Vol. 79 Thursday, 

No. 137 July 17, 2014 

Part IV 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60 

Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Proposed 

Rule 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41796 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215; FRL–9912–12– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AM08 

Standards of Performance for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a new 

subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX 

that updates the Standards of 

Performance for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills. Under section 111 of the 

Clean Air Act, the EPA must review, 

and, if appropriate, revise standards of 

performance at least every 8 years. The 

EPA’s review of the standards for 

municipal solid waste landfills applies 

to landfills that commence construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

July 17, 2014. The proposed standards 

reflect changes to the population of 

landfills and an analysis of the timing 

and methods for reducing emissions. 

The proposed standards also address 

other regulatory issues including the 

definition of landfill gas treatment 

systems, among other topics. The new 

subpart will reduce emissions of landfill 

gas, which contains both nonmethane 

organic compounds and methane. These 

avoided emissions will improve air 

quality and reduce public health and 

welfare effects associated with exposure 

to landfill gas emissions. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before September 15, 

2014. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by July 

22, 2014, we will hold a public hearing 

on August 12, 2014, in Washington, DC 

at the William Jefferson Clinton East 

Building, Room 1153, 1201 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

The public hearing will convene at 9:00 

a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m. (Eastern 

Standard Time). There will be a lunch 

break from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. 

Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at 

(919) 541–0832 or at hunt.virginia@

epa.gov to register to speak at one of the 

hearings. The last day to pre-register in 

advance to speak at the hearings will be 

Friday August 8, 2014. Additionally, 

requests to speak will be taken the day 

of the hearing at the hearing registration 

desk, although preferences on speaking 

times may not be able to be fulfilled. If 

you require the service of a translator or 

special accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the 

time of registration. 

If no one contacts the EPA requesting 

a public hearing to be held concerning 

this proposed rule by July 22, 2014, a 

public hearing will not take place. If a 

hearing is held, it will provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 

present data, views or arguments 

concerning the proposed action. The 

EPA will make every effort to 

accommodate all speakers who arrive 

and register. Because this hearing, if 

held, will be at U.S. government 

facilities, individuals planning to attend 

the hearing should be prepared to show 

valid picture identification to the 

security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. In addition, you will 

need to obtain a property pass for any 

personal belongings you bring with you. 

Upon leaving the building, you will be 

required to return this property pass to 

the security desk. No large signs will be 

allowed in the building, cameras may 

only be used outside of the building and 

demonstrations will not be allowed on 

federal property for security reasons. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations, but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral comments 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. Commenters should 

notify Ms. Hunt if they will need 

specific equipment, or if there are other 

special needs related to providing 

comments at the hearings. Verbatim 

transcripts of the hearing and written 

statements will be included in the 

docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will 

make every effort to follow the schedule 

as closely as possible on the day of the 

hearing; however, please plan for the 

hearing to run either ahead of schedule 

or behind schedule. Information 

regarding the hearing (including 

information as to whether or not one 

will be held) will be available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/

landflpg.html. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0215, by one of the 

following methods: 

• 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– 

2003–0215 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0215. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215, 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, 

Office of Management and Budget, Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC 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–2003– 

0215. 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 hand/courier delivery 

address listed above, attention: Mr. 

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 

Control Officer (Room C404–02), Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0215. The http://

www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email 

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 information 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41797 

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 available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, William 

Jefferson Clinton 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 proposal, 

contact Ms. Hillary Ward, Fuels and 

Incineration Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (E143–05), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–3154; fax 

number: (919) 541–0246; email address: 

ward.hillary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of proposed subpart 

XXX for 40 CFR part 60 is available on 

the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) 

Web site. Following signature, the EPA 

will post a copy of the proposed subpart 

XXX on the TTN’s policy and guidance 

page for newly proposed or promulgated 

rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/

landfill/landflpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

ANPRM Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

BMP Best management practice 

BSER Best system of emission reduction 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 Carbon dioxide 

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent 

CRDS Cavity ringdown spectroscopy 

DOC Degradable organic carbon 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

FLIR Forward-looking infrared 

FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared 

GCCS Gas collection and control system 

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program 

GWP Global warming potential 

HAP Hazardous air pollutants 

ICR Information collection request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

lb/MMBtu Pounds per million British 

thermal unit 

LFG Landfill gas 

LFGCost Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model 

LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

m3 Cubic meters 

Mg Megagram 

Mg/yr Megagram per year 

MSW Municipal solid waste 

MW Megawatt 

MWh Megawatt hour 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NMOC Nonmethane organic compound 

NSPS New source performance standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management & Budget 

ppm Parts per million 

ppmvd Parts per million by dry volume 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory impacts analysis 

RPM Radial plume mapping 

SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review 

SER Small entity representative 

SISNOSE Significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TDL Tunable diode laser 

tpy Tons per year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

USG U.S. government 

VCS Voluntary consensus standard 

VOC Volatile organic compound 

WWW World Wide Web 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

C. Costs and Benefits 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments? 

III. Background 

A. Legal Authority 

B. What is the purpose and scope of this 

action? 

C. Where in the Code of Federal 

Regulations will these changes appear? 

IV. Summary of Proposed Changes Based on 

Periodic Review of the MSW Landfills 

NSPS Under the CAA 

V. What analyses did the EPA conduct to 

determine BSER? 

A. Review of Control Technology 

B. What data and control criteria did the 

EPA consider in evaluating potential 

changes to the timing of installing, 

expanding, and removing the GCCS? 

C. What control options did the EPA 

consider? 

D. What are the implementation concerns 

with changing the design capacity 

criteria? 

E. What are the implementation concerns 

with reducing the NMOC threshold? 

F. What are the implementation concerns 

with shortening the initial or expansion 

lag times? 

G. Request for Comment on BSER 

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes Based 

on Review of the NSPS 

A. What are the environmental impacts 

and costs associated with the baseline? 

B. How did the EPA determine which 

control option to propose? 

VII. Summary of Clarifications and 

Resolutions That Are the Result of 

Implementation Activity 

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and 

Treatment System and Treatment System 

Monitoring 

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

Provisions 

C. Closed Areas 

D. Surface Monitoring 

E. Electronic Reporting 

F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements 

G. Requirements for Updating the Design 

Plan 

H. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline 

Requests 

I. Other Corrections and Clarifications 

VIII. Rationale for the Clarifications and 

Resolutions That Are the Result of 

Implementation Activity 

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and 

Treatment System and Treatment System 

Monitoring 

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

Provisions 

C. Closed Areas 

D. Surface Monitoring 

E. Electronic Reporting 

F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements 

G. Requirements for Updating Design Plan 

H. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline 

Requests 

I. Other Corrections and Clarifications 

IX. Request for Comment on Specific 

Provisions 

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and 

Treatment System and Treatment System 

Monitoring 

B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements 

C. Enhanced Surface Monitoring 

Requirements 

D. Alternative Emission Threshold 

Determination Techniques 

X. Impacts of Proposed Revisions 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

B. What are the water quality and solid 

waste impacts? 

C. What are the secondary air impacts? 

D. What are the energy impacts? 

E. What are the cost impacts? 

F. What are the economic impacts? 

G. What are the benefits? 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41798 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1The EPA believes that it has the legal authority 

in updating an NSPS to either propose and make 

changes to the existing subpart or to promulgate a 

new subpart and has previously done both. In either 

case, any substantive changes to the NSPS will 

apply only to sources for which construction, 

reconstruction, or modification commenced on or 

after the date on which the proposed changes were 

published in the Federal Register. 

H. What are the health and welfare effects 

of LFG emissions? 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

The EPA has conducted an initial 

review of the Standards of Performance 

for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

(landfill new source performance 

standards or landfills NSPS). The EPA’s 

review is ongoing and will be informed 

by, among other matters, comments 

received on today’s proposed action. 

Based on its initial review, the EPA is 

proposing a number of changes to the 

existing landfills NSPS. In order to 

avoid possible confusion regarding 

which MSW landfills would actually be 

subject to any revised, or new, 

requirements, the EPA is establishing a 

new subpart XXX (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart XXX) rather than merely 

updating existing subpart WWW (40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW). The 

requirements in new subpart XXX will 

apply to MSW landfills for which 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction is commenced on or after 

July 17, 2014. The requirements in 

subpart WWW will continue to apply to 

MSW landfills on which construction, 

modification or reconstruction was 

commenced on or after May 30, 1991 

and before July 17, 2014. Note that this 

preamble uses both of the terms ‘‘MSW 

landfills’’ and ‘‘landfills’’ to refer to 

MSW landfills. 

1. Need for Regulatory Action 

Several factors led to today’s 

proposed action. First, section 111 of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 

§ 7411) requires the EPA to review 

standards of performance at least every 

8 years and, if appropriate, revise the 

standards to reflect improvements in 

methods for reducing emissions. 

Second, a mandatory duty lawsuit was 

filed against EPA for failure to review 

the NSPS by the statutorily required 

deadline. Under a consent decree 

resolving that lawsuit, the EPA agreed to 

propose a review and take final action 

on the proposal. Third, the EPA has 

concluded that landfill owners and 

operators, as well as regulators, need 

clarification regarding issues that have 

arisen during implementation of the 

existing standards. Implementation 

issues include the definition of landfill 

gas treatment, among other topics. 

2. Legal Authority 

CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 

§ 7411(b)(1)(B)) requires the EPA to ‘‘at 

least every 8 years review and, if 

appropriate, revise’’ new source 

performance standards. CAA section 

111(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(1)) 

provides that performance standards are 

to ‘‘reflect the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the 

application of the best system of 

emission reduction which (taking into 

account the cost of achieving such 

reduction and any nonair quality health 

and environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated.’’ We refer to this level of 

control as the best system of emission 

reduction or ‘‘BSER.’’ 

As indicated above, the EPA has 

decided to propose its review of the 

landfill NSPS in a new subpart rather 

than update existing requirements in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW. The EPA 

believes that either approach is legally 

permissible.1 Proposed subpart XXX 

would appear in 40 CFR part 60 and 

would apply to landfills that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification on or after July 17, 2014. 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

The proposed new subpart retains the 

same design capacity threshold but 

reduces the non-methane organic 

compounds (NMOC) emission threshold 

at which MSW landfills must install 

controls. The new subpart also resolves 

or clarifies issues that the EPA and 

stakeholders identified during 

implementation of the current landfills 

NSPS. 

Thresholds for installing controls. 

Under the current NSPS, an MSW 

landfill that has a design capacity of 2.5 

million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million 

cubic meters (m3) must install and start 

up a gas collection control system 

within 30 months after landfill gas 

emissions reach or exceed a level of 50 

Mg NMOC per year. (A megagram is also 

known as a metric ton, which is equal 

to 1.1 U.S. short tons or about 2,205 

pounds.) The current NSPS is referred 

to as the ‘‘baseline’’ in this document. 

Proposed subpart XXX retains the same 

design capacity threshold as the 

baseline, but reduces the NMOC 

emission threshold to 40 Mg/yr. The 

owner or operator of a landfill may 

control the gas by routing it to a nonenclosed flare, an enclosed combustion 

device, or a treatment system that 

processes the collected gas for 

subsequent sale or beneficial use. 

Landfill gas treatment. The EPA is 

addressing two issues related to landfill 

gas treatment. First, the EPA is 

proposing to clarify that the use of 

treated landfill gas is not limited to use 

as a fuel for a stationary combustion 

device but also allows other beneficial 

uses such as vehicle fuel, production of 

high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, and 

use as a raw material in a chemical 

manufacturing process. Second, the EPA 

is proposing to clarify what constitutes 

landfill gas treatment. For filtration and 

dewatering, the definition contains 

specific numerical values that would 

provide long-term protection of the 

combustion equipment, which would 

support good combustion. We are also 

proposing to clarify monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements for treatment systems. 

Startup, shutdown and malfunction. 

In today’s action, the EPA is proposing 

that the standards in proposed subpart 

XXX apply at all times, including 

periods of startup or shutdown, and 

periods of malfunction. In addition, to 

enable the EPA to determine the 

severity of an emissions exceedance for 

periods when the gas collection system 

or a control device is not operating, the 

EPA is proposing to add a 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirement for landfill owners or 

operators to estimate emissions during 

such periods. 

Other clarifications. The EPA is 

proposing other clarifications to address 

issues that have been raised by landfill 

owners or operators during 

implementation of the current NSPS. 

These other clarifications include 

improvements to criteria for exempting 

areas from collection and control, 

adding criteria for when an affected 

source must update its design plan, and 

clarifying when landfill owners or 

operators must submit corrective action 

timeline requests. We intend to address 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41799 

2 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. 

clarifications and other implementation 

issues for existing landfills in a separate 

rulemaking. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

An MSW landfill owner or operator is 

expected to install the least-cost control 

for collecting and combusting landfill 

gas. The control costs include the costs 

to install and operate a GCCS. For 

certain landfills that were expected to 

generate revenue by using the landfill 

gas for energy, revenue from electricity 

sales was incorporated into the net 

control costs. The annualized costs also 

include testing and monitoring costs. 

Proposed subpart XXX, which 

tightens the NMOC emissions threshold 

from 50 to 40 Mg/yr NMOC, would 

achieve reductions of 79 Mg NMOC/yr 

and 12,300 Mg methane/yr (about 

307,600 Mg CO2e/yr) beyond the 

baseline in year 2023. The associated 

annualized net cost for proposed 

subpart XXX is estimated to be an 

additional $471,000 (2012$) in 2023. 

The EPA expects that the avoided 

emissions will result in improvements 

in air quality and reduce health effects 

associated with exposure to air 

pollution related emissions, and result 

in climate co-benefits due to reductions 

of the methane component of landfill 

gas. However, because this rulemaking 

is not an ‘‘economically significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 because it is not likely to 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more, we have not 

conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) or a benefits analysis. The 

baseline NSPS in effect today is 

estimated to achieve a reduction of 610 

Mg/yr NMOC and 94,800 Mg/yr 

methane (about 2.4 million Mg/yr CO2e) 

in 2023, compared to the absence of 

control (see section VI.A. of this 

preamble and the Economic Impact 

Analysis for more detail). The 

associated annualized net cost of the 

baseline is estimated to be $2.7 million 

($2012) in 2023. 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This proposal affects municipal solid 

waste (MSW) landfills and associated 

solid waste management programs. 

Affected categories and entities include 

those listed in Table 1 of this preamble. 

TABLE 1—REGULATED ENTITIES

Category NAICSa 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 Administration of air 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 

regulated by the new subpart. To 

determine whether your facility would 

be regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria in proposed 40 CFR 60.760 of 

subpart XXX. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of the 

proposed subpart to a particular entity, 

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 specific 

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 docket. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

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 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–2003–0215. 

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. 

2. Docket 

The docket number for the municipal 

solid waste landfills new source 

performance standards (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart XXX) is Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0215. Docket ID No. A– 

88–09 contains supporting information 

for related 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

WWW and Cc. 

III. Background 

In June 2013, President Obama issued 

a Climate Action Plan which, among 

other matters, directed the EPA and five 

other federal agencies to develop a 

comprehensive interagency strategy to 

reduce methane emissions. The plan 

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 

emissions data, addressing data gaps, 

identifying technologies and best 

practices for reducing emissions and 

identifying existing authorities and 

incentive-based opportunities to reduce 

methane emissions.’’ 

As a follow up to the 2013 Climate 

Action Plan, the Climate Action Plan: 

Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions 

(the Methane Strategy) was released in 

March 2014. The focus on reducing 

methane emissions is due to the fact 

that methane is a potent GHG with a 

global warming potential that is 25 

times greater than carbon dioxide.2

Methane has an atmospheric life of 12 

years, and because of its potency as a 

GHG and its atmospheric life, reducing 

methane emissions achieves a near-term 

beneficial impact in mitigating global 

climate change. 

The targeted strategy noted that the 

landfill standards at issue here and 

voluntary programs already in place 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41800 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce 

Methane Emissions. March 2014. p.5. http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_

reduce_methane_emissions_2014-03-28_final.pdf. 

4Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills—Background Information for Proposed 

Standards and Guidelines, U.S. EPA (EPA–450/3– 

90–011a) (NTIS PB 91–197061) page 2–15. 

5 ‘‘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’’). 

have considerably reduced methane 

emissions.3 With respect to landfills, the 

Methane 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, issuance of an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) to explore 

options to address emissions from 

existing landfills, and encouragement of 

beneficial use through voluntary 

programs. 

The EPA has long recognized the 

climate benefits associated with 

reducing methane emissions from 

landfills. In the 1991 Landfill NSPS 

Background Information Document 4 the 

EPA noted that reduction of methane 

emissions from MSW landfills is one of 

the many options available to reduce 

possible global warming. When the EPA 

promulgated the NSPS for MSW 

landfills, which regulates MSW landfill 

emissions (commonly referred to as 

landfill gas), in 1996, the EPA noted the 

co-benefits of controlling methane, but 

recognized the then relatively limited 

understanding of GHG and their effect 

on global climate change (61 FR 9917, 

March 12, 1996). In 1996, we stated: 

An ancillary benefit from regulating air 

emissions from MSW landfills is a reduction 

in the contribution of MSW landfill 

emissions to global emissions of methane. 

Methane is a major greenhouse gas, and is 20 

to 30 times more potent than CO2 on a 

molecule-per-molecule basis. There is a 

general concern within the scientific 

community that the increasing emissions of 

greenhouse gases could lead to climate 

change, although the rate and magnitude of 

these changes are uncertain. 

Since 1996, the EPA and the scientific 

community have gained a better 

understanding of GHGs, such as 

methane, and their effects on climate 

change and human health and welfare. 

In 2009, the EPA Administrator issued 

the document known as the 

Endangerment Finding under CAA 

section 202(a)(1).5 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 in the 

atmosphere may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger the public 

health and welfare of current and future 

generations. 

There is now scientific consensus that 

GHGs affect climate change and, as 

recognized by the President in the 

Methane Strategy, this scientific 

consensus increases the need for the 

EPA to examine regulatory options for 

reducing methane emissions. The EPA 

is currently reviewing the MSW 

Landfills NSPS in light of the 

President’s Climate Action Plan, the 

Methane Strategy, and improvements in 

the science related to GHG emissions, 

and is exploring opportunities to 

achieve additional reductions in 

emissions, including methane 

emissions. 

A. Legal Authority 

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires the EPA Administrator 

to list categories of 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). The 

EPA must then issue performance 

standards for new (and modified or 

reconstructed) sources in each source 

category. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(B). 

These standards are referred to as new 

source performance standards or NSPS. 

The EPA has the authority to define the 

scope of the source categories, 

determine the pollutants for which 

standards should be developed, set the 

emission level of the standards, and 

distinguish among classes, type and 

sizes within categories in establishing 

the standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b). 

On March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905), 

under the authority 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 

anticipated to endanger public health 

and welfare. In that same notice, the 

EPA promulgated new source 

performance standards, which apply to 

new (and modified or reconstructed) 

landfills under the authority of CAA 

section 111(b)(1)(B), and emission 

guidelines, which apply to existing 

landfills, under the authority of CAA 

section 111(d). In the March 12, 1996 

notice, the EPA defined the MSW 

landfills source category, identified 

municipal solid waste landfill emissions 

(commonly referred to as landfill gas) as 

the pollutant for which standards 

should be developed, identified which 

landfills would be covered, and 

determined the applicability thresholds 

and emission level of the standards. 

CAA section 111(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 

§ 7411(a)(1)) provides that standards of 

performance are to ‘‘reflect the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

the application of the best system of 

emission reduction which (taking into 

account the cost of achieving such 

reduction and any nonair quality health 

and environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated.’’ We refer to this level of 

control as the best system of emission 

reduction or BSER. When promulgated 

in 1996, BSER for MSW landfills was 

determined to be a well designed and 

well operated LFG collection and 

control system with a control device 

capable of reducing NMOC by 98 

percent by weight. NMOC was 

established as a surrogate for LFG in the 

final rule. 

The CAA also requires the EPA to 

review the NSPS at least every 8 years 

to determine if the level of control that 

was previously established remains 

appropriate. Specifically, CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(B)) 

requires the EPA to ‘‘at least every 8 

years review and, if appropriate, revise’’ 

standards of performance. The 

Administrator need not review a 

standard, however, if the 

‘‘Administrator determines that such 

review is not appropriate in light of 

readily available information on the 

efficacy’’ of the standard. While not 

required to do so, the EPA has authority 

to revise an NSPS to add emission limits 

for pollutants or emission sources not 

currently regulated for that source 

category concurrent with its review of 

the NSPS (77 FR 49494, August 16, 

2012). 

In determining BSER, we typically 

conduct a review that identifies what 

emission reduction systems exist and 

how much they reduce air pollution in 

practice. Next, for each control system 

identified, we evaluate its costs, energy 

requirements, and any nonair quality 

health and environmental impacts. 

Based on our evaluation, we determine 

BSER for each pollutant to be regulated 

and establish an appropriate standard of 

performance based on the identified 

BSER. The resultant standard is usually 

expressed either as a numerical 

emissions limit, e.g., parts per million 

(ppm) or pounds per million British 

thermal unit (lb/MMBtu), or a percent 

reduction requirement. Although the 

standards are based on the identified 

BSER, the EPA may not require the use 

of a particular technology to comply 

with a performance standard unless the 

Administrator determines that it is not 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41801 

feasible to prescribe or enforce a 

standard of performance. (CAA 

111(b)(5), 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(5).) Thus, 

except in rare circumstances, sources 

remain free to select any control 

measures that will meet the 

requirements of the standard(s). Upon 

promulgation, an NSPS becomes a 

national standard with which all new, 

reconstructed, and modified sources 

must comply. (CAA 111(e), 42 U.S.C. 

7411(e).) 

B. What is the purpose and scope of this 

action? 

The purpose of this action is (1) to 

review the MSW landfills NSPS, (2) to 

propose a resolution or to provide 

clarification regarding implementation 

issues that were addressed in prior 

proposed rules published on May 23, 

2002 (67 FR 36475) and September 8, 

2006 (71 FR 53271), as they apply to 

new sources, and (3) to take comment 

on specific aspects of EPA’s review that 

will be considered in promulgating the 

final NSPS standard. These proposed 

revisions appear in the proposed 40 CFR 

part 60 subpart XXX. 

Many changes have occurred in the 

landfill industry since the landfills 

NSPS was originally promulgated in 

1996 that have necessitated this review. 

Among the factors contributing to the 

need for review are the following: 

Changes in landfill characteristics (i.e., 

size, ownership, age) and population; 

proliferation of landfill gas energy 

projects; the availability of more 

comprehensive data on landfills from 

mandatory (Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program (GHGRP)) and voluntary EPA 

programs; and the introduction of new 

techniques for monitoring landfill gas 

emissions. The number and size 

distribution of MSW landfills in the 

United States has also evolved since 

1996. Public opposition to local MSW 

disposal facilities and the increasing 

cost of disposal at locations near where 

the waste is generated have resulted in 

consolidation and led to an increase in 

long-distance hauls to large regional 

landfills. As a result, the corresponding 

emission profiles and per landfill 

compliance costs have also changed. 

The number of landfill gas to energy 

projects has also increased substantially. 

In 1996, there were approximately 160 

operational landfill gas energy projects 

and approximately 700 candidate 

landfills according to data obtained by 

the EPA Landfill Methane Outreach 

Program (LMOP). According to LMOP, 

as of March 2014, there were 636 

operational projects using landfill gas to 

produce energy and 450 landfills that 

remain candidates for energy recovery. 

LMOP is a voluntary assistance program 

that encourages recovery and beneficial 

use of landfill gas, and in turn, helps to 

reduce methane emissions from 

landfills. During our review, the EPA 

has also become aware of techniques 

and procedures for monitoring landfill 

gas emissions that were not available at 

the time of the original rule. 

The EPA is required to review the 

MSW Landfills NSPS and sections IV, 

V, and VI of this preamble present our 

initial determinations. In addition, the 

EPA has determined that it is 

appropriate to propose a revised NSPS 

based on these initial determinations. 

This action also provides clarification 

regarding issues that arose during the 

implementation of the current landfills 

regulations and proposes regulatory text 

addressing some of those issues. We 

addressed these issues in previous 

notices as published on May 23, 2002 

(67 FR 36475) and September 8, 2006 

(71 FR 53271). These issues include the 

definition of landfill gas treatment and 

other topics such as surface monitoring, 

how to address closed areas of landfills 

and when to allow removal of controls. 

Although the cited notices addressed 

these issues in the context of subparts 

Cc and WWW, the clarifications and 

resolutions discussed in sections VII 

and VIII of this preamble would affect 

only landfills that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification on or after July 17, 2014. 

The EPA plans to address 

amendments and clarifications resulting 

from implementation activities for 

landfills subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW and state or federal plans 

implementing subpart Cc in a separate 

action. 

This action also requests comment on 

specific aspects of the EPA’s review, the 

consideration of which will be integral 

to the EPA in taking final action to 

promulgate a new NSPS. These 

provisions include landfill gas 

treatment, wellhead monitoring, and 

surface monitoring. See section IX of 

this preamble for a discussion of those 

provisions. 

C. Where in the Code of Federal 

Regulations will these changes appear? 

The EPA is proposing to add new 

subpart XXX to 40 CFR part 60. Subpart 

XXX would apply to landfills that 

commence construction, reconstruction, 

or modification on or after July 17, 2014. 

Proposed subpart XXX in 40 CFR part 

60 contains a revision to the NMOC 

emission rate threshold, as well as 

provisions that provide clarification and 

proposed resolutions to technical and 

implementation issues. 

IV. Summary of Proposed Changes 

Based on Periodic Review of the MSW 

Landfills NSPS Under the CAA 

The EPA is proposing to reduce the 

NMOC emission rate threshold for 

installing and operating a gas collection 

and control system to 40 Mg/yr from the 

current NSPS level of 50 Mg/yr. The 

proposal retains the design capacity 

cutoff of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million 

cubic meters that appears in subpart 

WWW. See sections V and VI of this 

preamble for a discussion of the 

proposed rule changes. The new subpart 

also resolves or clarifies issues that the 

EPA and stakeholders identified during 

implementation of the current landfills 

NSPS. 

The EPA is proposing this revised 

emission threshold that takes into 

account the total methane emission 

reductions that can be achieved in 

addition to the reductions of NMOC 

emissions that are realized when the 

GCCS is installed at an earlier point in 

time. While the proposal continues to 

require measurement of NMOC as a 

surrogate for landfill gas, the EPA 

asserts that the methane reductions 

achieved are consistent with the 

President’s Methane Strategy as 

described in section III of this preamble. 

V. What analyses did the EPA conduct 

to determine BSER? 

The EPA first undertook a review to 

determine whether a well designed and 

well operated landfill GCCS, which EPA 

previously determined was BSER for 

controlling landfill gas, remains BSER 

for that purpose. The EPA considered 

GCCSs, as well as other emission 

control technologies that are either 

currently in place at landfills, or could 

be adopted, and considered the 

emission reductions achieved by those 

systems. Based on this analysis, the EPA 

determined that a well designed and 

operated landfill GCCS remains BSER. 

The EPA then undertook an analysis to 

determine whether applying the existing 

criteria for installing and operating a 

landfill GCCS to the expected 

population of new MSW landfills 

remains the preferred approach to 

implementing BSER. To do so, the EPA 

developed and applied a model program 

in Microsoft® Access to revisit the 

design capacity cutoff, the NMOC 

emission rate cutoff, and the time 

allowed for installing and expanding a 

gas collection system. In addition to 

reviewing the thresholds that determine 

the schedule for installing and 

expanding the GCCS system, the EPA 

also reviewed whether the schedule for 

removing the GCCS needed adjustment 

(see section V.A of this preamble). For 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41802 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6 In developing the current NSPS, the EPA 

determined that in order to set a performance 

standard such as a collection efficiency for the gas 

collection system it would be necessary to quantify 

the landfill gas available for collection in 

comparison to the amount collected and that it was 

not technically feasible to measure the amount of 

gas available for collection. On that basis, the EPA 

concluded that it was necessary to establish a 

design and operation standard for the gas collection 

system (56 FR 24484, May 30, 1991). 7Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills-Background Information for Proposed 

Standards and Guidelines, U.S. EPA (EPA–450/3– 

90–011a) (NTIS PB 91–197061). 

the above analyses, the EPA compared 

the environmental benefits and 

corresponding costs that are expected to 

be achieved under various control 

options to the environmental benefits 

and corresponding costs that are 

expected to be achieved under the 

baseline. 

A. Review of Control Technology 

Prior to promulgation of the MSW 

landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW) in 1996, we conducted a review 

that identified the existing types of 

emission control systems being used 

and the corresponding emission 

reductions that were being achieved in 

practice. Based on that evaluation, we 

determined BSER to be: (1) A well 

designed and well operated landfill 

GCCS and (2) a control device capable 

of reducing NMOC in the collected gas 

by 98 percent by weight (56 FR 24468, 

May 30, 1991 and 61 FR 9914, March 

12, 1996). For BSER, we set design and 

operating standards for the gas 

collection system and set an emission 

limit for the control system. Then, we 

established a schedule for installing and 

then expanding the GCCS based on the 

landfill’s design capacity (2.5 million 

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic 

meters) and the estimated NMOC 

emissions rate (50 Mg/yr). 

The current technology review shows 

that the same types of collection and 

control systems reviewed in 1996 (see 

Docket ID No. A–88–09) continue to be 

prominently used to reduce landfill gas 

emissions and the design and 

operational standards promulgated in 

1996 continue to be robust. Section VI 

of this preamble discusses our findings 

resulting from consideration of potential 

revisions affecting the criteria and 

schedule for installing and then 

expanding the GCCS. We undertook this 

evaluation to determine if the 

thresholds associated with BSER 

established in 1996 are still relevant 

today, ‘‘taking into account the cost of 

achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental 

impact and energy requirements’’ in 

accordance with CAA section 111(a)(1). 

In 1996, the EPA set design and 

operational standards in subpart WWW 

for the GCCS and an emission limit for 

the control device (61 FR 9907; March 

12, 1996).6 Subpart WWW established 

design criteria for both horizontal and 

vertical collection systems because both 

types of systems are used. The criteria 

ensure that owners and operators 

design, construct, and operate gas 

collection systems to maximize 

collection and minimize emissions of 

landfill gas. Landfill GCCS designed 

according to these criteria are expected 

to, at a minimum: (1) Be capable of 

handling the maximum gas generation 

rate, (2) have a design that provides for 

monitoring and adjusting the operation 

of the system, (3) be able to collect gas 

effectively from all areas of the landfill 

that warrant control, and (4) be 

expandable through the addition of 

further collection system components to 

collect gas from new areas of the landfill 

as they require control. Within 1 year of 

reaching or exceeding an NMOC 

emission rate of 50 Mg/yr, landfill 

owners and operators must submit (or 

update in the case of modification or 

reconstruction) a collection and control 

system design plan prepared by a 

professional engineer to the EPA or 

delegated authority for approval. 

Gas collection system technology 

review. Our review shows that a gas 

collection system comprising gas 

collection wells, horizontal or vertical 

piping, and blowers continues to be the 

most common technology used to 

collect landfill gas, regardless of 

whether a landfill is complying with 

subpart WWW, state or local 

regulations, or voluntarily controlling 

landfill gas for other reasons. Landfills 

continue to collect landfill gas using gas 

collection systems that are similar to the 

types of systems described in the 

background information of the 1996 

landfill NSPS and emission guidelines 

proposal.7 As of 2013, hundreds of 

landfills have installed collection 

systems to comply with subpart WWW. 

The EPA is also aware that many 

landfill owners and operators have 

installed collection systems on a 

voluntary basis. As of 2013, 

approximately 500 landfills voluntarily 

collect and control landfill gas using the 

same technologies required by subpart 

WWW. The EPA estimated this number 

by comparing the list of landfills that 

are modeled to have installed a GCCS in 

2014 in the NSPS/EG dataset to the list 

of landfills that are reported to have a 

GCCS installed in the LMOP database. 

