or constrained from 

assuming compliance responsibility because they do not own the equipment. 

From our experience, tying responsibility with ownership requires both parties to 

be responsible for what they have physical control over. It is difficult for the 

landfill or the third party to be responsible for something in which they do not 

have ownership. Therefore, Republic advocates that liability and responsibility 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-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 uncertainty to contractual relationships 

and set the stage for abuse by both individual owner/operators and regulators. In 

Alternative #2, it is very clear that all parties will be held 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. Specifically, at what point would 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 landfill gas treatment system property is 

restricted (i.e. via judgments from a bankruptcy 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 alternative since both are 

counter to encouraging energy production from landfill gas. 

Definition of Ownership for the Landfill Gas Collection, Control, or 

Treatment System

We are encouraged by EPA’s attempt to define gas collection and control system 

operating responsibilities through 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 definition 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 the 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-OAR-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).