EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

6560-50

EO12866_LandfillsEG 2060-AM08 ANPRM_20140606

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215; FRL-9912-12-OAR]

RIN 2060-AM08

Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX that updates the 

Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 

Under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA must review,

and, if appropriate, revise standards of performance at least 

every 8 years. The EPA’s review of the standards for municipal 

solid waste landfills applies to landfills that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or modification after [INSERT THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The proposed 

standards reflect changes to the population of landfills and an 

analysis of the timing and methods for reducing emissions. The 

proposed standards also address other regulatory issues 

including the definition of landfill gas treatment systems,

among other topics. The new subpart will reduce emissions of 

landfill gas, which contains both nonmethane organic compounds 

Style Definition: FR Paragraph: Font:

(Default) Calibri
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 2 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

and methane. These avoided emissions will improve air quality 

and reduce public health and welfare effects associated with 

exposure to landfill gas emissions. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before 

[INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing by [INSERT THE DATE 5 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], we will hold a public 

hearing on [INSERT THE DATE 15 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

If a August 12, 2014, in Washington, DC at the William 

Jefferson Clinton East Building, Room 1153, 1201 Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. The public hearing is

requested by [INSERT THE DATE 5 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], it will be held on [INSERT 

THE DATE 15 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] at the EPA’s Research Triangle Park Campus, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The hearing 

will convene at 109:00 a.m. (Eastern Daylight Time) and end at 

46:00 p.m. (Eastern DaylightStandard Time). AThere will be a

lunch break will be held from 12:00 pm. (Eastern Daylight Time) 

until p.m. to 1:00 pm (Eastern Daylight Time). 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 3 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

p.m. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 or 

at hunt.virginia@epa.gov to request a hearing, to determine if a 

hearing will be held or to register to speak at one of the 

hearing, if one is held. If a hearing is requested, thehearings. 

The last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the hearing 

will be [INSERT THE DATE 13 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].hearings will be Friday August 8, 2014.

Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the 

hearing at the hearing registration desk;, although preferences 

on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you 

require the service of a translator or special accommodations 

such as audio description, please let us know at the time of 

registration. 

If no one contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing to 

be held concerning this proposed rule by [INSERT THE DATE 5 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a public 

hearing will not take place. If a hearing is held, it will 

provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, 

views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The EPA will 

make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and 

register. Because this hearing, if held, will be at a U.S. 

government facilityfacilities, individuals planning to attend 

the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture 

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font color: Auto
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 4 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

identification to the security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. In addition, you will need to obtain a 

property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. 

Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this 

property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be 

allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the 

building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal 

property for security reasons.

The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral 

presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting information submitted 

during the comment period will be considered with the same 

weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. Whether or not a hearing is held on [INSERT 

THE DATE 15 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], written comments on the proposed rule must be 

postmarked by [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. Commenters should notify Virginia Hunt at the 

time they request to speakCommenters should notify Ms. Hunt if 

they will need specific equipment, or if there are other special 

needs related to providing comments at the hearing. Oral 

testimony will be limited to 5 minutes for each commenter. The 

EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 5 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

their oral testimony electronically (via email or CD) or in hard 

copy form. A verbatim transcript of oral testimony presented 

during the hearing will be included in the docket for the 

rulemaking, as well as any written statements submitted in 

conjunction with the hearing.hearings. Verbatim transcripts of 

the hearing and written statements will be included in the 

docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to 

follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the 

hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either 

ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Information regarding the 

hearing (including information as to whether or not one will be 

held) will be available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.html. Again, any

requests for a public hearing to be held must be received by 

[INSERT THE DATE 5 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID 

Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

• Email: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov. Include docket ID No. EPA–

HQ–OAR–2003-0215 in the subject line of the message.

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–

2003-0215.

• Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 6 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

OAR–2003-0215, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 

20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, 

please mail a copy of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 

20503.

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA 

WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2003-0215. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. 

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 

otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the mail 

or hand/courier delivery address listed above, attention: Mr. 