See section V.B of this preamble for a 

discussion of the dataset of landfills and 

corresponding model that the EPA used 

to examine the potential impact of 

changes to the landfills NSPS. The 

LMOP database is a voluntary national 

database of landfills and landfill gas 

energy projects, including information 

on which landfills have a GCCS in 

place. 

Landfill owners and operators collect 

landfill gas for a variety of reasons: To 

control odor, to minimize fire and 

explosion hazards, to recover landfill 

gas to be used for energy recovery, to 

sell carbon credits, and to comply with 

local, state, or federal air quality 

standards. Landfill owners and 

operators are motivated to design and 

operate their landfill gas collection 

systems to efficiently collect and control 

landfill gas and they continue to install 

a gas collection system comprising gas 

collection wells, horizontal or vertical 

piping, and blowers to collect and 

control landfill gas. 

Gas collection system as BSER. For 

this NSPS review, the EPA is proposing 

that the combination of design and 

operational criteria in subpart WWW 

continue to ensure that the collection 

system efficiently collects landfill gas 

and that a gas collection and control 

system meeting these criteria continues 

to represent BSER for MSW landfills 

that commence construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

July 17, 2014. The EPA is also proposing 

that a combined design and operation 

standard for the gas collection system 

remains the best format for the rule. In 

developing subpart WWW, the EPA 

determined that in order to set a 

performance standard such as a 

collection efficiency for the gas 

collection system it would be necessary 

to quantify the landfill gas available for 

collection in comparison to the amount 

collected and that it was not technically 

feasible to measure the amount of gas 

available for collection. On that basis, 

the EPA concluded that it was necessary 

to establish a design and operation 

standard for the gas collection system 

(56 FR 24484, May 30, 1991). The EPA 

has not determined that the 

circumstances have changed so as to 

require the establishment of a standard 

of performance for the gas collection 

system. (CAA section 111(h)(3), 42 

U.S.C. 7411(h)(3).) Therefore, for the gas 

collection system, the EPA proposes to 

maintain the design and operational 

standards in subpart WWW in subpart 

XXX. 

Gas control system technology review. 

As part of the BSER review prior to 

promulgation of subpart WWW in 1996, 

we conducted a technology review that 

identified the existing types of emission 

control systems, emerging technologies, 

and the emission reductions achieved in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41803 

8Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills—Background Information for Final 

Standards and Guidelines, EPA–453/R–94–021. 

EPA Office of Air and Radiation/Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Emission 

Standards Division, December 1995, page 2–79. 

9U.S. EPA, Parameters for Properly Designed and 

Operated Flares, Report for Flare Review Panel, 

April 2012. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/flare/

2012flaretechreport.pdf. 

10SCS Engineers, Technology and Management 

Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 

Prepared for California Integrated Waste 

Management Board. Prepared by SCS Engineers. 

April 2008. 

practice by those systems. Properly 

operated GCCS reducing NMOC by 98 

percent by weight had been 

demonstrated on landfills of the size 

affected by subpart WWW. The EPA 

selected a reduction of 98 percent as the 

level representing BSER for control of 

landfill gas because this is the level 

achievable by demonstrated 

technologies. Based on this analysis, the 

EPA selected 98 percent reduction, 

expressed as a performance level (i.e., a 

rate-based standard or percent control), 

as the appropriate BSER-based standard. 

The EPA determined that this level was 

reasonable considering costs, nonair 

quality health and environmental 

impacts, and energy requirements.8

Subpart XXX, therefore, requires all 

control devices to demonstrate 98 

percent reduction by weight of NMOC 

or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmvd 

of NMOC, as hexane. Enclosed 

combustion devices have the option of 

reducing emissions to 20 parts per 

million, dry volume. 

Each of the estimated 1,000 gas 

collection systems in place today, both 

required and voluntary, has an 

associated combustion device used to 

control emissions of landfill gas. At a 

minimum, landfills employ a flare to 

combust the gas. Both open and 

enclosed flares were determined to be 

among BSER combustion devices and 

these technologies continue to be used 

today. The following combustion 

controls can achieve at least 98 percent 

destruction of NMOCs and we propose 

that they continue to represent BSER: 

Enclosed flares and incinerators, and 

devices that burn landfill gas to recover 

energy, such as boilers, turbines, and 

internal combustion engines. The EPA 

continues to believe that 98 percent 

reduction is appropriate because this 

continues to be the level achievable by 

demonstrated technologies. Current data 

are consistent with 98 percent 

destruction. However, we request 

comment and additional data on the 

NMOC destruction efficiency of 

incinerators and devices that burn 

landfill gas to recover energy, such as 

boilers, turbines, and internal 

combustion engines. 

Non-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 

landfill gas 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.’’ 9 In this 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. Nevertheless, 

none of the flare performance data used 

in this report comes from flares used at 

MSW landfills, and it 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, while we 

have no new information to suggest that 

flares at MSW landfills complying with 

40 CFR 60.18(b) will not achieve at least 

98 percent destruction of NMOCs (and 

methane), we solicit comments and 

additional information on flare 

performance specifically for this source 

category in order to determine whether 

non-enclosed flares continue to 

represent BSER for new landfills. 

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 

emission minimization practices; and 

existing flare monitoring systems. 

Gas control system as BSER. Based on 

the above, for this stage of the NSPS 

review, the EPA has determined that a 

control system designed and operated 

within the parameters demonstrated in 

the performance test to reduce NMOC 

(and, in turn, methane) by 98 percent by 

weight or reduction to 20 parts per 

million by volume, continues to 

represent BSER for controlling landfill 

gas emissions. Therefore, the EPA 

proposes in subpart XXX to maintain 

the current performance standard from 

subpart WWW for the gas control 

system. 

Other current technologies. The EPA 

is also considering emission control 

technologies or practices other than 

GCCS that are currently in place as part 

of its review. The EPA qualitatively 

evaluated the emission reductions 

achieved by those systems in practice 

and also considered whether such 

technologies or practices could be relied 

upon in establishing a standard of 

performance under CAA section 111. 

The EPA reviewed several best 

management practices (BMPs) for GCCS 

that may achieve greater reductions in 

landfill gas emissions than a well 

designed and well operated system 

alone. The EPA reviewed these BMPs to 

determine if and how they could be 

incorporated into subpart XXX in 

conjunction with the current 

performance-based standard. 

One BMP the EPA considered was 

collecting landfill gas from leachate 

removal systems in order to control 

landfill gas that exists below the waste 

mass along the bottom of the landfill. 

The EPA is aware of landfills with 

leachate recirculation systems that have 

connected the landfill gas 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.10 The efficiency 

of capturing LFG emissions through this 

BMP depends on the efficiency of both 

the gas collection system and the 

leachate recirculation system. Proposed 

40 CFR 60.762(b)(2)(i)(D) 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 to include 

collection of landfill gas from leachate 

collection systems. However, since we 

do not currently have sufficient 

information on the efficacy of collecting 

gas from leachate removal systems in 

circumstances that do not include 

leachate recirculation and since the use 

of leachate recirculation is not prevalent 

in the landfill industry, the EPA does 

not currently consider this BMP to be 

part of BSER for controlling landfill gas, 

including methane, emissions. The EPA 

does, however, request comments on the 

efficacy and costs of enhancing gas 

collection systems to collect LFG from 

leachate removal or storage systems. 

The EPA also requests comment 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 and 

when the use of an enhanced gas 

collection system that collects landfill 

gas from the leachate removal system 

may be appropriate. 

Another BMP the EPA considered is 

requiring a gas collection system to 

prevent waterlogged wells, perhaps 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41804 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11ARCADIS. Quantifying Methane Abatement 

Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills. Prepared for USEPA/ORD. January 2012. 

12U.S. EPA. Available and Emerging 

Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 

June 2011. 

13Buske, D. and M. Lannan. The Biofilter Effect 

on Landfill Gas Capture. 2009 SWANA Landfill Gas 

Symposium Proceedings. 

14 Gebert, J.; and Groengroeft, A., 2006, 

‘‘Performance of a passively vented field-scale 

biofilter for the microbial oxidation of landfill 

methane’’. Waste Management Research 26: 399– 

407. 

15USEPA. Available and Emerging Technologies 

for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. June 2011. http:// 

www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/landfills.pdf. 

through the use of leachate removal 

pumps. Leachate and condensate can 

accumulate in collection wells, blocking 

landfill gas capture. Because a flooded 

well cannot collect gas, fixing a flooded 

well would have a high emission 

reduction potential. Wellhead operating 

parameters in proposed subpart XXX 

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 would help identify any 

inoperable wells resulting from 

flooding. The proposed surface 

emissions monitoring would also 

identify any elevated methane levels 

resulting from an inoperable well. The 

EPA has determined that the operating 

requirements in proposed subpart XXX 

provide a sufficient system to detect and 

correct waterlogged wells and thus 

ensure that the gas collection system is 

well operated. 

The EPA does not currently consider 

requiring that the gas collection system 

be operated in such a way as to prevent 

waterlogged wells, rather than requiring 

that the wells be monitored so as to 

identify any such wells, to be BSER. 

Nonetheless, the EPA requests comment 

on whether the current combination of 

wellhead monitoring and surface 

emission monitoring is sufficient for 

identifying inoperable wells, especially 

in cases where wells have been installed 

for a significant amount of time. If the 

proposed monitoring systems are 

believed to be deficient for identifying 

flooded wells, the EPA also asks for 

comment on whether any additional 

recordkeeping, such as periodic 

measurement of liquid levels in gas 

wells, might be useful in identifying 

flooded wells that are not collecting gas. 

The EPA also considered a BMP of 

requiring redundant seals and enhanced 

sealing materials on wellheads. One 

study includes a forward-looking 

infrared (FLIR) survey suggesting that 

landfill gas wellheads and other surface 

penetrations present high potential for 

concentrated leaks of organic 

compounds.11 The use of advanced 

seals at wellheads may help to ensure 

that the well can apply sufficient 

vacuum to the landfill to facilitate gas 

extraction while preventing leaks of 

landfill gas to the atmosphere. 

Proposed subpart XXX requires the 

preparation of a site-specific design plan 

by a professional engineer, which must 

be approved by the EPA or a delegated 

authority. Because the design plan is not 

prescriptive and instead contains design 

and operational standards that are sitespecific, the design plan has the 

flexibility to determine the appropriate 

number or type of seals in order to 

accommodate the conditions and 

climates at different landfills. The EPA 

believes that this site-specific approach 

is preferable to specifying the use of a 

particular number of seals. This sitespecific approach also provides for 

continued flexibility for future design 

plans to incorporate new sealing 

materials that may be more efficient 

than those currently available today. 

The design plan, coupled with wellhead 

and surface monitoring requirements, 

ensures that leaks from wells are 

minimized. 

With this proposal, the EPA is 

clarifying that all cover penetrations 

must be checked during quarterly 

surface monitoring and this clarification 

would apply to checking around each 

wellhead for any elevated emission 

levels. Proposed subpart XXX requires 

corrective action for any surface 

monitoring reading over 500 ppm. 

Finally, the EPA is taking comment on 

tighter traverse patterns for surface 

monitoring, coupled with more rigorous 

surface maintenance activity, as another 

level of protection against leaks from 

improperly sealed wells. 

Further, one reference indicates that 

many engineers already require two and 

sometimes three seals in a well when 

preparing design plans for GCCS. For all 

of these reasons, the EPA believes that 

a site-specific approach is more effective 

than prescribing the use of a particular 

number of seals or the use of a 

particular type of sealing material. As a 

result, at this point in its review, the 

EPA has determined that the use of 

advanced seals is not a component of 

BSER. The EPA, nevertheless, requests 

comment on whether the use of 

advanced seals should be a component 

of BSER. 

The EPA also reviewed several 

emerging technologies that may achieve 

additional landfill gas emission 

reductions. The EPA evaluated whether 

the technology is adequately 

demonstrated and the extent to which 

the technology could be applied to new 

landfills. 

The EPA considered a number of 

technologies that increase the methane 

oxidation rate of the landfill, thereby 

reducing the amount of methane that 

could escape through the surface of the 

landfill. Co-oxidation of NMOC has 

been observed during use of these 

alternative landfill cover materials, 

which has the potential to reduce odors 

and toxic air pollutants.12 Oxidative 

covers, including biocovers, use 

methanotrophic bacteria to oxidize 

methane into water, carbon dioxide, and 

biomass. A biocover is an additional 

layer of final cover that is typically 

made of two layers, a permeable layer to 

evenly distribute the landfill gas to the 

oxidation media, and a layer of 

oxidation media typically made of soil, 

compost, or other porous media. While 

these innovative final cover practices at 

MSW landfills have the potential for 

achieving a moderate amount of 

methane emission reductions, final 

cover practices are currently addressed 

under Subtitle D of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

and not under the CAA. As a result, the 

EPA does not currently consider them to 

be BSER; however, research indicates 

that biocovers may help to reduce 

emissions of methane, a primary 

constituent of landfill gas. 

Another method for increasing the 

oxidation rate is to route passively 

vented landfill gas through a vessel 

containing methane-oxidizing media, 

commonly referred to as a biofiltration 

cell. Biofilters have been tested for use 

at landfills over only the past 10 to 15 

years, and, although they may achieve 

moderate to high reductions in 

uncontrolled methane emissions, we 

cannot conclude at this time that these 

systems have been adequately 

demonstrated, as we explain below.13 14

Biofiltration cells are feasible for use 

only at small landfills or landfills with 

passive gas collection systems due to 

the size of the biofiltration bed required 

to treat the mixture of air and landfill 

gas. New landfills are expected to be 

large and have active gas collection 

systems to comply with the 

requirements in the proposed subpart 

XXX. In addition, due to the nature of 

passive gas collection systems, this 

technology lacks the ability to control 

and monitor the oxidation of methane in 

the landfill gas.15

No data exist on the long-term 

performance, effectiveness, or 

maintenance requirements of these 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41805 

16 Ibid. 

17Abichou, T, J. Chanton, D. Powelson, ‘‘Field 

Performance of Biocells, Biocovers, and Biofilters to 

Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

Landfills,’’ State University Systems of Florida, 

Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Management March 2006. 

18 Yazdani, R, and Imhoff, P. Contractor’s report 

to CalRecycle: Biocovers at Landfills for Methane 

Emissions Reduction Demonstration. October 2010. 

19U.S. EPA, AP–42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of 

Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: 

Stationary Point and Area Sources. 1995. http://

www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/. 

systems.16 17 18 For these reasons, these 

methane oxidation technologies were 

not considered to be BSER. However, 

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 seeking 

information and data about the longterm performance, effectiveness, and/or 

maintenance requirements of full-scale 

use of biocovers and biofilters, as well 

as comment on appropriate mechanisms 

to monitor the performance of these 

alternatives. Comment is also requested 

on biocover parameters and their effect 

on oxidation. Such parameters may 

include depth, soil characteristics, 

measurement, and their effect on 

percent oxidation. 

B. What data and control criteria did the 

EPA consider in evaluating potential 

changes to the timing of installing, 

expanding, and removing the GCCS? 

To examine the potential impact of 

changes to the timing of initiating 

landfill gas collection and control, the 

EPA developed a dataset of information 

for existing and new landfills, as 

described below, and applied a model to 

assess when controls were needed 

under the baseline control scenario as 

well as various regulatory options. Each 

regulatory option assessed variations in 

the design capacity and emission rate 

thresholds, as well as changes to the 

initial lag time and expansion lag time. 

The ‘‘initial lag time’’ is the time period 

between when the landfill exceeds the 

emission rate threshold and when 

controls are required to be installed and 

started up (30 months in subpart 

WWW). The ‘‘expansion lag time’’ is the 

amount of time allotted for the landfill 

to expand the GCCS into new areas of 

the landfill (5 years for active areas and 

2 years for areas that are closed or at 

final grade in subpart WWW). 

The EPA created a dataset of 

information for existing and new 

landfills, which included landfillspecific data such as landfill open and 

closure year, landfill design capacity, 

landfill design area, and landfill depth. 

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 Landfills Regulations. 

2014.’’ 

The EPA used attributes of these 

existing landfills to develop model 

landfills to represent new landfills 

opening in the first 5 years after subpart 

XXX is proposed (2014–2018). The 

model future landfills were developed 

by evaluating the most recently opened 

existing landfills and assuming that the 

sizes and locations of landfills opening 

in the future would be similar to the 

sizes and locations of landfills that 

opened in the last 8 years with complete 

data (2003–2010). 

The EPA then incorporated technical 

landfill parameters from this dataset, 

such as landfill size, annual waste 

acceptance rate, and open year, into a 

model in order to estimate when each 

landfill would install GCCS under 

various regulatory options. This model 

used a first-order decay equation to 

model the landfill gas emissions (i.e., 

NMOC and methane) from each landfill 

for 50 years following the effective date 

of subpart XXX. 

The EPA programmed a Microsoft®

Access database to calculate the cost 

and emission impacts associated with 

different regulatory options (hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘model’’). To 

determine when landfills exceeded 

regulatory emission thresholds, the 

model uses Tier 1 default values from 

subpart WWW for the methane 

generation potential (L0) and the 

methane generation rate (k), but uses the 

NMOC concentration in ‘‘Compilation 

of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP– 

42 19)’’ for determining when landfills 

would meet the regulatory NMOC 

emissions threshold. The Tier 1 default 

values in subpart WWW for L0 and k are 

conservatively high for the purpose of 

estimating actual emissions; therefore, 

they are used only for estimating 

uncontrolled emissions to determine 

when landfills could exceed the 

threshold and be required to install 

controls. For the average NMOC 

concentration, the model uses the 

default value specified in AP–42. 

Subpart WWW allows the use of Tier 2 

tests to determine NMOC concentration, 

and industry experience suggests the 

majority of landfills have conducted 

Tier 2 tests and obtained estimates that 

are consistent with the AP–42 NMOC 

value; thus, the AP–42 NMOC value was 

deemed to be more representative than 

Tier 1 NMOC values for determining 

when landfills would meet the 

regulatory NMOC emissions threshold 

for installing a landfill GCCS. 

When modeled landfill gas emissions 

for a particular landfill exceeded the 

emission rate threshold, the EPA 

assumed that collection equipment was 

installed and started operating at the 

landfill after the initial lag time 

specified in each option. The EPA also 

assumed that as the landfill was filled 

over time, the landfill would expand the 

GCCS into new areas of waste 

placement in time intervals that 

coincide with the expansion lag time 

specified in each option. 

To determine when controls may be 

capped or removed, and to calculate the 

amount of landfill gas, NMOC, and 

methane collected under each option, 

the model uses L0, k, and NMOC values 

from AP–42 instead of the Tier 1 default 

values. To determine when control 

systems may be removed, subpart 

WWW requires landfills to conduct 

actual measurements of the collected 

gas flow rate and NMOC concentration. 

Because the AP–42 default values are 

more representative of actual emissions 

from landfills than Tier 1 values, they 

are more useful for predicting when a 

landfill would be able to remove its 

control system. For the same reason, 

AP–42 values were used to determine 

actual annual emissions reductions 

achieved by control systems. 

To estimate the costs of each 

regulatory option, the EPA incorporated 

the estimated landfill gas recovery rates 

from the first-order decay equation and 

an estimated well field acreage into a set 

of cost equations based on EPA’s 

Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model 

(LFGcost), version 2.3, which was 

developed by EPA’s LMOP. (LFGcost 

estimates gas collection, flare and 

energy recovery system capital, 

operating, and maintenance costs.) The 

EPA also collected data on monitoring 

and testing costs such as initial 

performance tests, subpart WWW Tier 1 

and Tier 2 calculations, and quarterly 

surface monitoring that were not 

provided in the LFGcost model. 

The capital costs are all presented in 

year 2012 dollars and annualized using 

an interest rate of 7 percent over the 

lifetime of the equipment (typically 15 

years), or in the case of drill 

mobilization costs, the length of time 

between each wellfield expansion. 

These annualized capital costs were 

added to the annual operating and 

maintenance costs estimated by 

LFGcost. The annualized cost includes 

capital requirements related to the 

purchase, installation, operation and 

maintenance of GCCS, and costs related 

to testing and monitoring requirements. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41806 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

For certain landfills that were 

expected to generate revenue by using 

the LFG for energy, the EPA also 

estimated LFG energy recovery rates and 

associated costs to install and operate 

the energy recovery equipment as well 

as the revenue streams from the 

recovered energy. These revenues were 

subtracted from the annualized capital 

and operating and maintenance costs at 

each landfill in order to obtain a net cost 

estimate for each option in each year. 

The emission reduction and cost and 

revenue equations and assumptions are 

detailed in the docketed memorandum, 

‘‘Methodology for Estimating Cost and 

Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills 

Regulations. 2014.’’ 

Often the EPA examines the impacts 

of NSPS at 5 years after rule 

implementation; however, the EPA 

selected 10 years for this landfills NSPS 

review, 2023. Due to the emission 

characteristics of new landfills that 

begin to accept waste in 2014 or after 

and the applicability provisions of the 

NSPS, 5 years would not provide a 

representative population of landfills for 

evaluating alternative standards, and in 

fact none of the modeled landfills 

would be expected to have installed 

controls by year five. Landfills do not 

become subject to the control 

requirements of the NSPS on the date 

that they begin operation. Instead, 

landfills exceeding the design capacity 

threshold become subject to control 

requirements 30 months after the 

emissions exceed the NMOC emission 

threshold. It may take well over 5 years 

for a newly constructed landfill to 

exceed the NMOC threshold, depending 

on the rate of waste acceptance and 

other site-specific factors. Therefore, 

evaluating the impacts of the rule at 5 

years would significantly underestimate 

the impacts that subpart XXX may have 

on affected facilities. 

The EPA recognizes that landfills 

have a unique emissions and emission 

control timeline over their lifetime, 

compared to other stationary sources of 

emissions. The quantity of emission 

reductions achieved and the costs to 

achieve those reductions will vary 

depending on where each landfill is in 

its lifecycle. By year 10 (year 2023), 

landfills in this analysis are further 

along in their lifecycle than they would 

be at year five and over half of the 

modeled landfills have installed 

controls, incurred costs, and achieved 

emission reductions under several 

options the EPA considered in its 

review of the NSPS. 

C. What control options did the EPA 

consider? 

When determining which control 

options would represent BSER, the EPA 

ran many permutations of various 

control options. Some options adjusted 

a single threshold in isolation; for 

example, reducing the NMOC emission 

threshold while keeping the design 

capacity threshold constant, or 

conversely, reducing the design capacity 

threshold while keeping the NMOC 

emission threshold constant. Other 

options adjusted multiple control 

parameters simultaneously, taking into 

account the relationship between the 

parameters. For example, recognizing 

that NMOC emissions are a function of 

waste-in-place, some options that 

significantly reduced the NMOC 

emission threshold also reduced the 

design capacity thresholds to avoid 

situations where the NMOC emission 

threshold would be exceeded long 

before the design capacity threshold. 

Other options increased the design 

capacity threshold while reducing the 

NMOC emission threshold by relatively 

small increments in order to minimize 

the reporting-only burden that would be 

imposed on landfills that had exceeded 

the design capacity threshold, but not 

the NMOC emission threshold, and 

would therefore be reporting, but not 

controlling. 

In addition to adjusting applicability 

and emission control thresholds, other 

model runs varied the initial and/or 

expansion lag times. These variations 

estimated the impacts of requiring 

landfill owners or operators to install 

gas collection systems more quickly 

after crossing each applicable NMOC 

emission threshold. Specifically, some 

model runs assessed the impacts of 

reducing the initial lag time from 30 

months (modeled as 3 years for the 

purpose of this analysis, as discussed in 

the docketed memorandum 

‘‘Methodology for Estimating Cost and 

Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills 

Regulations. 2014’’) to 2 years. Model 

runs varying the expansion lag time 

were also run. For expansion lag times, 

subpart WWW allows 2 years after 

initial waste placement in closed areas 

and 5 years after initial waste placement 

in active areas of the landfill. As a 

result, the actual expansion lag time 

varies by landfill depending on how 

quickly expansion areas are filled and 

closed. Modern large landfill designs 

tend to expand the collection system 5 

years after initial waste placement in 

active areas of the landfill. Based on 

input received during public outreach, 

most modern large landfills do not reach 

final grade within 2 years and a majority 

of landfills are complying with the 5 

year provision. Therefore, a 4-year 

expansion lag time was assumed to 

represent the baseline, as discussed in 

more detail in the docketed 

memorandum ‘‘Methodology for 

Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts 

of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014.’’ A 

shorter expansion lag time of 2 years 

after initial waste placement was 

examined as an alternative regulatory 

option. Some model runs evaluated the 

impacts of reducing both the initial and 

expansion lag times in parallel and 

other model runs evaluated the impacts 

of reduced emission and/or design 

capacity thresholds in conjunction with 

reduced initial and/or expansion lag 

times. 

Preliminary results of the model runs 

showed that the current set of design 

capacity and NMOC emission threshold 

parameters in subpart WWW was the 

most cost effective option in year 2023. 

Options that reduced the NMOC 

emission threshold slightly, either in 

isolation or in conjunction with a 

reduction in the design capacity 

threshold had only a slightly higher cost 

effectiveness than the baseline. See the 

docketed memorandum ‘‘Cost and 

Emissions Impacts Resulting from the 

Landfills NSPS Review. 2014’’ and the 

docketed item ‘‘Modeling Database 

Containing Inputs and Results of 

Proposed Revisions to MSW Landfill 

NSPS. 2014.’’ Options that reduced the 

initial and/or expansion lag times to 2 

years were typically less cost effective 

than the options that reduced the 

NMOC emission threshold. 

Based on the results of the 

preliminary analysis, the EPA presented 

different model runs during Federalism 

consultations and small entity outreach 

that represented the range of variation 

in both the threshold and lag time 

parameters. For the options presented, 

Small entity representatives (SERs) and 

Federalism consultation participants 

provided feedback to the EPA, which 

included implementation concerns with 

varying certain parameters as part of 

this NSPS review, as discussed in the 

following section. The EPA took these 

concerns into consideration when 

developing the set of proposed options 

in this action. 

D. What are the implementation 

concerns with changing the design 

capacity criteria? 

Options that increase the design 

capacity threshold provide some 

opportunities for reduced reporting 

burden; however, these options also 

introduce the potential to miss emission 

reduction opportunities at certain 

landfills that exceed the NMOC 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41807 

emission thresholds but do not meet the 

design capacity thresholds. Further, 

installation of GCCS at landfills with 

design capacities between 2.5 and 3.0 

million Mg are well demonstrated. 

According to the LMOP database, there 

are more than 50 landfills out of 70 in 

this size range that have installed GCCS. 

Options that reduce the design 

capacity threshold without also 

lowering the NMOC emission threshold 

would create additional reporting and 

permitting burden without any 

additional environmental benefit. These 

types of options would not change the 

number of landfills required to control 

emissions, but they would increase the 

number of landfills required to obtain 

an operating permit and also increase 

the number of landfills required to 

complete Tier 1 or Tier 2 emission 

calculations and reports. 

When the EPA promulgated the 2.5 

million Mg design capacity threshold in 

1996, we considered the impact on 

small entities based on public comment 

(61 FR 9910). Today, small entities still 

tend to own smaller sized landfills, 

whereas larger entities tend to own 

larger regional landfills. Approximately 

10 percent of the landfills subject to 

subpart WWW or the MSW landfills 

state or federal plan implementing 

subpart Cc are owned by small entities. 

Further, the cost burden for installing a 

collection and control system is more 

significant for small landfills, which are 

more often owned by small entities, 

than larger landfills. Certain costs to 

construct the gas collection system (e.g., 

flat fees for drill rig mobilization, and 

monitoring and construction costs) 

remain relatively constant regardless of 

the size of the landfill. 

For these reasons, the EPA is not 

proposing any changes to the current 

design capacity threshold of 2.5 million 

Mg and 2.5 million m3. 

E. What are the implementation 

concerns with reducing the NMOC 

threshold? 

The EPA recognizes that NMOC 

emissions are site specific, varying 

widely from landfill to landfill and 

understands that a majority of landfills 

currently affected by subpart WWW 

conduct Tier 2 testing in order to refine 

their NMOC emission estimates before 

installing a GCCS. 

Lowering the NMOC emission 

threshold would result in earlier GCCS 

installations, 13 percent more emission 

reductions, and a dollar-per-Mg cost to 

control NMOC that is higher than the 

baseline ($6,000/Mg NMOC vs. $4,400/ 

Mg NMOC). Despite these higher costs, 

the EPA also recognizes the value of 

reducing methane emissions ($1.50/Mg 

CO2e vs. $1.10/Mg CO2e at baseline) that 

are associated with a lower NMOC 

emission threshold, as discussed in 

sections III and VI.B of this preamble. 

Based on these considerations, among 

others, the EPA is proposing to reduce 

the NMOC emission threshold from 50 

Mg/yr to 40 Mg/yr. See section VI.B of 

this preamble for more details. 

F. What are the implementation 

concerns with shortening the initial or 

expansion lag times? 

The emission reductions achieved by 

reducing the initial or expansion lag 

time are affected by the size of the 

landfill, waste placement patterns, and 

annual acceptance rates. For example, 

the size of the landfill and the filling 

cycle affects how much and when 

emission reductions would be achieved. 

Based on comments received from SERs 

and Federalism consultation 

participants, modern landfill designs 

typically do not reach final grade before 

7 years. Because the landfills NSPS 

allows two options for expanding the 

GCCS (2 years after initial waste 

placement in closed areas and 5 years 

after initial waste placement in active 

areas), any reduction to the 2 year lag 

time for closed areas would not likely 

achieve any actual additional reductions 

from these larger landfills because the 

majority of landfills are complying with 

the 5-year allowance period instead of 

the 2-year allowance period. Modifying 

the 5-year provision may also have a 

limited actual impact on emission 

reductions. Many landfills in wet 

climates install wells ahead of the 5- 

year schedule for odor or energy 

recovery purposes. When examining the 

effects of shortening the lag times, the 

emission reductions vary over the time 

period considered. To visually observe 

how reducing the lag times affects 

emissions and reductions over the 10- 

year period following proposal, see the 

charts comparing emissions from 

reduced lag times in the docketed 

memorandum, ‘‘Cost and Emissions 

Impacts Resulting from the Landfills 

NSPS Review. 2014.’’ 

When isolating the timeframe for 

initial GCCS installation from the other 

control criteria, modeling showed that 

the reductions in year 2023 are lower 

than those estimated to be achieved 

under the current baseline. Although 

the initial GCCS would be installed 

earlier, for example in year 2020, it 

would also be designed slightly smaller 

(i.e., a smaller number of wells) than a 

GCCS installed in a later year. By 2023, 

the system would not have been 

expanded yet, thus, the total amount of 

emission reductions achieved in 2023 

will be less than the baseline until the 

system is expanded in 2024. 

Reducing the expansion lag time 

would achieve a short period of 

modeled reductions during every 

expansion cycle because the GCCS 

would be expanded one year earlier. 

Emission reductions in year 2023 would 

be approximately 27 percent higher than 

an option that did not shorten the 

expansion lag time. However, when 

considered over a 10-year period, the 

additional emission reduction would be 

approximately 8 percent. 

Small entity representatives and 

Federalism consultation participants 

expressed concern about the potential 

shortening of lag times. For details, refer 

to the docketed report ‘‘Summary of 

Small Entity Outreach. 2014.’’ 

According to the commenters, 

reduced lag times would result in the 

installation of more GCCS equipment in 

active fill areas. 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 redrilling of wells. In 

addition, waste in active fill areas 

undergoes significant 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 is not currently accounted for in the 

LFGcost estimates and also increase the 

amount of system downtime. 

