### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Final Staff Report
Proposed Amended Rule 1150.1 - Control of Gaseous E missions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

April 2011

Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Elaine Chang, DrPH

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E.

Director of Strategic Initiatives Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Jill Whynot

AUTHOR: DAIRO MOODY - AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST

REVIEWED BY: DAVID ONO - PROGRAM SUPERVISOR NAVEEN BERRY – PLANNING AND RULES MANAGER JOHN OLVERA - PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DISTRICT COUNSEL LAUREN NEVITT - DEPUTY DISTRICT COUNSEL
CONTRIBUTORS: DON HOPPS - AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST ANDREW LEE, P.E. - PROGRAM SUPERVISOR ATUL KANDHARI - AQ ENGINEER I JEFFREY INABINET - AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST

### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD

Chairman: DR. WILLIAM A. BURKE Speaker of the Assembly Appointee
Vice Chairman: DENNIS YATES Mayor, Chino Cities of San Bernardino County MEMBERS:

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Fifth District County of Los Angeles
JOHN J. BENOIT Supervisor, Fourth District County of Riverside
MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI Councilmember, South Pasadena Cities of Los Angeles County/Eastern Region
JANE W. CARNEY Senate Rules Appointee
JOSIE GONZALES Supervisor, Fifth District County of San Bernardino
RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, Riverside Cities of Riverside County JOSEPH K. LYOU, Ph. D. Governor’s Appointee
JUDITH MITCHELL Councilmember, Rolling Hills Estates Cities of Los Angeles County/Western Region
SHAWN NELSON Supervisor, Fourth District County of Orange
JAN PERRY Councilmember, Ninth District City of Los Angeles
MIGUEL A. PULIDO Mayor, Santa Ana Cities of Orange County
EXECUTIVE OFFICER:

BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env.Preface

On August 10, 2010, the Draft Staff Report and Prop osed Amended Rule (PAR) 1150.1 - Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipa l Solid Waste Landfills were released for a thirty day public review for a Sept ember 10 Public Hearing. This Final Draft Staff Report contains the current staff propo sal for PAR 1150.1 which is scheduled for a February 4, 2011 Public Hearing. T he changes and clarifications made since the August release of the PAR 1150.1 material s are summarized below:

 Removed subdivision (m) from the proposed amendment , which was included with the August 2010 proposal, and to address a Cal ifornia ballot measure regarding California Assembly Bill 32. This provis ion is no longer necessary.

 Added comments received subsequent to the release o f the Draft Staff Report in August 2010, summarized in the Public Comments s ection of the report.

 Added comments received October 2010 from the Calif ornia Air Resources Board (CARB), with responses from AQMD staff, summa rized in the CARB Comments section of the report. Resultant changes to the proposed amendment include:

- Updating the gas generation calculation methodology to reference the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPC C) Guidelines; and

- Including additional exemption criteria based on th e amount of wastein-place and the gas generation rate.

 Updated compliance deadlines consistent with the De cember 2, 2010 CARB Regulatory Advisory, including:

- Extending the compliance deadline to allow landfill s to apply for and implement alternatives to this proposed amendment t o April 1, 2011 and July 1, 2011, respectively; and

- Allowing for continued operation under previously approved Rule 1150.1 Compliance Plans until July 1, 2011, or until the owner or operator has received an approved revised Rule 1150 .1 Compliance Plan; and

- For Rule 1150.1 Compliance Plan revisions submitted on or before April 1, 2011 to meet the proposed amendment, allow ing operation under the submittal if the plan approval is pending ; and

- Revising the annual report due date from March 31 t o March 15.

 Other minor administrative revisions and clarificat ions.Final Staff Report

- i - TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................

................................................... ..............1 BACKGROUND ........................................

................................................... .......................2
Introduction ......................................

................................................... ....................................... 2 Regulatory History ................................

................................................... .................................. 3 Affected Industries ...............................

................................................... ................................... 4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 1150.1 ........... .....................................4
Overview ..........................................

................................................... ......................................... 4 Gas Collection and Control System Emission Control Requirements .................................. 5 Gas Collection and Control Systems ................

................................................... .................................... 5 Gas Control System Monitoring .....................

................................................... .................................. 6 Gas Collection System Monitoring ..................

................................................... ................................. 7 Surface and Subsurface Emission Standards and Monit oring ............................................. ..................... 7 Instantaneous Surface Monitoring ..................

................................................... .................................. 7 Integrated Surface Monitoring .....................

................................................... ..................................... 8 Combination Instantaneous and Integrated Surface Mo nitoring .......................................... ................ 8 Subsurface Refuse Boundary Monitoring .............

................................................... ............................ 8 Operational Standards .............................

................................................... ............................... 9 Gas Collection and Control Devices Continuous Opera tion .............................................. ...................... 9 Components under Positive Pressure Monitoring .....

................................................... ............................ 9 Wellhead Negative Pressure and Monitoring .........

................................................... .............................. 9 Alternatives ......................................

................................................... ...................................... 10 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements ..........

................................................... ........... 10 Administrative Changes ............................

................................................... ............................ 11 Test Methods ......................................

................................................... ................................................ 11 Incorporate 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart AAAA by Refere nce ............................................... .................. 11 EMISSION REDUCTIONS ...............................

................................................... ...........12 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ..............................

................................................... .........12 SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ..........................

................................................... ..15 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ....... ..............................15 DRAFT FINDINGS UNDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY C ODE SECTION 40727 .....................................

................................................... .......................15 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ............................

................................................... ....16
Public Comments ...................................

................................................... ................................ 16 CARB Comments......................................

................................................... ............................. 34 Other Comments ....................................

................................................... ................................ 39 CONCLUSION.........................................

................................................... ......................39Final Staff Report

- ii - 

### LIST OF TABLES

PAGE
Table 1. MSW Landfills in the South Coast Basin ..........

................................................... ........................... 4 Table 2. Title V and Non Title V MSW Landfills by County .

................................................... .................. 12 Table 3. Comparison of MSW Regulations ...................

................................................... ........................... 14EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rule 1150.1 – Control of Gaseous Emission from Muni cipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills, was originally adopted by the Sout h Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Governing Board on April 5, 1985 to regulate emissions from active landfills. Landfills generat e gaseous emissions that are comprised of several pollutants of concern, includi ng Non-Methane Organic Compounds (NMOC), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) and odorous compounds, as well as greenhouse gases in the form of methane and carbon dioxide. The origin ally adopted Rule 1150.1 and two subsequent administrative amendments in Apr il 10, 1998 and March 17, 2000 were focused on controlling the non-greenh ouse gas components of landfill gas because of the contribution to criteri a pollutant formation from VOC emissions, potential for public nuisance from o dorous compounds, and potential detriment to public health from TAC emiss ions. Recent legislative activity has focused on controlling greenhouse gase s, including the approval of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2 006 (AB 32). Because the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has adopt ed an early action measure under AB32 aimed at controlling methane emi ssions from landfills, the primary purpose of this amendment is to incorpo rate the state requirements into the rule. The proposed amendment would also i mprove enforceability and streamline requirements by clarifying operation standards for control devices already installed, and by eliminating dupli cate recordkeeping and redundant reporting. Elements of the proposed amendment fall into four c ategories: (1) incorporating CARB emission control requirements fo r Gas Collection and Control Systems (GCCS); (2) updating operation stan dards for control systems, including wellhead pressure gauge monitori ng, to improve enforceability; (3) streamlining recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and, (4) revising rule language to address administ rative corrections. First, the proposed amendment would add methane emi ssions control and lower the monitoring emissions limit for landfill c ontrol systems from 50 ppmv to 25 ppmv to achieve equivalency to the CARB regulation for MSW landfills. CARB established the 25 ppmv limit base d on data from South Coast Basin, which showed that the majority of land fills already comply with the lower limit and currently report values below t he 25 ppmv limits based on currently required sampling. Second, the proposed amendment incorporates GCCS op erational requirements identified in the CARB regulation. Th e proposed amendment requires control devices (e.g., compressors, intern al combustion engines, and boilers) to be in full operation at all times, unle ss an alternative is requested and approved. The proposed amendment further requi res that wellheadsFinal Staff Report

- 2 - operate under negative pressure at all times to ens ure that landfill gases are not escaping into the atmosphere, and also requires enc losed flares and enclosed combustion devices to operate with installed automa tic dampers, automatic shutdown devices, and flame arrestors. Third, the proposed amendment seeks to reconcile re cordkeeping and reporting content and frequency with the requiremen ts in the CARB regulation. While both the proposed amendment and CARB regulation have similar reporting requirements, they differ for ann ual reports. The proposed amendment consolidates the reporting of records int o an annual reporting requirement to eliminate redundancy and minimize th e burden on affected facilities. Finally, the proposed amendment also deletes outdat ed language and adds definitions, minor clarifications, and editorial co rrections to improve clarity and enforceability. There is no expected significant cost increase asso ciated with the proposed amendment because the collection and control equipm ent required by the CARB regulation to control methane have been instal led and used by landfills within the District for over twenty years to contro l non-methane organic compounds. There may be administrative costs for p rocessing requests for alternatives or changes to facility permits or plan s, if needed. The proposed amendment has no potential to adversel y impact air quality or any other environmental area and is therefore exemp t from CEQA pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15061 (b)(3) – Review for Ex emption. A Notice of Exemption will be prepared upon adoption of the pro posed amendment and forwarded to the four county clerks for posting.