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02),

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2003-0215. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 7 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

“anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information unless you provide it in 

the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly 

to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your email address will be automatically captured and included 

as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 

due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically in 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, 

EPA/DC, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room B102, 1301 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 8 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the 

Air Docket is (202) 566–1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this 

proposal, contact Ms. Hillary Ward, Fuels and Incineration 

Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards (E143-05), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541-3154; fax number: (919) 541-0246; email 

address: ward.hillary@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

WorldwideWorld Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being 

available in the docket, an electronic copy of proposed subpart 

XXX for 40 CFR part 60 is available on the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN) website. Following signature, the EPA will post a 

copy of the proposed subpart XXX on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpgttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.html. The 

TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 9 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document.

ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking

ANSI American National Standards Institute

BMP Best management practice

BSER Best system of emission reduction

CAA Clean Air Act

CBI Confidential business information

CDX Central Data Exchange

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent

CRDS Cavity ringdown spectroscopy

DOC Degradable organic carbon

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

FLIR Forward-looking infrared

FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared

GCCS Gas collection and control system

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

GWP Global warming potential

HAP Hazardous air pollutants

ICR Information collection request

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

lb/MMBtu Pounds per million British thermal unit

LFG Landfill gas

LFGCost Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model

LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program

m3 Cubic meters

Mg Megagram

Mg/yr Megagram per year

MSW Municipal solid waste

MW Megawatt

MWh Megawatt hour

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NMOC Nonmethane organic compound
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 10 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

NSPS New source performance standards

NSR New Source Review

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OMB Office of Management & Budget

ppm Parts per million

ppmvd Parts per million by dry volume

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RIA Regulatory impacts analysis

RPM Radial plume mapping

SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review

SER Small entity representative

SISNOSE Significant impact on a substantial number of small 

entities

SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction

TDL Tunable diode laser

tpy Tons per year

TTN Technology Transfer Network

USG U.S. government

VCS Voluntary consensus standard

VOC Volatile organic compound

WWW World Wide Web

Organization of This Document. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action

B. Summary of Major Provisions

C. Costs and Benefits

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?

III. Background

A. Legal Authority

B. What is the purpose and scope of this action?
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 11 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

C. Where in the Code of Federal Regulations will these changes 

appear?

IV. Summary of Proposed Changes Based on Periodic Review of the 

MSW Landfills NSPS Under the CAA

V. What analyses did the EPA conduct to determine BSER?

A. Review of Control Technology

B. What data and control criteria did the EPA consider in 

evaluating potential changes to the timing of installing, 

expanding, and removing the GCCS?

C. What control options did the EPA consider?

D. What are the implementation concerns with changing the design 

capacity criteria?

E. What are the implementation concerns with reducing the NMOC 

threshold?

F. What are the implementation concerns with shortening the 

initial or expansion lag times?

G. Request for Comment on BSER

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes Based on Review of the 

NSPS

A. What are the environmental impacts and costs associated with 

the baseline?

B. How did the EPA determine which control option to propose?

VII. Summary of Clarifications and Resolutions That Are the 

Result of Implementation Activity

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 

Treatment System Monitoring

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions

C. Closed Areas

D. Surface Monitoring

E. Electronic Reporting

F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements

G. Requirements for Updating the Design Plan

H. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests

I. Other Corrections and Clarifications

VIII. Rationale for the Clarifications and Resolutions That Are 

the Result of Implementation Activity

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 

Treatment System Monitoring

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 12 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

C. Closed Areas

D. Surface Monitoring

E. Electronic Reporting

F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements

G. Requirements for Updating Design Plan

H. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests

I. Other Corrections and Clarifications

IX. Request for Comment on Specific Provisions

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 

Treatment System Monitoring

B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements

C. Enhanced Surface Monitoring Requirements

D. Alternative Emission Threshold Determination Techniques

X. Impacts of Proposed Revisions

A. What are the air quality impacts?

B. What are the water quality and solid waste impacts?

C. What are the secondary air impacts?

D. What are the energy impacts?

E. What are the cost impacts?

F. What are the economic impacts?

G. What are the benefits?

H. What are the health and welfare effects of LFG emissions?

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 13 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action