In addition to the implementation 

concerns, reducing the lag times would 

require more frequent mobilization of 

drill rig equipment, purchase of GCCS 

infrastructure, and system repairs, 

which could lead to higher costs. In year 

2023, the dollar-per-Mg cost to reduce 

the initial and/or expansion lag times in 

conjunction with reducing the NMOC 

threshold are higher than the options 

that do not adjust the lag times ($6,900 

to $11,300/Mg NMOC vs. $6,000/Mg 

NMOC). This higher cost is due in part 

to the timing of the first round of 

wellfield expansions at these new 

landfills, many of which were modeled 

to expand their systems in 2023, and 

thus incurring additional costs in that 

year to operate both the initial GCCS 

and the first set of expansion wells. 

Small entity representatives and 

Federalism consultation participants 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41808 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

20Barlaz et al., Controls on Landfill Gas 

Collection Efficiency: Instantaneous and Lifetime 

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

1402–03 (Dec. 2009). 

21SCS Engineers, Technology and Management 

Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 

Prepared for California Integrated Waste 

Management Board. 

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 increases the 

chance of subsurface fires. It also leads 

to more frequent exceedances of the 

current wellhead monitoring standards 

for oxygen. In these cases the landfill 

owner or operator would also be 

unlikely to request a higher operating 

value for oxygen because they would 

have difficulty meeting the two criteria 

in proposed 40 CFR 60.763(c) for a 

higher operating value demonstration: A 

higher operating value must not cause 

fires and must not significantly inhibit 

anaerobic decomposition by killing 

methanogens. Neither of these criteria 

would apply to wells located in active 

fill areas. 

Horizontal LFG collection wells may 

provide some relief to these 

implementation concerns that were 

raised by the SERs, while also allowing 

for the wells to be installed more 

quickly after the waste is placed in the 

landfill. These types of wells 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 landfill owners/

operators to monitor the wells. 

Although the horizontal collection 

infrastructure is installed as the waste 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. 

This time period is necessary in order 

to prevent air infiltration in the landfill. 

However, this time period is often 

shorter than the timeframe needed to 

install vertical wells, and can be as short 

as a few months after refuse is buried.20

The EPA is aware of several 

horizontal collector installations, 

including several landfills in 

California 21 and 18 different landfills 

that reported 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 Regulations. 2014’’). 

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 (see section V.G of this 

preamble). Bringing these collectors 

online more quickly and more 

proactively addresses 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. SERs did express some 

implementation concerns with 

horizontal collectors, indicating that 

these systems have a shorter lifetime 

than vertical wells and require more 

frequent replacement. 

For the reasons presented in this 

section, the EPA is not proposing to 

shorten the initial or expansion lag 

times from the lag times codified in 

subpart WWW. However, the EPA 

requests comment on the feasibility and 

potential benefits of reducing either or 

both of the lag times. Specifically, the 

EPA requests comment on the 

practicality, cost, and emission 

reduction implications of installing or 

expanding the wellfield on active areas 

in a shorter timeframe. The EPA 

believes that this may be appropriate 

since horizontal collector systems have 

been installed at several landfills that 

were not in operation when the NSPS 

was originally promulgated in 1996. The 

EPA also requests data and/or comment 

on the potential emission reductions 

and corresponding costs that could 

result from reduced lag times. The EPA 

also notes that the cost analysis 

presented in section X of this preamble 

is based on vertical wells and the EPA 

is interested in any comments and data 

that address any differential in costs 

between these two types of systems. 

G. Request for Comment on BSER 

The EPA is requesting comment on 

several items regarding BSER. EPA is 

requesting comment on the proposed 

design and operational standards for 

new sources that EPA believes are 

necessary to ensure a GCCS is well 

designed and well operated. The EPA is 

requesting comment on additional 

emission control technologies that are in 

place at landfills—other than a GCCS as 

described here—that could be 

considered BSER. We request 

descriptions of such systems, an 

indication of their current use, data 

demonstrating emission reductions, and 

corresponding costs of such systems. 

The EPA is also requesting comment on 

whether a well designed and well 

operated GCCS in conjunction with any 

of the technologies or practices 

discussed in section V.A of this 

preamble should be considered to be 

BSER. 

The EPA is also taking comment on 

whether it should consider reducing the 

design capacity threshold or initial lag 

times for landfills that are located in a 

wet climate or that recirculate leachate 

or add other liquids to the landfills to 

accelerate waste decomposition. Wetter 

wastes decompose more quickly than 

drier wastes and as a result generate 

more landfill gas in the short term. 

Therefore, it may be appropriate to 

require these landfills to install the gas 

collection system sooner, which SERs 

indicated is already occurring in 

practice for landfills in wetter climates. 

Similarly, smaller landfills in wetter 

climates, or those employing leachate 

recirculation, may also generate earlier 

spikes in landfill gas emissions that 

could exceed the NMOC threshold. 

Although these landfills are exempt 

from proposed subpart XXX under the 

design capacity threshold of 2.5 million 

Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters, if a 

smaller design capacity 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 

landfills, the EPA requests comment 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 

recirculates leachate (or other liquids). 

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes 

Based on Review of the NSPS 

To determine which option to 

propose, the EPA considered the 

emission reductions that are expected to 

be achieved under the criteria in the 

baseline (subpart WWW), as well as 

emission reductions that would be 

achieved under several control options 

more stringent than the baseline. 

A. What are the environmental impacts 

and costs associated with the baseline? 

In this analysis, the baseline contains 

the same gas collection and control 

requirements and thresholds (2.5 

million Mg or 2.5 million cubic meters 

and 50 Mg NMOC per year) that are in 

subpart WWW. For the baseline, the 

initial lag time is 30 months; and the 

expansion lag time is 2 years after initial 

waste placement in cells that are closed 

or at final grade or 5 years after initial 

waste placement in active areas of the 

landfill. These parameters are described 

in detail in section V of this preamble. 

Table 2 of this preamble summarizes 

the impacts of the baseline for year 

2023. The table includes emission 

reductions for NMOC, methane, and 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) and 

corresponding annualized net costs 

based on the annualized control, testing, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41809 

and monitoring costs, and annual 

revenues from energy recovery (when 

applicable), as discussed in section V.B 

of this preamble. 

TABLE 2—BASELINE EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS IN 2023 

Number of 

landfills 

affected 

Number of 

landfills 

controlling 

Number of 

landfills 

reporting 

but not 

controlling 

Annual 

net cost 

($2012) a

Annual 

NMOC 

reductions 

(Mg/yr) 

Annual 

methane 

reductions 

(Mg/yr) 

Annual 

CO2e 

reductions 

(Mg/yr) 

NMOC cost 

effectiveness 

($/Mg) 

Methane 

cost 

effectiveness 

($/Mg) 

CO2e cost 

effectiveness 

($/Mg) 

17 8 9 2,708,000 610 94,800 2,371,000 4,400 29 1.1 

aThe annualized net cost ($2,708,000) is the difference between the average annualized revenue ($21,315,300) and the sum of annualized 

control cost ($23,956,900) and the average annualized testing and monitoring costs ($66,400). 

The baseline is estimated to require 

control at eight landfills in 2023, and 

achieve reductions of 610 Mg/yr NMOC, 

94,800 Mg/yr methane (2,371,000 Mg/yr 

CO2e). The annualized net cost is $2.7 

million. The cost effectiveness of the 

baseline is estimated to be $4,400 per 

Mg NMOC, and $29 per Mg methane 

($1.10 per Mg CO2e) if all of the control 

cost were attributed to each pollutant 

separately. 

In this analysis, the EPA projects 21 

new landfills would commence 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification between 2014 and 2018. 

The basis of this projection is discussed 

in detail in the docketed memorandum 

‘‘Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in 

the Cost and Emission Reduction 

Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 

2014.’’ These 21 landfills are projected 

to emit, 1,040 Mg/yr of NMOC and 

161,600 Mg/yr of methane in 2023 if the 

landfills had no emission controls in 

place. However, the baseline is modeled 

to require 38 percent (8/21) of these 

projected landfills to install emission 

controls by at least year 2023. In terms 

of emissions, the baseline is expected to 

achieve 59 percent reduction in 

estimated emissions from these landfills 

in 2023. Further, the eight landfills 

installing controls under the baseline 

represent 77 percent of the estimated 

total waste-in-place in 2023 from all 21 

of the projected landfills. 

The baseline allows landfills to 

remove the GCCS only after the 

following criteria are met (1) the landfill 

is closed, (2) the landfill has had the 

GCCS in operation for at least 15 years, 

and (3) three successive tests for NMOC 

emissions are below the NMOC 

emission threshold of 50 Mg/yr. Until 

the GCCS is removed, the landfill must 

continue to operate the system in 

accordance with 40 CFR 60.763, which 

includes wellhead monitoring and 

surface emissions monitoring to detect 

and correct for any emission 

exceedances. 

B. How did the EPA determine which 

control option to propose? 

When determining which control 

options would represent BSER, the EPA 

considered several factors: The 

implementation concerns identified in 

section V of this preamble; and the 

incremental emission reductions, cost, 

and co-benefits that would be achieved 

beyond the baseline. 

The EPA compared the annualized 

net cost and emission impacts in 2023 

of the various regulatory options to the 

annualized net costs and emission 

impacts in 2023 of the baseline. The 

EPA analyzed numerous iterations of 

alternate control and reporting 

thresholds and presented potential 

control options to SERs and Federalism 

consultation participants, as described 

in section V of this preamble. After 

considering feedback from the SERs and 

Federalism consultation participants, 

the EPA selected for consideration three 

regulatory alternatives as presented in 

Table 3 of this preamble. Table 3 of this 

preamble summarizes the incremental 

impacts of each control option, when 

compared to the baseline. The table 

shows the emission reductions and 

corresponding annualized net costs for 

NMOC and methane in 2023. 

TABLE 3—EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS IN YEAR 2023 

Control parameters 

Number of 

landfills 

affected a

Number of 

landfills 

controlling a

Annual net 

cost 

(2012$) 

Annual 

NMOC 

reductions 

(Mg/yr) 

Annual 

methane 

reductions 

(Mg/yr) 

Annual 

methane 

reductions 

(Mg CO2e/yr) 

NMOC cost 

effectiveness 

($/Mg) 

Methane cost 

effectiveness 

($/Mg) 

Methane cost 

effectiveness * 

($/Mg CO2e) 

Baseline = 2.5 million Mg and m3, design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline (2.5 design 

capacity/50 Mg/yr 

NMOC) ................. 17 8 2,708,000 610 94,800 2,371,000 4,400 29 1.1 

Incremental values versus the Baseline 

Option (3.0 design 

capacity/40 Mg/yr 

NMOC .................. 0 3 471,000 79 12,300 307,600 6,000 38 1.5 

Option (2.5 design 

capacity/40 Mg/yr 

NMOC .................. 0 3 471,000 79 12,300 307,600 6,000 38 1.5 

Option (2.0 design 

capacity/40 Mg/yr 

NMOC .................. 1 3 472,700 79 12,300 307,600 6,000 38 1.5 

a Landfills are affected by the landfills NSPS based on design capacity. Once affected, they calculate and report emissions until they exceed the NMOC threshold, 

which triggers control requirements. 

Baseline. The baseline affects 17 new 

landfills, meaning that 17 landfills meet 

the design capacity thresholds and 

would have to report their emissions 

during this period. Eight of these 

landfills would have controls in place in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41810 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

22California Code of Regulations, title 17, 

subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, sections 95460 

to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills. 

23 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. 

year 2023. The baseline values are 

compared to landfills’ emissions 

assuming that no GCCS are installed. 

This comparison to a no-control 

scenario may overestimate both the 

costs and emissions reduction resulting 

from implementation of subpart XXX 

due to other regulatory or voluntary 

reasons for installing GCCS, as 

discussed below. 

The EPA is aware that some state or 

local ordinances require landfill gas 

combustion for odor, safety, or methane 

control reasons. For example, methane 

regulations in California 22 require 

GCCS to be installed at all landfills 

accepting waste after January 1, 1977, 

having at least 450,000 tons of waste-inplace, and having a gas heat input 

capacity threshold of 3.0 MMBtu/hr or 

greater to install GCCS. The emission 

reductions from these programs could 

not be quantified for the projected set of 

model landfills because the EPA cannot 

reliably estimate where these future 

landfills will be installed. 

Finally, based on data from LMOP, 

the EPA is also aware of approximately 

500 landfills that have voluntarily 

installed a gas collection system that 

would not otherwise be required under 

federal NSPS or emission guideline 

regulations (see section V.A of this 

preamble for details). These systems 

may have been installed to recover 

energy and generate revenue, including 

sale of electricity or landfill gas as well 

as to create carbon credits. However, 

because it is not known how many 

projected new landfills will voluntarily 

collect and combust their gas in the 

absence of NSPS regulation, the 

reductions associated with voluntary 

gas collection system installations were 

not considered when establishing the 

reductions associated with the baseline. 

Regulatory options. The EPA 

considered three regulatory options 

more stringent than the baseline, as 

presented in Table 3 of this preamble. 

Based on the characteristics of the 

projected landfills, all three of the more 

stringent options would require a total 

of 11 landfills to install controls by 

2023. Thus, 11 landfills would incur 

costs and achieve emission reductions 

in 2023 under all of the more stringent 

options, compared with eight landfills 

under the baseline. 

Although the overall difference in the 

number of landfills requiring control in 

2023 under the more stringent options 

is only three landfills, it is important to 

note that each of these options would 

require controls to be installed earlier 

than the baseline, because lower NMOC 

emission thresholds would subject 

landfills to the control requirements at 

an earlier date. 

Table 4 presents the number of 

landfills with control systems installed, 

by year, for the baseline and options 

considered in this analysis. Due to the 

30-month initial lag time period, no 

controls are anticipated to be installed 

prior to 2020 under any of the options 

under consideration. 

TABLE 4—TOTAL NUMBER OF NEW LANDFILLS PROJECTED TO CONTROL LANDFILL GAS EMISSIONS IN EACH YEAR OF THE

10-YEAR PERIOD, BY OPTION

Control parameters 

Number of landfills with 

control systems installed 

2014–2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

Baseline 2.5/50 ........................................................................ 0 0 6 7 8 

Option 3.0/40 ........................................................................... 0 3 6 7 11 

Option 2.5/40 ........................................................................... 0 3 6 7 11 

Option 2.0/40 ........................................................................... 0 3 6 7 11 

Emission reductions. Under all three 

of the options considered, three 

additional landfills would be required 

to install controls in 2023 compared to 

the baseline. The reductions achieved 

under these three options are the same 

because each option has the same 

NMOC threshold trigger of 40 Mg/yr. 

The corresponding emission reductions 

in 2023 would be an additional 79 Mg/ 

year NMOC, 12,300 Mg/year methane 

(307,600 Mg/year CO2e) compared to the 

baseline. The wide range in magnitude 

of emission reductions among 

pollutants is due to the composition of 

landfill gas: NMOC represents less than 

1 percent of landfill gas, while methane 

represents approximately 50 percent. 

CO2e is an expression of methane in 

terms of the carbon dioxide equivalents, 

given the methane global warming 

potential (GWP) of 25.23 Each of these 

options represents approximately a 13 

percent reduction beyond the baseline. 

Cost. Under both options 2.5/40 and 

3.0/40, the incremental annual cost 

would be $471,000. The cost is identical 

for these two options because all of the 

projected new landfills that exceed the 

NMOC thresholds and install controls 

by 2023 have a design capacity greater 

than 3.0 million Mg. Based on the 

characteristics of recently constructed 

landfills, it is likely that most new 

landfills will be larger sites. The 

incremental annual cost of option 2.0/40 

is $2,700 higher, at $472,700 due to 

additional reporting costs for one 

landfill that is projected to exceed the 

lowered design capacity threshold but 

not the NMOC threshold. All of these 

options represent approximately 17 

percent in additional costs beyond the 

baseline. 

In terms of cost effectiveness, the 

overall dollar-per-Mg cost for NMOC 

reductions is $4,400 per Mg NMOC 

under the baseline in Table 3 of this 

preamble. Note the cost of controlling 

methane is significantly lower than for 

NMOC because methane constitutes 

approximately 50 percent of landfill gas, 

while NMOC represents less than 1 

percent of landfill gas. The incremental 

dollar-per-Mg cost for NMOC reductions 

is $6,000 per Mg NMOC under all of the 

other options. For option 2.0/40, 

however, there are additional reporting 

requirements for one landfill affected by 

this option that would result in a 

marginally higher actual cost compared 

with the option 2.5/40. Therefore, we 

are not proposing option 2.0/40. Other 

than the added reporting costs, the 

emission reductions and control costs 

are identical for options 2.5/40 and 3.0/ 

40. For the reasons stated in section V.D 

of this preamble (potential to miss 

reductions at landfills that exceed the 

NMOC emission thresholds but do not 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41811 

25Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Economic 

Impact Analysis for the Proposed New Subpart to 

the New Source Performance Standards. 

meet the design capacity thresholds and 

application of GCCS at landfills with 

design capacities between 2.5 and 3.0 

million Mg is well demonstrated), 

alternative option 3.0/40 is also not 

being proposed. 

Proposed option 2.5/40. Based on the 

emission reduction and cost discussions 

above and consistent with the 

President’s Methane Strategy as 

discussed in section III of this preamble, 

the EPA is proposing to reduce the 

NMOC threshold to 40 Mg/yr. Lowering 

the NMOC threshold would result in 

earlier GCCS installations and 

additional NMOC and methane 

reductions compared to the baseline, as 

shown in Table 3 of this preamble. This 

lowered threshold achieves reductions 

without adjusting the initial and 

expansion lag times and incurring the 

associated costs and implementation 

concerns. 

Reducing the NMOC threshold from 

the baseline-level of 50 Mg/yr to 40 Mg/ 

yr would affect only three more landfills 

in 2023 but would achieve an estimated 

13 percent additional reduction in 

emissions of NMOC and methane 

compared to the baseline. Further, this 

proposal would maintain the same 

control device removal criteria as the 

baseline except that the controls would 

have to stay on until three successive 

tests for NMOC emissions were below 

the NMOC emission threshold of 40 Mg/ 

yr instead 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 more than 30 years after 

closure for a large modern landfill to 

emit less than the NMOC emission 

threshold, and in turn qualify for 

capping or removing the GCCS. 

Although the emission reductions 

associated with these later years in the 

landfills’ lifetimes are not incorporated 

in the environmental and economic 

impacts of the baseline and options 

under consideration, the lower 

threshold associated with this proposal 

would require controls to be installed 

for a slightly longer period than the 

baseline. 

Although some commenters have 

expressed concerns about the quantity 

of emissions after landfills have closed 

and the GCCS has ceased to operate, the 

analysis the EPA conducted 

demonstrates that GCCS would be 

installed for a significant period after 

landfill closure that is commensurate 

with the size and corresponding 

emissions profile of each affected 

landfill. For these reasons, the EPA is 

proposing that emissions must be below 

an emissions threshold of 40 Mg/yr as 

one of the three criteria for determining 

when a GCCS may be capped or 

removed. The EPA is also requesting 

comment on whether these three criteria 

are appropriate, and if alternative 

criteria such as consecutive quarterly 

measurements below a surface emission 

threshold should also be considered. 

RCRA, specifically subpart F of Part 

258, also requires supplemental basic 

post-closure care to maintain cover 

integrity. 

Reducing the NMOC threshold also 

recognizes the opportunity to build 

upon progress to date and achieve even 

more reductions of landfill gas and its 

components, consistent with the 

President’s Methane Strategy as 

discussed in section III of this preamble. 

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 carbon dioxide by volume, with 

less than 1 percent NMOC. Because the 

components of landfill gas are 

associated with substantial health, 

welfare, and climate effects, additional 

reductions of landfill gas would 

improve air quality and reduce health 

and welfare effects associated with 

exposure to landfill gas emissions. Note 

that in 2012, landfills continued to be 

the third largest source of humanrelated methane emissions in the United 

States, representing 18.1 percent of total 

methane emissions.24 Methane 

emissions represent 8.7 percent of all 

GHG emissions (in CO2e) in the United 

States. 

Alternative option 2.0/34. Consistent 

with the President’s Methane Strategy 

and the potential to achieve a near-term 

beneficial impact in mitigating global 

climate change (see section III of this 

preamble), the EPA considered even 

more stringent alternatives in its 

analysis of control options that may 

achieve additional reductions of 

methane and NMOC. For example, 

reducing the NMOC threshold below 40 

Mg/yr in conjunction with reducing the 

design capacity to below 2.5 million Mg 

or 2.5 million cubic meters, an 

alternative option 2.0/34 would require 

controls at 11 landfills by 2023, which 

is the same number of landfills required 

to control under this proposal. However, 

under this more stringent option, four of 

the 11 landfills would install controls 

one year earlier. The extent of the 

emission reductions for this option 

depends on the time period considered. 

For example, in year 2023, emission 

reductions would not be any greater 

than the proposal. However, when 

averaged over the 10-year period (2014– 

2023), this more stringent option would 

achieve additional NMOC and methane 

reductions compared with the proposal. 

Refer to the Environmental Impacts 

Analysis,25 and the docketed 

memoranda ‘‘Cost and Emissions 

Impacts Resulting from the Landfills 

NSPS Review. 2014’’ for details on the 

estimated reductions. Additional 

emission reductions would be expected 

to be achieved over the lifetime of the 

landfills subject to subpart XXX because 

the lower NMOC threshold would 

require earlier installation of controls 

and also require the controls to remain 

installed for a longer period. The 

annualized cost to implement 

alternative option 2.0/34 would be 

higher than the proposal. The EPA did 

not analyze an option that reduced the 

NMOC threshold below 40 Mg/year 

without also reducing the design 

capacity threshold. In light of these 

additional reductions, as well as the 

additional costs to affected entities, the 

EPA is soliciting comment on whether 

an NMOC threshold below 40 Mg/yr in 

conjunction with a reduced design 

capacity threshold should be considered 

for new landfills subject to subpart 

XXX. 

VII. Summary of Clarifications and 

Resolutions That Are the Result of 

Implementation Activity 

The EPA proposed amendments to the 

landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW) on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475) 

to address implementation issues. 

Consideration of public comments 

received and additional implementation 

activity led to the proposal of further 

clarifications on implementing the 

landfills regulations on September 8, 

2006. After considering public 

comments received on the September 8, 

2006 amendments and additional 

implementation activity, we are 

proposing resolutions and clarifications 

of the issues specifically identified 

below under new subpart XXX. The 

EPA plans to address amendments and 

clarifications resulting from 

implementation activities as they apply 

to subparts Cc and WWW in a separate 

document. The EPA will also address 

any potential changes to subparts Cc 

and WWW in a separate document. 

Thus EPA is not taking final action on 

either the May 23, 2002 or the 

September 8, 2006 proposed rules at 

this time. In addition to the specifically 

identified resolutions and clarifications 

associated with the May 23, 2002 and 

September 8, 2006 proposed rules, we 

are proposing a number of provisions in 

subpart XXX that are intended to 

address other implementation issues 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41812 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

that have arisen in the context of 

subpart WWW. 

2002 Proposed amendments. On May 

23, 2002 (67 FR 36475), the EPA 

proposed several amendments to 

subpart WWW, including clarifying 

what constitutes treated landfill gas by 

adding a definition of treatment system 

that specified that the system must 

filter, de-water, and compress landfill 

gas. 

2006 Proposed amendments. Public 

comments on the May 23, 2002 

amendments created new questions and 

caused the EPA to reconsider the 

approach we had taken on several 

proposed amendments, including our 

approach to clarifying what constitutes 

treated landfill gas. Specifically, we 

proposed refined definitions of ‘‘treated 

landfill gas’’ and ‘‘treatment system’’ by 

adding specific numerical values for 

filtration and de-watering to provide 

long-term protection of the combustion 

equipment, which would also support 

good combustion. The September 8, 

2006 amendments also proposed to 

clarify the monitoring requirements for 

treatment systems. 

The following resolutions and 

clarifications apply to proposed subpart 

XXX. 

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas 

and Treatment System and Treatment 

System Monitoring 

Subpart XXX contains requirements 

for landfill gas treatment that are 

consistent with the September 8, 2006 

proposed amendments, except that the 

treatment definition would require the 

water dew point of landfill gas to be 

reduced to at least 45 °F, rather than 

lowered by at least 20 °F. We also 

propose to specify a location for the 

temperature monitoring device that 

would demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the 45 °F requirement. 

The measurement device would be 

located at (or immediately after) the 

coalescing filter or other direct contact 

moisture removal device that follows 

the chiller and removes the condensed 

moisture. If a landfill owner/operator 

uses de-watering equipment that is not 

based on cooling the gas, such as a 

desiccant system, the landfill owner/

operator would monitor dew point 

instead of temperature. For particulate 

matter filtration, we propose to retain 

the requirement for a filter system to 

have an absolute rating no greater than 

10 microns. 

We also propose to clarify monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements for treatment systems. To 

ensure that treatment systems are 

operating properly to achieve the 

filtration and de-watering levels 

specified in the revised proposed 

treatment system definition, owners/

operators would install equipment to 

continuously monitor pressure drop 

across a filter, temperature for a chillerbased de-watering system, and dew 

point for a non-chiller-based dewatering system. Owners/operators 

would record 24-hour block averages. 

Owners/operators may use other sitespecific monitoring parameters if they 

demonstrate that such parameters 

would effectively monitor filtration or 

de-watering system performance. For 

other site-specific monitoring 

parameters, owners/operators must 

develop operating ranges for each 

monitored operating parameter based on 

manufacturer’s recommendations or 

engineering analysis and submit those 

ranges, along with justification, for 

approval by the Administrator in an 

amended design plan. The proposed 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for treatment systems are 

similar to those for control device 

temperature monitoring requirements 

already in the NSPS. 

The EPA is considering and taking 

public comment on an alternative 

approach to defining landfill gas 

treatment and the corresponding 

monitoring requirements, as discussed 

in section IX.A of this preamble. 

Uses of treated landfill gas. Subpart 

WWW allows landfill owners or 

operators the option of achieving 

compliance by routing the collected gas 

to a treatment system ‘‘that processes 

the collected gas for subsequent sale or 

use.’’ We propose to include language in 

subpart XXX (40 CFR 

60.762(b)(2)(iii)(C)) to clarify that the 

use of treated landfill gas is not limited 

to use as a fuel for a stationary 

combustion device, as some people have 

previously interpreted this compliance 

option, but also includes 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. 

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

Provisions 

The general provisions in 40 CFR part 

60 provide that emissions in excess of 

the level of the applicable emissions 

limit during periods of startup, 

shutdown and malfunction (SSM) shall 

not be considered a violation of the 

applicable emission limit unless 

otherwise specified in the applicable 

standard (see 40 CFR 60.8(c))(emphasis 

added). As reflected in the italicized 

language, an individual subpart can 

supersede this provision. In today’s 

action, the EPA is proposing standards 

in subpart XXX that apply at all times, 

including periods of startup or 

shutdown, and periods of malfunction. 

In addition, to enable the EPA to 

determine the severity of an emissions 

exceedance for periods when the gas 

collection system or a control device is 

not operating, the EPA is proposing to 

add a recordkeeping and reporting 

requirement for landfill owners or 

operators to estimate emissions during 

such periods. 

C. Closed Areas 

To determine whether NMOC 

emissions from nonproductive areas of 

the landfill are less than 1 percent of the 

total landfill NMOC emissions (and 

hence controls are not required), subpart 

WWW relies on modeled (calculated) 

NMOC rates (see 40 CFR 

60.759(a)(3)(ii)). To refine the 

measurements of these nonproductive 

areas, the EPA is proposing to allow 

owners or operators of landfills subject 

to subpart XXX to use measured or 

modeled flow of landfill gas to 

determine if an area is nonproductive. 

The EPA proposes that owners or 

operators of physically separated, closed 

areas of landfills subject to subpart XXX 

may use the procedures in proposed 40 

CFR 60.764(b), which determine the 

flow rate of landfill gas using actual or 

modeled measurements, to determine 

NMOC emissions. 

D. Surface Monitoring 

Subpart WWW requires quarterly 

surface monitoring to demonstrate that 

the cover and gas collection system are 

working properly. The intent of the 

surface monitoring provision is to 

maintain a tight cover that minimizes 

landfill gas emissions through the 

landfill surface. In this proposal, we are 

reiterating the intent that landfills must 

monitor along a pattern that traverses 

the landfill at specified intervals and 

where visual observations indicate 

elevated concentrations of landfill gas, 

which includes all cover penetrations 

and openings within the area of the 

landfill where waste has been placed 

and a gas collection system is required. 

The EPA is also considering and taking 

public comment on revisions to the 

surface monitoring requirements, as 

discussed in section IX of this preamble. 

E. Electronic Reporting 

The EPA is proposing electronic 

reporting of required performance test 

reports, NMOC emission rate reports, 

and annual reports. We also propose 

that industry should be required to 

maintain only electronic copies of the 

records to satisfy federal recordkeeping 

requirements. The proposed electronic 

submission and storage procedures are 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41813 

discussed in detail in section VIII.E of 

this preamble. 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to the EPA 

applies only to those performance tests 

conducted using test methods that are 

supported by the Electronic Reporting 

Tool (ERT). At this time, most of the 

methods in the landfills NSPS are not 

supported by the ERT. Thus, electronic 

reporting of performance tests may not 

be required for some landfills initially, 

but will be required when applicable 

methods are added to the ERT. A listing 

of the pollutants and test methods 

supported by the ERT is available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html. 

F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements 

Subpart WWW addresses operational 

standards for wellheads. Under 40 CFR 

60.753(c), landfill owners/operators may 

request and demonstrate a higher 

operating temperature, nitrogen, or 

oxygen value at a particular well. The 

EPA is clarifying in this preamble the 

intent of the following requirement: ‘‘A 

higher operating value demonstration 

must be submitted to the Administrator 

for approval and must include 

supporting data demonstrating that the 

elevated parameter neither causes fires 

nor significantly inhibits anaerobic 

decomposition by killing methanogens.’’ 

The demonstration must meet both 

criteria; that is a higher operating value 

must not cause fires and must not 

significantly inhibit anaerobic 

decomposition by killing methanogens. 

The EPA proposes to clarify in 

subpart XXX that any alternate 

operating value for temperature, 

nitrogen, or oxygen proposed by an 

owner or operator according to the 

proposed 40 CFR 60.763(c) must be 

submitted to the Administrator (i.e., the 

EPA Administrator or delegated 

authority) for approval. The request may 

be submitted separately from a design 

plan revision. However, the design plan 

would have to be updated on the 

schedule described in the next section. 

The EPA is also considering and 

taking comment on the landfill 

wellhead monitoring requirements, as 

discussed in the section IX.B of this 

preamble. 

G. Requirements for Updating the 

Design Plan 

We propose adding three criteria for 

when an affected source must update its 

design plan and submit it to the 

Administrator under subpart XXX (40 

CFR 60.767(h)). We propose requiring 

submittal of a revised design plan as 

follows: (1) Within 90 days of 

expanding operations to an area not 

covered by the previously approved 

design plan; (2) prior to installing or 

expanding the gas collection system in 

a manner other than described in a 

previously approved design plan; and 

(3) prior to implementing an alternative 

operating parameter value for 

temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen. 

H. Submitting Corrective Action 

Timeline Requests 

Subpart WWW outlines the timeline 

for correcting for air infiltration in the 

gas collection system within 15 days of 

any exceedance of temperature, 

nitrogen, or oxygen parameters. We 

propose clarifying this requirement in 

subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.765(a)(5)) to 

require the landfill to submit an 

alternative corrective action timeline 

request to the Administrator if the 

landfill cannot correct for air infiltration 

within 15 calendar days of the initial 

exceedance and the landfill is unable to 

(or does not plan to) expand the gas 

collection within 120 days of the initial 

exceedance. 

I. Other Corrections and Clarifications 

We propose to standardize the terms 

‘‘control system’’ and ‘‘collection and 

control system’’ throughout proposed 

subpart XXX in order to use consistent 

terminology throughout the regulatory 

text. Subparts Cc and WWW include 

phrases such as ‘‘control or treatment 

system’’; however, 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2)(iii) indicates that a 

treatment system described in 40 CFR 

60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C) is considered to be a 

type of control system, and therefore the 

term ‘‘control system’’ is sufficient and 

more concise. Further, some other parts 

of subpart WWW refer to ‘‘collection 

and control device’’ or ‘‘control 

equipment’’; however, the terms 

‘‘device’’ and ‘‘equipment’’ are 

synonymous with the term ‘‘system’’ in 

the context of these rules and were 

replaced with ‘‘control system’’ or 

‘‘control system equipment’’ in several 

places as appropriate, for consistency. 