BACKGROUND

Introduction Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills are classifie d to receive residential refuse that is collected separately from constructi on, hazardous and toxic waste. MSW is buried and compacted in the landfill where anaerobic decomposition generates large quantities of gas. T his landfill gas, composed of near equal parts methane and carbon dioxide, als o includes trace amounts (~ 1%) of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC), inc luding volatile organic compounds (VOC), toxic air contaminants (TA C) and other odorous compounds. NMOC emissions contribute to ground lev el ozone formation, and represent a potential for public nuisance and d etriment to public health, whereas methane is a greenhouse gas (GHG) that cont ributes to climate change, having a global warming potential 21 times greater than carbon dioxide. Methane is also known to be an explosive hazard and can damageFinal Staff Report

- 3 - vegetation and crops. In California, MSW landfills are the second largest anthropogenic source of methane. Control of MSW landfill gases in the District is ac complished by the use of an active collection system. An active collection sys tem uses a prime mover to draw a vacuum on a collection system to compress th e landfill gases and deliver the gases to a combustion device. MSW land fills bury and compress refuse in layers separated by non-biodegradable bar riers. Interlaced between these layers are a network of vertical gas wells an d horizontal collector piping that constitutes the collection system upon which t he prime mover creates a vacuum to deliver landfill gases at a steady rate t o the combustion device. The combustion device can be an open or enclosed flare, although more efficient landfill gas combustors are used in the District, s pecifically, internal combustion engines (ICE), heaters and boilers. Ene rgy from these devices is often used to generate electricity, representing a potential supplemental revenue stream. While the prime mover and the combustion device rep resent the control system, the collection system consists of the verti cal wells and horizontal piping. Combined together, the control and collect ion systems constitute the vapor control system for MSW landfills. The proposed amendment requires control of both NMO C and methane emissions through use of appropriate control and co llection systems, and defines associated source testing, sampling, monito ring, recordkeeping, and reporting of excess emission from control and colle ction devices at ground level as well as subsurface migration of landfill g ases towards the landfill boundary.
Regulatory History Rule 1150.1 was originally adopted by the AQMD Gove rning Board on April 5, 1985 and has since undergone two subsequen t amendments on April 10, 1998 and March 17, 2000. The April 10, 1 998 amendment merged the Rule 1150.1 requirements for active MSW landfil ls with the Rule 1150.2 requirements for inactive MSW landfills. In 1988, EPA announced a decision to regulate landfills under the authority of the Cl ean Air Act (CAA) and proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 1991, with promulgation in March 1996. The AQMD Governing Boa rd approved an amendment to Rule 1150.1 to incorporate the NSPS Em issions Guidelines (EG) for existing landfills and NSPS emissions stan dards for new landfills in March 2000. As part of the same amendment, Section s 21140 and 20200 of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR ) were incorporated by reference into Rule 1150.1. Specifically, Section 2 1140 added requirements for closure and post-closure maintenance, and Secti on 20200 prohibited disposal of liquid and semi-liquid waste at Class I II (municipal solid waste)Final Staff Report

- 4 - landfills in order to credit emission reductions un der the state implementation plan.

Affected Industries The rule amendment applies to existing MSW landfill facilities and any future MSW landfill facilities. There are currently 83 MSW landfill facilities in t he District that would be subject to the proposed amendment. Of these facili ties, 19 are currently active facilities or facilities that accept residential re fuse, 64 landfills are inactive facilities which no longer accept refuse but still generate significant levels of landfill gas. Table 1, below, shows the breakdown of active MSW landfills and inactive MSW landfills in the District.

Table 1. MSW Landfills in the South Coast Basin

County Active

Landfills Inactive

Landfills Total
Los Angeles 11 35 46 Orange 2 13 15
Riverside 3 9 12
San Bernardino 3 7 10

Total : 19 64 83
Rule 1150.1 applies to both active and inactive lan dfills and while there is less activity at inactive landfill sites because they ha ve been capped with layers of earth fill, they continue to have the potential to generate landfill gas emissions for a long period of time. The proposed amendment continues to focus on landfill gas control and collection methods and eli mination of associated fugitive emissions.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 1150.1

Overview The proposed amendment is intended to incorporate t he requirements of the CARB AB32 early action measure for MSW landfills (T itle 17, CCR , Article 4, Subarticle 6). While the primary purpose of the proposed amendment is to incorporate control of methane emissions into the r ule, the proposed amendment is also aimed at improving enforceability and streamlining requirements by clarifying operation standards for control devices already installed and eliminating duplicate recordkeeping a nd redundant reporting.Final Staff Report

- 5 - Elements of the proposed amendment fall into the fo llowing four categories:

1. Incorporating CARB emission control requirements fo r gas collection and control systems (GCCS).

2. Updating operation standards for control devices, i ncluding wellhead pressure gauge monitoring, to improve enforceabilit y.
3. Streamlining recordkeeping and reporting requiremen ts.
4. Revising rule language for administrative changes.
Gas Collection and Control System Emission Control Requirements The proposed amendment extends the emission limits of the current rule to include methane as prescribed by the CARB regulatio n. These limits are associated with controlled emission levels based on system control efficiency as well as monitoring of control system components and fugitive emission concentrations at the surface and subsurface to ens ure system integrity. The proposed amendment requires instantaneous and i ntegrated surface monitoring for MSW landfills consistent with the CA RB regulation to check the gas collection system for malfunctions and leak s. Instantaneous monitoring measures instant surface emissions of to tal organic compounds (TOC), while integrated monitoring is done using in strument analysis of TOC over a 50,000 square foot grid and sampled for lab analysis for TAC. The proposed amendment continues to require subsurface refuse boundary monitoring, a process in which probes are placed ar ound the perimeter of the landfill site at different depths to measure gas mi gration. Monthly samples are taken to determine if subsurface gases are approach ing or going beyond the boundary of the landfill.
Gas Collection and Control Systems Installation and operation of a GCCS has been requi red since the original adoption of Rule 1150.1. The proposed amendment in corporates control of methane emissions consistent with the CARB regulati on, including requirements for design and emission limits. Although landfills within the District currently op erate with existing GCCS, the proposed amendment incorporates the CARB requir ements for design plans associated with site-specific gas collection and control systems that are not covered under a Permit to Construct or Permit t o Operate; GCCS must be operated, maintained and expanded according to an a pproved design plan in the absence of an aforementioned permit. The propo sed amendment applies the Professional Engineer certification requirement s for design plans to also cover certification for any plan revisions. Finally , the proposed amendmentFinal Staff Report

- 6 - requires that design plans have a description of mi tigation measures to be used in case there is release of methane or NMOC into th e atmosphere during installation of landfill components or when there a re repair work or system shutdowns of the GCCS. The proposed amendment requires that the GCCS be op erated as an active gas collection system on a continuous basis, including situations where there is low flow, which may require operators to supplement landfill gases to maintain combustion in GCCS control devices or purs ue an approved alternative. The conditional use of open flares has been added t o the proposed amendment, even though there are very few such devi ces in the District. The proposed amendment restricts use of open flares by date of use. Any open flare operated before August 1, 2008 may operate un til January 1, 2018. Operation of an open flare beyond 2018 will require the approval of the Executive Officer with documentation to support the request. The temporary use of open flares for repairs and maintenance whil e an enclosed flare is being repaired would also require approval from the Execu tive Officer. The proposed amendment requires enclosed combustion devices to achieve a methane destruction rate of 99% by weight in additi on to reducing NMOC by at least 98% by weight and 3,000 ppmv for internal combustion engines at the outlet. Existing controls at MSW landfills in the District will be able to meet the new CARB requirement. During startup and shutd owns there must be enough supplemental fuel for the burners to prevent landfill gas venting to the atmosphere. The proposed amendment requires GCCS under positive pressure to operate with no leaks exceeding 500 ppmv. Any leak discove red by the facility must be tagged and repaired in 10 days. Finally, the proposed amendment will require all we llheads to be under negative pressure at all times, except during wellh ead rising and repair, during temporary shutdown of the GCCS, or after catastroph ic events.

Gas Control System Monitoring The proposed amendment to this rule includes a leak standard of 500 ppmv for components under positive pressure, which requires monitoring of all components used in the gas collection and control s ystem, including blowers, compressors, connectors, fittings, flame arrestors, flanges, knock-out drums, pipes, sampling ports, and valves. If excess emissi on leaks are identified from these components, the proposed amendment requires r epair and re-sampling consistent with the timeframes of the CARB regulati on.Final Staff Report

- 7 - Gas Collection System Monitoring The operational efficiency of GCCS is determined by monitoring migration of underground landfill gases and liquids to the prope rty boundary, and by monitoring leaks at the landfill surface. Consistent with the CARB regulation, the proposed a mendment lowers the limit for integrated surface monitoring from 50 ppm v to 25 ppmv, and also adds an additional requirement for recording instan taneous monitoring results that exceed 200 ppmv TOC for data collection purpos es. Landfills in the District are currently meeting the 25 ppmv level. The current version of Rule 1150.1 requires the rep air of components that contribute to the exceedance of the aforementioned monitoring levels in accordance with prescribed timeframes. Following i nitial discovery, the GCCS must be repaired and re-monitored or re-sample d within 10 days. If the follow-up testing shows a second exceedance, anothe r 10 days is allowed for repair and re-testing. Finally, if there is a thir d exceedance, corrective action is required to install and operate a replacement wi thin 45 days from initial discovery. Although the CARB regulation provides f or a final 120 days rather than 45 days from initial discovery, the District i s proposing to maintain the current timeframes, based on historical implementat ion, and to avoid relaxing a SIP approved rule.