The EPA has conducted an initial review of the Standards of 

Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (landfill new 

source performance standards or landfills NSPS). The EPA’s 

review is ongoing and will be informed by, among other matters, 

comments received on today’s proposed action. Based on its

initial review, the EPA is proposing a number of changes to the 

existing landfills NSPS. In order to avoid possible confusion 

regarding which MSW landfills would actually be subject to any 

revised, or new, requirements, the EPA is establishing a new 

subpart XXX (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) rather than merely 

updating existing subpart WWW (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW). The 

requirements in new subpart XXX will apply to MSW landfills for 

which construction, modification, or reconstruction is commenced 

on or after [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. The requirements in subpart WWW will continue to 

apply to MSW landfills on which construction, modification or 

reconstruction was commenced on or after May 30, 1991 and before 

[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Note 

Formatted: Hyperlink

Formatted: TOC 1,TOC 1-GHG Preamble,TOC

1-GHG Rule, Tab stops: 6.49", Right,Leader: ...
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 14 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

that this preamble uses both of the terms “MSW landfills” and 

“landfills” to refer to MSW landfills. 

1. Need for Regulatory Action

Several factors led to today’s proposed action. First, 

section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)(42 U.S.C. §7411) requires

the EPA to review standards of performance at least every 8 

years and, if appropriate, revise the standards to reflect 

improvements in methods for reducing emissions. Second, a 

mandatory duty lawsuit was filed against EPA for failure to 

review the NSPS by the statutorily required deadline. Under a 

consent decree resolving that lawsuit, the EPA agreed to propose 

a review and take final action on the proposal. Third, the EPA 

has concluded that landfill owners and operators, as well as 

regulators, need clarification regarding issues that have arisen 

during implementation of the existing standards. Implementation 

issues include the definition of landfill gas treatment, among 

other topics.

2. Legal Authority

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

requires the EPA to “at least every 8 years review and, if 

appropriate, revise” new source performance standards. While not 

required to do so, the EPA has authority to revise an NSPS to 

add emission limits for pollutants or emission sources not 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 15 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

currently regulated for that source category concurrent with its 

review of the standard. CAA section 111(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 

§7411(a)(1)) provides that performance standards are to “reflect 

the degree of emission limitation achievable through the 

application of the best system of emission reduction which 

(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and 

any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately 

demonstrated.” We refer to this level of control as the best 

system of emission reduction or “BSER.” 

The EPA took several steps during its initial BSER review

for the landfills NSPS. The EPA first examined whether a well 

designed and well operated landfill gas (LFG) collection and 

control system (GCCS) remains BSER for controlling landfill gas. 

In doing so, the EPA considered the emission reductions achieved 

by GCCSs, as well as other emission control technologies that 

are in place at landfills. Based on this analysis, the EPA is 

proposing that a well designed and well operated GCCS remains 

BSER for controlling landfill gas emissions. The EPA then 

conducted an analysis to determine whether additional reductions 

in emissions of landfill gas could be achieved if EPA were to 

revise the design capacity and emission thresholds that

determine how soon a landfill must install controls.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 16 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

As indicated above, the EPA has decided to propose its 

review of the landfill NSPS in a new subpart rather than update 

existing requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. The EPA 

believes that either approach is legally permissible.1

B. Summary of Major Provisions

Proposed 

subpart XXX would appear in 40 CFR part 60 and would apply to 

landfills that commence construction, reconstruction, or 

modification on or after [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

The proposed new subpart retains the same design capacity 

threshold but reduces the non-methane organic compounds (NMOC)

emission threshold at which MSW landfills must install controls. 

The new subpart also resolves or clarifies issues that the EPA 

and stakeholders identified during implementation of the current 

landfills NSPS.