Finally, many parts of subpart WWW 

inaccurately reference ‘‘control system’’ 

instead of ‘‘collection and control 

system’’ when referring back to 

paragraphs in 40 CFR 60.752(b). These 

corrections and clarifications appear in 

subpart XXX. 

We also propose to make the 

following clarifications and corrections 

to subpart XXX, which are consistent 

with the May 23, 2002 and September 

8, 2006 proposed amendments in 

subpart WWW. 

Consistent with the May 23, 2002 and 

September 8, 2006 proposed 

amendments, we propose to include 

language in subpart XXX to exempt 

owners/operators of boilers and process 

heaters with design capacities of 44 

megawatts or greater from the 

requirement to conduct an initial 

performance test (40 CFR 

60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B)). 

Consistent with the September 8, 

2006 proposed amendments, we 

propose to remove the term 

‘‘combustion’’ from the requirement to 

monitor temperature of enclosed 

combustors (40 CFR 60.768(b)(2)(i) and 

40 CFR 60.768(c)(1)(i)). 

Consistent with the September 8, 

2006 proposed amendments, we 

propose to incorporate a corrected test 

method cross-reference in 40 CFR 

60.765(c)(3) of subpart XXX necessitated 

by the reorganization of Method 21 in 

appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. 

Consistent with the September 8, 

2006 proposed amendments, we 

propose to amend the definition of 

‘‘household waste’’ and add a definition 

of ‘‘segregated yard waste’’ in subpart 

XXX (40 CFR 60.761) to clarify our 

intent regarding the applicability of the 

landfills NSPS to landfills that do not 

accept household waste, but accept 

segregated yard waste. 

We are clarifying that the definition of 

‘‘Modification’’ in subpart XXX includes 

a change in mass or volume and we are 

requesting comment on the definition of 

modification as discussed in section 

VIII.I of this preamble. 

VIII. Rationale for the Clarifications 

and Resolutions That Are the Result of 

Implementation Activity 

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas 

and Treatment System and Treatment 

System Monitoring 

Landfill gas treatment. In the May 23, 

2002 proposed amendments, we 

proposed a definition for ‘‘treatment 

system’’ that would be used to 

determine if a facility qualifies for the 

treatment option provided in subpart 

WWW. The purpose of this definition 

was to provide consistency as to what 

qualifies as a treatment system and to 

reduce the burden on state and local 

agencies and EPA Regions currently 

performing case-by-case determinations 

related to the adequacy of treatment 

options being employed across the 

nation. The proposed definition of 

treatment system was ‘‘a system that 

filters, de-waters, and compresses 

landfill gas.’’ 

Following the May 23, 2002 proposal 

of the treatment system definition, 

several commenters requested further 

clarification as to what levels of 

filtration and de-watering would be 

considered acceptable to meet the 

definition of treatment. Some 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41814 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

commenters requested that EPA allow 

owners/operators to treat their gas such 

that it would meet the end-use 

combustion equipment ‘‘manufacturer’s 

requirements’’ for fuel quality. Other 

commenters requested that EPA develop 

specific particulate, moisture, and 

compression targets that demonstrate 

‘‘treated landfill gas.’’ 

We agreed with commenters that the 

definition of treatment system needed 

additional detail. We contacted 

manufacturers of combustion devices 

that are used to recover energy from 

landfill gas, and we obtained their 

written specifications and 

recommendations for fuel quality. As 

suggested by the commenters, we 

reviewed the available manufacturers’ 

specifications for acceptable moisture 

and particulate levels. Because different 

manufacturers have different 

specifications, our proposed definition 

of ‘‘treatment system’’ did not refer 

directly to the manufacturers’ 

requirements. Instead, we developed 

specific filtration and de-watering 

targets based on those requirements. 

On September 8, 2006, we proposed 

levels of de-watering and filtration that 

were consistent with most 

manufacturers’ specifications for 

landfill gas burned in energy recovery 

devices such as reciprocating engines, 

gas turbines, and boilers. We also 

proposed a supplemental definition of 

treatment system, as follows: ‘‘. . . a 

system that has an absolute filtration 

rating of 10 microns or less, lowers the 

water dew point of the landfill gas by at 

least 20 degrees Fahrenheit with a dewatering process, and compresses the 

landfill gas.’’ The term ‘‘absolute 

filtration rating’’ means the diameter of 

the largest hard spherical particle that 

would pass through the filter. These 

treatment levels would minimize 

degradation of the combustion device 

and promote proper destruction of 

NMOC. 

Following the September 8, 2006 

supplemental amendments, several 

commenters objected to the 20 °F dew 

point reduction requirement and the 

requirement to monitor temperature 

reduction across the moisture removal 

system. Commenters cited several 

reasons, including the following: 

• In cold climates, it might not be feasible 

to meet the proposed definition because the 

gas can be cooled from wellhead to 

temperatures in the 40 °F-range simply 

because of ambient conditions, and lowering 

the temperature further is not feasible. 

• Verifying inlet and outlet temperatures is 

difficult because they vary depending on the 

pressures in the system. Accounting for these 

conditions could require multiple points of 

measure plus use of an algorithm to 

determine the reduction. 

• The proposed standard does not take 

into account water removal that may be 

occurring in other parts of the gas collection 

system, such as the header. 

• The level of treatment needed depends 

on the type and design of the specific 

combustion equipment being used, so some 

commenters favored case-by-case 

determinations. 

The EPA maintains the position that 

the intent of the treatment option is to 

require active lowering of the dew point 

consistent with the better available 

treatment systems, and that we did not 

intend knock-out pots (for example) to 

qualify. The numerical specifications 

ensure that the treated gas is suitable for 

use in a wide range of applications. 

They also allow uniform national 

application of the NSPS, provide 

certainty to the landfill industry and 

regulated agencies, and avoid case-bycase determinations that are likely to be 

complex, time-consuming, and yield 

inconsistent results. 

However, the EPA agrees with the 

comments that the 2006 proposed 20 °F 

dew point reduction requirement 

contains some ambiguity. For example, 

is the 20 °F relative to the gas 

temperature at the wells, in the main 

header prior to compression, or just 

prior to the chiller? Does the gas need 

to be chilled 20 °F below atmospheric 

temperature, which could be 

impractical in cold climates? We also 

agree with the commenters that if the 

treatment system first compresses and 

then chills the gas, measuring the gas 

temperature before the compressor and 

after the chiller would not give an 

accurate indication of the dew point 

reduction due to the change in pressure, 

and algorithms would be required to 

calculate the reduction. 

In light of these comments, we 

reviewed designs from manufacturers of 

gas treatment compression-dehydration 

skids for the landfill gas utilization 

industry to determine if the numerical 

moisture requirement could be 

expressed as an absolute dew point or 

temperature that could be measured at 

a single location, rather than requiring 

a 20 °F reduction. Such a requirement 

would eliminate ambiguity and make it 

easier for landfills and regulatory 

agencies to determine compliance. 

Manufacturers commonly compress the 

gas first and then cool the gas to reduce 

the dew point. Manufacturers 

commonly offer dew points of 38 to 45 

°F. They also reheat the final 

dehydrated product prior to it leaving 

their treatment unit. Therefore, we 

propose a dew point reduction to 45 °F, 

rather than a reduction by 20 °F. 

The EPA requests comments on all 

aspects of this proposed definition of 

landfill gas treatment. 

Continuous monitoring. To ensure 

continuous compliance with the 

treatment option, we are proposing 

similar monitoring requirements to the 

September 8, 2006 supplemental 

proposal, except that temperature or 

dew point is measured at a single 

location to determine that it has been 

reduced to 45 °F, rather than measuring 

it before and after the moisture removal 

device. Landfill owners/operators 

would install instrumentation to 

continuously monitor pressure drop 

across a filter, temperature for a chillerbased de-watering system, and dew 

point for a non-chiller-based dewatering system. These requirements 

would ensure that the treatment system 

is continuously operating in the manner 

in which it was designed to operate to 

achieve the specific filtration, dewatering, and compression targets that 

define a treatment system for the 

purposes of the landfills NSPS. 

Continuous monitoring is appropriate 

for treatment systems because it ensures 

timely identification of sudden failures 

in equipment such as chillers and filters 

and ensures that treatment systems are 

operating properly to achieve the 

filtration and de-watering levels 

specified in the rule. Continuous 

monitoring is available for the selected 

treatment system operating parameters 

and is required to ensure continuous 

compliance. 

For filtration systems, the pressure 

drop (24-hour average) across the filter 

would be continuously monitored and 

maintained above the minimum 

pressure drop established by 

engineering analysis or manufacturer’s 

specifications. Alternatively, the 

owners/operators can request approval 

to monitor another parameter that 

indicates proper performance of the 

filtration system. Pressure drop was 

selected as a monitoring parameter 

because it is a good indicator of proper 

filter operation. A noticeable reduction 

in pressure drop across the filter 

indicates a breach of the filter material. 

Continuous monitoring of 

temperature for a chiller-based dewatering system, dew point from a dewatering system that is not chillerbased, or another approved parameter 

that is indicative of proper performance 

of the de-watering system, would also 

be required. If the owner/operator 

requests to measure a parameter other 

than temperature or dew point, then the 

monitored parameter (24-hour average) 

would have to be kept within the 

operating range established by 

engineering analysis or manufacturer’s 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41815 

specifications. The owner or operator 

would submit the treatment system 

design and justification for the operating 

parameter ranges for approval by the 

Administrator in the design plan 

required by 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2) of 

subpart WWW. 

For chiller-based de-watering systems, 

we selected temperature as a monitoring 

parameter because it indicates that the 

chiller is operating properly and the 

target 45 °F dew point is achieved. 

Continuous measurement of the gas 

temperature at the chiller outlet is 

required. The temperature measurement 

device should be located at (or 

immediately after) the coalescing filter 

or other direct contact moisture removal 

device that follows the chiller and 

removes the condensed moisture. 

Because the gas will be saturated at the 

temperature it leaves the filter, the 

temperature in that location is a good 

measure of the dew point. Temperature 

monitors are readily available, 

commonly used, reliable, and less 

expensive than alternative monitoring 

systems. 

If a de-watering system that is not 

based on chilling, for example, a 

desiccant system, is used, then 

temperature would not be an 

appropriate parameter to monitor. In 

such cases, monitoring of the dew point 

would indicate whether the system is 

operating properly to achieve a 

temperature of 45 °F. Dew point can be 

continuously monitored using a 

hygrometer with a dew point readout. 

The hygrometer should be located after 

the equipment that performs the 

moisture removal. Dew point monitors 

are available and suitable for landfill gas 

applications. 

Data collection is required at 15- 

minute intervals, consistent with 

current landfills NSPS requirements for 

flare pilot flame monitoring and 

enclosed combustor temperature 

monitoring that apply to landfills that 

opt to comply with the control options 

rather than the treatment option. A 24- 

hour block average for determining 

compliance with the treatment system 

operating parameter limits is sufficient 

to indicate any significant change in 

treatment system operation and would 

be less burdensome than more frequent 

averaging. Owners or operators of 

treatment systems would be required to 

report periods when the 24-hour block 

average for a monitored parameter (e.g., 

pressure drop, temperature, dew point) 

is outside the operating range 

established in the approved design plan. 

Compliance schedule. Landfills 

subject to subpart XXX that choose to 

comply with subpart XXX by treating 

the landfill gas according to 40 CFR 

60.762(b)(2)(iii)(C) would comply with 

the treatment requirements upon 

choosing to control landfill gas using 

the treatment option. 

Uses of Treated Landfill Gas. Subpart 

WWW allows landfill owners or 

operators the option of achieving 

compliance by routing the collected gas 

to a treatment system ‘‘that processes 

the collected gas for subsequent sale or 

use.’’ We propose language in subpart 

XXX (40 CFR 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(C)) to 

clarify that the use of treated landfill gas 

is not limited to use as a fuel for a 

stationary combustion device as some 

have interpreted the provision. We 

clarify the intent of the treatment option 

to allow other beneficial uses such as 

vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas 

for pipeline injection, or use as a raw 

material in a chemical manufacturing 

process. Newer uses of landfill gas are 

being implemented and result in the 

production of useful energy or products, 

reducing the use of fossil fuels or other 

raw materials and the associated 

emissions. For the uses mentioned, the 

gas is treated at least as well as the 

specified treatment requirements. Sitespecific approval of alternative 

monitoring parameters would be 

required for uses other than combustion 

because treatment systems for these end 

uses are relatively few in number and 

have unique designs. Owners or 

operators would be required to apply for 

approval of monitoring parameters. 

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

Provisions 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010), 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under CAA section 302(k), 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some CAA section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

Periods of startup or shutdown. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA (551 

F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), the EPA has 

established standards in subpart XXX 

that apply at all times. The part 60 

general provisions, which define 

startup, shutdown and malfunction, 

were written for typical industrial or 

manufacturing sources and associated 

processes. Many of these sources and 

processes may, at times, be shut down 

entirely for clean-out, maintenance, or 

repairs, and then restarted. Applying the 

standards at all times, including periods 

of startup and shutdown, is intended to 

minimize excess emissions when the 

source or process ceases operation or 

commences operation, or malfunctions. 

Landfill emissions, however, are 

produced by a continuous biological 

process that cannot be stopped or 

restarted. For landfills, the primary SSM 

concern is with malfunction of the 

landfill GCCS and associated 

monitoring equipment, not with the 

startup or shutdown of the entire 

source. Thus, SSM provisions in the 

subpart XXX focus primarily on 

malfunction of the gas collection 

system, gas control system, and gas 

treatment system, which is part of the 

gas control system. 

Periods of malfunction. Periods of 

startup, normal operations, and 

shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as ‘‘any sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner. Failures that 

are caused in part by poor maintenance 

or careless operation are not 

malfunctions’’ (40 CFR 60.2). The EPA 

has determined that CAA section 111 

does not require that emissions that 

occur during periods of malfunction be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA 

section 111 or in case law requires that 

the EPA anticipate and account for the 

innumerable types of potential 

malfunction events in setting emission 

standards. CAA section 111 provides 

that the EPA set standards of 

performance which reflect the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

‘‘the application of the best system of 

emission reduction’’ that the EPA 

determines is adequately demonstrated. 

A malfunction is a failure of the source 

to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual 

manner’’ and no statutory language 

compels the EPA to consider such 

events in setting standards based on the 

‘‘best system of emission reduction.’’ 

The ‘‘application of the best system of 

emission reduction’’ is more 

appropriately understood to include 

operating units in such a way as to 

avoid malfunctions. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

in setting emission standards would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the 

category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree, and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41816 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

occur. As such, the performance of units 

that are malfunctioning is not 

‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has 

wide latitude in determining the extent 

of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an 

agency’s decision to proceed on the 

basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘invest the resources to 

conduct the perfect study.’ ’’) See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation and 

thus accounting for malfunctions could 

lead to standards that are significantly 

less stringent than levels that are 

achieved by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. It is reasonable 

to interpret CAA section 111 to avoid 

such a result. The EPA’s approach to 

malfunctions is consistent with CAA 

section 111 and is a reasonable 

interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

111 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 111 

standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ 

and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless operation’’ 

(40 CFR 60.2 (definition of 

malfunction)). 

Further, to the extent the EPA files an 

enforcement action against a source for 

violation of an emission standard, the 

source can raise any and all defenses in 

that enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In several prior rules, the EPA had 

included an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations caused by 

malfunctions in an effort to create a 

system that incorporates some 

flexibility, recognizing that there is a 

tension, inherent in many types of air 

regulation, to ensure adequate 

compliance while simultaneously 

recognizing that despite the most 

diligent of efforts, emission standards 

may be violated under circumstances 

entirely beyond the control of the 

source. Although the EPA recognized 

that its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion provides sufficient flexibility 

in these circumstances, it included the 

affirmative defense to provide a more 

formalized approach and more 

regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. 

Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

case-by-case enforcement discretion 

approach is adequate); but see Marathon 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 

(9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of 

‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit 

holder’’). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a 

source could demonstrate in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding that it had 

met the requirements of the affirmative 

defense in the regulation, civil penalties 

would not be assessed. Recently, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

such an affirmative defense in one of the 

EPA’s section 112(d) regulations. NRDC 

v. EPA, No. 10–1371 (D.C. Cir. April 18, 

2014) 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 

(vacating affirmative defense provisions 

in section 112(d) rule establishing 

emission standards for Portland cement 

kilns). The court found that the EPA 

lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits 

and held that under the CAA, the 

authority to determine civil penalty 

amounts lies exclusively with the 

courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the 

Court found: ‘‘As the language of the 

statute makes clear, the courts 

determine, on a case-by-case basis, 

whether civil penalties are 

‘appropriate.’ ’’ See NRDC, 2014 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 7281 at *21 (‘‘[U]nder this 

statute, deciding whether penalties are 

‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit 

is a job for the courts, not EPA.’’). In 

light of NRDC, the EPA is not including 

a regulatory affirmative defense 

provision in this rulemaking. As 

explained above, if a source is unable to 

comply with emissions standards as a 

result of a malfunction, the EPA may 

use its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the D.C. Circuit 

recognized, in an EPA or citizen 

enforcement action, the court has the 

discretion to consider any defense 

raised and determine whether penalties 

are appropriate. Cf. NRDC, 2014 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 7281 at *24. (arguments 

that violation were caused by 

unavoidable technology failure can be 

made to the courts in future civil cases 

when the issue arises). The same logic 

applies to EPA administrative 

enforcement actions. 

Limit on SSM duration. Subpart 

WWW limits the duration of SSM 

events to 5 days for the landfill gas 

collection system and 1 hour for 

treatment or control devices. Proposed 

subpart XXX does not include the 5-day 

and 1-hour time limitations because 

some malfunctions cannot be corrected 

within these timeframes. Excluding 

these provisions is consistent with 

Sierra Club v. EPA (551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008)), which concluded that that 

emission standards apply at all times, 

including periods of SSM, and 40 CFR 

60.11(d), which states that at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown 

and malfunction, owners or operators 

shall, to the extent practicable, maintain 

and operate any source facility 

including associated air pollution 

control equipment in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practice for minimizing 

emissions. The proposed revisions 

clarify that the NSPS standards continue 

to apply during periods of SSM. 

To prevent free venting of landfill gas 

to the atmosphere during control device 

malfunctions, we propose to include a 

requirement in subpart XXX (40 CFR 

60.763(e)) that states that in the event 

the collection or control system is not 

operating, the gas mover system must be 

shut down and all valves in the 

collection and control system 

contributing to venting of gas to the 

atmosphere must be closed within 1 

hour. Note that 40 CFR 60.753(e) of 

subpart WWW says ‘‘inoperable.’’ This 

provision was written when there was 

an allowance for periods of SSM: 

Subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.755(e)) 

allows SSM periods of 5 days for the 

landfill gas collection system and 1 hour 

for periods when collection or control 

devices were ‘‘not operable’’ due to 

malfunction. During those periods, the 

emission standards do not apply. 

However, proposed subpart XXX states 

that the standards apply at all times, 

including periods of SSM, and there is 

no allowance for SSM periods. Thus, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41817 

the term ‘‘inoperable’’ no longer applies. 

The EPA proposes to use the term ‘‘not 

operating,’’ which includes periods 

when the gas collection or control 

system is not operating for whatever 

reason, including when the gas 

collection or control system is 

inoperable. 

The practice to shut down the gas 

mover equipment and all valves 

contributing to venting of gas to the 

atmosphere minimizes emissions from 

the landfill while the control system is 

not operating and is being repaired. 

Compliance with 40 CFR 60.763(e) does 

not constitute compliance with the 

applicable standards in 40 CFR 60.762. 

Compliance with 40 CFR 60.763(e) is 

necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the general duty to minimize 

emissions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) during 

control or collection system 

malfunctions. 

Under subpart XXX, landfill owners/ 

operators must keep records of 

combustion temperature, bypass flow, 

and periods when the flare flame or the 

flare pilot flame is out. However, 

without additional provisions, the EPA 

would have no way to gauge the severity 

of an emissions exceedance that may 

occur when these operating parameters 

are not being met or when the control 

device is not operating. Therefore, the 

EPA is including provisions for landfill 

owners/operators to estimate NMOC 

emissions when the control device or 

collection system is not operating. The 

landfill owners/operators may use 

whatever information is available to 

estimate NMOC emissions during the 

period, including but not limited to, 

landfill gas flow to or bypass of the 

control device, the concentration of 

NMOC (from the most recent 

performance test or from AP–42), and 

the amount of time the control device is 

not operating. Landfill owners/operators 

would keep records of the estimated 

emissions and would report the 

information in the annual compliance 

report. (See provisions in proposed 

subpart XXX: 60.767(f)(7) and 

60.768(c)(5).) 

C. Closed Areas 

In the September 8, 2006 proposed 

amendments, the EPA requested public 

comments on how to address closed 

areas of landfills and when to allow 

removal of controls. Under 40 CFR 

60.759(a)(3)(ii) of subpart WWW, 

landfills owners/operators can exclude 

from control, provided that the total 

NMOC emissions of all excluded areas 

can be shown to contribute less than 1 

percent of the total amount of NMOC 

emissions from the landfill. 

As discussed in the September 8, 

2006 proposed amendments (71 FR 

53277), it has come to our attention that 

there are situations in which the 

quantity of gas production has greatly 

declined in separate closed areas of 

some landfills, and the methane content 

has fallen such that the area is 

producing insufficient gas to properly 

operate a GCCS and control device. 

Actual measurements may show that the 

quantity of landfill gas from the area is 

less than 1 percent of the total gas from 

the entire landfill, but using the first 

order decay equation, it is calculated to 

be greater than 1 percent of the total gas 

from the entire landfill. 

The EPA proposes in subpart XXX 

that owners or operators of physically 

separated, closed areas of landfills may 

use the procedures in 40 CFR 60.764(b), 

which determine the flow rate of 

landfill gas using actual measurements, 

to determine NMOC emissions. 

Alternatively, owners or operators of 

physically separated, closed areas may 

use subpart XXX (40 CFR 

60.769(a)(3)(ii)), which relies on 

modeled (calculated) NMOC rates. The 

EPA proposes to allow the use of actual 

flow measurements because using actual 

flow measurements yields a more 

precise measurement of NMOC 

emissions for purposes of determining if 

NMOC emissions from the closed, 

nonproductive area of the landfill are 

less than 1 percent of the total NMOC 

emissions from the entire landfill. 

Landfills would be allowed to stop 

collecting gas from the closed separated 

area if it accounts for less than 1 percent 

of total landfill NMOC emissions. 

The measurement approach would be 

allowed only in closed areas that are 

physically separated from other parts of 

the landfill (e.g., with liners). If the 

closed area is not separated, gas can 

migrate between that area and the rest 

of the landfill. In such a situation, 

measurements might not accurately 

reflect emissions from the given landfill 

area because gas could be moving 

underground and escaping or being 

collected from an adjacent section of the 

landfill. 

D. Surface Monitoring 

The landfills NSPS requires quarterly 

surface monitoring to demonstrate that 

the cover and gas collection system are 

working properly. The intent of the 

surface monitoring provision is to 

maintain a tight cover that minimizes 

the migration of emissions through the 

landfill surface. The operational 

requirements in subpart WWW specify 

that the landfill must ‘‘operate the 

collection system so that the methane 

concentration is less than 500 parts per 

million above background 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 along a 

pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 

meter intervals and where visual 

observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas, such as 

distressed vegetation and cracks or 

seeps in the cover.’’ 

Several commenters on the September 

8, 2006 notice asserted that the 

monitoring of every cover penetration 

was unnecessary or too burdensome. 

One commenter believed quarterly 

monitoring of penetrations was needed 

and suggested rule amendments to 

require the surface monitoring be 

conducted not only in areas where 

distressed vegetation and cracks or 

seeps in the cover can be seen, but also 

in other areas such as at the base of gas 

collection wells or at the top of the gas 

collection boot. 

In proposed subpart XXX, we are 

reiterating the position that landfills 

must monitor all cover penetrations and 

openings within the area of the landfill 

where waste has been placed and a gas 

collection system is required. 

Specifically, landfill owners/operators 

must conduct surface monitoring at 30- 

meter intervals and where visual 

observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas. Cover 

penetrations can be observed visually 

and are clearly a place where gas would 

be escaping from the cover, so 

monitoring of them is required by the 

regulatory language. The regulatory 

language gives distressed vegetation and 

cracks as an example of a visual 

indication that gas may be escaping, but 

this example does not limit the places 

that should be monitored by landfill 

staff or by enforcement agency 

inspectors. Thus, the landfill must 

monitor any openings that are within an 

area of the landfill where waste has 

been placed and a gas collection system 

is required. The EPA is clarifying this 

intent in 40 CFR 60.763(d), as follows: 

Owners/operator must also monitor 

‘‘* * * where visual observations 

indicate elevated concentrations of 

landfill gas, such as distressed 

vegetation and cracks or seeps in the 

cover and all cover penetrations.’’ 

Regarding how to monitor landfill 

surfaces including surface penetrations, 

subpart XXX states that surface 

emission monitoring must be performed 

in accordance with section 8.3.1 of 

Method 21 of appendix A of part 60, 

except that the probe must be placed 

within 5 to 10 centimeters of the 

ground. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41818 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

26For more information on emission factors and 

their uses, see: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/. 

E. Electronic Reporting 

Through this proposal, the EPA is 

presenting a process to increase the ease 

and efficiency of data submittal and 

improve data accessibility. Specifically, 

the EPA is proposing that owners or 

operators of MSW landfills submit 

electronic copies of required 

performance test reports, NMOC 

emission rate reports, and annual 

reports by direct computer-to-computer 

electronic transfer through the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). 

The CDX is the EPA’s portal for 

submittal of electronic data. The EPAprovided ERT software is used to 

generate electronic reports of 

performance tests that will be uploaded 

into the CDX using the CEDRI. NMOC 

emission rate reports and annual reports 

will be submitted using subpart specific 

forms in the CEDRI. The submitted 

report package will be stored in the CDX 

archive (the official copy of record) and 

the EPA’s public database called 

WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have 

access to all reports and data in 

WebFIRE and accessing these reports 

and data will be very straightforward 

and easy (see the WebFIRE Report 

Search and Retrieval link at http://

cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.

cfm?action=fire.searchERTSubmission). 

A description and instructions for use of 

the ERT can be found at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html 

and CEDRI can be accessed through the 

CDX Web site (http://www.epa.gov/cdx). 

A description of the WebFIRE database 

is available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/

oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

Electronic data transmittal and 

reporting is becoming an increasingly 

common element of modern life (as 

evidenced by electronic banking and 

income tax filing). Electronic reporting 

of environmental data is also common 

practice in many media offices at the 

EPA; programs such as the Toxics 

Release Inventory (TRI), the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Program, Acid Rain and 

NOX Budget Trading Programs, and the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

new chemical program all require 

electronic submissions to the EPA. The 

changes being proposed today are 

needed to continue the transition to 

electronic reporting. Under current 

requirements, paper reports are often 

stored in filing cabinets or boxes, which 

make the reports more difficult to obtain 

and use for data analysis and sharing. 

Electronic storage of such reports would 

make data more accessible for review, 

analyses, and sharing. Electronic 

reporting can eliminate paper-based, 

manual processes. This will save time 

and resources, simplify data entry, 

eliminate redundancies, and provide 

data quickly and accurately to the 

affected sources, air agencies, the EPA, 

and the public. 

Under an electronic reporting system, 

the EPA would have air emissions and 

performance test data in hand; thus, it 

is possible that fewer or less substantial 

information collection requests (ICRs) in 

conjunction with prospective CAArequired technology and risk-based 

reviews may be needed. This may result 

in a decrease in the need for industry 

staff time to respond to data collection 

requests. 

Affected sources could also see 

reduced costs as a result of electronic 

reporting. The electronic reporting 

system forms will contain only the data 

elements specified by the regulations. 

As such, the data required to be 

included in each report will be clearly 

spelled out, reducing the time spent in 

determining required data elements and 

eliminating the time spent on including 

unnecessary data. The time savings 

realized by making the reports 

standardized could reduce facility costs. 

Reducing the reporting burden is also 

achieved through labor savings because 

some of the required data are already in 

existing EPA databases and do not need 

to be submitted again. Existing source 

files can be reused and already contain 

a portion of the required data. Electronic 

reporting could minimize submission of 

unnecessary or duplicative reports in 

cases where facilities report to multiple 

government agencies and the agencies 

opt to rely on the EPA’s electronic 

reporting system to view report 

submissions. Where air agencies 

continue to require a paper copy of 

these reports and will accept a hard 

copy of the electronic report, facilities 

will have the option to print paper 

copies of the electronic reporting forms 

to submit to the air agencies, thus 

minimizing the time spent reporting to 

multiple agencies. Additionally, 

maintenance and storage costs 

associated with retaining paper records 

could likewise be minimized by 

replacing those records with 

electronically submitted data and 

reports. 

Air agencies could benefit from more 

streamlined and automated review of 

the electronically submitted data. For 

example, because the performance test 

data would be readily-available in a 

standard electronic format, air agencies 

would be able to review reports and 

data electronically rather than having to 

conduct a review of the reports and data 

manually. Having reports and associated 

data in electronic format will facilitate 

review through the use of software 

‘‘search’’ options, as well as the 

downloading and analyzing of data in 

electronic format. Additionally, air 

agencies would benefit from the 

reported data being accessible to them 

through the EPA’s electronic reporting 

system wherever and whenever they 

want or need access (as long as they 

have access to the Internet). 

The general public would also benefit 

from electronic reporting of emissions 

data because the data would be 

available for viewing sooner and would 

be easier for the public to access. The 

EPA Web site that stores the submitted 

electronic data will be easily accessible 

to the public and will provide a userfriendly interface that any stakeholder 

could access. 

Another advantage to electronic 

reporting is that it makes data that can 

be used for the development of emission 

factors more readily available. An 

emission factor is a representative value 

that attempts to relate the quantity of a 

pollutant released to the atmosphere 

with an activity associated with the 

release of that pollutant (e.g., kilograms 

of particulate emitted per megagram of 

coal burned). Such factors facilitate 

estimation of emissions from various 

sources of air pollution and are an 

important tool in developing emissions 

inventories, which in turn are the basis 

for numerous efforts including trends 

analysis, regional and local scale air 

quality modeling, regulatory impact 

assessments, and human exposure 

modeling. In most cases, emission 

factors are simply averages of all 

available data regardless of the data 

quality, and they are generally assumed 

to be representative of long-term 

averages for all facilities in the source 

category (i.e., a population average).26

The EPA has received feedback from 

stakeholders asserting that many of the 

EPA’s emission factors are outdated or 

not representative of a particular 

industry emission source. While the 

EPA believes that the emission factors 

are suitable for their intended purpose, 

we also recognize that emissions 

profiles on different pieces of 

equipment can change over time due to 

a number of factors (fuel changes, 

equipment improvements, industry 

work practices), and it is important for 

emission factors to be updated to keep 

up with these changes. The EPA is 

currently pursuing emission factor 

development improvements that 

include procedures to incorporate the 

source test data that we are proposing be 

submitted electronically. By requiring 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41819 

the electronic submission of the reports 

identified in this proposed action, the 

EPA would be able to access and use the 

submitted data to update emission 

factors more quickly and efficiently, 

creating factors that are characteristic of 

what is currently representative of the 

industry sector. Likewise, an increase in 

the number of test reports used to 

develop the emission factors will 

provide more confidence that the factor 

is of higher quality and representative of 

the whole industry sector. The EPA’s 

new emission factor development 

procedures (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/efpac/procedures/index.html) that 

incorporate the use of electronic test 

data automatically perform routines to 

indicate when a factor is no longer 

representative of an industry sector 

based on current data and calculates an 

updated factor. Because these routines 

are run automatically, the process is 

quick, and we are able to provide 

representative factors sooner. Emission 

factors are used in the development of 

emissions inventories, and as such, 

improved emission factors means that 

the quality of these inventories will be 

improved on a much quicker scale than 

they would under the current paper 

reporting requirements. 