Surface and Subsurface Emission Standards and Monit oring Current Rule 1150.1 not only requires both surface landfill sampling and monitoring, but also requires a subsurface refuse p robe boundary sampling system. The subsurface monitoring is absent in the CARB regulation for landfills because another State agency has jurisdic tion for subsurface monitoring (CalRecycle). Attachment A of the curre nt rule contains the requirements for subsurface monitoring, with the in tent towards design and installation consistent with CalRecycle subsurface boundary probe requirements. The proposed amendment maintains the se requirements.

Instantaneous Surface Monitoring Instantaneous monitoring is conducted by the MSW la ndfill owner or operator once a quarter (or every three months) by traversin g a walking pattern of the grid in search of leaks that exceed the 500 ppmv em ission standard. The CARB regulation requires measured methane emission leaks of 200 ppmv or greater be recorded for data collection purposes, b ut the emission standard that triggers corrective action is set higher at 500 ppm v. The 200 ppmv level for recording leaks has been added to the proposed amen ded rule.Final Staff Report

- 8 - Integrated Surface Monitoring CARB used SCAQMD data obtained from monitoring reco rds to determine that the current emission standard in Rule 1150.1 c ould be reduced from 50 ppmv to 25 ppmv. In order to maintain equivalent l imits, the proposed amendment lowers the integrated surface monitoring limit to 25 ppmv. Integrated surface monitoring is conducted monthly and is intended to monitor the MSW landfill in greater detail than instantaneo us surface monitoring provides. Two different methods for integrated surface monito ring have been used at MSW landfills. One method includes a monitoring ap paratus that slowly ingests samples while the operator traverses a port ion of the grid. The sample is contained in a tedlar bag, and the content is an alyzed by an approved lab. If an exceedance of the integrated surface emission st andard is determined, the operator is required to return to that portion of t he grid and identify the specific area of concern. The second method for co nducting integrated surface monitoring includes use of a flame ionization detec tor, calibrated to methane. AQMD staff has witnessed some hydrocarbon detection models using this method that not only detect emission leaks but also concurrently identify the exact location, so that the operator can readily in itiate corrective action. Either method is acceptable for Rule 1150.1.

Combination Instantaneous and Integrated Surface Mo nitoring Because the frequency for instantaneous monitoring is monthly and integrated monitoring is quarterly, there is an overlap in the two required events every three months. Rather than walk the same grid for t wo separate samplings during this overlapping period, county landfill ope rators in the District have reported conducting combined sampling without compl ication or significant procedural changes. Results are recorded separatel y on approved District forms and meet the intent of the current rule and p roposed amendment. CARB is considering, either through regulation or o n a case-by-case approval process, recognizing this practice through future g uidance documents.

Subsurface Refuse Boundary Monitoring The Subsurface Refuse Boundary Monitoring measures and detects underground lateral movement of landfill gases and liquids from the refuse footprint toward the landfill boundary line and ont o neighboring property. Attachment A of the current version of Rule 1150.1 requires monthly samples that report less than 5 percent TOC from each probe . The proposed amendment maintains this requirement.Final Staff Report

- 9 - Operational Standards
Gas Collection and Control Devices Continuous Opera tion Currently, Rule 1150.1 requires that control or tre atment systems be operated at all times when collected gas is being routed to them. Conversely, current implementation of the rule allows for shutting down system components where collected gas is not being routed. The propo sed amendment incorporates the requirement of the CARB regulation that calls for documentation of minimum flow through an approved a lternative. As such, the proposed amendment requires continuous operatio n of the active collection system at all times, except where an alt ernative has been approved that establishes appropriate conditions to allow pe riods of interrupted operation.

Components under Positive Pressure Monitoring Because it is necessary to pressurize components th at deliver fuel in order to ensure a constant flow of landfill gases under pres sure for combustion, the proposed amendment requires that all components tha t transfer landfill gases be monitored quarterly for leaks. Should a leak be detected at 500 ppmv or greater, the proposed amendment requires repairs be made in a timely manner through corrective action such as tagging the leak location and repairing the leak within 10 calendar days. Another reason for t his proposed amendment is to make the requirements for compression and combus tion equipment used in landfill gas generation to be comparable to the req uirements subject to SCAQMD Rule 1173.

Wellhead Negative Pressure and Monitoring The proposed amendment requires that wellheads be m aintained under constant vacuum or negative pressure at all times. Wellheads are above ground components that are connected to a central h eader in the collection system for landfills. A negative pressure ensures that landfill gas is channeled through the collection system to the control device s and into the collection control system. Furthermore, the proposed amendment requires monthl y monitoring of wellhead gauge pressure to ensure negative pressure is maintained. Positive pressure readings require corrective action within five days. If after the first five days the positive pressure persists, an additi onal 15 days are allowed for corrective action. Finally, all corrective measure s including expansion must be completed and the gas collection system must be operational within 120 days of when the first positive pressure reading wa s found.Final Staff Report

- 10 - Alternatives Currently, Rule 1150.1 allows facilities to request and obtain Districtapproved alternatives to specific sections of the r ule. The proposed amendment continues this practice in a manner analo gous to the CARB regulation, which allows for requested “Alternative Compliance Options.” Such collective “alternatives,” if approved, would be incorporated into a facility’s Rule 1150.1 Compliance Plan. In addition, where a plan revision is required to meet the proposed amendment, facilities are allowed to operate pursuant to a previously approved Rule 1150.1 Compl iance Plan or, if plan approval is pending, the revised Rule 1150.1 Compli ance Plan submitted on or before April 1, 2011.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements The proposed amendment includes requirements from t he CARB regulation that have been incorporated to improve consistency and minimize duplicative recordkeeping, while also allowing for the keeping of records in paper, electronic form, or other suitable format. In shor t, the proposed amendment updates the monitoring exceedance levels for record keeping consistent with the proposed amended emission limits, adds addition al requirements for keeping and retaining records of source tests, peri ods of GCCS non-operation, component and surface monitoring results, exceedanc es and corrective actions, as well as the keeping of records associat ed with waste acceptance, current amount of waste in place, landfill areas ex cluded from collection systems, and landfill closure. The proposed amendment requires owners and operator s to maintain original source test results and all annual performance test s results; if the combustion device is an open flare, all flare monitoring and r ecords of periods when the pilot flame or flare flame is not present must also be maintained. The proposed amendment requires any results greater than 25 ppmv during integrated monitoring sampling and corrective actio ns taken to be recorded. The proposed amendment requires owners and operator s to maintain records for instantaneous sampling for monitoring readings greater than 200 ppmv. Corrective action records continue to be required a t the 500 ppmv level as identified in the current rule. While the current version of Rule 1150.1 requires r ecording of periods where the collection or control device system has not ope rated for longer than an hour, the amended version of the rule extends this requirement to include recording of installations of collection or control equipment, excavation of solid waste material, and construction activities t hat require exposing waste to the atmosphere. The proposed amendment further req uires recording of a description of the activity, the affected area, the reason for the action, the startFinal Staff Report

- 11 - and finish time and date, a list of the landfill co mponents affected or replaced, and the mitigation measures taken. The proposed amendment requires owners and operator s to maintain records of solid waste acceptance, solid waste acceptance r ate, and the current amount of waste in place. Furthermore, owners and operato rs would be required to maintain all records of non-degradable waste accept ance, including the location, and amount deposited into any landfill ar ea that excludes a collection system. The proposed amendment requires the owner and or op erator to keep records of positive wellhead gauge pressure measurements, i ncluding the date, measurement, well identification, and corrective ac tion taken. The proposed amendment adds additional recordkeepin g requirements for Closure Reports, including the last day the landfil l accepted solid waste, the project closure date, and the estimated waste-in-pl ace.
Administrative Changes In addition to minor rule language updates to remov e outdated language and clarify definitions, the proposed amendment include s the following:

Test Methods The CARB regulation considers VOC and methane inter changeable for control purposes since both are contained in the la ndfill gas stream and subject to destruction efficiency requirements. Therefore, the proposed amendment cites various source tests applicable for VOC and m ethane alone or in combination. The proposed amendment requires sourc e testing of gas control devices for VOC and for methane using EPA Methods 2 5 and 18, as well as AQMD Method 25.1 (for VOC and methane), AQMD Method 25.3 (VOC and methane) and ASTM Method D1945 and D1946 (for metha ne only).

Incorporate 40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart AAAA by Refere nce Subpart AAAA of the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), promulgated in 2003 by the EPA under authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA), section 112, is incorporated i nto the proposed amended rule by reference. The incorporation of 40 CFR, Pa rt 63 Subpart AAAA of NESHAP requires all MSW Landfills that have bioreac tors, and Title V facilities, to comply with this subpart by creating and using a Start-up, Shut down, and Malfunction Plan (SSMP).Final Staff Report

- 12 -

EMISSION REDUCTIONS

The proposed amendment is not expected to result in emission reductions. In order to maintain equivalency with the CARB landfil l regulation the emission limit for integrated monitoring sampling was lowere d from 50 to 25 ppmv. Compliance with the 25 ppmv has been achieved in pr actice with control and collection systems required at the 50 ppmv level an d therefore no actual emission reductions are achieved or claimed.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

As required by Health and Safety Code Section 40727 .2, the purpose of this analysis is to identify and compare any other AQMD or federal regulations that apply to the same equipment or source type. The existing and the proposed amended Rule 1150.1 a re not in conflict with National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollu tants (NESHAP) 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart AAAA. On January 16, 2003 the US EPA promulgated the landfill NESHAP under the authority of CAA, sec tion 112. The Landfill NESHAP applies to major sources (Title V facilities ) and contains the same requirements as landfill emissions guidelines and L andfill NSPS, but add requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), operating conditions, and deviations for out-of-bound monitor ing parameters (see Table 3). Table 2 below shows a breakdown of Title V and Non Title V MSW landfills by county in which they operate.