Thresholds for installing controls. Under the current NSPS, 

an MSW landfill that has a design capacity of 2.5 million 

megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million cubic meters (m3

) must install and 

start up a gas collection control system within 30 months after 

landfill gas emissions reach or exceed a level of 50 Mg NMOC per 

 

1 The EPA believes that it has the legal authority in updating an NSPS to either 

propose and make changes to the existing subpart or to promulgate a new subpart 

and has previously done both. In either case, any substantive changes to the NSPS 

will apply only to sources for which construction, reconstruction, or modification 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 17 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

year. (A megagram is also known as a metric ton, which is equal 

to 1.1 U.S. short tons or about 2,205 pounds.) The current NSPS 

is referred to as the “baseline” in this notice. Proposed 

subpart XXX retains the same design capacity threshold as the

baseline, but reduces the NMOC emission threshold to 40 Mg/yr. 

The owner or operator of a landfill may control the gas by 

routing it to a non-enclosed flare, an enclosed combustion 

device, or a treatment system that processes the collected gas 

for subsequent sale or beneficial use. 

Landfill Gas Treatmentgas treatment. The EPA is addressing

two issues related to landfill gas treatment. First, the EPA is 

proposing to clarify that the use of treated landfill gas is not 

limited to use as a fuel for a stationary combustion device but 

also allows other beneficial uses such as vehicle fuel, 

production of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, and use as a 

raw material in a chemical manufacturing process. Second, the 

EPA is proposing to clarify what constitutes landfill gas 

treatment. For filtration and dewatering, the definition 

contains specific numerical values that would provide long-term 

protection of the combustion equipment, which would support good 

combustion. We are also proposing to clarify monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for treatment systems. 

 commenced on or after the date on which the proposed changes were published in the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 18 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Startup, shutdown and malfunction. In today’s action, the 

EPA is proposing that the standards in proposed subpart XXX 

apply at all times, including periods of startup or shutdown, 

and periods of malfunction. In addition, to enable the EPA to 

determine the severity of an emissions exceedance for periods 

when the gas collection system or a control device is not 

operating, the EPA is proposing to add a recordkeeping and 

reporting requirement for landfill owners or operators to 

estimate emissions during such periods. 

Other clarifications. The EPA is proposing other 

clarifications to address issues that have been raised by 

landfill owners or operators during implementation of the 

current NSPS. These other clarifications include improvements to 

criteria for exempting areas from collection and control, adding 

criteria for when an affected source must update its design 

plan, and clarifying when landfill owners or operators must 

submit corrective action timeline requests. We intend to address 

clarifications and other implementation issues for existing 

landfills in a separate rulemaking.

C. Costs and Benefits

An MSW landfill owner or operator is expected to install 

the least-cost control for collecting and combusting landfill 

 Federal Register.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 19 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

gas. The control costs include the costs to install and operate 

a GCCS. For certain landfills that were expected to generate 

revenue by using the landfill gas for energy, revenue from 

electricity sales was incorporated into the net control costs. 

The annualized costs also include testing and monitoring costs.

Proposed subpart XXX, which tightens the NMOC emissions 

threshold from 50 to 40 Mg/yr NMOC, would achieve reductions of 

79 Mg NMOC/yr and 12,300 Mg methane/yr (about 307,600 Mg CO2e/yr)

beyond the baseline in year 2023. The associated annualized net 

cost for proposed subpart XXX is estimated to be an additional 

$471,000 (2012$) in 2023. The EPA expects that the avoided 

emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduce 

health effects associated with exposure to air pollution related 

emissions, and result in climate co-benefits due to reductions 

of the methane component of landfill gas. However, because this 

rulemaking is not an “economically significant regulatory 

action” under Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to 

have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, we 

have not conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) or a 

benefits analysis. The baseline NSPS in effect today is 

estimated to achieve a reduction of 610 Mg/yr NMOC and 94,800 

Mg/yr methane (about 2.4 million Mg/yr CO2e) in 2023, compared to 

the absence of control. (see section VI.A. of this preamble and 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 20 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

the Economic Impact Analysis for more detail). The associated 

annualized net cost of the baseline is estimated to be $2.7 

million ($2012) in 2023.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

This proposal affects municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills 

and associated solid waste management programs. Affected 

categories and entities include those listed in Table 1 of this 

preamble.