The electronic reporting system will 

also result in information that is 

submitted in a standardized format. 

Standardizing the reporting format will 

require the reporting of specific data 

elements, thereby helping to ensure 

completeness of the data and allowing 

for accurate assessment of data quality. 

In the past, incomplete test reports have 

resulted in lower quality emission 

factors because the data could not be 

adequately reviewed to determine 

representativeness. Imbedded quality 

assurance checks will perform some of 

the required method calculations, 

reducing errors in test reports. The 

system will perform statistical analyses 

routines to evaluate below detection 

limit data and outliers prior to 

performing the emission factor 

calculations. The result will be a factor 

of the highest quality rating that is most 

representative for the source category. 

And because the system is entirely 

electronic, it eliminates transcription 

errors in moving data from paper reports 

to data systems for analysis. These 

quality assurance checks and 

procedures will increase the accuracy of 

test report data, improve the overall 

quality of test data, and lead to more 

accurate emission factors and higher 

quality emissions inventories. These 

features benefit all users of the data. 

Because those records, data, and 

reports that will be required to be 

submitted to the EPA electronically will 

be stored safely and will be available to 

all stakeholders at all times, we propose 

that industry should be required to 

maintain only electronic copies of these 

records to satisfy federal recordkeeping 

requirements. Thus, in this rulemaking, 

we are proposing to eliminate the 

requirement to maintain hard copies of 

records, data, and reports submitted to 

the EPA’s CDX. This provision will 

benefit industry sources that currently 

maintain these reports in hardcopy 

form; no more rooms of file cabinets to 

store these reports will be needed, while 

maintaining the accessibility of this 

information on site. We note, however, 

that air agencies that require submission 

of reports in hardcopy form may also 

require hardcopy records. 

We plan to store records, data, and 

reports submitted to the EPA’s CDX 

electronically in two sites (CDX and 

WebFIRE), with frequent backups. Upon 

submission of a report, CEDRI will 

archive a copy of each submitted report 

in the CDX (this copy becomes the 

official copy of record). Both WebFIRE 

and CDX backup their files on a daily 

basis. The EPA’s National Computer 

Center (where the WebFIRE files are 

stored) maintains a dual back-up file 

(one kept on site and the other stored off 

site). The CDX also employs a dual 

backup system to avoid problems in the 

event of a catastrophe at the location of 

the servers storing the files. Thus, the 

EPA has established redundancy into 

the electronic reporting and storage 

system to ensure submitted data are 

retained. In summary, in addition to 

supporting regulation development, 

control strategy development, and other 

air pollution control activities, having 

an electronic database populated with 

these reports would save industry; state, 

local, and tribal agencies; and the EPA 

significant time, money, and effort 

while also improving the quality of 

emission inventories and, as a result, air 

quality regulations. 

F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements 

During implementation of subpart 

WWW, the question has been raised 

about whether a landfill needs agency 

approval to establish higher operating 

values for temperature, nitrogen, or 

oxygen as allowed under subpart WWW 

(40 CFR 60.753(c)). Subpart WWW (40 

CFR 60.752(b)(2)(1)(B)) specifically 

states that the design plan shall include 

any alternatives to the operational 

standards, test methods, procedures, 

compliance measures, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, or reporting provisions 

of subpart WWW proposed by the 

owner or operator. Therefore, the EPA is 

confirming in subpart XXX that 

alternative values allowed for under 

subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.763(c)) should 

be submitted for approval by the 

Administrator or the delegated state 

authority and then, after it is approved, 

submitted again to the Administrator or 

the delegated state authority as part of 

a design plan revision. 

Another question has been raised 

during implementation concerning 

supporting data requirements for the 

allowance of an elevated wellfield 

monitoring parameter. The EPA is 

clarifying its intent in subpart XXX (40 

CFR 60.763(c)), such that the 

demonstration must meet this criteria: A 

higher operating value must not cause 

fires and must not significantly inhibit 

anaerobic decomposition by killing 

methanogens. 

G. Requirements for Updating Design 

Plan 

Currently subpart WWW does not 

directly specify when a design plan 

should be updated and submitted to the 

Administrator for approval. To clarify 

questions received during 

implementation on the timing of 

submittals of updated design plans, we 

are proposing in subpart XXX to outline 

a set of three criteria under a 

consolidated section 40 CFR 60.767(h) 

for when a design plan must be 

submitted for approval. A revised 

design plan must be submitted for 

approval: Within 90 days of expanding 

operations to an area not covered by the 

previously approved design plan; before 

installing or expanding the gas 

collection system in a way that is not 

consistent the previous design plan; and 

prior to implementing an approved 

alternative operating parameter value 

for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen, if 

the owner or operator has requested 

alternative operating parameter values. 

The EPA is proposing to maintain the 

same site-specific design plan review 

and approval procedures, recognizing 

the unique site-specific topography, 

climate and other factors affecting the 

design of a GCCS. However, the EPA 

solicits comment on ways to streamline 

the design plan submission and 

approval procedures as part of its 

review of this NSPS. 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 

alternative operating parameters and 

updated design plans could be approved 

on a similar schedule. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41820 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

H. Submitting Corrective Action 

Timeline Requests 

During implementation of subpart 

WWW, the question has been raised 

about whether 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 intent of the rule is to 

require agency approval of corrective 

action timelines only if a landfill does 

not fix an exceedance in 15 days and is 

unable to or does not plan to expand the 

gas collection system within 120 days. 

We have included provisions in subpart 

XXX (40 CFR 60.765(a)(5)) to clarify this 

point. Excluding system expansion, all 

other types of corrective actions 

expected to exceed 15 calendar days 

should be submitted to the agency for 

approval of an alternate timeline. In 

addition, if a landfill owner or operator 

expects the system expansion to exceed 

the 120-day allowance period, it should 

submit a request and justification for an 

alternative timeline. We have not 

proposed a specific schedule for 

submitting these requests for alternative 

corrective action timelines because 

investigating and determining the 

appropriate corrective action, as well as 

the schedule for implementing the 

corrective action, will be site specific 

and depend on the reason for the 

exceedance. We clarify that a landfill 

should submit an alternative time line 

request as soon as possible (i.e., as soon 

as they know that they would not be 

able to correct the exceedance in 15 

days or expand the system in 120 days) 

to avoid being in violation of the rule. 

If the landfill waits until 120 days after 

the exceedance to submit an alternative 

time line, then by the time the 

regulatory agency has the chance to 

review the time line and determine if it 

is approvable, the landfill will already 

be in violation of the requirement to 

expand the system within 120 days. 

After submitting the alternative timeline 

request, the landfill should work with 

its permitting authority to communicate 

the reasons for the exceedances, status 

of the investigation, and schedule for 

corrective action. 

To address implementation concerns 

associated with the time allowed for 

corrective action, the EPA requests 

comment on an alternative 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 that 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 to as 

soon as practicable, but no later than 60 

days, then the EPA is also considering 

the removal of the provision to submit 

an alternative timeline for correcting the 

exceedance. Thus, by no later than day 

60, the landfill would have to either 

have completed the adjustments and 

repairs necessary to correct the 

exceedance, or be prepared to have the 

system expansion completed by day 

120. The EPA is also requesting input 

on whether 60 days is the appropriate 

amount of time that would allow 

owners or operators to make the 

necessary repairs. 

I. Other Corrections and Clarifications 

The clarifications and provisions 

described in this section apply to new 

subpart XXX. During implementation of 

subpart WWW, the EPA learned about 

potential confusion in the rule caused 

by the terms ‘‘control and treatment 

system’’ and ‘‘control system.’’ It was 

requested that the EPA revise the term 

‘‘control or treatment system’’ to read 

‘‘control system.’’ We agree that the 

term treatment system is a subset of the 

control system as described in subpart 

WWW (40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)) and 

are proposing to make this change in 

proposed subpart XXX. While making 

this change, we also conducted an 

extensive review of the remainder of the 

rule text to make several editorial and 

consistency changes to how the terms 

‘‘control system’’ and ‘‘collection and 

control system’’ were used. As part of 

this review, we clarified our intent for 

the terms ‘‘device’’ and ‘‘equipment’’ to 

be used interchangeably with ‘‘system’’ 

in the context of the landfills NSPS; and 

we are proposing to replace these terms 

with ‘‘system’’ in several places, as 

appropriate, for consistency. We also 

identified editorial inconsistencies in 

the use of how the terms ‘‘control 

system’’ and ‘‘collection and control 

system’’ were referenced and we are 

proposing in subpart XXX to change the 

text to reference the correct term, 

consistent with the intent of the rule 

text. 

We propose to include language in 

subpart XXX to exempt owners or 

operators of boilers and process heaters 

with design capacities of 44 megawatts 

or greater from the requirement to 

conduct an initial performance test. 

Available data demonstrate that boilers 

and process heaters with heat input 

capacities of 44 megawatts or greater 

consistently achieve the required level 

of control, and the exemption of these 

boilers from testing has been included 

in several other air regulations, such as 

those for the chemical industry and 

petroleum refineries. 

We propose to apply new language in 

subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.768(b)(2)(i) and 

40 CFR 60.768(c)(1)(i)) by removing the 

term ‘‘combustion’’ from the 

requirement to monitor temperature of 

enclosed combustors. The amendment 

clarifies that the ‘‘combustion’’ 

temperature does not have to be 

monitored, because, for some enclosed 

combustors, it is not possible to monitor 

temperature inside the combustion 

chamber to determine combustion 

temperature. Instead, temperature can 

be monitored at another location, as 

long as the monitored temperature 

relates to proper operation of the 

enclosed combustor. 

We propose to include a corrected test 

method cross-reference in subpart XXX 

(40 CFR 60.765(c)(3)) necessitated by 

the reorganization of Method 21 in 

appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. 

We propose to include definitions of 

‘‘household waste’’ and ‘‘segregated 

yard waste’’ in subpart XXX (40 CFR 

60.761) to clarify our intent regarding 

the applicability of subpart XXX to 

landfills that do not accept household 

waste, but accept segregated yard waste. 

We intend for subpart XXX to apply to 

municipal solid waste landfills that 

accept general household waste 

(including garbage, trash, sanitary 

waste), as indicated in the definitions. 

We did not intend these rules to apply 

to landfills that accept only segregated 

yard waste and non-household waste 

such as construction and demolition 

and yard waste. 

We are clarifying the definition of 

‘‘Modification’’ in subpart XXX to 

include an increase in the permitted 

design capacity in terms of not only the 

volume, but also the mass. 

The EPA is exploring options to 

achieve additional emissions reductions 

from existing landfills under CAA 

section 111(d) in an ANPRM. The EPA 

will consider all of the information it 

receives in response to the ANPRM in 

the context of its review of the NSPS 

and will respond to that information 

accordingly. In light of our interest in 

valuing methane reductions in our 

review of these standards as well as the 

number of cost-effective measures for 

existing landfills described in the 

ANPRM, the EPA is also exploring 

whether it is reasonable to review the 

definition of modification for landfills. 

A revision to the definition may provide 

additional opportunities to apply costeffective measures to mitigate landfill 

gas emissions in modified sources 

because of the close relationship of 

control strategies that may apply to both 

modified landfills and existing sources. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41821 

The EPA requests comment on changes 

that may be appropriate and whether 

these changes should be enacted to 

achieve additional emissions 

reductions. 

IX. Request for Comment on Specific 

Provisions 

The EPA is specifically requesting 

public comment on three issues: 

Landfill gas treatment, wellhead 

monitoring, and enhanced surface 

monitoring. 

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas 

and Treatment System and Treatment 

System Monitoring 

The EPA is requesting public 

comment on an alternative approach for 

defining treatment system and treated 

landfill gas. The alternative approach 

would define Treated landfill gas as 

landfill gas processed in a treatment 

system according to subpart XXX and 

would define Treatment system as a 

system that filters, de-waters, and 

compresses landfill gas. The alternative 

approach would be available for only 

new landfills subject to subpart XXX 

that treat the landfill gas for subsequent 

sale or beneficial use. The EPA is 

considering providing this flexibility for 

new landfills that beneficially use 

landfill gas, given the site-specific and 

end-use specific treatment requirements 

for different energy recovery 

technologies. The EPA is also requesting 

comment on providing this flexibility 

for all landfills. Most landfills that 

beneficially use landfill gas either 

combust the landfill gas in a device that 

achieves 98 percent destruction of 

NMOCs or they treat gas for sale or onsite use. This level of treatment and 

subsequent combustion not only 

achieves the environmental benefits of 

reducing landfill gas emissions, but also 

utilizes landfill gas as an energy 

resource. 

This technical aspects of this 

alternative approach are consistent with 

public comments on previous notices 

(67 FR 36475, May 23, 2002 and 71 FR 

53271, September 8, 2006). It is also 

consistent with input from the SERs and 

recent Federalism consultation 

participants who stated that 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 

landfill gas as a fuel and ensure good 

combustion. The alternative treatment 

provisions are also consistent with the 

2002 proposed definition of treatment 

system as ‘‘a system that filters, dewaters, and compresses landfill gas.’’ 

The alternative definition of treatment 

system gas allows the level of treatment 

to be tailored to the type and design of 

the specific combustion equipment in 

which the landfill gas is used. Instead 

of meeting numerical specifications for 

treated landfill gas, owners/operators 

would specify the level of treatment 

based on the type and design of the 

specific combustion equipment that 

uses the treated landfill gas. Owners/

operators would identify monitoring 

parameters and keep records that 

demonstrate that such parameters 

effectively monitor filtration, dewatering, or compression system 

performance necessary for the end use 

of the treated landfill gas. We are also 

proposing to define ‘‘treated landfill 

gas’’ to mean landfill gas processed in 

a treatment system. The intent of the 

treatment option is to require active 

lowering of the dew point consistent 

with the better available treatment 

systems, as such, we did not intend 

knock-out pots (for example) to qualify. 

Owners/operators would develop a 

site-specific 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. Most landfill owners and 

operators that treat landfill gas combust 

the landfill gas in a combustion device 

that achieves 98 percent destruction of 

NMOCs. Thus, the treatment option 

offers a similar level of environmental 

protection as combusting the landfill 

gas. Landfill owners and operators that 

are beneficially using landfill gas are 

motivated to efficiently treat landfill gas 

for the intended purpose in order to 

protect energy recovery equipment, 

maintain warranties on equipment, and 

meet the gas specifications often 

specified in contractual requirements 

with third parties purchasing the gas. 

Thus, preparing the monitoring plan 

would document procedures to ensure 

that the landfill gas has been adequately 

treated for the intended use. Having a 

properly operated and efficient 

treatment system should minimize 

downtime of the entire GCCS (or routing 

of the landfill gas to a flare due to 

shutdown of end-use equipment) 

because the end-use equipment will 

continue to operate properly and will 

need less maintenance if the gas is 

treated appropriately. By minimizing 

downtime of the entire system, the 

destruction of NMOC will be 

maximized. 

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 landfill 

gas. The plan would be required to 

include monitoring methods, 

frequencies, and operating ranges for 

each monitored operating parameter 

based on manufacturer’s 

recommendations or engineering 

analysis for the intended end use of the 

treated landfill gas. Documentation of 

the monitoring methods and ranges, 

along with justification, must be 

included in the site-specific monitoring 

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 quality 

assurance, maintenance, and repair of 

all continuous monitoring systems. 

The monitoring plan may rely on 

references to existing corporate 

documents (e.g., standard operating 

procedures, quality assurance programs 

or other documents) provided that the 

elements required by the monitoring 

plan are easily recognizable. 

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 procedures 

for the maintenance and repair of 

monitoring systems to reduce the 

frequency of monitoring equipment 

downtime. 

The plan must be kept on site and 

must be available for inspection. In 

addition, upon request by the 

Administrator, the owner or operator 

would be required to make all 

information that is collected in 

conjunction with the monitoring plan 

available for review during an audit or 

inspection. 

B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements 

The EPA is requesting public 

comment on alternative wellhead 

monitoring requirements in proposed 

subpart XXX. One alternative 

monitoring provision could be in the 

form of an exclusion from the 

temperature 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 

quarterly or semi-annual schedule. 

Owners or operators would continue to 

monitor the wellhead for negative 

pressure. 

The EPA is specifically requesting 

comment on whether this adjustment 

should apply only to landfills that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41822 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

beneficially use landfill gas, and if so 

whether any quantity of the recovered 

LFG should qualify for alternative 

wellhead monitoring. Alternatively, the 

EPA is requesting comment 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 reduce 

the frequency of the wellhead 

monitoring requirements. The EPA also 

requests comments on the availability of 

this flexibility to small entities owning 

or operating landfills, regardless of 

beneficial use. 

The EPA would provide these 

alternatives to encourage new landfills 

to beneficially use landfill gas. Both of 

these alternative options (exclusion or 

reduced monitoring frequency) would 

provide monitoring relief to these 

landfills. Landfill owners and operators 

must operate their GCCS in a manner 

that collects the most landfill gas and 

minimizes losses of landfill gas 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. 

As proposed, subpart XXX requires 

landfill owners and operators to operate 

each interior wellhead in the collection 

system with a landfill gas temperature 

less than 55 °C and with either a 

nitrogen level less than 20 percent or an 

oxygen level less than 5 percent. Instead 

of having the landfill owner or operator 

conduct monthly monitoring of 

temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at the 

wellheads, the EPA is considering 

relying on landfill surface emission 

monitoring requirements in 

combination with maintenance of 

negative 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 parameters would be 

complemented by the surface 

monitoring provisions discussed in this 

preamble. As discussed in section VII.F 

and VIII.F of this preamble, we are 

reiterating that landfills must monitor 

all cover penetrations and openings 

within the area of the landfill where 

waste has been placed and a gas 

collection system is required. 

Given recent technological 

advancements in data storage and 

transmission, the EPA is also 

considering an alternative to automate 

the wellhead monthly monitoring 

provisions. Automation could reduce 

long-term burden on landfill owner/

operators as well as delegated 

authorities by allowing for a more 

frequent, but less labor-intensive, data 

collection 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 exceedance 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 that it could provide 

flexibility for incorporating additional 

parameters into the monitoring program. 

The EPA is soliciting comment on this 

alternative, including the types of 

parameters that are best suited for an 

automated monitoring alternative, 

examples of successful automated 

monitoring programs at MSW landfills 

and their associated costs, additional 

considerations for equipment 

calibration, and input on any averaging 

times that might be appropriate to 

determine when one or more monitored 

parameters have been exceeded. 

C. Enhanced Surface Monitoring 

Requirements 

The EPA is requesting public 

comment on potential alternative 

approaches to the surface emission 

monitoring in proposed subpart XXX. 

Subpart XXX collection and control 

requirements are intended for landfills 

to maintain a tight cover that minimizes 

any emissions of landfill gas through the 

surface. The surface emissions 

monitoring procedures in proposed 

subpart XXX require quarterly surface 

emissions monitoring to demonstrate 

that the cover and gas collection system 

are working properly. The operational 

requirements in subpart XXX (40 CFR 

60.763(d)) specify that the landfill must 

‘‘ . . . operate the collection system so 

that the methane concentration is less 

than 500 parts per million above 

background 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 

landfill gas, such as distressed 

vegetation and cracks or seeps in the 

cover.’’ 

Proposed subpart XXX requires 

quarterly monitoring and includes 

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. 

In this document, we are requesting 

public comment on potential 

alternatives to the surface monitoring 

procedures in proposed subpart XXX. 

Potential alternatives could include 

provisions such as those in a California 

regulation (provisions in California Air 

Resources Board, Final Regulation 

Order, Methane Emissions from 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

(Article 4, Subarticle 6, sections 95460 

to 95476, title 17, California Code of 

Regulations)) and include changing the 

walking pattern that traverses the 

landfill, adding an integrated methane 

concentration measurement, and 

allowing sampling only when wind is 

below a certain speed. 

For subpart XXX, we are requesting 

comment on reducing the interval for 

the walking pattern that traverses the 

landfill from 30 meters (98 ft.) to 25 ft. 

We are also requesting comment on the 

addition of a 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 

emissions monitoring provides an 

average surface emission concentration 

across a specified area. For integrated 

surface emissions monitoring, the 

specified 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 cover 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 

considering not allowing surface 

monitoring when the average wind 

speed exceeds 5 miles per hour 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 periods are usually not 

representative of the emissions. 

The EPA estimated the costs 

associated with both the proposed 

subpart XXX surface monitoring 

requirements (which are the same as the 

surface monitoring requirements in 

subpart WWW) and potential changes to 

the surface monitoring provisions under 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41823 

the proposed option 2.4/40 and applied 

them to the set of new landfills that 

would be subject to control 

requirements under the respective 

option. To determine the costs, the EPA 

used the following assumptions: Most 

landfills will hire a contractor to 

conduct the quarterly monitoring. The 

landfill will incur labor costs based on 

the time it takes to walk the traverse 

(hours per acre), the size of the landfill 

(acres), and a labor rate (dollars per 

hour). The landfill will also incur an 

equipment rental rate (dollars per hour). 

Equipment rental rates are dollars per 

day/week/month, depending on the size 

of the landfill and time to traverse the 

acreage during each quarterly period. 

See the docketed memo ‘‘Methodology 

for Estimating Testing and Monitoring 

Costs for the MSW Landfill Regulations. 

2014,’’ which contains the details for 

determining the costs that a landfill 

would incur to conduct enhanced 

surface monitoring. 

Using the techniques discussed in 

section V.A of this preamble, the EPA 

estimated the number of landfills that 

are expected to install controls under 

the baseline, as well as the proposed 

option 2.5/40. Then, the EPA applied 

surface monitoring costs to the 

respective set of landfills because 

landfills that must install controls must 

also conduct surface monitoring. Table 

5 of this preamble compares the 

enhanced surface monitoring costs that 

would be incurred for new landfills 

under the baseline and proposed option 

2.5/40. 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF BASELINE SURFACE MONITORING VERSUS ENHANCED SURFACE MONITORING IN 2023 

Control option Surface monitoring 

option 

Number of 

landfills 

affected 

Number of 

landfills 

controlling 

Total 

annual cost 

(2012$) 

Incremental 

cost 

Total 

cost per 

controlled 

landfill 

Incremental 

cost per 

controlled 

landfill 

Baseline (2.5/50) ... No change (30 

meter traverse).

17 8 42,300 N/A 5,300 N/A 

Enhanced (25-foot 

traverse, integrated sample).

17 8 312,800 270,500 39,100 33,800 

Proposed option 

(2.5/40).

No change (30 

meter traverse).

17 11 50,000 7,700 4,500 700 

Enhanced (25-foot 

traverse, integrated sample).

17 11 362,900 320,600 33,000 29,100 

Several factors contribute to the cost 

of enhanced surface monitoring. 

Monitoring along a traverse with a 25 ft. 

interval would increase monitoring 

time, and 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. For a landfill to conduct the 

integrated surface emissions monitoring, 

the EPA assumed the landfill would 

rent a handheld portable vapor analyzer 

with a data logger. The data logger is 

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 and these 

instruments can be programmed to 

provide an integrated value as well as 

an instantaneous value. 

The EPA recognizes that these 

provisions could reduce surface 

emissions and that these emissions 

reductions are difficult to quantify. The 

EPA also understands that there are 

potential implementation concerns with 

these enhanced procedures. Surface 

monitoring is a labor intensive process 

and tightening the grid pattern would 

increase costs. Of the eight landfills 

expected to install controls under the 

baseline, it would take these landfills 

over 29 hours, on average, to complete 

each quarterly traverse pattern. 

Tightening the traverse pattern to 25- 

feet instead of 30-meters would require 

over 79 hours per quarter, or more than 

200 additional hours per year compared 

to the current 30-meter traverse pattern. 

At this time, the EPA is not proposing 

surface monitoring provisions that differ 

from those outlined in subpart WWW, 

but we are soliciting comment on 

techniques and data to estimate the 

emission reductions associated with 

enhanced surface monitoring. 

The EPA is requesting comment on 

allowing the use of alternative remote 

measurement and monitoring 

techniques for landfills that exceed the 

surface monitoring concentrations in 

subpart XXX. The EPA would like 

information to determine whether or not 

to allow these alternative techniques to 

be used to demonstrate that surface 

emissions are below the methane 

surface concentrations in the subpart 

XXX. Alternative remote measurement 

and monitoring techniques may include 

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 differential 

absorption. The EPA is also seeking 

comment on the frequency of testing 

and the format of the standard to use 

these technologies as an alternative to 

average surface concentration as 

measured by Method 21. Incorporation 

of these technologies in subpart XXX 

would require a change in format of the 

standard to be consistent with the 

technology. 

D. Alternative Emission Threshold 

Determination Techniques 

The EPA is considering adjusting the 

emission threshold determinations that 

dictate when a GCCS must be installed, 

including variations in the modeling 

parameters as well as adding sitespecific emission threshold 

determination. These alternatives may 

provide additional reporting and 

compliance flexibilities for owners and 

operators of affected landfills. 

1. Modeling Adjustments 

As proposed, subpart XXX has three 

different tiers available to an affected 

landfill to estimate whether or not the 

landfill exceeds the NMOC emission 

threshold of 50 Mg per year. The 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41824 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

27Stege, Alex. The Effects of Organic Waste 

Diversion on LFG Generation and Recovery from 

U.S. Landfills. SWANA’s 37th Annual Landfill Gas 

Symposium. 2014. 

28 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC), IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories. Volume 5 (Waste), Chapter 3 (Solid 

Waste Disposal). 2006. 

29California Code of Regulations, title 17, 

subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, section 95463, 

Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills. 

simplest Tier 1 calculation method uses 

default values for the potential methane 

generation capacity (L0) and methane 

generation rate (k) to determine when 

the landfill exceeds the 50 Mg NMOC 

per year emission rate cutoff. The 

default L0 is 170 m3 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 receiving less than 25 

inches of rainfall. The Tier 1 default 

NMOC concentration is 4,000 ppmv as 

hexane. If the Tier 1 calculated NMOC 

exceeds 50 Mg per year, the landfill 

must install controls or demonstrate, 

using more complex Tier 2 or 3 

procedures, that NMOC emissions are 

less than 50 Mg per year. 

The EPA is soliciting comment on 

allowing for alternative Tier 1 default 

values and modeling techniques based 

on the amount of organics in the waste. 

For example, the L0 is a function of the 

moisture content and organic content of 

the waste and L0 decreases as the 

amount of organic matter decreases. 

Recent studies have shown that average 

U.S. landfill L0 values have decreased 

22 percent between 1990 and 2012 

(from 102.6 m3 per Mg of waste to 79.8 

m3 per Mg of waste) due to increased 

recovery of organic materials.27 Subpart 

XXX could allow for landfill-specific L0

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). 

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 the 

revised NSPS. Sewage 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.28

If the EPA incorporates alternative 

Tier 1 modeling values in subpart XXX, 

the EPA would also need to allow for an 

alternative first-order decay model 

structure to compute a total methane 

generation rate for the landfill based on 

the sum of the methane generated from 

each separate waste stream. This 

alternative model may incorporate 

material-specific k and L0 values, 

instead of a single pair of k and L0

values applied to bulk MSW. The EPA 

requests comment on whether the 

alternative modeling parameters and 

model structure in subpart HH, or other 

default parameters or modeling 

procedures would be appropriate to use 

for emission threshold determinations 

in subpart XXX. 

2. Site-Specific Measurements 

Under the proposed subpart XXX, 

there are three different tiers available to 

an affected landfill to estimate whether 

or not the landfill exceeds the NMOC 

emission threshold of 50 Megagrams per 

year. If an affected landfill fails a Tier 

2 test (i.e., the calculated NMOC 

emissions are greater than 50 Mg/year), 

then the landfill must conduct Tier 3 

testing or install and operate an active 

GCCS. The EPA received comments 

while conducting outreach with small 

entities that recommended a new Tier 4 

surface emission monitoring (SEM) 

demonstration to allow increased 

flexibility for landfills that exceed 

modeled NMOC emission rates if they 

can demonstrate that site-specific 

methane emissions are low. This SEM 

demonstration would be conducted 

using similar procedures in proposed 

subpart XXX (see proposed 40 CFR 

60.765(d)). If the monitoring finds that 

methane emissions are below a level 

that the EPA finalizes in the NSPS 

review, then installation of a GCCS 

could be delayed. 

As an example, the California Air 

Resources Board (ARB) adopted the 

Methane Emissions from MSW Landfills 

regulation in 2009.29 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 surface methane emissions 

show any exceedances above 200 ppm 

the landfill must install a GCCS. This 

SEM demonstration is similar to the 

Tier 4 option being considered by the 

EPA. 

The EPA is soliciting comment about 

this new Tier 4 option or other ideas for 

more flexible emission threshold 

determination ‘‘Tiers’’ and what 

implementation procedures for each 

determination may be appropriate. As 

the EPA takes this new Tier 4 option 

under consideration, there are some 

implementation procedures that would 

need to be established. The EPA 

requests comment 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 installed for 

applicability purposes; (2) what number 

of exceedances over a specified time 

period that would require GCCS 

installation (proposed subpart XXX 

specifies a new well must be installed 

at three or more exceedances in a 

quarter); (3) what frequency of SEM 

demonstration (e.g., quarterly 

monitoring for landfills accepting waste, 

annual monitoring for closed landfills) 

is appropriate; and (4) what exceedance 

level is appropriate for determining if a 

GCCS must be installed (200 ppm or 

some other level). 

X. Impacts of Proposed Revisions 

The impacts shown in this section are 

expressed as the incremental difference 

between facilities affected by baseline 

and the proposed reduction of the 

NMOC emission threshold to 40 Mg/yr 

from the current NSPS level of 50 Mg/ 

yr. There are incremental costs, 

emissions, and secondary impacts 

associated with capturing and/or 

utilizing the additional LFG under this 

proposal. 

As discussed in section V.B of this 

preamble, for most NSPS, impacts are 

expressed 5 years after the effective date 

of the rule. However, for the landfills 

NSPS, impacts are expressed 10 years 

after (year 2023) because the landfills 

regulations require controls at a given 

landfill only after the increasing NMOC 

emission rate reaches the level of the 

regulatory threshold. Additionally, the 

regulations allow the collection and 

control devices to be capped or removed 

at each landfill after certain criteria are 

met, which includes having the GCCS 

operate a minimum of 15 years. Controls 

would not be required over the same 

time period for all landfills. The impacts 

are a direct result of control; therefore, 

the annualized impacts change from 

year to year. By 2023, over half of the 

modeled new landfills are expected to 

have installed controls and thus, the 

EPA considered the impacts of the 

proposal relative to the baseline in 2023, 

as discussed in section V.B and VI of 

this preamble. The methodology for 

estimating the impacts of the NSPS is 

discussed in section VI of this preamble 

and in the docketed memorandum 

‘‘Methodology for Estimating Cost and 

Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills 

Regulations. 2014.’’ The results of 

applying this methodology to the 

population of future landfills potentially 

subject to this proposal are in the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41825 

docketed memorandum ‘‘Cost and 

Emission Impacts Resulting from the 

Landfill NSPS Review. 2014.’’ The 

impacts of subpart XXX are summarized 

as the impacts to new landfills 

estimated to be built during the first 5 

years of the standards, between 2014 

and 2018. Table 3 of this preamble 

summarizes the emission reductions 

and costs associated with the control 

options considered. 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

The proposal would achieve an 

additional 13 percent reduction in 

NMOC from landfills constructed since 

2013, or 79 Mg/yr, when compared to 

the baseline, as shown in Table 6 of this 

preamble. The proposal would also 

achieve substantial reductions in 

methane emissions. These reductions 

are achieved by reducing the NMOC 

threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 40 Mg/yr. 