Table 2. Title V and Non Title V MSW Landfills by County

County Title V Non Title V Total Los Angeles 17 29 46 Orange 6 9 15
Riverside 3 9 12
San Bernardino 7 3 10

Total : 33 50 83
The NESHAP Landfill regulation makes reference to a guidance document that explains how to prepare a startup, shutdown, a nd malfunction plan (SSM Plan) for municipal solid waste landfills. The gui dance document requires those landfills that have a collection and control system or who must install one, to prepare a SSM Plan. This subpart addresses concerns with the malfunction of landfill gas collection, control, an d treatment systems and requires landfills to document the reasons causing the malfunction, corrective measures taken, and measures taken to prevent futur e problems.Final Staff Report

- 13 - In the District there are thirty-three Title V MSW landfills facilities (under Standard Industrial Classification Code 4953, 1600, 9711; NAICS Code 562212) and fifty facilities that are not required to have Title V permits. The thirty-three Title V facilities are required by Par t 70 and 71 of the Clean Air act to have a SSM Plan and are thereby required to follow the procedures in the plan during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctio n. Table 3−Comparison of MSW Regulations −has been prepared to show a comparison between the proposed amended Rule 1150.1, guidance document, an d NESHAP Regulation Subpart AAAA.Final Staff Report

- 14 - Table 3. Comparison of MSW Regulations

Category Proposed Amended Rule 1150.1 U.S.EPA CTG USEPA NESHAP 40 CFR 63 Sub-Part AAAA Purpose To prevent public nuisance and possible detriment to public health The document is intended to explain how to prepare a startup, shutdown, malfunction plan for MSW facilities Establishes National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for existing and new municipal solid waste landfills Applicability Rule 1150.1 applies to each active and inactive MSW landfill Owner and operators of MSW landfills who need to comply with NESHAP requirement for startup shutdown malfunction plans Applies to MSW landfills that are a major source >= 10 tons/yr HAP or 25 ton/yr combo HAP or facility> 2.5MM Mg design capacity Averaging Provisions None None None Units  ppmv

 Percent by volume None None

Operating Parameters Uses current source test results and conditions of S/T as operation parameters and operation limits For equipment associated with collection and control of landfills gas regulation requires records of standard operation procedure to prevent emissions to atmosphere The NESHAP refers to guidance document for records and reporting for control and collection equipment operation parameters

Method to Determine VOC U.S.EPA Method 21 U.S. EPA Method 18 Not Identified Subpart AAAA refers to Subpart WWW for US EPA Method 21 and Method 18 Capture Efficiency U.S.EPA Method 25 U.S. EPA Method 18 Not Identified Subpart AAAA refers to Subpart WWW for US EPA Method 25 and Method 18 Control Device Efficiency U.S.EPA Method 25 &18 Not Identified U.S.EPA Method 25 & 18 Work Practices  Boundary monitoring

 Surface and subsurface sampling and monitoring

 Collection system pressure monitoring Not Identified Active landfills must comply with subpart WWW sampling and monitoring requirements

Monitoring Done by monthly sample collection and testing for pressure, temperature TOC and TAC Not Identified Regulation refers to subpart WWW for monitoring requirements
Reporting Annual source test report, annual report, when needed closure & decommissioning report Document outlines the content, for required records to be contained in report and form, and frequency of required reports Regulation refers to Guidance document for SSMP for landfill control and collection systems reporting requirements

Recordkeeping Rule requires records for: all control equipment testing, results from monthly and quarterly monitoring and sampling, combustion device temperatures readings, flow records from control devices Document details the form and content of the SSM plan and the data from the gas control system and the gas treatment system to be recorded. Requires a description of each process and occurrence and duration of each malfunction. The action taken to correct malfunction and any deviation from the plan. Comprehensive records required annually to support compliance with NESHAPFinal Staff Report

- 15 -

SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

The proposed amendment is mostly administrative and will coincide with the implementation of CARB regulations for MSW landfill s which affect landfills in the South Coast Basin. The proposed amendment i s not expected to result in adverse socioeconomic or environmental impacts s ince the proposed rule does not significantly affect air quality or emissi ons limitations, and does not impose new controls. However, facilities may have additional administrative costs if they choose to pursue or amend an existing Rule 1150.1 Compliance Plan to request alternatives to the new requirement s of the proposed amendment. However, by including state and federal requirements in Rule 1150.1 and implementing the CARB regulation locally , these costs should be offset through the minimization of duplicate record keeping and reporting.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

The SCAQMD has reviewed the proposed project pursua nt to the CEQA Guidelines §15002 (k)(1), the first step of a three -step process for deciding which document to prepare for a project subject to CEQA. Staff has prepared a Notice of Exemption (NOE) for Proposed Amended Ru le (PAR) 1150.1 for the following reasons: 1) the proposed amendments i ncorporate state regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that specify requirements for municipal solid waste land fills; and 2) collection and control equipment required by CARB’s regulation has already been installed and is currently in operation at all affected South Coast Basin municipal solid waste landfills since the adoption of the current r ule on April 5, 1985. Since the proposed project is approving established regul ations and will not require new equipment that would generate new adverse envir onmental impacts, it can be seen with certainty that the proposed projec t has no potential to adversely impact air quality or any other environme ntal area and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15061 (b)(3) – Review for Exemption. The Notice of Exemption will be filed w ith the county clerks of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino c ounties immediately following the adoption of the proposed project.

DRAFT FINDINGS UNDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY C ODE SECTION 40727

Health and Safety Code Section 40727 requires that prior to adopting, amending or repealing rules, the AQMD Governing Boa rd shall make findings of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non- duplication and reference, based on relevant information presented at the hear ing. The draft findings are as follows:Final Staff Report

- 16 - Necessity: The AQMD Governing Board has determined that a ne ed exists to amend Rule 1150.1 - Control of Gaseous Emissions fr om Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, to improve consistency with CARB’s Regulation to Reduce Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfi lls in terms of monitoring limits and recording and reporting requi rements and to implement the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 63 Subpart AAAA – National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal S olid Waste Landfills. Authority: The AQMD obtains its authority to adopt, amend or repeal rules and regulations from California Health and Safety C ode Sections 39002, 39650, 40000, 40001, 40440, 40441, 40463, 40702, an d 40725 through 40728, 41508, 41700, and 42300. Clarity: Rule 1150.1 - Control of Gaseous Emissions from M unicipal Solid Waste Landfills, as proposed to be amended, is writ ten or displayed so that its meaning can be easily understood by the persons dir ectly affected by it. Consistency: Proposed Amended Rule 1150.1 - Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipal Waste Landfills is in harm ony with, and not in conflict with or contradictory to, existing statute s, court decisions, or federal or state regulations. Non Duplication: Rule 1150.1 - Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, as proposed to be amended, does not impose the same requirements as any existing state or fede ral regulations, and the amendments are necessary and proper to execute the powers and duties granted to, and imposed upon, the AQMD. The propos ed amendment consolidates existing state and federal requirement s.
Reference: This regulation would implement, interpret or mak e specific the provisions of: Health and Safety Code Sections 4000 1 (rules to achieve ambient air quality standards), 40440(a) and (c) (r ules to carry out the Air Quality Management Plan and rules which are also co st-effective and efficient), 40702 (rules to execute duties necessar y to preserve original intent of rule), 40910 et seq., (California Clean Air Act) , and Federal Clean Air Act §111 (New Source Performance Standards).

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Public Comments A public workshop was held on June 25, 2010 in whic h approximately 15 people attended. Participants provided comments at the meeting and three followed up letters were received. The following s ection summarizes the comments received at the meeting and staff’s respon ses.Final Staff Report

- 17 - Comment #1 Will implementation of this AB32 regulation require additional CARB oversight or delegation to the District with respec t to inspections and other enforcement activities? Full delegation to the Dis trict is preferred. Response Local air districts that currently have regulations for landfills or adopt a rule can enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CARB to be responsible for implementing the rule for the state . SCAQMD is proposing to amend Rule 1150.1 to include all State requirements so as to minimize the recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with reporting to two agencies. CARB staff will likely review and audit implementat ion activities by air districts.
Comment #2 What are the expected emission reductions from PAR 1150.1? Response The proposed amendment to Rule 1150.1 is not expect ed to result in emission reductions. Although the proposed integrated monit oring limit represents a reduction from 50 to 25 ppmv because records have s hown monitoring results consistently below 25 ppmv in the majority of landf ills, the proposed amendment would only reflect current emission level s rather than result in actual reductions.
Comment #3 Because AB32 is currently being challenged under a ballot measure in November, it may be prudent to delay consideration of PAR 1150.1 until December. Response Consideration of PAR 1150.1 has been delayed until after the November 2010 election.
Comment #4 Will landfills be allowed to maintain existing appr oved alternatives under PAR 1150.1, or will they need to re-apply for them? Response Compliance plans would need to be updated for Title V facilities when their 5- year renewal cycle occurs, to reflect the most rece nt rule requirements. If theFinal Staff Report