Table 1. Regulated Entities

Category NAICSa Examples of affected facilities

Industry: Air 

and water 

resource and 

solid waste 

management

924110 Solid waste landfills

Industry: 

Refuse systems-

-solid waste 

landfills

562212 Solid waste landfills

State, local, 

and tribal 

government 

agencies

924110

Administration of air and water 

resource and solid waste management 

programs

a North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by the new subpart. To determine whether your facility 

would be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability criteria in proposed 40 CFR 60.760 of subpart 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 21 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

XXX. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 

the proposed subpart to a particular entity, contact the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?

1. Submitting CBI

Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 

claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM 

the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 

one complete version of the comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in 

the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 

CFR part 2.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 

otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the 

following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (Room C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 22 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for 

claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

2. Docket

The docket number for the municipal solid waste landfills 

new source performance standards (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) 

is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. Docket ID No. A-88-09 

contains supporting information for related 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts WWW and Cc.

III. Background

In June 2013, President Obama issued a robust Climate 

Action Plan which, among other matters, directed the EPA and 

five other federal agencies to develop a comprehensive 

interagency strategy to reduce methane emissions. The plan 

recognized that methane emissions constitute a significant 

percentage of domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 

highlighted reductions in methane emissions since 1990, and 

outlined specific actions that could be taken to achieve 

additional progress. Specifically, the federal agencies were 

instructed to focus on “assessing current emissions data, 

addressing data gaps, identifying technologies and best 

practices for reducing emissions and identifying existing 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 23 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

authorities and incentive-based opportunities to reduce methane 

emissions.”

As a follow up to the 2013 Climate Action Plan, the Climate 

Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions (the Methane 

Strategy) was released in March 2014. The focus on reducing 

methane emissions is due to the fact that methane is a potent 

GHG with a global warming potential that is 25 times greater 

than carbon dioxide.2

The targeted strategy noted that the landfill standards at 

issue here and voluntary programs already in place have 

considerably reduced methane emissions, while creating jobs and 

improving public health..

Methane has an atmospheric life of 12 

years, and because of its potency as a GHG and its atmospheric 

life, reducing methane emissions is one of the best ways to 

achieveachieves a near-term beneficial impact in mitigating 

global climate change. 

3

 

2 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K 

and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

With respect to landfills, the Methane 

Strategy directs the agency to build upon progress to date 

through updates to the EPA’s rules for reducing emissions from 

new, modified, and reconstructed landfills, issuance of an 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to explore options 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 24 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

to address emissions from existing landfills, and encouragement 

of beneficial use through voluntary programs.

The EPA has long recognized the climate benefits associated 

with reducing methane emissions from landfills. In the 1991 

Landfill NSPS Background Information Document4

“An ancillary benefit from regulating air emissions from 

MSW landfills is a reduction in the contribution of MSW 

landfill emissions to global emissions of methane. Methane 

is a major greenhouse gas, and is 20 to 30 times more 

potent than CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis. There is 

a general concern within the scientific community that the 

increasing emissions of greenhouse gases could lead to 

the EPA noted that 

reduction of methane emissions from MSW landfills is one of the 

many options available to reduce possible global warming. When 

the EPA promulgated the NSPS for MSW landfills, which regulates 

MSW landfill emissions (commonly referred to as landfill gas), 

in 1996, the EPA noted the co-benefits of controlling methane, 

but recognized the then relatively limited understanding of GHG 

and their effect on global climate change (61 FR 9917, March 12, 

1996). In 1996, we stated:

 3 Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions. March 2014. p.5. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emissions

_2014-03-28_final.pdf

Formatted: Line spacing: Double
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 25 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

climate change, although the rate and magnitude of these 

changes are uncertain.”

Since 1996, the EPA and the scientific community have 

gained a better understanding of GHGs, such as methane, and 

their effects on climate change and human health and welfare. In 

2009, the EPA Administrator issued the document known as the 

Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1).5

There is now scientific consensus that GHGs affect climate 

change and, as recognized by the President in the Methane 

Strategy, this scientific consensus increases the need for the 

EPA to examine regulatory options for reducing methane 

emissions. The EPA is currently reviewing the MSW Landfills NSPS 

in light of the President’s Climate Action Plan, the Methane 

Strategy, and improvements in the science related to GHG 

In the 

Endangerment Finding, which focused on public health and public 

welfare impacts within the United States, the Administrator 

found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and 

welfare of current and future generations. 