TABLE 6—EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN 2023 FOR NEW LANDFILLS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CONTROLS UNDER PROPOSED

OPTION 2.5/40 

Parameter Quantity 

Baseline NMOC Emission Reductions (Mg) a ......................................................................................................................... 610. 

Proposed Incremental NMOC Emission Reductions (Mg) ...................................................................................................... 79. 

Baseline Methane Emission Reductions (Mg) a ...................................................................................................................... 94,800. 

Proposed Methane Emission Reductions (Mg) ....................................................................................................................... 12,300. 

Baseline Methane Emission Reductions (Mg CO2e) a ............................................................................................................ 2.4 million. 

Proposed Methane Emission Reductions (Mg CO2e) ............................................................................................................. 307,600. 

% Emission Reduction from Proposal ..................................................................................................................................... 13% below baseline. 

a These are the reductions that would be achieved from new landfills if subpart XXX retained the same gas collection and control requirements 

that are in subpart WWW. 

B. What are the water quality and solid 

waste impacts? 

Leachate is the liquid that passes 

through the landfilled waste and strips 

contaminants from the waste as the 

leachate percolates. Precipitation 

generates the vast majority of leachate 

volume. Installation of a gas collection 

system will generate additional liquid, 

in the form of gas condensate, and it 

will be routed to the same leachate 

treatment mechanisms in place for 

precipitation-based leachate. Collected 

leachate can be treated on site or 

transported off site to wastewater 

treatment facilities. Some landfills have 

received permits allowing for 

recirculation of leachate in the landfill, 

which may further reduce the volume of 

leachate requiring treatment. Additional 

liquid generated from gas condensate is 

not expected to be significant and 

insufficient data are available to 

estimate the increases in leachate 

resulting from expanded gas collection 

and control requirements. 

The additional gas collection and 

control components required by this 

proposal have finite lifetimes 

(approximately 15 years) and these 

pipes and wells will be disposed of at 

the end of their useful life. There are 

insufficient data to quantify the solid 

waste resulting from disposal of this 

control infrastructure. 

Further, the incremental costs of 

control for the proposal are not expected 

to have an appreciable market effect on 

the waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or 

the amount of solid waste disposed in 

landfills because the costs for gas 

collection represent a small portion of 

the overall costs to design, construct, 

and operate a landfill. There is 

insufficient information to quantify the 

effect increased gas control costs might 

have on the amount of solid waste 

disposed of in landfills versus other 

disposal mechanisms as recycling, 

waste-to-energy, or composting. 

C. What are the secondary air impacts? 

Secondary air impacts may include 

grid emissions from purchasing 

electricity to operate the GCCS 

components, by-product emissions from 

combustion of landfill gas in flares or 

energy recovery devices, and offsets to 

conventional grid emissions from new 

landfill gas energy supply. 

The secondary air impacts are 

presented as net impacts, considering 

both the energy demand and energy 

supply resulting from the proposal. The 

methodology used to prepare the 

estimated secondary impacts for this 

preamble is discussed in the docketed 

memorandum ‘‘Estimating Secondary 

Impacts of the Landfills NSPS Review. 

2014.’’ 

Because NOX and SO2 are covered by 

capped emissions trading programs, and 

methodological limitations prevent us 

from quantifying the change in CO and 

PM, we do not estimate an increase in 

secondary air impacts for this rule from 

additional demand for grid purchased 

electricity to operate control systems. 

The net impacts were computed for 

mercury and CO2e. After considering 

the offsets from LFG electricity, the 

impacts of the proposal are expected to 

reduce overall mercury emissions by 

577 tons per year (tpy) and reduce CO2

emissions by 26,139 tpy. These CO2

emission reductions are in addition to 

the CO2e emission reductions achieved 

from the direct destruction of methane 

in flares or engines presented in Table 

6 of this preamble. 

D. What are the energy impacts? 

The proposal is expected to have a 

very minimal impact on energy supply 

and consumption. Active gas collection 

systems require energy to operate the 

blowers and pumps and the proposal 

will increase the volume of landfill gas 

collected. When the least cost control is 

a flare, energy may be purchased from 

the grid to operate the blowers of the 

landfill gas collection system. However, 

when the least cost control option is an 

engine, the engine may provide this 

energy to the gas control system and 

then sell the excess to the grid. 

Considering the balance of energy 

generated and demanded from the 

estimated least cost controls, the 

proposal is estimated to have a net 

impact of 42,400 megawatt hours 

(MWh) of additional energy supply per 

year. 

E. What are the cost impacts? 

To meet the proposed emission limits, 

a landfill is expected to install the least 

cost control for combusting the landfill 

gas. The cost estimates (described in 

sections V and VI of this preamble) 

evaluated each landfill to determine 

whether a gas collection and flare or a 

gas collection with flare and engine 

equipment would be least cost, after 

considering local power buyback rates 

and whether the quantity of landfill gas 

was sufficient to generate electricity. 

The control costs include the costs to 

install and operate gas collection 

infrastructure such as wells, header 

pipes, blowers, and an enclosed flare. 

For landfills where the least cost control 

option was an engine, the costs also 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41826 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

30U.S. EPA. 1998. Office of Air and Radiation, 

Office of Air Quality Planning 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/ch02/final/

c02s04.pdf. 

31U.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/. 

32U.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/. 

33U.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/. 

include the cost to install and operate 

one or more reciprocating internal 

combustion engines to convert the 

landfill gas into electricity. Revenue 

from electricity sales was incorporated 

into the net control costs using statespecific data on wholesale purchase 

prices, where engines were deemed to 

be the least cost control option. Testing 

and monitoring costs at controlled 

landfills include the cost to conduct 

initial performance tests on the enclosed 

flare or engine control equipment, 

quarterly surface monitoring, 

continuous combustion monitoring, and 

monthly wellhead monitoring. At 

uncontrolled landfills, the testing and 

monitoring costs include calculation 

and reporting of NMOC emission rates 

using either Tier 1 or Tier 2 testing. 

The nationwide incremental 

annualized net cost for the proposal is 

$471,000, of which $5,900 is testing and 

monitoring costs. Table 7 of this 

preamble presents the costs. 

TABLE 7—INCREMENTAL COST IMPACTS IN 2023 FOR NEW LANDFILLS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CONTROLS UNDER THE

PROPOSAL

Option 

Total number 

of landfills 

incurring 

cost a

Annualized 

control cost 

Average 

annualized 

revenue 

Average 

annualized 

testing and 

monitoring 

cost 

Average 

net total 

annualized 

cost 

Total Costs of Baseline ($2012) 

Baseline 2.5/50 .................................................................... 13 23,956,900 21,315,300 66,400 2,708,000 

Incremental Costs Above Baseline ($2012) 

Proposed 2.5/40 ................................................................... 17 3,178,800 2,713,700 5,900 471,000 

a Under proposal, a total of 11 landfills are expected to install controls by 2023, compared with eight landfills under the baseline. A total of 17 

landfills meet the design capacity criteria of 2.5 million Mg and must report their NMOC emission rates under the proposal. This is the same 

number of landfills expected to report under the baseline. 

F. What are the economic impacts? 

Because of the relatively low cost of 

the proposal and the lack of appropriate 

economic parameters or model, the EPA 

is unable to estimate the impacts of the 

options on the supply and demand for 

MSW landfill services. However, 

because of the relatively low 

incremental costs of the proposal, the 

EPA does not believe the proposal 

would lead to changes in supply and 

demand for landfill services or waste 

disposal costs, tipping fees, or the 

amount of waste disposed in landfills. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of 

the proposal should be minimal on the 

affected industries and their consumers. 

G. What are the benefits? 

The proposal is expected to achieve 

additional emission reductions from 

MSW landfills from landfills 

constructed, modified or reconstructed 

on or after July 17, 2014. By lowering 

the NMOC emissions threshold to 40 

Mg/yr, the proposal would achieve 

additional reductions of 79 Mg NMOC/ 

year, 12,300 Mg/yr methane (307,000 

Mg/yr CO2e) in 2023. These pollutants 

are associated with substantial health, 

welfare, and climate effects. 

This rulemaking is not an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866 

because it is not likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more. Therefore, we have not 

conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) or a benefits analysis for this 

rulemaking. Although we expect that 

these avoided emissions will result in 

improvements in air quality and reduce 

health effects associated with exposure 

to air pollution related emissions, we 

have not quantified or monetized the 

benefits of reducing these emissions for 

this rulemaking. This does not imply 

that there are no benefits associated 

with these emission reductions. We 

provide a qualitative description of 

benefits associated with reducing these 

pollutants below. When determining if 

the benefits of an action exceed its costs, 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct the agency to consider qualitative 

benefits that are difficult to quantity but 

nevertheless essential to consider. 

H. 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- 

percent methane and 50-percent CO2 by 

volume, with less than 1 percent 

NMOC. The NMOC portion of landfill 

gas can contain a variety of air 

pollutants, including various organic 

HAPs and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs). Nearly 30 organic HAPs have 

been identified in uncontrolled landfill 

gas, including benzene, toluene, ethyl 

benzene, and vinyl chloride.30

VOC emissions are precursors to both 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone 

formation. Exposure to PM2.5 and ozone 

is associated with significant public 

health effects.31 32 PM2.5 is associated 

with health effects, 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, 

restricted activity days and respiratory 

symptoms, as well as visibility 

impairment.33 Ozone is associated with 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41827 

34U.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/. 35U.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-GHGInventory-2014-Chapter-Executive-Summary.pdf. 

36 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. 

37Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, L.V. 

Alexander, S.K. Allen, N.L. Bindoff, F.-M. Bre ́on, 

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. MassonDelmotte, G.A. Meehl, I.I. Mokhov, S. Piao, V. 

Ramaswamy, D.Randall, M. Rhein, M. Rojas, C. 

Sabine, D. Shindell, 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. Qin, G.-K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 

Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

38U.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/. 

39Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bre ́on, 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: 

Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative ForcTMing. 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. Qin, G.-K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 

Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Pg. 680. 

40 Ibid. 

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.34

2. Climate Impacts of Methane 

Emissions 

In addition to the improvements in air 

quality and resulting benefits to human 

health and non-climate welfare effects 

previously discussed, this rule is 

expected to result in climate co-benefits 

due to anticipated methane reductions. 

In 2012, landfills were the third-largest 

anthropogenic source of methane 

emissions in the United States, 

accounting for approximately 18 percent 

of domestic methane emissions.35

Methane is a potent GHG with a global 

warming potential that is 25 times 

greater than CO2, which accounts for 

methane’s stronger absorption of 

infrared radiation per ton in the 

atmosphere but also its shorter lifetime 

(on the order of a decade compared to 

centuries or millennia for carbon 

dioxide).36 According to the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report, 

methane is the second leading longlived climate forcer after CO2 globally.37

As discussed in detail in the 2009 

Endangerment Finding, climate change 

caused by human emissions of GHGs 

threatens public health in multiple 

ways. By raising average temperatures, 

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 heat 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 United States, 

including in the largest metropolitan 

areas 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 hurricane 

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 among the 

most vulnerable to these climate-related 

health effects. 

As documented in the 2009 

Endangerment Finding, climate change 

caused by human emissions of GHGs 

also threatens 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 

areas 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 in 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 Alaskan 

indigenous communities. Climate 

change 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 points 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 United States that raise 

humanitarian, trade, and national 

security issues for the United States. 

While the EPA recognizes the 

potential methane reductions resulting 

from the range of changes to the current 

control framework outlined in this 

proposal would provide for economic 

climate co-benefits, the EPA has not 

presented monetized estimates of these 

potential co-benefits because the U.S. 

Government (USG) has not released 

directly modeled estimates of the social 

cost of methane (SC–CH4), a metric that 

estimates the monetary value of impacts 

associated with marginal changes in 

methane emissions in a given year. 

In recent rulemakings expected to 

have impacts on methane emissions, the 

EPA has considered the benefits of 

methane emission reductions in 

sensitivity analyses using an approach 

to approximate the value of marginal 

non-CO2 GHG emission reductions. In 

these sensitivity analyses, the global 

warming potential is used to convert the 

reductions in methane emissions to 

CO2-equivalents, which are then valued 

using the USG SC–CO2 estimates. The 

EPA has not presented these estimates 

in a main benefit-cost analysis due to 

the well-documented limitations 

associated with using GWP and the SCCO2 to value changes in non-CO2 GHG 

emissions. 

Methane is also a precursor to groundlevel 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.38

Approximately 50 percent of the global 

annual mean ozone increase since 

preindustrial times is believed to be due 

to anthropogenic methane.39 Projections 

of future emissions also indicate that 

methane is likely to be a key contributor 

to ozone concentrations in the future.40

Unlike NOX and VOC, which affect 

ozone concentrations regionally and at 

hourly time scales, methane emissions 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41828 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

41 Ibid. 

42West, J.J., Fiore, A.M. 2005. ‘‘Management of 

tropospheric ozone by reducing methane 

emissions.’’ Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:4685–4691. 

43Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. ‘‘Intercontinental 

impacts of ozone pollution on human mortality,’’ 

Environ. Sci. & Technol. 43: 6482–6487. 

affect ozone concentrations globally and 

on decadal time scales given methane’s 

relatively long atmospheric lifetime 

compared to these other ozone 

precursors.41 Reducing methane 

emissions, therefore, may contribute to 

efforts to reduce global background 

ozone concentrations that contribute to 

the incidence of ozone-related health 

effects.42 43 These benefits are global and 

occur in both urban and rural areas. 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it raises novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 2498.01. 

The information required to be 

collected is necessary to identify the 

regulated entities subject to the 

proposed rule and to ensure their 

compliance with the proposed rule. The 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are mandatory and are 

being established under authority of 

CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 

information other than emissions data 

submitted as part of a report to the 

agency for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made will be 

safeguarded according to CAA section 

114(c) and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The proposed rule requires very 

similar information collection 

requirements as the ICR currently 

approved for existing landfills under 

subpart WWW (ICR number 1557.08). 

However, this ICR will affect new 

landfills that are constructed, modified 

or reconstructed on or after July 17, 

2014 that have a design capacity of 2.5 

million Mg or 2.5 million cubic meters. 

The proposed rule will require 

affected landfills to submit a one-time 

initial design capacity report, and a 

periodic amended design capacity 

report if the design capacity is increased 

above the threshold. The proposed rule 

will also require an annual or every 5 

year submittal of an NMOC emission 

rate report, depending on whether the 

landfill conducts Tier 1 or Tier 2 testing, 

respectively. Prior to installing GCCS, 

the proposed rule requires the landfill 

owner or operator to submit a design 

plan for approval by the delegated 

authority. The proposed rule also 

requires a one-time closure report after 

the landfill ceases to accept waste and 

another one-time report just prior to the 

removal or cessation of gas collection 

and control equipment. The proposed 

rule requires annual reports to be 

submitted to document any exceedances 

or periods when the GCCS was not 

operating as well an initial performance 

test of the control system. The proposed 

rule also requires records to be 

maintained for at least 5 years. The 

types of records depend on whether or 

not the landfill has installed gas 

collection and control equipment and 

are detailed in the supporting statement 

for ICR number 2498.01. 

The EPA estimates that no new 

landfills will install controls during the 

first 3 years after the effective date of 

subpart XXX. Therefore, the burden 

estimates shown in this section 

represent the burden associated with 

many of the one-time recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements as well as the 

reports that are required from landfills 

with design capacities under the 

proposed threshold of 2.5 million Mg 

and 2.5 million cubic meters. 

The annual monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards) for the 

proposal is estimated to be 51 hours per 

response. An estimated eight responses 

per year will be submitted each year and 

there will be approximately 12 annual 

respondents per year. This burden is 

estimated to cost $39,300 per year. This 

includes an annual labor cost of $33,200 

and a purchased services cost of $6,100. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this 

document for where to submit 

comments to the EPA. Send comments 

to OMB at the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after July 17, 2014, a comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by August 18, 

2014. The final rule will respond to any 

OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impact 

of the proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business that is primarily engaged in the 

collection and disposal of refuse in a 

landfill operation as defined by NAICS 

codes 562212 with annual receipts less 

than $35.5 million; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000, and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The small entities subject to the 

requirements of this proposed rule may 

include private small businesses and 

small governmental jurisdictions that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41829 

own or operate landfills. Although it is 

unknown how many new landfills will 

be owned or operated by small entities, 

recent trends in the waste industry have 

been towards consolidated ownership 

among larger companies. The EPA has 

determined that approximately 10 

percent of the existing landfills subject 

to similar regulations (40 CFR Part 60 

subparts WWW and Cc or the 

corresponding state or federal plan) are 

small entities. 

Because the ownership of new 

landfills in the future is unknown, the 

EPA performed a screening analysis that 

assumed new landfills would be 

physically and financially similar to and 

have the same type of ownership as 

recently established landfills. Based 

upon historical data, the screening 

analysis predicted that four new 

landfills would be owned by small 

entities, but that none would be owned 

by small governments. 

One of the four small landfills is 

predicted to be incrementally affected 

by proposal. The screening analysis 

compared estimated annualized 

compliance costs for the proposal to 

company sales based on historical data. 

The maximum ratio of compliance cost 

to company revenue was 12 percent for 

this modeled small entity. To determine 

whether the impacts estimated for 2023 

are representative of longer-term 

impacts to small landfills, the EPA 

further investigated 30 years of cost 

information (2014–2043) for the four 

small model landfills. Over the 30-year 

time frame, two small landfills are never 

incrementally affected by the proposal. 

One landfill has impacts of up to 12 

percent (as described above), but 

impacts of this magnitude only occur in 

two years of the 30 years. In general, 

average impacts over the 30-year 

timeframe are approximately 1 percent 

or less and maximum impacts are less 

than 3 percent. In some years, 

incremental impacts are negative, 

indicating that the proposed provisions 

are less costly than the baseline NSPS. 

These impacts are shown in more detail 

in the Economic Impact Analysis. 

Based upon this analysis, we 

conclude there will not be SISNOSE 

arising from this proposal. First, these 

proposed revisions do not impact a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Only two small entities are potentially 

impacted, which does not constitute a 

substantial number. Additionally, the 

impacts to these small entities are not 

significant. Only one of the two landfills 

has impacts greater than 3 percent of 

sales in two of the 30 years examined. 

The costs incurred by small entities are 

the result of having to install controls 

earlier than would have been the case 

under the existing NSPS. (These costs 

would have been incurred in later years 

under the existing NSPS.) There will 

continue be a lag between the opening 

of the landfill and the implementation 

of controls during which the site will be 

generating revenue through tipping fees. 

This analysis only considers control 

costs and revenues associated with the 

collection of landfill gas and does not 

estimate the future collection of tipping 

fees which will be set at a level to 

adequately plan for known, future 

requirements. 

Given the trend toward larger 

landfills, it is possible that there will be 

fewer small landfills in the future than 

in data from the past 5 years. 

Additionally, while we assume that the 

new landfills will be financially and 

operationally similar to recently opened 

landfills, numerous factors could 

influence the actual size, location, and 

revenue of landfills that open in the 

future. The model landfills are based on 

landfills currently in operation that will 

not be subject to the proposed revisions. 

All small landfills that will be subject to 

these proposed revisions will make 

decisions about their development and 

operations with full knowledge of the 

requirements proposed. 

Although not required by the RFA to 

convene a Small Business Advocacy 

Review (SBAR) Panel because the EPA 

has now determined that this proposal 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, the EPA had originally 

convened a panel to obtain advice and 

recommendations from small entity 

representatives potentially subject to 

this rule’s requirements. The panel was 

not formally concluded; however, a 

summary of the outreach conducted and 

the written comments submitted by the 

small entity representatives that the 

SBAR Panel consulted can be found in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce 

the impact of this rule on small entities. 

For more information, please refer to the 

economic impact and small business 

analysis that is in the docket. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on state, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

Federal agencies must also develop a 

plan to provide notice to small 

governments that might be significantly 

or uniquely affected by any regulatory 

requirements. The plan must enable 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant federal 

intergovernmental mandates and must 

inform, educate, and advise small 

governments on compliance with the 

regulatory requirements. 

This action does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

This action applies to landfills that were 

constructed, modified or reconstructed 

on or after July 17, 2014. Impacts 

resulting from the proposed subpart 

XXX are far below the applicable 

threshold. Thus, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

In developing this rule, the EPA 

consulted with small governments 

pursuant to a plan established under 

section 203 of the UMRA to address 

impacts of regulatory requirements in 

the rule that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

EPA held meetings as discussed in 

section XI.E of this preamble under 

Federalism consultations. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The proposed 

rule will not have impacts of $25 

million or more in any one year. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. Although section 6 of 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action, the EPA did consult with 

state and local officials and 

representatives of state and local 

governments in developing this action. 

The EPA conducted a Federalism 

Consultation Outreach Meeting on 

September 10, 2013. Due to interest in 

that meeting, additional outreach 

meetings were held on November 7, 

2013 and November 14, 2013. 

Participants included the National 

Governors’ Association, the National 

Conference of State Legislatures, the 

Council of State Governments, the 

National League of Cities, the U.S. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41830 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Conference of Mayors, the National 

Association of Counties, the 

International City/County Management 

Association, the National Association of 

Towns and Townships, the County 

Executives of America, the 

Environmental Council of States, 

National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies, Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management 

Officials, environmental agency 

representatives from 43 states, and 

approximately 60 representatives from 

city and county governments. The 

comment period was extended to allow 

sufficient time for interested parties to 

review briefing materials and provide 

comments. Concerns raised during that 

consultation include: Implementation 

concerns associated with shortening of 

gas collection system installation and/or 

expansion timeframes, the need for 

clarity in regards to the definition of 

landfill gas treatment, concerns 

regarding significant lowering of the 

design capacity or emission thresholds, 

the need for clarifications associated 

with wellhead operating parameters and 

the need for consistent, clear and 

rigorous surface monitoring 

requirements. The EPA provided 

responses to these concerns in sections 

V, VII, and VIII of this preamble. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed action from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). Based on methodology used to 

predict future landfills as outlined in 

the docketed memorandum ‘‘Summary 

of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and 

Emission Reduction Analysis of 

Landfills Regulations. 2014,’’ future 

tribal landfills are not anticipated to be 

large enough to become subject to the 

rulemaking. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. The 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

this action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to EO 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Further, 

we have concluded that this rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy effects 

because there are a small number of new 

landfills expected to be subject control 

requirements under subpart XXX in 

2023. Further, the energy demanded to 

operate these control systems will be 

offset by additional energy supply from 

landfill gas energy projects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. The 

NTTAA directs the EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

The EPA conducted searches for VCS 

for the Landfills NSPS through the 

enhanced National Service Standards 

Network Database managed by the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI). The EPA also contacted VCS 

organizations and accessed and 

searched their databases. Searches were 

conducted for EPA Methods 2E, 3, 3A, 

3C, 21, 25, and 25C of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A. No applicable voluntary 

standards were identified for Methods 

2E, 21, and 25C. 

The search identified nine VCS that 

were potentially applicable for this rule 

in lieu of EPA reference methods. After 

reviewing the available standards, the 

EPA determined that the nine candidate 

VCS (ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10–1981 Part 

10, ASTM D3154–00 (2006), ASME 

B133.9–1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 

(2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835– 

95 (2007), ASTM D6522–00 (2005), 

CAN/CSA Z223.2–M86 (1999), ISO 

14965:2000(E)) identified for measuring 

emissions of pollutants or their 

surrogates subject to emission standards 

in the rule would not be practical due 

to lack of equivalency, documentation, 

validation data, and other important 

technical and policy considerations. 

The EPA’s review, including review 

comments for these nine methods, is 

documented in the memorandum, 

‘‘Voluntary Consensus Standard Results 

for Standards of Performance for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 40 CFR 

Part 60, Subpart XXX’’ in the docket for 

this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0215). 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low income 

populations in the United States. 

To gain a better understanding of the 

landfill source category and near-source 

populations, the EPA conducted a 

proximity analysis at a study area of 3 

miles of the source category for this 

rulemaking. This analysis identifies, on 

a limited basis, the subpopulations that 

may be exposed to air pollution from 

the regulated sources and thus are 

expected to benefit most from this 

regulation. This analysis does not 

identify the demographic characteristics 

of the most highly affected individuals 

or communities, nor does it quantify the 

level of risk faced by those individuals 

or communities. To the extent that any 

minority, low-income or indigenous 

subpopulation is disproportionately 

impacted by hazardous air emissions 

due to the proximity of their homes to 

sources of these emissions, that 

subpopulation also stands to see 

increased environmental and health 

benefit from the emission reductions 

called for by this rule. 

In regards to the landfills NSPS, the 

EPA has concluded that it is not 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41831 

practicable to determine whether there 

would be disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority, low income, or 

indigenous populations from this 

proposed rule because it is unknown 

where new facilities will be located. The 

demographic analysis results and the 

details concerning their development 

are presented in the March 25, 2014 

document entitled, ‘‘2014 

Environmental Justice Screening Report 

for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,’’ a 

copy of which is available in the docket 

for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0215). 

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 30, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend title 40, 

chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. Add subpart XXX to read as 

follows: 

Subpart XXX—Standards of Performance 

for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills That 

Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, 

or Modification on or After July 17, 2014. 

Sec. 

60.760 Applicability, designation of 

affected source, and delegation of 

authority. 

60.761 Definitions. 

60.762 Standards for air emissions from 

municipal solid waste landfills. 

60.763 Operational standards for collection 

and control systems. 

60.764 Test methods and procedures. 

60.765 Compliance provisions. 

60.766 Monitoring of operations. 

60.767 Reporting requirements. 

60.768 Recordkeeping requirements. 

60.769 Specifications for active collection 

systems. 

Subpart XXX—Standards of 

Performance for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills That Commenced 

Construction, Reconstruction, or 

Modification on or After July 17, 2014. 

§ 60.760 Applicability, designation of 

affected source, and delegation of 

authority. 

(a) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to each municipal solid waste 

landfill that commenced construction, 

reconstruction or modification on or 

after July 17, 2014. Physical or 

operational changes made to a MSW 

landfill solely to comply with subpart 

Cc or WWW of this part are not 

considered construction, reconstruction, 

or modification for the purposes of this 

section. 

(b) The following authorities shall be 

retained by the Administrator and not 

transferred to the state: § 60.764(a)(5). 

(c) Activities required by or 

conducted pursuant to a CERCLA, 

RCRA, or state remedial action are not 

considered construction, reconstruction, 

or modification for purposes of this 

subpart. 

§ 60.761 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart, all terms not 

defined herein shall have the meaning 

given them in the Act or in subpart A 

of this part. 

Active collection system means a gas 

collection system that uses gas mover 

equipment. 

Active landfill means a landfill in 

which solid waste is being placed or a 

landfill that is planned to accept waste 

in the future. 

Closed landfill means a landfill in 

which solid waste is no longer being 

placed, and in which no additional 

solid wastes will be placed without first 

filing a notification of modification as 

prescribed under § 60.7(a)(4). Once a 

notification of modification has been 

filed, and additional solid waste is 

placed in the landfill, the landfill is no 

longer closed. 

Closure means that point in time 

when a landfill becomes a closed 

landfill. 

Commercial solid waste means all 

types of solid waste generated by stores, 

offices, restaurants, warehouses, and 

other nonmanufacturing activities, 

excluding residential and industrial 

wastes. 

Controlled landfill means any landfill 

at which collection and control systems 

are required under this subpart as a 

result of the nonmethane organic 

compounds emission rate. The landfill 

is considered controlled at the time a 

collection and control system design 

plan is submitted in compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i). 

Design capacity means the maximum 

amount of solid waste a landfill can 

accept, as indicated in terms of volume 

or mass in the most recent permit issued 

by the state, local, or Tribal agency 

responsible for regulating the landfill, 

plus any in-place waste not accounted 

for in the most recent permit. If the 

owner or operator chooses to convert 

the design capacity from volume to 

mass or from mass to volume to 

demonstrate its design capacity is less 

than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 

million cubic meters, the calculation 

must include a site specific density, 

which must be recalculated annually. 

Disposal facility means all contiguous 

land and structures, other 

appurtenances, and improvements on 

the land used for the disposal of solid 

waste. 

Emission rate cutoff means the 

threshold annual emission rate to which 

a landfill compares its estimated 

emission rate to determine if control 

under the regulation is required. 

Enclosed combustor means an 

enclosed firebox which maintains a 

relatively constant limited peak 

temperature generally using a limited 

supply of combustion air. An enclosed 

flare is considered an enclosed 

combustor. 

Flare means an open combustor 

without enclosure or shroud. 

Gas mover equipment means the 

equipment (i.e., fan, blower, 

compressor) used to transport landfill 

gas through the header system. 

Household waste means any solid 

waste (including garbage, trash, and 

sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived 

from households (including, but not 

limited to, single and multiple 

residences, hotels and motels, 

bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew 

quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, 

and day-use recreation areas). 

Household waste does not include fully 

segregated yard waste. 

Industrial solid waste means solid 

waste generated by manufacturing or 

industrial processes that is not a 

hazardous waste regulated under 

Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, parts 264 and 265 of 

this title. Such waste may include, but 

is not limited to, waste resulting from 

the following manufacturing processes: 

Electric power generation; fertilizer/

agricultural chemicals; food and related 

products/by-products; inorganic 

chemicals; iron and steel 

manufacturing; leather and leather 

products; nonferrous metals 

manufacturing/foundries; organic 

chemicals; plastics and resins 

manufacturing; pulp and paper 

industry; rubber and miscellaneous 

plastic products; stone, glass, clay, and 

concrete products; textile 

manufacturing; transportation 

equipment; and water treatment. This 

term does not include mining waste or 

oil and gas waste. 

Interior well means any well or 

similar collection component located 

inside the perimeter of the landfill 

waste. A perimeter well located outside 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41832 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the landfilled waste is not an interior 

well. 

Landfill means an area of land or an 

excavation in which wastes are placed 

for permanent disposal, and that is not 

a land application unit, surface 

impoundment, injection well, or waste 

pile as those terms are defined under 

§ 257.2 of this title. 

Lateral expansion means a horizontal 

expansion of the waste boundaries of an 

existing MSW landfill. A lateral 

expansion is not a modification unless 

it results in an increase in the design 

capacity of the landfill. 

Modification means an increase in the 

permitted mass or volume design 

capacity of the landfill by either 

horizontal or vertical expansion based 

on its permitted design capacity as of 

July 17, 2014. Modification does not 

occur until the owner or operator 

commences construction on the 

horizontal or vertical expansion. 

Municipal solid waste landfill or 

MSW landfill means 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 RCRA 

Subtitle D wastes (§ 257.2 of this title) 

such as commercial solid waste, 

nonhazardous sludge, conditionally 

exempt small quantity generator waste, 

and industrial solid waste. 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. 

Municipal solid waste landfill 

emissions or MSW landfill emissions 

means gas generated by the 

decomposition of organic waste 

deposited in an MSW landfill or derived 

from the evolution of organic 

compounds in the waste. 

NMOC means nonmethane organic 

compounds, as measured according to 

the provisions of § 60.764. 

Nondegradable waste means any 

waste that does not decompose through 

chemical breakdown or microbiological 

activity. Examples are, but are not 

limited to, concrete, municipal waste 

combustor ash, and metals. 

Passive collection system means a gas 

collection system that solely uses 

positive pressure within the landfill to 

move the gas rather than using gas 

mover equipment. 

Segregated yard waste means 

vegetative matter resulting exclusively 

from the cutting of grass, the pruning 

and/or removal of bushes, shrubs, and 

trees, the weeding of gardens, and other 

landscaping maintenance activities. 

Sludge means any solid, semisolid, or 

liquid waste generated from a 

municipal, commercial, or industrial 

wastewater treatment plant, water 

supply treatment plant, or air pollution 

control facility, exclusive of the treated 

effluent from a wastewater treatment 

plant. 