- 18 - facility does not need to request an approved alter native because of changes to the rule, then no action would be required. To add to an existing compliance plan, an application would be necessary.
Comment #5 PAR 1150.1 refers to different plans, including a d esign compliance plan and an alternative compliance option. What are the dif ferences between the different plan types, and if there is no difference , can PAR 1150.1 be modified to use consistent terminology? Response Staff agrees and the rule language has been changed to remove the term “Compliance” when referring to the Design Plan. In addition, the CARB regulation reference to use of the term “Alternativ e Compliance Option” is equivalent to the term “alternative” in the propose d amendment.
Comment #6 Previously, Rule 1150.1 required extensive work in developing a set of alternative work practices that both the District a nd the landfills could agree to. Under PAR 1150.1, will the District support a collaborative effort to expedite development of additional alternatives? Response Yes, staff will work with landfill operators to str eamline the alternative approval and Rule 1150.1 Compliance Plan process.
Comment #7 The translation from source test results to paramet er requirements in PAR 1150.1 should be clarified further. Response In response to this comment, staff has improved ref erences from subparagraph (d)(1)(C) which require an operational need for sou rce testing for control devices and refers to paragraph (e)(7) monitoring r equirements which call for monitoring of parameters used in source tests.
Comment #8 There is a concern about the requirement for contin uous operations, while AQMD anticipates breakdowns; paragraph (d)(14) requ ires continuous operations. We suggest wording that would comply w ith CARB Rule 95464(e). Proposed paragraph (d)(14) anticipates t hat SCAQMD’sFinal Staff Report

- 19 - breakdown provision is broad enough to cover the in tent of the CARB provisions. However, we have at least one situatio n at a landfill where annual preventative maintenance on an Edison substation ca uses us to shut our system down for about eight hours. This is technic ally not a breakdown, and under the new language would cause us to now get a variance. Response The proposed amendment allows for use of approved a lternatives. This situation is appropriate for case-by-case review an d evaluation, and may also be more appropriately included as permit conditions , since maintenance, and particularly scheduled maintenance, is dependent on the type of control used. This would not require a variance.
Comment #9 The PAR and staff report indicate that the regulati on intends to use the Title 27 probe requirements, but the rule was not a dequately changed to do this, and requires compliance with both requirement s. The probes should meet Title 27 requirement, if applicable, or otherw ise meet AQMD requirements. Response Paragraph (d)(9) of the proposed amendment has been revised to require all active and inactive landfills that have not been gi ven written approval by CalRecycle for installation of subsurface refuse b oundary sampling probes to be required to design and install according to Atta chment A sections 1.1.
Comment #10 It is our understanding that the CARB regulation al lows for 120 days to install and operate new wells whereas Rule 1150.1 and PAR 1 150.1 only allow 45 days, which is a financial burden with little to no air quality benefit, as the wells may not be fully compliant during initial sta rtup. It is recommended that the time period be extended to 120 days for consist ency and to reduce compliance costs. Response The current rule requirements under subdivision (e) allow for 45 days so changing to 120 days would be a relaxation of the c urrent SIP approved rule. However, subparagraph (i)(2) of the proposed amendm ent provides for use of approved alternatives for landfills that can demons trate sufficient additional need.Final Staff Report

- 20 - Comment #11 The requirement under clause (d)(1)(C)(iv)(IV) for sufficient flow of commercial natural gas is impractical to implement and would represent a significant cost impact. Response

Staff has reviewed this comment relative to the CAR B regulatory requirement and removed this requirement from the proposed amen dment.
Comment #12 Use of the term “vapor-tight integrity” seems to be contradictory with the nature of landfills. Landfills by nature release v apors. This term should be reviewed and revised. Response The term “vapor tight integrity” was removed from t he proposed amended language and replaced with revised language to meet the intent of this comment.
Comment #13 Subparagraphs (e)(4)(B) and (e)(4)(C) require 10 da ys and 45 days, respectively, to address wellhead pressure repairs and new well installations. The first should be modified to indicate that the 1 0-day clock is measured from the time of the last repair rather than the fi rst measurement, and the second should be modified from 45 days to 120 days. Response Changes have been made to the proposed amended rule so that it is comparable to the CARB regulatory convention of 5 d ays from the first positive pressure reading; if the problem is not co rrected, 15 days from the first positive pressure reading, and if not resolve d, 120 days from the first positive pressure reading.
Comment #14 The purpose of PAR 1150.1 should be updated to note that, with respect to control of methane that the purpose is to support i mplementation of AB32 rather than extend the purpose of the original Rule 1150.1, which is to address public nuisance and exposure to NMOC and TACs.Final Staff Report

- 21 - Response Staff has revised the proposed section of rule lang uage to meet the intent of this comment to segregate the inclusion of methane emissions control from NMOC and TACs.
Comment #15 The term (f)(2)(C) “closure” may need to be defined for clarity. Response Staff has reviewed the proposed language and unders tands that the comment is intended to distinguish the difference between “clo sed” and “inactive.” Because use of the term “closure” is in context wit h adjoining rule language (e.g., “closure report”), staff did not make this c hange in the rule.
Comment #16 Please see rule language in Rule 1110.2 related to source testing and consideration of violation notices, and consider us ing the same language for PAR 1150.1. Response Staff agrees, and has revised the proposed amended language to incorporate language similar to Rule 1110.2.
Comment #17 Term “insignificant risk” in paragraph (k)(3) is to o broad and should be either defined or narrowed in scope. Response Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment language relative to use of the term “insignificant risk”. Because the criteria id entified in paragraph (k)(3) relates to pre-existing regulatory thresholds that are deemed “significant”, staff has changed the language in the proposed amendment to refer to “less than significant” rather than “insignificant”. This clar ification is not expected to change how this provision is implemented.
Comment #18 Staff should change (d)(16) to allow operation of t he gas system to “prevent” fire in addition to “extinguishing” a fire. Preven ting a fire is more critical than extinguishing the fire. We believe this addition f alls within the intent of this section.Final Staff Report

- 22 - Response The intent of subparagraph (d)(16)(B) is to allow e xceptions for turning off control and collection devices in the event of cata strophic events, in order to make repairs as part of a temporary shutdown. Staff understands the commenter’s request to replace “extinguishing” with “preventing”; however, staff believes that doing so would weaken the inten t of the section, as compared to the same provisions in the CARB regulat ion. Therefore no change was made in the section.
Comment #19 The issue of operating parameters in (d)(1)(C)(ii)( IV) [The enclosed flare shall be operated within the parameter ranges established during the initial or most recent source test] and (d)(1)(C)(iv)(VI) needs to be clarified. Response The requirements of clause (d)(1)(C)(ii) apply to e nclosed flares while clause (d)(1)(C)(iv) applies to enclosed control devices o ther than flares. Both require operation within source test parameters.
Comment #20 In (d)(1)(C)(i), add the Lean Burning Engine requir ements due to crossreferences. Revising this section allows (d)(1)(C) (iii)(I) to be eliminated. Response Staff has reviewed the clause referring to Lean Bur n Engines. Clause (d)(1)(C)(i) lists general requirements for all con trol devices, of which lean burn ICEs are included. The specific requirements for lean burn engines would be appropriate in clause (d)(1)(C)(iv) requir ements for “enclosed combustor or other than a flare”.
Comment #21 In (e)(1) we would recommend using Title 27 require ments, or retaining the existing timeline requirements. It is not clear wh y the requirement on the second exceedance would be reduced from 10 days to 7 days. Response Staff agrees and has revised the proposed amended l anguage back to 10 days for the first occurrence, 10 days for the second oc currence and 45 days for the third.Final Staff Report

- 23 - Comment #22 The allowance for annual monitoring in (e)(3) diffe rs from 95469(a)(1)(c) by leaving out the word “area.” Response The allowance in PAR 1150.1 (e)(3) applies to close d and inactive landfills, whereas Section 95469 of the CARB regulation applie s to closed and inactive landfills as well as closed and inactive sections ( areas) of active landfills. This was not extended to active landfills in the propose d amendment to allow a review by the Executive Officer of documentation fo r areas or sections that are closed or inactive in an active landfill. This rev iew would be handled as part of an approved alternative under the proposed amend ment.
Comment #23 The timeline in (e)(4) should be made consistent wi th the CARB timeline, as the time periods (10 days versus 15 days) should be counted from the prior monitoring and not from the initial monitoring. Response The five days for the initial exceedance has been c hanged to 10 calendar days and the second exceedance has been changed from 10 days to 20 days from the initial exceedance. This is comparable to the CARB convention of 10 days for the first occurrence and 10 days for the s econd from the last day of the first occurrence of exceedance. See also respo nse to Comment #13.
Comment #24 PAR 1150.1 subparagraph (e)(7)(C) should include th e allowance for monitoring power plant components prior to a schedu led outage. Response The wording in subparagraph (d)(13)(A) was moved to subparagraph (e)(7)(C), maintaining the intent to allow for moni toring during scheduled outages and scheduled maintenance. The following include additional comments that were received subsequent to the public workshop:

Comment #25 The gas probe monitoring requirements starting in p aragraph (d)(9) are redundant for facilities permitted by CalRecycle as a Solid Waste Landfill. Recent changes to Title 27 require solid waste faci lities to design andFinal Staff Report

- 24 - implement an approved gas monitoring plan. These pl ans were transmitted to SCAQMD prior to approval. With this change in Title 27, the requirements in Rule 1150.1 are unnecessary and may cause future is sues. Suggest relying on Title 27 approved monitoring plans for permitted fa cilities and PAR 1150.1 compliance for all other facilities not currently r egulated under Title 27 with respect to landfill gas migration. Response Rule 1150.1 currently defers to Title 27 in the cas e of design and installation of subsurface probes. Specifically, the rule requi res all active and inactive landfills that have not been given written approval by CalRecycle for installation of subsurface refuse boundary sampling probes to design and install such probes in accordance with Attachment A (sections 1.1 through 1.6 of the proposed amendment).
Comment #26

The corrective action timeframe in Rule 1150.1 is i nconsistent with Title 27 and the federal Subtitle D requirements for landfil ls. Title 27 requires immediate verbal notification, written 7 day notifi cation describing measures taken or planned to protect human health and the en vironment and a corrective action plan within 60 days outlining the corrective actions taken to resolve the probe exceedance. Response The proposed amendment has been updated to reflect the intent of your comment. While Title 27 allows five days from the first exceedance rather than 10 days under the proposed amendment, and a to tal of 60 days rather than 65 days under the proposed amendment, it is clear t hat meeting the requirements of Title 27 would not conflict with th e requirements of the proposed amendment.
Comment #27 CARB requires quarterly integrated and instantaneou s monitoring; however, Rule 1150.1 requires monthly integrated and quarter ly instantaneous monitoring. Suggest that the Proposed 1150.1 be re vised to be consistent with CARB. Not aware of the benefit for monthly integrat ed monitoring. Data should be presented to demonstrate how the addition al cost to conduct this monitoring is justified. Response The integrated monitoring sampling provides a snaps hot of the state of compliance of the entire collection system and is m ore helpful than the instantaneous surface monitoring which is done quar terly. This is a benefit toFinal Staff Report

- 25 - public health by checking on a monthly basis that t he system is in compliance. Making the requested change would be a relaxation o f the SIP approved version of the rule, so this change was not made.
Comment #28 The timeline for corrective action for any exceedan ce as a result of integrated, instantaneous or probe monitoring is inconsistent w ith CARB. Rule 1150.1 requires that the wellhead will be expanded within 45 days from the third exceedance, instead of 120 days from the third exce edance (CARB). It has been very difficult over the years to expand the sy stem within 45 days from the third exceedance. There are numerous variables that influence the performance of the gas collection system. Adding a well to the gas collection system is more than simply drilling a new well. It involves connecting it to the gas collection system, bringing it online slowly to avoid increasing the well temperature, and readjusting nearby wells. Given th e nature of solid waste disposal, the location of a new well or wells is no t an absolute science; quite to the contrary, it is more of an educated guess. A new well may or may not produce the methane predicted. In this case additio nal wells are needed. Response Staff recognizes that problems arise in wellhead re placement and repairs but that not all replacements and repairs require 120 d ays or more for compliance. Also this change would be a rule relaxation of a SI P-approved rule. However, similar to the CARB’s regulation, MSW land fills can pursue an approved alternative, especially in situations wher e procurement of parts may be a continuing issue.
Comment #29 Sec. (d)(9) and (10), (e)(1) and Attachment A 1.0 - suggest modifying the perimeter probe requirement in this PAR to allow CC R Title 27 to take precedence and eliminate conflicts between this rul e and the state regulation. Response Rule 1150.1 currently defers to Title 27 for design and installation of subsurface probes. Section 1.1 in Attachment A def ers to CalRecycle requirements for the installation and design of sub surface probes compared to compliance with sections 1.1.1 to 1.1.4 (whenever p ossible). Paragraph (d)(9) of the proposed amendment requires all active and i nactive landfills that have not been given written approval by CalRecycle for i nstallation of subsurface refuse boundary sampling probes to design and insta ll such probes in accordance with sections 1.1 through 1.4 of Attachm ent A to the proposed amended rule.Final Staff Report

- 26 - Comment #30 Sec. (d)(16) - We do not agree with the proposed re quirement as it applies to older, smaller sites located in arid and semi-arid regions to keep negative pressure on wellheads. Many of these sites have se veral wells turned off due to poor gas quality and can show pressure is a func tion of temperature and barometric pressure. The wells have 0.01 to 0.05 i nches of water column. We want to maintain the wells in case of wet years, wh ich cause an increase in gas production. This section should consider the incre ased potential for landfill fires caused by the continuous, and perhaps unneces sary, introduction of vacuum to the refuse prism creating an oxygen rich environment. Response The CARB regulation for MSW landfills contains the same negative pressure requirements for all wellheads, so SCAQMD staff can not omit this requirement. Similar to the allowances provided fo r in the CARB regulation, subparagraph (i)(2) of the proposed amendment provi des for use of an approved alternative for landfills that can demonst rate sufficient need.
Comment #31 Sec. (e)(3)(A) and (f)(1) - These sections require that records be maintained at the landfill site. Most of the sites we operate ar e remote un-manned sites. We recommend some language that allows the records to be kept at the “agency headquarters.” Response This has been re-worded in the proposed amendment. Please see paragraph (f)(1).
Comment #32 Section (f)(1)(D) - Remedial action should not be r equired for exceedances of 200 ppmv as stated in this section. This should be removed as remedial action under Proposed Amended Rule 1150.1. The CARB rule only requires action for exceedances of 500 ppmv. Response Staff has revised the proposed amended language.
Comment #33 Section (k) - We strongly suggest that subdivision (k) include exemptions similar to the CARB rule based on the landfill size , such as the 450,000 tons of waste-in-place threshold set forth in the CARB r ule.Final Staff Report

- 27 - Response While the CARB regulation uses a 450,000 ton thresh old to determine if a Gas Collection and Control System is required, current Rule 1150.1 historically has not had an exemption threshold and to incorpora te one would be a relaxation of a SIP-approved rule.
Comment #34 SCAQMD should hold more public workshops so that ma ny of these comments and suggestions may be discussed in more d etail. The schedule for adoption of this rule should occur later to allow f or those detailed discussions to occur. Response Staff has met with individual commenters subsequent to the public workshop, based on expressed interest and have incorporated t he results of these discussions into the proposed amendment. The following include additional comments that were received subsequent to the release of the draft staff report:

Comment #35 We wish to clarify that the PAR will become effecti ve 1/1/11, per Section (g). The State has indicated that the regulation impleme ntation date could be pushed back to July 2011. Will SCAQMD also push ba ck the date for implementing the proposed changes to Rule 1150.1? Response The District has incorporated into the amended rule an effective compliance date of July 1, 2011. This date would apply to fac ilities that need to amend their compliance plans in order to comply with the amended rule, provided that applications for alternatives be submitted Apr il 1, 2011 for approval prior to the July 1, 2011 compliance date.
Comment #36 We appreciate the added language of Section (m) tha t recognizes Proposition 23, however, we are concerned that if Proposition 2 3 passes, there could be legal challenges staying the suspension of AB32, le aving the landfill industry in “limbo” until AB32 is actually suspended [ Section (m) is triggered only if AB32 is suspended ]. Therefore, we would propose the following alter nate language:Final Staff Report

- 28 - If the state ballot measure to suspend AB32 is appr oved, the provisions of this rule shall not become effective until it is fo und that AB32 is suspended, at which time the provisions of this rul e will revert to the March 17, 2000 version. If the state ballot measur e is approved and its implementation stayed by legal challenges, the prov isions of this rule shall only come into effect if it is found that the ballo t measure is not valid for the provisions of Article 4, Subarticle 6, sections 95460 to 95476, title 17, of the California Code of Regulations (Methane Emis sions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills). Response Subdivision (m) has been removed from the proposed amendment following the November 2010 election and the resultant “no” v ote outcome on Proposition 23.
Comment #37 Section (d)(9) requires compliance with Section 1.1 through 1.6 of Attachment A if subsurface probes have not been issued prior w ritten approval. Most landfills have gotten their existing probe systems grandfathered in as part the Compliance Plans issued under the 1998 Rule 1150.1 modifications. As the SCAQMD is aware, many of the landfills operating in the SCAB have gone through extensive upgrades to their probe systems a s a result of the new Title 27 provisions that have been overseen by CalRecycle . Many of us have not yet updated our Compliance Plans to reflect these c hanges, nor received written approval from the SCAQMD. As currently wri tten, the PAR 1150.1 would require all the landfill owner/operators who have upgraded, or are in the process of upgrading their probe systems to now hav e to reapply to the SCAQMD and demonstrate compliance with the provisio ns of Section 1.1 through 1.6 of Attachment A. The approval process undertaken by CalRecycle for n ew or modified probe systems is a case-by-case determination based upon the underlying geology of the landfill. The resultant probe construction and placement may or may not be fully consistent with the requirements outlined in Attachment A, but the overall system will be more protective of preventin g landfill gas migration than following the more general approach outlined i n Attachment A. Although the “response to comments” in the draft St aff Report seems to indicate that the Title 27 probe systems take prece dence over the SCAQMD design approach, the actual rule language specifies clearly that both Title 27 and PAR 1150. 1, Section 1.1 through 1.6 of Attachm ent A, must be met. We suggest the following amended language Section 1.1 in Attachment A to ensure that the Title 27 subsurface probe approval process under CalRecovery would be the primary authority for probe system app roval:Final Staff Report