Solid waste means any garbage, 

sludge from a wastewater treatment 

plant, water supply treatment plant, or 

air pollution control facility and other 

discarded material, including solid, 

liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous 

material resulting from industrial, 

commercial, mining, and agricultural 

operations, and from community 

activities, but does not include solid or 

dissolved material in domestic sewage, 

or solid or dissolved materials in 

irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges that are point sources subject 

to permits under 33 U.S.C. 1342, or 

source, special nuclear, or by-product 

material as defined by the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 

U.S.C 2011 et seq.). 

Sufficient density means any number, 

spacing, and combination of collection 

system components, including vertical 

wells, horizontal collectors, and surface 

collectors, necessary to maintain 

emission and migration control as 

determined by measures of performance 

set forth in this part. 

Sufficient extraction rate means a rate 

sufficient to maintain a negative 

pressure at all wellheads in the 

collection system without causing air 

infiltration, including any wellheads 

connected to the system as a result of 

expansion or excess surface emissions, 

for the life of the blower. 

Treated landfill gas means landfill gas 

processed in a treatment system as 

defined in this subpart. 

Treatment system means a system that 

has an absolute filtration rating of 10 

microns or less, lowers the water dew 

point of the landfill gas to 45 degrees 

Fahrenheit or lower with a de-watering 

process, and compresses the landfill gas. 

Untreated landfill gas means any 

landfill gas that is not treated landfill 

gas. 

§ 60.762 Standards for air emissions from 

municipal solid waste landfills. 

(a) Each owner or operator of an MSW 

landfill having a design capacity less 

than 2.5 million megagrams by mass or 

2.5 million cubic meters by volume 

shall submit an initial design capacity 

report to the Administrator as provided 

in § 60.767(a). The landfill may 

calculate design capacity in either 

megagrams or cubic meters for 

comparison with the exemption values. 

Any density conversions shall be 

documented and submitted with the 

report. Submittal of the initial design 

capacity report shall fulfill the 

requirements of this subpart except as 

provided for in paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(a)(2) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator shall 

submit to the Administrator an 

amended design capacity report, as 

provided for in § 60.767(a)(3). 

(2) When an increase in the maximum 

design capacity of a landfill exempted 

from the provisions of § 60.762(b) 

through § 60.769 of this subpart on the 

basis of the design capacity exemption 

in paragraph (a) of this section results in 

a revised maximum design capacity 

equal to or greater than 2.5 million 

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic 

meters, the owner or operator shall 

comply with the provision of paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(b) Each owner or operator of an MSW 

landfill having a design capacity equal 

to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams 

and 2.5 million cubic meters, shall 

either comply with paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section or calculate an NMOC 

emission rate for the landfill using the 

procedures specified in § 60.764. The 

NMOC emission rate shall be 

recalculated annually, except as 

provided in § 60.767(b)(1)(ii) of this 

subpart. The owner or operator of an 

MSW landfill subject to this subpart 

with a design capacity greater than or 

equal to 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 

million cubic meters is subject to part 

70 or 71 permitting requirements. 

(1) If the calculated NMOC emission 

rate is less than 40 megagrams per year, 

the owner or operator shall: 

(i) Submit an annual emission report 

to the Administrator, except as provided 

for in § 60.767(b)(1)(ii); and 

(ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission 

rate annually using the procedures 

specified in § 60.764(a)(1) until such 

time as the calculated NMOC emission 

rate is equal to or greater than 40 

megagrams per year, or the landfill is 

closed. 

(A) If the NMOC emission rate, upon 

recalculation required in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section, is equal to or 

greater than 40 megagrams per year, the 

owner or operator shall install and start 

up a collection and control system in 

compliance with paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(B) If the landfill is permanently 

closed, a closure notification shall be 

submitted to the Administrator as 

provided for in § 60.767(d). 

(2) If the calculated NMOC emission 

rate is equal to or greater than 40 

megagrams per year, the owner or 

operator shall: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41833 

(i) Submit a collection and control 

system design plan prepared by a 

professional engineer to the 

Administrator within 1 year: 

(A) The collection and control system 

as described in the plan shall meet the 

design requirements of paragraph 

(b)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(B) The collection and control system 

design plan shall include any 

alternatives to the operational 

standards, test methods, procedures, 

compliance measures, monitoring, 

recordkeeping or reporting provisions of 

§§ 60.763 through 60.768 proposed by 

the owner or operator. 

(C) The collection and control system 

design plan shall either conform with 

specifications for active collection 

systems in § 60.769 or include a 

demonstration to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction of the sufficiency of the 

alternative provisions to § 60.769. 

(D) If the owner or operator chooses 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission control requirements of this 

subpart using a treatment system as 

defined in this subpart and according to 

the requirements of paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(C) of this section, then the 

collection and control system design 

plan must include: 

(1) Design specifications for the 

filtration, de-watering, and compression 

systems that demonstrate conformance 

with the treatment system definition 

contained in § 60.761. 

(2) The minimum pressure drop 

across the filtration system, or other 

monitoring parameter(s) and operating 

ranges that indicate proper performance 

of the filtration system. The collection 

and control plan must include 

information, such as manufacturer’s 

recommendations or engineering 

analyses, to justify the minimum 

pressure drop or operating ranges for 

other monitoring parameters. 

(3) The landfill gas temperature for a 

chiller-based de-watering system, the 

landfill gas dew point for a non-chillerbased de-watering system, or other 

operating parameters and operating 

ranges that indicate proper performance 

of the de-watering system. The 

collection and control plan must 

include information, such as 

manufacturer’s recommendations or 

engineering analyses, to justify the 

operating ranges for temperature, dew 

point, or other monitoring parameters. 

(E) The Administrator shall review 

the information submitted under 

paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A), (B), (C), and (D) 

of this section and either approve it, 

disapprove it, or request that additional 

information be submitted. Because of 

the many site-specific factors involved 

with landfill gas system design, 

alternative systems may be necessary. A 

wide variety of system designs are 

possible, such as vertical wells, 

combination horizontal and vertical 

collection systems, or horizontal 

trenches only, leachate collection 

components, and passive systems. 

(ii) Install and start up a collection 

and control system that captures the gas 

generated within the landfill as required 

by paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) and 

(b)(2)(iii) of this section within 30 

months after the first annual report in 

which the emission rate equals or 

exceeds 40 megagrams per year, unless 

Tier 2 or Tier 3 sampling demonstrates 

that the emission rate is less than 40 

megagrams per year, as specified in 

§ 60.767(c)(1) or (2). 

(A) An active collection system shall: 

(1) Be designed to handle the 

maximum expected gas flow rate from 

the entire area of the landfill that 

warrants control over the intended use 

period of the gas control system 

equipment; 

(2) Collect gas from each area, cell, or 

group of cells in the landfill in which 

the initial solid waste has been placed 

for a period of: 

(i) 5 years or more if active; or 

(ii) 2 years or more if closed or at final 

grade. 

(3) Collect gas at a sufficient 

extraction rate; 

(4) Be designed to minimize off-site 

migration of subsurface gas. 

(B) A passive collection system shall: 

(1) Comply with the provisions 

specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A)(1), 

(2), and (2)(ii)(A)(4) of this section. 

(2) Be installed with liners on the 

bottom and all sides in all areas in 

which gas is to be collected. The liners 

shall be installed as required under 

§ 258.40. 

(iii) Route all the collected gas to a 

control system that complies with the 

requirements in either paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii) (A), (B) or (C) of this section. 

(A) An non-enclosed flare designed 

and operated in accordance with § 60.18 

except as noted in § 60.764(e); 

(B) A control system designed and 

operated to reduce NMOC by 98 weightpercent, or, when an enclosed 

combustion device is used for control, 

to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight 

percent or reduce the outlet NMOC 

concentration to less than 20 parts per 

million by volume, dry basis as hexane 

at 3 percent oxygen. The reduction 

efficiency or parts per million by 

volume shall be established by an initial 

performance test to be completed no 

later than 180 days after the initial 

startup of the approved control system 

using the test methods specified in 

§ 60.764(d). The performance test is not 

required for boilers and process heaters 

with design heat input capacities equal 

to or greater than 44 megawatts that 

burn landfill gas for compliance with 

this subpart. 

(1) If a boiler or process heater is used 

as the control device, the landfill gas 

stream shall be introduced into the 

flame zone. 

(2) The control device shall be 

operated within the parameter ranges 

established during the initial or most 

recent performance test. The operating 

parameters to be monitored are 

specified in § 60.766; 

(C) Route the collected gas to a 

treatment system that processes the 

collected gas for subsequent sale or 

beneficial use such as fuel for 

combustion, production of vehicle fuel, 

production of high-Btu gas for pipeline 

injection, or use as a raw material in a 

chemical manufacturing process. The 

treated gas must be used as a fuel, or 

must be used for other beneficial uses 

such as vehicle fuel, production of highBtu gas for pipeline injection, or use as 

a raw material in a chemical 

manufacturing process. Venting of 

treated landfill gas to the ambient air or 

combustion in a flare is not allowed 

under this option. (If flares are used, 

they must meet § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(A) or 

(B)). 

(D) All emissions from any 

atmospheric vent from the gas treatment 

system shall be subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) 

or (B) of this section. For purposes of 

this subpart, atmospheric vents located 

on the condensate storage tank are not 

part of the treatment system and are 

exempt from the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of this 

section. 

(E) Landfill gas that is treated for the 

uses listed in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) of 

this section must be treated in a 

treatment system as defined in § 60.761 

that meets the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(2)(i)(D) of this section. 

The landfill owner or operator who is 

treating landfill gas for the uses listed in 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section must 

apply for approval of monitoring 

parameters that demonstrate that the 

landfill gas is meeting the definition of 

treated landfill gas in § 60.761. The 

landfill owner or operator must meet the 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements listed in 

§§ 60.766, 60.767, and 60.768 that apply 

to treatment systems. 

(iv) Operate the collection and control 

device installed to comply with this 

subpart in accordance with the 

provisions of §§ 60.763, 60.765 and 

60.766. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41834 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(v) The collection and control system 

may be capped or removed provided 

that all the conditions of paragraphs 

(b)(2)(v)(A), (B), and (C) of this section 

are met: 

(A) The landfill shall be a closed 

landfill as defined in § 60.761 of this 

subpart. A closure report shall be 

submitted to the Administrator as 

provided in § 60.767(d); 

(B) The collection and control system 

shall have been in operation a minimum 

of 15 years; and 

(C) Following the procedures 

specified in § 60.764(b) of this subpart, 

the calculated NMOC gas produced by 

the landfill shall be less than 40 

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. 

(c) For purposes of obtaining an 

operating permit under title V of the 

Act, the owner or operator of a MSW 

landfill subject to this subpart with a 

design capacity less than 2.5 million 

megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters 

is not subject to the requirement to 

obtain an operating permit for the 

landfill under part 70 or 71 of this 

chapter, unless the landfill is otherwise 

subject to either part 70 or 71. For 

purposes of submitting a timely 

application for an operating permit 

under part 70 or 71, the owner or 

operator of a MSW landfill subject to 

this subpart with a design capacity 

greater than or equal to 2.5 million 

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic 

meters, and not otherwise subject to 

either part 70 or 71, becomes subject to 

the requirements of §§ 70.5(a)(1)(i) or 

71.5(a)(1)(i) of this chapter, regardless of 

when the design capacity report is 

actually submitted, no later than: 

(1) [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for 

MSW landfills that commenced 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after July 17, 2014 

but before [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS 

PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]; 

(2) Ninety days after the date of 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction for MSW landfills that 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction on or after [DATE THE 

FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(d) When a MSW landfill subject to 

this subpart is closed, the owner or 

operator is no longer subject to the 

requirement to maintain an operating 

permit under part 70 or 71 of this 

chapter for the landfill if the landfill is 

not otherwise subject to the 

requirements of either part 70 or 71 and 

if either of the following conditions are 

met: 

(1) The landfill was never subject to 

the requirement for a control system 

under paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or 

(2) The owner or operator meets the 

conditions for control system removal 

specified in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this 

section. 

§ 60.763 Operational standards for 

collection and control systems. 

Each owner or operator of an MSW 

landfill with a gas collection and control 

system used to comply with the 

provisions of § 60.762(b)(2)(ii) of this 

subpart shall: 

(a) Operate the collection system such 

that gas is collected from each area, cell, 

or group of cells in the MSW landfill in 

which solid waste has been in place for: 

(1) 5 years or more if active; or 

(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final 

grade; 

(b) Operate the collection system with 

negative pressure at each wellhead 

except under the following conditions: 

(1) A fire or increased well 

temperature. The owner or operator 

shall record instances when positive 

pressure occurs in efforts to avoid a fire. 

These records shall be submitted with 

the annual reports as provided in 

§ 60.767(f)(1); 

(2) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic 

cover. The owner or operator shall 

develop acceptable pressure limits in 

the design plan; 

(3) A decommissioned well. A well 

may experience a static positive 

pressure after shut down to 

accommodate for declining flows. All 

design changes shall be approved by the 

Administrator; 

(c) Operate each interior wellhead in 

the collection system with a landfill gas 

temperature less than 55 °C and with 

either a nitrogen level less than 20 

percent or an oxygen level less than 5 

percent. The owner or operator may 

establish a higher operating 

temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen value 

at a particular well. A higher operating 

value demonstration must be submitted 

to the Administrator for approval and 

must include supporting data 

demonstrating that the elevated 

parameter neither causes fires nor 

significantly inhibits anaerobic 

decomposition by killing methanogens. 

The demonstration must satisfy both 

criteria in order to be approved (i.e., 

neither causing fires nor killing 

methanogens is acceptable). 

(1) The nitrogen level shall be 

determined using Method 3C, unless an 

alternative test method is established as 

allowed by § 60.762(b)(2)(i) of this 

subpart. 

(2) Unless an alternative test method 

is established as allowed by 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i) of this subpart, the 

oxygen shall be determined by an 

oxygen meter using Method 3A or 3C 

except that: 

(i) The span shall be set so that the 

regulatory limit is between 20 and 50 

percent of the span; 

(ii) A data recorder is not required; 

(iii) Only two calibration gases are 

required, a zero and span, and ambient 

air may be used as the span; 

(iv) A calibration error check is not 

required; 

(v) The allowable sample bias, zero 

drift, and calibration drift are ±10 

percent. 

(d) Operate the collection system so 

that the methane concentration is less 

than 500 parts per million above 

background 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 

landfill gas, such as distressed 

vegetation and cracks or seeps in the 

cover and all cover penetrations. The 

owner or operator may establish an 

alternative traversing pattern that 

ensures equivalent coverage. A surface 

monitoring design plan shall be 

developed that includes a topographical 

map with the monitoring route and the 

rationale for any site-specific deviations 

from the 30 meter intervals. Areas with 

steep slopes or other dangerous areas 

may be excluded from the surface 

testing. 

(e) Operate the system such that all 

collected gases are vented to a control 

system designed and operated in 

compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii). In 

the event the collection or control 

system is not operating, the gas mover 

system shall be shut down and all 

valves in the collection and control 

system contributing to venting of the gas 

to the atmosphere shall be closed within 

1 hour; and 

(f) Operate the control system at all 

times when the collected gas is routed 

to the system. 

(g) If monitoring demonstrates that the 

operational requirements in paragraphs 

(b), (c), or (d) of this section are not met, 

corrective action shall be taken as 

specified in § 60.765(a)(3) through (5) or 

§ 60.765(c) of this subpart. If corrective 

actions are taken as specified in 

§ 60.765, the monitored exceedance is 

not a violation of the operational 

requirements in this section. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41835 

§ 60.764 Test methods and procedures. 

(a)(1) The landfill owner or operator 

shall calculate the NMOC emission rate 

using either the equation provided in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section or the 

equation provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 

of this section. Both equations may be 

used if the actual year-to-year solid 

waste acceptance rate is known, as 

specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this 

section, for part of the life of the landfill 

and the actual year-to-year solid waste 

acceptance rate is unknown, as 

specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section, for part of the life of the 

landfill. The values to be used in both 

equations are 0.05 per year for k, 170 

cubic meters per megagram for LO, and 

4,000 parts per million by volume as 

hexane for the CNMOC. For landfills 

located in geographical areas with a 

thirty year annual average precipitation 

of less than 25 inches, as measured at 

the nearest representative official 

meteorologic site, the k value to be used 

is 0.02 per year. 

(i) The following equation shall be 

used if the actual year-to-year solid 

waste acceptance rate is known. 

Where: 

MNMOC = Total NMOC emission rate from the 

landfill, megagrams per year. 

k = methane generation rate constant, year¥1. 

Lo = methane generation potential, cubic 

meters per megagram solid waste. 

Mi = mass of solid waste in the ith section, 

megagrams. 

ti = age of the ith section, years. 

CNMOC = concentration of NMOC, parts per 

million by volume as hexane. 

3.6 × 10¥9 = conversion factor. 

The mass of nondegradable solid 

waste may be subtracted from the total 

mass of solid waste in a particular 

section of the landfill when calculating 

the value for Mi if documentation of the 

nature and amount of such wastes is 

maintained. 

(ii) The following equation shall be 

used if the actual year-to-year solid 

waste acceptance rate is unknown. 

MNMOC = 2LoR (e¥kc ¥ e¥kt) CNMOC (3.6 

× 10¥9) 

Where: 

MNMOC = mass emission rate of NMOC, 

megagrams per year. 

Lo = methane generation potential, cubic 

meters per megagram solid waste. 

R = average annual acceptance rate, 

megagrams per year. 

k = methane generation rate constant, year¥1. 

t = age of landfill, years. 

CNMOC = concentration of NMOC, parts per 

million by volume as hexane. 

c = time since closure, years; for active 

landfill c = O and e¥kc1. 

3.6 × 10¥9 = conversion factor. 

The mass of nondegradable solid 

waste may be subtracted from the total 

mass of solid waste in a particular 

section of the landfill when calculating 

the value of R, if documentation of the 

nature and amount of such wastes is 

maintained. 

(2) Tier 1. The owner or operator shall 

compare the calculated NMOC mass 

emission rate to the standard of 40 

megagrams per year. 

(i) If the NMOC emission rate 

calculated in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section is less than 40 megagrams per 

year, then the landfill owner shall 

submit an emission rate report as 

provided in § 60.767(b)(1), and shall 

recalculate the NMOC mass emission 

rate annually as required under 

§ 60.762(b)(1). 

(ii) If the calculated NMOC emission 

rate is equal to or greater than 40 

megagrams per year, then the landfill 

owner shall either comply with 

§ 60.762(b)(2), or determine a sitespecific NMOC concentration and 

recalculate the NMOC emission rate 

using the procedures provided in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(3) Tier 2. The landfill owner or 

operator shall determine the NMOC 

concentration using the following 

sampling procedure. The landfill owner 

or operator shall install at least two 

sample probes per hectare of landfill 

surface that has retained waste for at 

least 2 years. If the landfill is larger than 

25 hectares in area, only 50 samples are 

required. The sample probes should be 

located to avoid known areas of 

nondegradable solid waste. The owner 

or operator shall collect and analyze one 

sample of landfill gas from each probe 

to determine the NMOC concentration 

using Method 25 or 25C of appendix A 

of this part. Taking composite samples 

from different probes into a single 

cylinder is allowed; however, equal 

sample volumes must be taken from 

each probe. For each composite, the 

sampling rate, collection times, 

beginning and ending cylinder 

vacuums, or alternative volume 

measurements must be recorded to 

verify that composite volumes are equal. 

Composite sample volumes should not 

be less than one liter unless evidence 

can be provided to substantiate the 

accuracy of smaller volumes. Terminate 

compositing before the cylinder 

approaches ambient pressure where 

measurement accuracy diminishes. If 

more than the required number of 

samples are taken, all samples must be 

used in the analysis. The landfill owner 

or operator must divide the NMOC 

concentration from Method 25 or 25C of 

appendix A of this part by six to convert 

from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as 

hexane. If the landfill has an active or 

passive gas removal system in place, 

Method 25 or 25C samples may be 

collected from these systems instead of 

surface probes provided the removal 

system can be shown to provide 

sampling as representative as the two 

sampling probe per hectare requirement. 

For active collection systems, samples 

may be collected from the common 

header pipe. The sample location on the 

common header pipe must be before any 

gas moving, condensate removal, or 

treatment system equipment. For active 

collection systems, a minimum of three 

samples must be collected from the 

header pipe. 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 60.8), the owner or operator 

must submit the results of the 

performance test, including any 

associated fuel analyses, according to 

the method specified by either 

paragraph (a)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this 

section. 

(A) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html), the owner or operator must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) 

accessed through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/

epa_home.asp), unless otherwise 

approved by the Administrator. 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in a file format generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT. Owners or 

operators who claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI) must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT, including information 

claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 

flash drive, or other commonly used 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP17JY14.000</GPH>
41836 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic media must be clearly marked 

as CBI and mailed to Roberto Morales, 

OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711. The same file with the CBI 

omitted must be submitted to the EPA 

via CDX as described earlier in this 

paragraph. 

(B) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, the owner or operator must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

(ii) The landfill owner or operator 

shall recalculate the NMOC mass 

emission rate using the equations 

provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section and using the 

average NMOC concentration from the 

collected samples instead of the default 

value in the equation provided in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(iii) If the resulting mass emission rate 

calculated using the site-specific NMOC 

concentration is equal to or greater than 

40 megagrams per year, then the landfill 

owner or operator shall either comply 

with § 60.762(b)(2), or determine the 

site-specific methane generation rate 

constant and recalculate the NMOC 

emission rate using the site-specific 

methane generation rate using the 

procedure specified in paragraph (a)(4) 

of this section. 

(iv) If the resulting NMOC mass 

emission rate is less than 40 megagrams 

per year, the owner or operator shall 

submit a periodic estimate of the 

emission rate report as provided in 

§ 60.767(b)(1) and retest the site-specific 

NMOC concentration every 5 years 

using the methods specified in this 

section. 

(4) Tier 3. The site-specific methane 

generation rate constant shall be 

determined using the procedures 

provided in Method 2E of appendix A 

of this part. The landfill owner or 

operator shall estimate the NMOC mass 

emission rate using equations in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section and using a site-specific 

methane generation rate constant k, and 

the site-specific NMOC concentration as 

determined in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section instead of the default values 

provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. The landfill owner or operator 

shall compare the resulting NMOC mass 

emission rate to the standard of 40 

megagrams per year. 

(i) If the NMOC mass emission rate as 

calculated using the site-specific 

methane generation rate and 

concentration of NMOC is equal to or 

greater than 40 megagrams per year, the 

owner or operator shall comply with 

§ 60.762(b)(2). 

(ii) If the NMOC mass emission rate 

is less than 50 megagrams per year, then 

the owner or operator shall submit a 

periodic emission rate report as 

provided in § 60.767(b)(1) and shall 

recalculate the NMOC mass emission 

rate annually, as provided in 

§ 60.767(b)(1) using the equations in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section and 

using the site-specific methane 

generation rate constant and NMOC 

concentration obtained in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section. The calculation of 

the methane generation rate constant is 

performed only once, and the value 

obtained from this test shall be used in 

all subsequent annual NMOC emission 

rate calculations. 

(5) The owner or operator may use 

other methods to determine the NMOC 

concentration or a site-specific k as an 

alternative to the methods required in 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this 

section if the method has been approved 

by the Administrator. 

(b) After the installation and startup 

of a collection and control system in 

compliance with § 60.765, the owner or 

operator shall calculate the NMOC 

emission rate for purposes of 

determining when the system can be 

removed as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(v), using the following 

equation: 

MNMOC = 1.89 × 10¥3QLFGCNMOC

Where: 

MNMOC = mass emission rate of NMOC, 

megagrams per year. 

QLFG = flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters 

per minute. 

CNMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per 

million by volume as hexane. 

(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, 

shall be determined by measuring the 

total landfill gas flow rate at the 

common header pipe that leads to the 

control system using a gas flow 

measuring device calibrated according 

to the provisions of section 4 of Method 

2E of appendix A of this part. 

(2) The average NMOC concentration, 

CNMOC, shall be determined by 

collecting and analyzing landfill gas 

sampled from the common header pipe 

before the gas moving or condensate 

removal equipment using the 

procedures in Method 25 or Method 25C 

of appendix A of this part. The sample 

location on the common header pipe 

shall be before any condensate removal 

or other gas refining units. The landfill 

owner or operator shall divide the 

NMOC concentration from Method 25 or 

Method 25C of appendix A of this part 

by six to convert from CNMOC as carbon 

to CNMOC as hexane. 

(3) The owner or operator may use 

another method to determine landfill 

gas flow rate and NMOC concentration 

if the method has been approved by the 

Administrator. 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 60.8), the owner operator 

must submit the results of the 

performance test, including any 

associated fuel analyses, according to 

the method specified by either 

paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this 

section. 

(A) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html), the owner or operator must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) 

accessed through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/

epa_home.asp), unless otherwise 

approved by the Administrator. 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in a file format generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT. Owners or 

operators who claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI) must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT, including information 

claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 

flash drive, or other commonly used 

electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic media must be clearly marked 

as CBI and mailed to: Roberto Morales, 

OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711. The same file with the CBI 

omitted must be submitted to the EPA 

via CDX as described earlier in this 

paragraph. 

(B) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA‘s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, the owner or operator must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(c) When calculating emissions for 

PSD purposes, the owner or operator of 

each MSW landfill subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall estimate 

the NMOC emission rate for comparison 

to the PSD major source and 

significance levels in §§ 51.166 or 52.21 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41837 

of this chapter using AP–42 or other 

approved measurement procedures. 

(d) For the performance test required 

in § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B), Method 25 or 

25C (Method 25C may be used at the 

inlet only) of appendix A of this part 

must be used to determine compliance 

with the 98 weight-percent efficiency or 

the 20 ppmv outlet concentration level, 

unless another method to demonstrate 

compliance has been approved by the 

Administrator as provided by 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B). Method 3 or 3A 

shall be used to determine oxygen for 

correcting the NMOC concentration as 

hexane to 3 percent. The following 

equation shall be used to calculate 

efficiency: 

Control Efficiency = (NMOCin¥ 

NMOCout)/(NMOCin) 

Where: 

NMOCin = mass of NMOC entering control 

device. 

NMOCout = mass of NMOC exiting control 

device. 

(e) For the performance test required 

in § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(A), the net heating 

value of the combusted landfill gas as 

determined in § 60.18(f)(3) is calculated 

from the concentration of methane in 

the landfill gas as measured by Method 

3C. A minimum of three 30-minute 

Method 3C samples are determined. The 

measurement of other organic 

components, hydrogen, and carbon 

monoxide is not applicable. Method 3C 

may be used to determine the landfill 

gas molecular weight for calculating the 

flare gas exit velocity under 

§ 60.18(f)(4). 

(1) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 60.8), the owner or operator 

must submit the results of the 

performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, required by 

§ 60.764(b) or (d) or this subpart 

according to the method specified by 

either paragraph (e)(1)(i) or (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html), the owner or operator must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) 

accessed through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/

epa_home.asp), unless otherwise 

approved by the Administrator. Owners 

or operators who claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI) must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT, including information 

claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 

flash drive, or other commonly used 

electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic media must be clearly marked 

as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/ 

CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(ii) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA‘s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, the owner or operator must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 60.765 Compliance provisions. 

(a) Except as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), the specified 

methods in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(6) of this section shall be used to 

determine whether the gas collection 

system is in compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(ii). 

(1) For the purposes of calculating the 

maximum expected gas generation flow 

rate from the landfill to determine 

compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A)(1), 

one of the following equations shall be 

used. The k and Lo kinetic factors 

should be those published in the most 

recent Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors (AP–42) or other site 

specific values demonstrated to be 

appropriate and approved by the 

Administrator. If k has been determined 

as specified in § 60.764(a)(4), the value 

of k determined from the test shall be 

used. A value of no more than 15 years 

shall be used for the intended use 

period of the gas mover equipment. The 

active life of the landfill is the age of the 

landfill plus the estimated number of 

years until closure. 

(i) For sites with unknown year-toyear solid waste acceptance rate: 

Qm = 2LoR (e¥kc¥ e¥kt) 

Where: 

Qm = maximum expected gas generation flow 

rate, cubic meters per year. 

Lo = methane generation potential, cubic 

meters per megagram solid waste. 

R = average annual acceptance rate, 

megagrams per year. 

k = methane generation rate constant, year¥1. 

t = age of the landfill at equipment 

installation plus the time the owner or 

operator intends to use the gas mover 

equipment or active life of the landfill, 

whichever is less. If the equipment is 

installed after closure, t is the age of the 

landfill at installation, years. 

c = time since closure, years (for an active 

landfill c = O and e¥kc = 1). 

(ii) For sites with known year-to-year 

solid waste acceptance rate: 

Where: 

QM = maximum expected gas generation flow 

rate, cubic meters per year. 

k = methane generation rate constant, year¥1. 

Lo = methane generation potential, cubic 

meters per megagram solid waste. 

Mi = mass of solid waste in the ith section, 

megagrams. 

ti = age of the ith section, years. 

(iii) If a collection and control system 

has been installed, actual flow data may 

be used to project the maximum 

expected gas generation flow rate 

instead of, or in conjunction with, the 

equations in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) 

of this section. If the landfill is still 

accepting waste, the actual measured 

flow data will not equal the maximum 

expected gas generation rate, so 

calculations using the equations in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) or other 

methods shall be used to predict the 

maximum expected gas generation rate 

over the intended period of use of the 

gas control system equipment. 

(2) For the purposes of determining 

sufficient density of gas collectors for 

compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A)(2), 

the owner or operator shall design a 

system of vertical wells, horizontal 

collectors, or other collection devices, 

satisfactory to the Administrator, 

capable of controlling and extracting gas 

from all portions of the landfill 

sufficient to meet all operational and 

performance standards. 

(3) For the purpose of demonstrating 

whether the gas collection system flow 

rate is sufficient to determine 

compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A)(3), 

the owner or operator shall measure 

gauge pressure in the gas collection 

header at each individual well, 

monthly. If a positive pressure exists, 

action shall be initiated to correct the 

exceedance within 5 calendar days, 

except for the three conditions allowed 

under § 60.763(b). If negative pressure 

cannot be achieved without excess air 

infiltration within 15 calendar days of 

the first measurement, the gas collection 

system shall be expanded to correct the 

exceedance within 120 days of the 

initial measurement of positive 

pressure. Any attempted corrective 

measure shall not cause exceedances of 

other operational or performance 

standards. An alternative timeline for 

correcting the exceedance may be 

submitted to the Administrator for 

approval. 

(4) Owners or operators are not 

required to expand the system as 

required in paragraph (a)(3) of this 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP17JY14.001</GPH>
41838 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

section during the first 180 days after 

gas collection system startup. 

(5) For the purpose of identifying 

whether excess air infiltration into the 

landfill is occurring, the owner or 

operator shall monitor each well 

monthly for temperature and nitrogen or 

oxygen as provided in § 60.763(c). If a 

well exceeds one of these operating 

parameters, action shall be initiated to 

correct the exceedance within 5 

calendar days. If correction of the 

exceedance cannot be achieved within 

15 calendar days of the first 

measurement, then either the gas 

collection system shall be expanded to 

correct the exceedance within 120 days 

of the initial exceedance or an 

alternative timeline shall be submitted. 

If the owner or operator is unable to 

correct an exceedance within 15 days, 

or does not plan to expand the 

collection and control system within 

120 days, then the owner or operator 

must submit to the Administrator for 

approval an alternative timeline for 

correcting the exceedance. The owner or 

operator must submit an alternative 

time line for any type of corrective 

action other than system expansion that 

will take longer than 15 days. The 

owner or operator must also submit an 

alternative time line and justification if 

they expect a system expansion to take 

longer than 120 days. Any attempted 

corrective measure shall not cause 

exceedances of other operational or 

performance standards. Any attempted 

corrective measure shall not cause 

exceedances of other operational or 

performance standards. 

(6) An owner or operator seeking to 

demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A)(4) through the use 

of a collection system not conforming to 

the specifications provided in § 60.769 

shall provide information satisfactory to 

the Administrator as specified in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(C) demonstrating that 

off-site migration is being controlled. 

(b) For purposes of compliance with 

§ 60.763(a), each owner or operator of a 

controlled landfill shall place each well 

or design component as specified in the 

approved design plan as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i). Each well shall be 

installed no later than 60 days after the 

date on which the initial solid waste has 

been in place for a period of: 

(1) 5 years or more if active; or 

(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final 

grade. 

(c) The following procedures shall be 

used for compliance with the surface 

methane operational standard as 

provided in § 60.763(d). 

(1) After installation and startup of 

the gas collection system, the owner or 

operator shall monitor surface 

concentrations of methane along the 

entire perimeter of the collection area 

and along a pattern that traverses the 

landfill at 30 meter intervals (or a sitespecific established spacing) for each 

collection area on a quarterly basis 

using an organic vapor analyzer, flame 

ionization detector, or other portable 

monitor meeting the specifications 

provided in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(2) The background concentration 

shall be determined by moving the 

probe inlet upwind and downwind 

outside the boundary of the landfill at 

a distance of at least 30 meters from the 

perimeter wells. 

(3) Surface emission monitoring shall 

be performed in accordance with 

section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix 

A of this part, except that the probe inlet 

shall be placed within 5 to 10 

centimeters of the ground. Monitoring 

shall be performed during typical 

meteorological conditions. 

(4) Any reading of 500 parts per 

million or more above background at 

any location shall be recorded as a 

monitored exceedance and the actions 

specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through 

(v) of this section shall be taken. As long 

as the specified actions are taken, the 

exceedance is not a violation of the 

operational requirements of § 60.763(d). 

(i) The location of each monitored 

exceedance shall be marked and the 

location and concentration recorded. 

(ii) Cover maintenance or adjustments 

to the vacuum of the adjacent wells to 

increase the gas collection in the 

vicinity of each exceedance shall be 

made and the location shall be remonitored within 10 calendar days of 

detecting the exceedance. 

(iii) If the re-monitoring of the 

location shows a second exceedance, 

additional corrective action shall be 

taken and the location shall be 

monitored again within 10 days of the 

second exceedance. If the re-monitoring 

shows a third exceedance for the same 

location, the action specified in 

paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section shall 

be taken, and no further monitoring of 

that location is required until the action 

specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this 

section has been taken. 

(iv) Any location that initially showed 

an exceedance but has a methane 

concentration less than 500 ppm 

methane above background at the 10- 

day re-monitoring specified in 

paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this section 

shall be re-monitored 1 month from the 

initial exceedance. If the 1-month 

remonitoring shows a concentration less 

than 500 parts per million above 

background, no further monitoring of 

that location is required until the next 

quarterly monitoring period. If the 1- 

month remonitoring shows an 

exceedance, the actions specified in 

paragraph (c)(4)(iii) or (v) of this section 

shall be taken. 

(v) For any location where monitored 

methane concentration equals or 

exceeds 500 parts per million above 

background three times within a 

quarterly period, a new well or other 

collection device shall be installed 

within 120 calendar days of the initial 

exceedance. An alternative remedy to 

the exceedance, such as upgrading the 

blower, header pipes or control device, 

and a corresponding timeline for 

installation may be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval. 

(5) The owner or operator shall 

implement a program to monitor for 

cover integrity and implement cover 

repairs as necessary on a monthly basis. 

(d) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with the provisions in 

paragraph (c) of this section shall 

comply with the following 

instrumentation specifications and 

procedures for surface emission 

monitoring devices: 

(1) The portable analyzer shall meet 

the instrument specifications provided 

in section 3 of Method 21 of appendix 

A of this part, except that ‘‘methane’’ 

shall replace all references to VOC. 

(2) The calibration gas shall be 

methane, diluted to a nominal 

concentration of 500 parts per million in 

air. 

(3) To meet the performance 

evaluation requirements in section 3.1.3 

of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, 

the instrument evaluation procedures of 

section 4.4 of Method 21 of appendix A 

of this part shall be used. 

(4) The calibration procedures 

provided in section 4.2 of Method 21 of 

appendix A of this part shall be 

followed immediately before 

commencing a surface monitoring 

survey. 

(e) The provisions of this subpart 

apply at all times, including periods of 

startup, shutdown or malfunction. 

§ 60.766 Monitoring of operations. 

Except as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), 

(a) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A) for an 

active gas collection system shall install 

a sampling port and a thermometer, 

other temperature measuring device, or 

an access port for temperature 

measurements at each wellhead and: 

(1) Measure the gauge pressure in the 

gas collection header on a monthly basis 

as provided in § 60.765(a)(3); and 

(2) Monitor nitrogen or oxygen 

concentration in the landfill gas on a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41839 

monthly basis as provided in 

§ 60.765(a)(5); and 

(3) Monitor temperature of the landfill 

gas on a monthly basis as provided in 

§ 60.765(a)(5). 

(b) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) using an 

enclosed combustor shall calibrate, 

maintain, and operate according to the 

manufacturer’s specifications, the 

following equipment. 

(1) A temperature monitoring device 

equipped with a continuous recorder 

and having a minimum accuracy of ±1 

percent of the temperature being 

measured expressed in degrees Celsius 

or ±0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is 

greater. A temperature monitoring 

device is not required for boilers or 

process heaters with design heat input 

capacity equal to or greater than 44 

megawatts. 

(2) A device that records flow to and 

bypass of the control device. The owner 

or operator shall: 

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a 

gas flow rate measuring device that shall 

record the flow to the control device at 

least every 15 minutes; and 

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the 

closed position with a car-seal or a lockand-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure 

mechanism shall be performed at least 

once every month to ensure that the 

valve is maintained in the closed 

position and that the gas flow is not 

diverted through the bypass line. 

(c) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) using a 

non-enclosed flare shall install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate 

according to the manufacturer’s 

specifications the following equipment: 

(1) A heat sensing device, such as an 

ultraviolet beam sensor or 

thermocouple, at the pilot light or the 

flame itself to indicate the continuous 

presence of a flame. 

(2) A device that records flow to and 

bypass of the flare. The owner or 

operator shall: 

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a 

gas flow rate measuring device that shall 

record the flow to the control device at 

least every 15 minutes; and 

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the 

closed position with a car-seal or a lockand-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure 

mechanism shall be performed at least 

once every month to ensure that the 

valve is maintained in the closed 

position and that the gas flow is not 

diverted through the bypass line. 

(d) Each owner or operator seeking to 

demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii) using a device other 

than a non-enclosed flare or an enclosed 

combustor or a treatment system shall 

provide information satisfactory to the 

Administrator as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B) describing the 

operation of the control device, the 

operating parameters that would 

indicate proper performance, and 

appropriate monitoring procedures. The 

Administrator shall review the 

information and either approve it, or 

request that additional information be 

submitted. The Administrator may 

specify additional appropriate 

monitoring procedures. 

(e) Each owner or operator seeking to 

install a collection system that does not 

meet the specifications in § 60.769 or 

seeking to monitor alternative 

parameters to those required by § 60.763 

through § 60.766 shall provide 

information satisfactory to the 

Administrator as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B) and (C) describing 

the design and operation of the 

collection system, the operating 

parameters that would indicate proper 

performance, and appropriate 

monitoring procedures. The 

Administrator may specify additional 

appropriate monitoring procedures. 

(f) Each owner or operator seeking to 

demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.765(c), shall monitor surface 

concentrations of methane according to 

the instrument specifications and 

procedures provided in § 60.765(d). Any 

closed landfill that has no monitored 

exceedances of the operational standard 

in three consecutive quarterly 

monitoring periods may skip to annual 

monitoring. Any methane reading of 500 

ppm or more above background 

detected during the annual monitoring 

returns the frequency for that landfill to 

quarterly monitoring. 

(g) Each owner or operator seeking to 

demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii) using a landfill gas 

treatment system must calibrate, 

maintain, and operate according to the 

manufacturer’s specifications, the 

following equipment. 

(1) A device that monitors pressure 

drop across, or other approved 

parameter(s) for, the filtration system 

that is equipped with a continuous 

recorder that shall record such 

parameters at least once every 15 

minutes. Records of hourly and 24-hour 

block averages computed from the 

continuous monitoring data must also 

be retained. 

(2) A device that monitors the landfill 

gas temperature for a chiller-based 

dewatering system, the landfill gas dew 

point for a non-chiller-based dewatering 

system, or the approved operating 

parameter(s) for the dewatering system 

at the monitoring locations specified in 

the approved design plan. The 

temperature measurement device must 

be located at or immediately after the 

coalescing filter or other direct contact 

moisture removal device that follows 

the chiller and removes the condensed 

moisture. The dew point monitoring 

device should be located after the 

equipment that performs the moisture 

removal. Each monitoring device must 

be equipped with a continuous recorder 

that records such parameters at least 

once every 15 minutes. Records of 

hourly and 24-hour block averages 

computed from the continuous 

monitoring data must also be retained. 

(3) Owners/operators may use 

monitoring parameters other than those 

listed in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this 

section if they demonstrate that such 

parameters would effectively monitor 

filtration or de-watering system 

performance. Owners/operators must 

develop operating ranges for each 

monitored operating parameter based on 

manufacturer’s recommendations or 

engineering analysis and submit those 

ranges, along with justification, for 

approval in the design plan required by 

§ 60.762(b)(2). Owners/operators must 

monitor the required parameters and 

keep them within the ranges specified 

in the approved design plan. 

(4) A device that records flow to and 

bypass of the treatment system. The 

owner or operator must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a 

gas flow rate measuring device that 

records the flow to the treatment system 

at least every 15 minutes; and 

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the 

closed position with a car-seal or a lockand-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure 

mechanism must be performed at least 

once every month to ensure that the 

valve is maintained in the closed 

position and that the gas flow is not 

diverted through the bypass line. 

§ 60.767 Reporting requirements. 

Except as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), 

(a) Each owner or operator subject to 

the requirements of this subpart shall 

submit an initial design capacity report 

to the Administrator. 

(1) The initial design capacity report 

shall fulfill the requirements of the 

notification of the date construction is 

commenced as required by § 60.7(a)(1) 

and shall be submitted no later than: 

(i) [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED 

IN THE Federal Register], for landfills 

that commenced construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or 

after July 17, 2014 but before [DATE 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41840 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN 

THE Federal Register] or 

(ii) Ninety days after the date of 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction for landfills that 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction on or after [DATE THE 

FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE 

Federal Register]. 

(2) The initial design capacity report 

shall contain the following information: 

(i) A map or plot of the landfill, 

providing the size and location of the 

landfill, and identifying all areas where 

solid waste may be landfilled according 

to the permit issued by the state, local, 

or tribal agency responsible for 

regulating the landfill. 

(ii) The maximum design capacity of 

the landfill. Where the maximum design 

capacity is specified in the permit 

issued by the state, local, or tribal 

agency responsible for regulating the 

landfill, a copy of the permit specifying 

the maximum design capacity may be 

submitted as part of the report. If the 

maximum design capacity of the landfill 

is not specified in the permit, the 

maximum design capacity shall be 

calculated using good engineering 

practices. The calculations shall be 

provided, along with the relevant 

parameters as part of the report. The 

state, Tribal, local agency or 

Administrator may request other 

reasonable information as may be 

necessary to verify the maximum design 

capacity of the landfill. 

(3) An amended design capacity 

report shall be submitted to the 

Administrator providing notification of 

an increase in the design capacity of the 

landfill, within 90 days of an increase 

in the maximum design capacity of the 

landfill to or above 2.5 million 

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic 

meters. This increase in design capacity 

may result from an increase in the 

permitted volume of the landfill or an 

increase in the density as documented 

in the annual recalculation required in 

§ 60.768(f). 

(b) Each owner or operator subject to 

the requirements of this subpart shall 

submit an NMOC emission rate report to 

the Administrator initially and annually 

thereafter, except as provided for in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) or (b)(3) of this 

section. The Administrator may request 

such additional information as may be 

necessary to verify the reported NMOC 

emission rate. 

(1) The NMOC emission rate report 

shall contain an annual or 5-year 

estimate of the NMOC emission rate 

calculated using the formula and 

procedures provided in § 60.764(a) or 

(b), as applicable. 

(i) The initial NMOC emission rate 

report may be combined with the initial 

design capacity report required in 

paragraph (a) of this section and shall be 

submitted no later than indicated in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this 

section. Subsequent NMOC emission 

rate reports shall be submitted annually 

thereafter, except as provided for in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(A) [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED 

IN THE Federal Register], for landfills 

that commenced construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or 

after July 17, 2014, but before [DATE 

THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN 

THE Federal Register], or 

(B) Ninety days after the date of 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction for landfills that 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction on or after [DATE THE 

FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE 

Federal Register]. 

(ii) If the estimated NMOC emission 

rate as reported in the annual report to 

the Administrator is less than 40 

megagrams per year in each of the next 

5 consecutive years, the owner or 

operator may elect to submit an estimate 

of the NMOC emission rate for the next 

5-year period in lieu of the annual 

report. This estimate shall include the 

current amount of solid waste-in-place 

and the estimated waste acceptance rate 

for each year of the 5 years for which 

an NMOC emission rate is estimated. 

All data and calculations upon which 

this estimate is based shall be provided 

to the Administrator. This estimate shall 

be revised at least once every 5 years. 

If the actual waste acceptance rate 

exceeds the estimated waste acceptance 

rate in any year reported in the 5-year 

estimate, a revised 5-year estimate shall 

be submitted to the Administrator. The 

revised estimate shall cover the 5-year 

period beginning with the year in which 

the actual waste acceptance rate 

exceeded the estimated waste 

acceptance rate. 

(2) The NMOC emission rate report 

shall include all the data, calculations, 

sample reports and measurements used 

to estimate the annual or 5-year 

emissions. 

(3) Each owner or operator subject to 

the requirements of this subpart is 

exempted from the requirements of 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, 

after the installation of a collection and 

control system in compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2), during such time as the 

collection and control system is in 

operation and in compliance with 

§§ 60.763 and 60.765. 

(c) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of § 60.762(b)(2)(i) shall 

submit a collection and control system 

design plan to the Administrator within 

1 year of the first report required under 

paragraph (b) of this section in which 

the emission rate equals or exceeds 40 

megagrams per year, except as follows: 

(1) If the owner or operator elects to 

recalculate the NMOC emission rate 

after Tier 2 NMOC sampling and 

analysis as provided in § 60.764(a)(3) 

and the resulting rate is less than 40 

megagrams per year, annual periodic 

reporting shall be resumed, using the 

Tier 2 determined site-specific NMOC 

concentration, until the calculated 

emission rate is equal to or greater than 

40 megagrams per year or the landfill is 

closed. The revised NMOC emission 

rate report, with the recalculated 

emission rate based on NMOC sampling 

and analysis, shall be submitted within 

180 days of the first calculated 

exceedance of 40 megagrams per year. 

(2) If the owner or operator elects to 

recalculate the NMOC emission rate 

after determining a site-specific 

methane generation rate constant (k), as 

provided in Tier 3 in § 60.764(a)(4), and 

the resulting NMOC emission rate is less 

than 40 Mg/yr, annual periodic 

reporting shall be resumed. The 

resulting site-specific methane 

generation rate constant (k) shall be 

used in the emission rate calculation 

until such time as the emissions rate 

calculation results in an exceedance. 

The revised NMOC emission rate report 

based on the provisions of § 60.764(a)(4) 

and the resulting site-specific methane 

generation rate constant (k) shall be 

submitted to the Administrator within 1 

year of the first calculated emission rate 

exceeding 40 megagrams per year. 

(d) Each owner or operator of a 

controlled landfill shall submit a 

closure report to the Administrator 

within 30 days of waste acceptance 

cessation. The Administrator may 

request additional information as may 

be necessary to verify that permanent 

closure has taken place in accordance 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 258.60. 

If a closure report has been submitted to 

the Administrator, no additional wastes 

may be placed into the landfill without 

filing a notification of modification as 

described under § 60.7(a)(4). 

(e) Each owner or operator of a 

controlled landfill shall submit an 

equipment removal report to the 

Administrator 30 days prior to removal 

or cessation of operation of the control 

equipment. 

(1) The equipment removal report 

shall contain all of the following items: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41841 

(i) A copy of the closure report 

submitted in accordance with paragraph 

(d) of this section; 

(ii) A copy of the initial performance 

test report demonstrating that the 15 

year minimum control period has 

expired; and 

(iii) Dated copies of three successive 

NMOC emission rate reports 

demonstrating that the landfill is no 

longer producing 40 megagrams or 

greater of NMOC per year. 

(2) The Administrator may request 

such additional information as may be 

necessary to verify that all of the 

conditions for removal in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(v) have been met. 

(f) The owner or operator of a landfill 

seeking to comply with § 60.762(b)(2) 

using an active collection system 

designed in accordance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(ii) shall submit to the 

Administrator annual reports of the 

recorded information in (f)(1) through 

(f)(6) of this section. The initial annual 

report shall be submitted within 180 

days of installation and startup of the 

collection and control system, and shall 

include the initial performance test 

report required under § 60.8, as 

applicable. For enclosed combustion 

devices, flares, and treatment systems 

reportable exceedances are defined 

under § 60.768(c). 

(1) Value and length of time for 

exceedance of applicable parameters 

monitored under § 60.766(a), (b), (c), (d), 

and (g). 

(2) Description and duration of all 

periods when the gas stream is diverted 

from the control device or treatment 

system through a bypass line or the 

indication of bypass flow as specified 

under § 60.766. 

(3) Description and duration of all 

periods when the control device or 

treatment system was not operating and 

length of time the control device or 

treatment system was not operating. 

(4) All periods when the collection 

system was not operating. 

(5) The location of each exceedance of 

the 500 parts per million methane 

concentration as provided in § 60.763(d) 

and the concentration recorded at each 

location for which an exceedance was 

recorded in the previous month. 

(6) The date of installation and the 

location of each well or collection 

system expansion added pursuant to 

paragraphs (a)(3), (b), and (c)(4) of 

§ 60.765. 

(g) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) shall 

include the following information with 

the initial performance test report 

required under § 60.8: 

(1) A diagram of the collection system 

showing collection system positioning 

including all wells, horizontal 

collectors, surface collectors, or other 

gas extraction devices, including the 

locations of any areas excluded from 

collection and the proposed sites for the 

future collection system expansion; 

(2) The data upon which the sufficient 

density of wells, horizontal collectors, 

surface collectors, or other gas 

extraction devices and the gas mover 

equipment sizing are based; 

(3) The documentation of the 

presence of asbestos or nondegradable 

material for each area from which 

collection wells have been excluded 

based on the presence of asbestos or 

nondegradable material; 

(4) The sum of the gas generation flow 

rates for all areas from which collection 

wells have been excluded based on 

nonproductivity and the calculations of 

gas generation flow rate for each 

excluded area; and 

(5) The provisions for increasing gas 

mover equipment capacity with 

increased gas generation flow rate, if the 

present gas mover equipment is 

inadequate to move the maximum flow 

rate expected over the life of the 

landfill; and 

(6) The provisions for the control of 

off-site migration. 

(h) The owner or operator who has 

already been required to submit a design 

plan under § 60.767(c) must submit a 

revised design plan to the Administrator 

for approval as follows: 

(1) Within 90 days of expanding 

operations to an area not covered by the 

previously approved design plan. 

(2) Prior to installing or expanding the 

gas collection system in a way that is 

not consistent with the design plan that 

was submitted to the Administrator 

according to paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(3) Prior to implementing an approved 

alternative operating parameter value 

for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen, if 

the owner or operator has requested 

alternative operating parameter values 

according to § 60.763(c). 

§ 60.768 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) Except as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or 

operator of an MSW landfill subject to 

the provisions of § 60.762(b) shall keep 

for at least 5 years up-to-date, readily 

accessible, on-site records of the design 

capacity report which triggered 

§ 60.762(b), the current amount of solid 

waste in-place, and the year-by-year 

waste acceptance rate. Off-site records 

may be maintained if they are 

retrievable within 4 hours. Either paper 

copy or electronic formats are 

acceptable. 

(b) Except as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or 

operator of a controlled landfill shall 

keep up-to-date, readily accessible 

records for the life of the control system 

equipment of the data listed in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this 

section as measured during the initial 

performance test or compliance 

determination. Records of subsequent 

tests or monitoring shall be maintained 

for a minimum of 5 years. Records of the 

control device vendor specifications 

shall be maintained until removal. 

(1) Where an owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

seeks to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(ii): 

(i) The maximum expected gas 

generation flow rate as calculated in 

§ 60.765(a)(1). The owner or operator 

may use another method to determine 

the maximum gas generation flow rate, 

if the method has been approved by the 

Administrator. 

(ii) The density of wells, horizontal 

collectors, surface collectors, or other 

gas extraction devices determined using 

the procedures specified in 

§ 60.769(a)(1). 

(2) Where an owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

seeks to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii) through use of an 

enclosed combustion device other than 

a boiler or process heater with a design 

heat input capacity equal to or greater 

than 44 megawatts: 

(i) The average temperature measured 

at least every 15 minutes and averaged 

over the same time period of the 

performance test. 

(ii) The percent reduction of NMOC 

determined as specified in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B) achieved by the 

control device. 

(3) Where an owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

seeks to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) through use of a 

boiler or process heater of any size: A 

description of the location at which the 

collected gas vent stream is introduced 

into the boiler or process heater over the 

same time period of the performance 

testing. 

(4) Where an owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

seeks to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(A) through use of a 

non-enclosed flare, the flare type (i.e., 

steam-assisted, air-assisted, or 

nonassisted), all visible emission 

readings, heat content determination, 

flow rate or bypass flow rate 

measurements, and exit velocity 

determinations made during the 

performance test as specified in § 60.18; 

continuous records of the flare pilot 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
41842 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

flame or flare flame monitoring and 

records of all periods of operations 

during which the pilot flame of the flare 

flame is absent. 

(5) Where an owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

seeks to demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii) through use of a 

landfill gas treatment system: 

(i) Hourly and 24-hour block averages 

computed from the device that monitors 

pressure drop across, or other approved 

parameter(s) for, the filtration system. 

(ii) Hourly and 24-hour block average 

temperature (chiller-based system) or 

dew point (non-chiller based system) or 

the approved operating parameters for 

the device that monitors the dewatering 

system operating parameters. 

(iii) Records of exceedances of the 

treatment system operating parameters 

that were approved in the design plan 

as required by § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(D). 

(iv) Records of the flow of landfill gas 

to, and bypass of, the treatment system. 

(c) Except as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or 

operator of a controlled landfill subject 

to the provisions of this subpart shall 

keep for 5 years up-to-date, readily 

accessible continuous records of the 

equipment operating parameters 

specified to be monitored in § 60.766 as 

well as up-to-date, readily accessible 

records for periods of operation during 

which the parameter boundaries 

established during the most recent 

performance test are exceeded. 

(1) The following constitute 

exceedances that shall be recorded and 

reported under § 60.767(f): 

(i) For enclosed combustors except for 

boilers and process heaters with design 

heat input capacity of 44 megawatts 

(150 million British thermal unit per 

hour) or greater, all 3-hour periods of 

operation during which the average 

temperature was more than 28 °C below 

the average combustion temperature 

during the most recent performance test 

at which compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii) was determined. 

(ii) For boilers or process heaters, 

whenever there is a change in the 

location at which the vent stream is 

introduced into the flame zone as 

required under paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(iii) For treatment systems used to 

demonstrate compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii), all 24-hour periods of 

operation during which the average 

operating parameter values are outside 

of the approved ranges identified in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(D) as those that indicate 

proper performance of the treatment 

system. 

(2) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart shall keep 

up-to-date, readily accessible 

continuous records of the indication of 

flow to the control system and the 

indication of bypass flow or records of 

monthly inspections of car-seals or lockand-key configurations used to seal 

bypass lines, specified under § 60.766. 

(3) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart who uses 

a boiler or process heater with a design 

heat input capacity of 44 megawatts or 

greater to comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) 

shall keep an up-to-date, readily 

accessible record of all periods of 

operation of the boiler or process heater. 

(Examples of such records could 

include records of steam use, fuel use, 

or monitoring data collected pursuant to 

other state, local, Tribal, or federal 

regulatory requirements.) 

(4) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with the provisions of this 

subpart by use of a non-enclosed flare 

shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible 

continuous records of the flame or flare 

pilot flame monitoring specified under 

§ 60.766(c), and up-to-date, readily 

accessible records of all periods of 

operation in which the flame or flare 

pilot flame is absent. 

(5) Each owner or operator of a 

landfill seeking to comply with 

§ 60.762(b)(2) using an active collection 

system designed in accordance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(ii) shall keep records of 

estimates of NMOC emissions for 

periods when the collection system or 

control device is not operating. 

(d) Except as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or 

operator subject to the provisions of this 

subpart shall keep for the life of the 

collection system an up-to-date, readily 

accessible plot map showing each 

existing and planned collector in the 

system and providing a unique 

identification location label for each 

collector. 

(1) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart shall keep 

up-to-date, readily accessible records of 

the installation date and location of all 

newly installed collectors as specified 

under § 60.765(b). 

(2) Each owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart shall keep 

readily accessible documentation of the 

nature, date of deposition, amount, and 

location of asbestos-containing or 

nondegradable waste excluded from 

collection as provided in 

§ 60.769(a)(3)(i) as well as any 

nonproductive areas excluded from 

collection as provided in 

§ 60.769(a)(3)(ii). 

(e) Except as provided in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or 

operator subject to the provisions of this 

subpart shall keep for at least 5 years 

up-to-date, readily accessible records of 

all collection and control system 

exceedances of the operational 

standards in § 60.763, the reading in the 

subsequent month whether or not the 

second reading is an exceedance, and 

the location of each exceedance. 

(f) Landfill owners or operators who 

convert design capacity from volume to 

mass or mass to volume to demonstrate 

that landfill design capacity is less than 

2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million 

cubic meters, as provided in the 

definition of ‘‘design capacity’’, shall 

keep readily accessible, on-site records 

of the annual recalculation of sitespecific density, design capacity, and 

the supporting documentation. Off-site 

records may be maintained if they are 

retrievable within 4 hours. Either paper 

copy or electronic formats are 

acceptable. 

§ 60.769 Specifications for active 

collection systems. 

(a) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(i) shall site 

active collection wells, horizontal 

collectors, surface collectors, or other 

extraction devices at a sufficient density 

throughout all gas producing areas using 

the following procedures unless 

alternative procedures have been 

approved by the Administrator as 

provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(C) and (D): 

(1) The collection devices within the 

interior and along the perimeter areas 

shall be certified to achieve 

comprehensive control of surface gas 

emissions by a professional engineer. 

The following issues shall be addressed 

in the design: depths of refuse, refuse 

gas generation rates and flow 

characteristics, cover properties, gas 

system expandability, leachate and 

condensate management, accessibility, 

compatibility with filling operations, 

integration with closure end use, air 

intrusion control, corrosion resistance, 

fill settlement, and resistance to the 

refuse decomposition heat. 

(2) The sufficient density of gas 

collection devices determined in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall 

address landfill gas migration issues and 

augmentation of the collection system 

through the use of active or passive 

systems at the landfill perimeter or 

exterior. 

(3) The placement of gas collection 

devices determined in paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section shall control all gas 

producing areas, except as provided by 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Any segregated area of asbestos or 

nondegradable material may be 

excluded from collection if documented 

as provided under § 60.768(d). The 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41843 

documentation shall provide the nature, 

date of deposition, location and amount 

of asbestos or nondegradable material 

deposited in the area, and shall be 

provided to the Administrator upon 

request. 

(ii) Any nonproductive area of the 

landfill may be excluded from control, 

provided that the total of all excluded 

areas can be shown to contribute less 

than 1 percent of the total amount of 

NMOC emissions from the landfill. The 

amount, location, and age of the 

material shall be documented and 

provided to the Administrator upon 

request. A separate NMOC emissions 

estimate shall be made for each section 

proposed for exclusion, and the sum of 

all such sections shall be compared to 

the NMOC emissions estimate for the 

entire landfill. 

(A) The NMOC emissions from each 

section proposed for exclusion shall be 

computed using the following equation: 

Qi = 2 k LoMi(e ¥ kti) (CNMOC) (3.6 × 

10¥9) 

Where: 

Qi = NMOC emission rate from the ith

section, megagrams per year. 

k = methane generation rate constant, year¥1. 

Lo = methane generation potential, cubic 

meters per megagram solid waste. 

Mi = mass of the degradable solid waste in 

the ith section, megagram. 

ti = age of the solid waste in the ith section, 

years. 

CNMOC = concentration of nonmethane 

organic compounds, parts per million by 

volume. 

3.6 × 10¥9 = conversion factor. 

(B) If the owner/operator is proposing 

to exclude, or cease gas collection and 

control from, nonproductive physically 

separated (e.g., separately lined) closed 

areas that already have gas collection 

systems, NMOC emissions from each 

physically separated closed area shall be 

computed using either the equation in 

§ 60.764(b) or the equation in paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii)(A) of this section. 

(iii) The values for k and CNMOC

determined in field testing shall be used 

if field testing has been performed in 

determining the NMOC emission rate or 

the radii of influence (this distance from 

the well center to a point in the landfill 

where the pressure gradient applied by 

the blower or compressor approaches 

zero). If field testing has not been 

performed, the default values for k, LO

and CNMOC provided in § 60.764(a)(1) or 

the alternative values from 

§ 60.764(a)(5) shall be used. The mass of 

nondegradable solid waste contained 

within the given section may be 

subtracted from the total mass of the 

section when estimating emissions 

provided the nature, location, age, and 

amount of the nondegradable material is 

documented as provided in paragraph 

(a)(3)(i) of this section. 

(b) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(A) shall 

construct the gas collection devices 

using the following equipment or 

procedures: 

(1) The landfill gas extraction 

components shall be constructed of 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density 

polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, fiberglass, 

stainless steel, or other nonporous 

corrosion resistant material of suitable 

dimensions to: Convey projected 

amounts of gases; withstand 

installation, static, and settlement 

forces; and withstand planned 

overburden or traffic loads. The 

collection system shall extend as 

necessary to comply with emission and 

migration standards. Collection devices 

such as wells and horizontal collectors 

shall be perforated to allow gas entry 

without head loss sufficient to impair 

performance across the intended extent 

of control. Perforations shall be situated 

with regard to the need to prevent 

excessive air infiltration. 

(2) Vertical wells shall be placed so as 

not to endanger underlying liners and 

shall address the occurrence of water 

within the landfill. Holes and trenches 

constructed for piped wells and 

horizontal collectors shall be of 

sufficient cross-section so as to allow for 

their proper construction and 

completion including, for example, 

centering of pipes and placement of 

gravel backfill. Collection devices shall 

be designed so as not to allow indirect 

short circuiting of air into the cover or 

refuse into the collection system or gas 

into the air. Any gravel used around 

pipe perforations should be of a 

dimension so as not to penetrate or 

block perforations. 

(3) Collection devices may be 

connected to the collection header pipes 

below or above the landfill surface. The 

connector assembly shall include a 

positive closing throttle valve, any 

necessary seals and couplings, access 

couplings and at least one sampling 

port. The collection devices shall be 

constructed of PVC, HDPE, fiberglass, 

stainless steel, or other nonporous 

material of suitable thickness. 

(c) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(A) shall 

convey the landfill gas to a control 

system in compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii) through the collection 

header pipe(s). The gas mover 

equipment shall be sized to handle the 

maximum gas generation flow rate 

expected over the intended use period 

of the gas moving equipment using the 

following procedures: 

(1) For existing collection systems, the 

flow data shall be used to project the 

maximum flow rate. If no flow data 

exists, the procedures in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section shall be used. 

(2) For new collection systems, the 

maximum flow rate shall be in 

accordance with § 60.765(a)(1). 

[FR Doc. 2014–16405 Filed 7–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4