- 29 - It is the District’s intent that subsurface refuse boundary probes required by paragraph (d)(9) of Rule 1150.1 be designed and installed in such a manner as to comply with the requirements set forth in Title 27, as administered by of CalRecycle (whenever possible), if applicable. If the Title 27 probe requirements are not applicable, the n and meet the requirements set forth in Sections 1.1.1 through 1. 1.4. Irrespective of Title 27 probe applicability, the Executive Officer may m ake a finding that more stringent probe requirements are necessary. Response The proposed amendment is not intended to modify th e intent of existing rule language relative to Attachment A and subsurface re fuse boundary sampling probes. Historically, upgrades to the subsurface m onitoring system, whether driven by Title 27 or otherwise, have been addresse d via the Rule 1150.1 Compliance Plan through approved alternatives. The District intends to continue this practice, and has not proposed any ch anges to existing rule language in this regard. While the District unders tands the efforts landfills have undertaken to comply with the provisions of Ti tle 27, because the focus of CalRecycle is not identical to that of the Distr ict with respect to gas migration, the District intends to continue to rese rve the option to review and evaluate subsurface gas migration monitoring system s with respect to air quality impacts, as provided for in existing rule l anguage.
Comment #38 In Section (d), it is still not clear when a Design Plan is needed or existing plans need to be updated. The language seems to in dicate that if we have valid permits for the gas collection and control sy stems and meet the requirements of Section (d)(1)(A) through (d)(1)(C) , then a Design Plan is not needed. Is this interpretation correct? However, what happens if we are expanding the gas system or control system requirin g new or modified permits? Section (d)(3) seems to indicate that in this situation, we would need to amend “ the existing design plan to include any necessary u pdates or addenda .” If our interpretation of (d)(3) is correct, as stated above, we would object to this approach. Design plans have never b een part of the Rule 1150.1 process and would represent additional administrati ve work that is unnecessary. The SCAQMD has successfully relied on permits and alternative Compliance Plans to ensure systems are in place to meet the stringent surface gas standards, and in fact by you r own writings, the industry has already been mostly been in compliance with the new 25 ppm integrated threshold. We see no reason to deviate from this s uccessful approach. Therefore, to address this concern, we would sugges t the following amendment to Section (d)(3):Final Staff Report

- 30 - Any owner or operator of existing gas collection an d gas control systems who modifies those systems to meet the requirements of this rule shall submit for approval to the Executive Officer an ame ndment of any existing design plans to include any necessary updates or ad denda, unless the proposed system will be issued a valid Permit to Co nstruct or Permit to Operate that meets the requirements of subparagraph s (d)(1)(A) through (d)(1)(C). This approach would now be consistent with the lang uage in Section (d)(1). Response If a design plan was not previously required under Rule 1150.1, updates to a design plan would not be required; rather any updat es subject to the proposed amendment would be addressed through the landfill p ermit or compliance plan as appropriate.
Comment #39 We would like to clarify that the natural gas or pr opane flow referred to in Section (d)(1)(C)(ii)(III) is to the pilot, not the burner. Response The wording for subclause (d)(1)(C)(ii)(III) is ide ntical to the CARB regulation and the District intends to maintain equ ivalency with both the language and the intent. See also response to CARB comment #4.
Comment #40 In Section (d)(1)(C)(ii)(IV), the parameter of impo rtance (for enclosed flares) is temperature, which already has limits contained within Rule 1150.1. Therefore, we suggest the following minor modificat ion to the language: The operating parameters to be monitored are specif ied in paragraph (e)(7)(A)(i). Response Paragraph (e)(7) refers to subparagraph (e)(7)(A), which includes the requirements associated with (e)(7)(A)(i) and (e)(7 )(A)(ii); because it accomplishes the same intent as the comment, no cha nge is proposed.
Comment #41 Section (d)(1)(C)(iv) is still problematic. As cur rently written, it could be read that engines must meet the 99% destruction efficien cy. We suggest the following amendment to (iv)(I):Final Staff Report

- 31 - The gas control device shall achieve a methane dest ruction efficiency of at least 99% by weight, or if a Llean burn combustion engines, shall instead reduce the outlet .... Section (d)(1)(C)(iv)(II) should be removed because it is repetitive and once again could indicate that engines need to meet the 99% destruction efficiency. Section (d)(1)(C)(iv)(V) is too broad. We suggest the following rule language amendment: The operating parameters to be monitored, for flare s, are specified in paragraph (e)(7)(A)(i), and for all other devices, in paragraph (e)(7)(B). Response Subparagraph (d)(1)(C )(iv) is the same as in the C ARB regulation for gas control devices other than flares. In order to mai ntain equivalency and intent no changes are proposed. Staff agrees that subpara graph (d)(1)(C)(iv)(II) is redundant and has revised the proposed amendment ac cordingly. Finally, staff believes that the proposed alternative language of the last part of this comment is not needed to improve the intent of the rule and therefore no changes are proposed.
Comment #42 We need to discuss the temperature requirements tha t are established in Sections (e)(7) and (f)(1)(L)(i). When Rule 1150.1 was revised in 1998, we received the temperature exception language for boi lers, but not for other devices such as engines and turbines. The temperat ure requirements should only apply to flares to establish a surrogate for d estruction efficiency of toxics and VOCs. Other combustion devices achieve high de struction efficiency by other means that are not easily measured. Do we ne ed a rule change to reflect this, or can this simply by handled in the Complian ce Plans as an alternative? Response

Staff believes that this situation is best handled as an alternative in an approved compliance plan, due to the case-by-case s pecificity of the assessment.
Comment #43 In Section (f)(4), is the “responsible company offi cial” the same as in Title V? Realize that every landfill impacted by Rule 1150.1 is not necessarily a Title V facility.Final Staff Report

- 32 - Response The proposed language “responsible company official ” has been changed to “responsible official” to reflect the intent of thi s comment and maintain equivalency with the CARB regulatory language.
Comment #44 Section (f)(1)(H), requires recordkeeping for insta nces of construction where solid waste material is exposed. This broad langua ge would include installation of gas systems, for instance, that are normally exempt. We believe that this recordkeeping is unnecessary and actually satisfied by other SCAQMD requirements or regulations. For example, p ermits to construct for gas system installations have requirements for mini mizing odors and emissions associated with these activities. Other categories of construction that expose solid waste are covered under Rule 1150 , requiring a detailed plan. This extra level of recordkeeping is unnecessary an d not consistent with the streamlining efforts SCAQMD is trying to achieve. We therefore recommend the following language to address these concerns: During construction that requires exposing solid wa ste material to the atmosphere, the following records are required unle ss adequate mitigation is prescribed in a Permit to Construct a nd/or operate, or a Rule 1150 Excavation Management Plan. Response While permit conditions may cover the same requirem ents for records as a regulation or rule, this does not require landfills to maintain two sets of records, rather the same set of records would satis fy both conditions. Inclusion of recordkeeping requirements as part of rule making ensures consistency for affected sources, including permitt ed and new sources.
Comment #45

Does the current version of Rule 1150.1 that has be en deemed to be equivalent to the Federal EG regulation, not the NSPS standard s for new landfills, as described on page 5? The new landfill NSPS standar ds are enforced by AQMD separately from Rule 1150.1. Response Although the District has incorporated the provisio ns of the NSPS into Rule 1150.1, federal regulations may be cited separately in enforcement matters where applicable.Final Staff Report

- 33 - Comment #46 On Page 8 the required destruction efficiencies are described for enclosed combustion devices, however, it is not indicated th at these requirements do not apply to engines that have a separate requireme nt of 3,000 ppm. Response This section was updated to indicate that internal combustion engines have a separate requirement of 3,000 ppmv.
Comment #47 Page 7 incorrectly describes wellhead pressure moni toring as an “updated standard” when it was incorporated from the CARB ru le. Response The wellhead pressure monitoring relative to the cu rrent Rule 1150.1 is an update.
Comment #48 The description of integrated monitoring on the mid dle of page 7 is incorrect, integrated monitoring is done using instrument anal ysis of TOC over a 50,000 square foot grid, and selected grids are sampled fo r a lab analysis of TAC. Response The wording was changed to reflect instrument analy sis for TOC and lab analysis of TAC.
Comment #49 Monitoring should be described as quarterly, not ev ery 3 months (page 9). Response The staff report correctly meets the intent of the comment by describing the period as quarterly. The parenthetical descriptor of “or every 3 months” identifies a quarter as three months and is neither regulatory language nor conflicting language.
Comment #50 The method of hydrocarbon monitoring with location identification described on page 10 is under development and is not availabl e.Final Staff Report

- 34 - Response No changes will be made to this section since the p urpose of describing the hydrocarbon monitoring with location identification is not a regulatory requirement, but serves to illustrate methods that have been witnessed and may be used in the future.
Comment #51 We are not aware of AQMD pre-approved forms for sur face gas data, and are already monitoring using an AQMD approved instrumen t that integrates surface gas monitoring. Is a Guidance document (as described) being developed by the AQMD? Response The wording “pre-approved” was changed to “approved ” and refers to subdivision (f) that requires that forms, whether e lectronic or paper media, be approved by the Executive Officer.
Comment #52 The last paragraph on page 11 should be revised to represent the rule’s timeline requirement for remediation of a positive pressure well to initiate action within 5 days, re-monitor within 15 days of the first exceedance, and if still in exceedance expand the gas collection syste m with any new wells being placed in operation within 120 days of the first ex ceedance. Response The staff report has been updated to replace the ph rase “an additional 20 days” with the 5/15 day requirement to address the intent of this comment and for consistency with CARB’s regulation.

CARB Comments The following summarizes the comments received from CARB (letter dated October 7, 2010) following release of the draft sta ff report and proposed amended rule.
Comment #1
General: On June 17, 2010, the Office of Administr ative Law approved California Code of Regulations, title 17, article 4 , subarticle 6, sections 95460 to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Wa ste Landfills (“regulation”) and filed it with the Secretary of S tate. The regulation became effective on the same day. ARB staff understands t hat SCAQMD is planning to implement and enforce the regulation by amending Rule 1150.1 to make itFinal Staff Report

- 35 - equivalent to, or more stringent than the regulatio n. We would like to make SCAQMD aware that it must enter into a Memorandum o f Understanding with ARB regarding the implementation and enforceme nt of the regulation. Response

The District is aware of the Memorandum of Understa nding obligation and will enter into the appropriate agreement as needed

. Comment #2 Section (a) (Purpose): This section appears to iso late the reduction of methane emissions as a secondary benefit of proposed amende d Rule. We suggest rewording this section as follows: “The purpose of this rule is to reduce methane (a greenhouse gas), non-methane organic com pounds (NMOC), volatile organic compound (VOC), and toxic air cont aminant (TAC) emissions from.........to prevent public nuisance and pos sible detriment to public health caused by exposure to such emissions. ” Response Staff believes the currently proposed language iden tifies control of methane emissions as an additional benefit, not a secondary benefit. The currently proposed language was intended to address a public comment centered on the nature of methane as compared to the historically c ontrolled pollutants. See also response to Public Comment #14.
Comment #3 Section (d)(1)(A): (Active Landfill Design and Ope ration Requirements): This section requires the use of one of the equatio ns in 40 CFR, Part 60, §60.755(a)(1) to determine the maximum gas generati on flow rate. These equations are not equivalent because of their inabi lity to allow for potential methane generation capacity variation on a year-to- year basis over the lifetime of the landfill, which is very important to the res ults. For equivalency, §95471(e) of ARB’s landfill regulation (Test Method s and Procedures) requires the use of the 2006 Intergovernmental Pane l on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 3 (or, “IPCC model”), using a landfill gas capture factor of 75 percent to determine the captured gas expected flow rate from the total gas generation estimates of the IPCC model. The main advantages of the IPCC model is that it allows the user to: adjust the potential methane generation c apacity on a year to year basis; use specific degradation parameters by waste type; use time delays other than six months; and correct for methane oxidation. The landfill gas tool developed by ARB staff is an acceptable method to u se to compute the captured gas expected flow rate and is based on the IPCC model.Final Staff Report

- 36 - Response Although the calculation models associated with sub division (d)(1)(A) apply only to facilities that do not have gas collection and control systems and may not apply to locations within the District, staff a grees that reference to the updated equations is warranted for consistency and the proposed language has been revised accordingly.
Comment #4 Section (d)(1)(C)(ii)(III) (Active Landfill Design and Operation Requirements): This section reads as follows, “Dur ing restart or startup, an enclosed flare shall have sufficient flow of propan e or commercial natural gas to the burners ......” For clarity, the phrase “to the burners” should be replaced with “to the pilot light.” Response Although the District agrees with the intent of thi s comment, the wording of subclause (d)(1)(C)(ii)(III) was incorporated from CARB language [Article 4, subarticle 6 §95464, title 17, CCR (b)(2)(A)(3)]. The District would also like to maintain consistency with the adopted regulatory language and therefore has communicated consistent intent within the staff report while maintaining the regulatory language as adopted by CARB.
Comment #5 Section (g) (Active Landfill Compliance Schedule): This section incorrectly refers to the date “July 1, 2001.” The correct dat e should be “July 1, 2011.” Response The proposed amendment has been revised accordingly

. Comment #6 Section (h)(2) (Inactive Landfill Requirements): T his section requires owners and operators of inactive MSW landfills without gas collection and control systems to install controls based on: surface meth ane concentrations exceeding 500 ppmv at any location on the landfill surface, the results of a screening questionnaire and solid waste air quality assessment test, and upon formal notification from the Executive Officer. Th is section is not equivalent to § 95463(b) of the regulation which states that o wners and operators of all MSW landfills having 450,000 tons of waste-in-place or greater and a landfill gas heat input capacity of greater than or equal to 3.0 MMBtu/hr must either install a gas collection and control system, or con duct a surface test to demonstrate that there is no surface methane leaks of 200 ppmv or greater on the landfill surface after four consecutive monitor ing periods.Final Staff Report

- 37 - For equivalency, section (h)(2)(B) of this section should be revised as follows: “Submit the following data and/or meet the required action in paragraph (h)(1): (iv) Calculate the landfill gas heat input capacity pursuant to § 95471(b) of California Code of Regulations, title 17, article 4 , subarticle 6 and submit a Landfill Gas Heat Input Capacity Report to the Ex ecutive Officer. If the landfill gas heat input capacity is greater than or equal to 3.0 MMBtu/hr, the owner or operator must comply with paragraph (h )(3) or conduct a surface test to demonstrate that there is no surfac e methane leaks of 200 ppmv or greater on the landfill surface after four consecutive monitoring periods. (h)(3) upon notification by the Executive Officer t hat a landfill gas collection and control system and/or..........comply with paragraph (h)(1).” Response The proposed language has been revised to change th e surface test criteria from 500 ppmv to 200 ppmv in order to maintain equi valent stringency with the CARB regulation. It should be noted that parag raph (h)(2) is not expected to apply to any facility located within the Distric t, as evidenced by current district records and CARB’s current inventory of in active landfills, because there are no known inactive landfills located in th e South Coast Basin without a collection system. This is due in large part to the current rule. As historically implemented, landfills that did not me et the less than 500 ppmv surface monitoring criteria (now proposed for revis ion to less than 200 ppmv) were required to submit information through the scr eening questionnaire and the solid waste air quality assessment test, pursua nt to the Health & Safety Code subpart 41805.5, in order to determine the app ropriate type of gas collection and control system that the landfill wou ld be required to install. In no case has an inactive landfill been deemed to be exempted from installation of collection or control systems except as provided by provisions of subdivision (k). ( See also response to CARB comment #7). It is staff’s position that the revised proposed am endment is at least equivalent in stringency, and perhaps more stringent to subpar t 95463(b) of the CARB regulation because the revised proposed amendment, would not exempt landfills based solely on the amount of waste-in-pl ace and gas generated rate, but also relies on additional criteria, including a n evaluation of toxic air contaminant and public nuisance risk.Final Staff Report

- 38 - Comment #7 Section (k) Exemptions: This section temporarily e xempts a MSW landfill from all or any portion of the requirements of the Rule based on toxic air contaminant emissions and health risk analysis, pro ximity to sensitive receptors, emission migration, and other criteria, but does not significantly consider these exemptions from a greenhouse gas per spective. This section is not equivalent to § 95463 (Determination for Instal ling a Gas Collection and Control System) of the regulation and should be rev ised as follows: “An MSW landfill may be temporarily exempt from all or any portion of the requirements of this rule if...... (1) The MSW landfill complies with....... (5) The MSW landfill is closed or inactive and has a landfill gas heat input capacity of less than 3.0 MMBtu/hr. and submi ts a Waste-in-Place Report and all instantaneous surface monitoring rec ords to the Executive Officer, or; (6) The MSW landfill has 450,000 tons of waste-in- place or greater and a landfill gas heat input capacity greater than or eq ual to 3.0 MMBtu/hr and the owner or operator demonstrates to the satisfact ion of the Executive Officer that after four consecutive quarterly insta ntaneous monitoring periods there is no surface methane leak exceeding 200 ppmv. If the landfill is active the heat capacity must be re-cal culated annually. (A) If the MSW landfill is closed or inactive and passes the surface demonstration test; the owner or operator must subm it a Waste-in-Place report and all instantaneous surface monitoring rec ords to the Executive Officer.” Response

Staff understands CARB’s comment to focus on the re quirement to install gas collection and control systems based on a minimum g as generation rate. As such, staff has incorporated language into the prop osed amendment to limit the exemption to the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) related to installation of such controls and maintain consiste ncy with the state minimum threshold levels by allowing for exemptions based o n the above commented criteria of quantity of waste in place, minimum gas heat input generated, and instantaneous surface monitoring results.
Comment #8 Attachment A: We recommend that Figure 2 be revise d to more accurately reflect a walking pattern based on 25 foot spacing. In addition, Figure 3 does not provide a column for recording methane concentr ations. We recommendFinal Staff Report

- 39 - adding a column for tracking surface methane concen trations for both integrated and instantaneous surface monitoring. Response Both Figure 2 (Typical Landfill Walk Pattern for a 50,000 square foot Grid) and Figure 3 (Quality Control Sheet) of Attachment A to the proposed amendment are illustrative examples for landfill ow ners and operators to refer to in the development of appropriate walking patter ns and recordkeeping forms specific to individual locations. Because of the variability of landscapes and operational practices, it is neither expected, nor the practice under the current rule, for landfill owners and operators to follow the exact walking pattern depicted by Figure 2, or the exact replica of the Quality Control Sheet of Figure 3. However, to provide additional clarif ication, the title of Figure 3 has been updated to include the word “Typical” for consistency. Staff believes that Figure 2 and Figure 3 meet the intent to provide illustrative examples rather than define prescriptive requiremen ts, and provide landfill owners and operators the flexibility to record the information and data needed to demonstrate compliance with the proposed amendme nt.

Other Comments In addition to the above comments, staff has receiv ed and reviewed numerous comments identifying typographical and grammatical errors, as well as crossreferencing updates. Staff appreciates the input a nd has updated the proposed rule language as appropriate.

CONCLUSION

If approved, the proposed amendment to Rule 1150.1 will incorporate existing federal requirements and the requirements of the CA RB regulation adopted to implement the AB 32 early action measure addressing methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. There is no expected significant cost increase associated with the proposed amendment bec ause the collection and control equipment required by the CARB regulation h ave been installed and used by landfills within the District for more than twenty years to control nonmethane organic compounds. This amendment consolid ates requirements and will reduce redundant recordkeeping and reporting. The only potential cost associated with this amendment are some administrat ive costs that may occur if an approved alternative is pursued or a change t o facility permits or plans is needed