 4 Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills-Background Information for 

Proposed Standards and Guidelines, U.S. EPA (EPA-450/3-90-011a)(NTIS PB 91-197061) 

page 2-15. 5 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under 

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009) 

(“Endangerment Finding”).
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 26 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

emissions, and is exploring opportunities to achieve additional 

reductions in emissions, including methane emissions.

A. Legal Authority

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA 

Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in 

the Administrator’s judgment cause or contribute significantly 

to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. 42 U.S.C. §7411(b)(1)(A). The EPA must 

then issue performance standards for new (and modified or 

reconstructed) sources in each source category. 42 U.S.C. 

§7411(b)(1)(B). These standards are referred to as new source 

performance standards or NSPS. The EPA has the authority to 

define the scope of the source categories, determine the 

pollutants for which standards should be developed, set the 

emission level of the standards, and distinguish among classes, 

type and sizes within categories in establishing the standards.

42 U.S.C. §7411(b).

On March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905), under the authority of CAA 

section 111(b)(1)(A), the EPA added the MSW landfills source 

category to the priority list in 40 CFR 60.16 because, in the 

judgment of the Administrator, the source category contributes 

significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. In that same 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 27 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

notice, the EPA promulgated new source performance standards, 

which apply to new (and modified or reconstructed) landfills 

under the authority of CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), and emission 

guidelines, which apply to existing landfills, under the 

authority of CAA section 111(d). In the March 12, 1996 notice, 

the EPA defined the MSW landfills source category, identified 

municipal solid waste landfill emissions (commonly referred to 

as landfill gas) as the pollutant for which standards should be 

developed, identified which landfills would be covered, and 

determined the applicability thresholds and emission level of 

the standards. 

CAA section 111(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. §7411(a)(1)) provides that 

standards of performance are to “reflect the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through the application of the best system 

of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of 

achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and 

environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately demonstrated.” We refer to this 

level of control as the best system of emission reduction or 

BSER. When promulgated in 1996, BSER for MSW landfills was 

determined to be a well designed and well operated LFG 

collection and control system with a control device capable of 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 28 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

reducing NMOC by 98 percent by weight. NMOC was established as a 

surrogate for LFG in the final rule.

The CAA also requires the EPA to review the NSPS at least 

every 8 years to determine if the level of control that was 

previously established remains appropriate. Specifically, CAA 

section 111(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. §7411(b)(1)(B)) requires the EPA 

to “at least every 8 years review and, if appropriate, revise” 

standards of performance. The Administrator need not review a 

standard, however, if the “Administrator determines that such 

review is not appropriate in light of readily available 

information on the efficacy” of the standard. While not required 

to do so, the EPA has authority to revise an NSPS to add 

emission limits for pollutants or emission sources not currently 

regulated for that source category concurrent with its review of 

the NSPS (77 FR 49494, August 16, 2012). 

In determining BSER, we typically conduct a review that 

identifies what emission reduction systems exist and how much 

they reduce air pollution in practice. Next, for each control 

system identified, we evaluate its costs, energy requirements, 

and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts. Based 

on our evaluation, we determine BSER for each pollutant to be 

regulated and establish an appropriate standard of performance 

based on the identified BSER. The resultant standard is usually 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 29 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

expressed either as a numerical emissions limit, e.g., parts per 

million (ppm) or pounds per million British thermal unit 

(lb/MMBtu), or a percent reduction requirement. Although the

standards are based on the identified BSER, the EPA may not 

require the use of a particular technology to comply with a 

performance standard unless the Administrator determines that it 

is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of 

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

in rare circumstances, sources remain free to select any control 

measures that will meet the requirements of the standard(s). 

Upon promulgation, an NSPS becomes a national standard with 

which all new, reconstructed, and modified sources must comply.

(CAA 111(e), 42 U.S.C. 7411(e).)

B. What is the purpose and scope of this action?

The purpose of this action is (1) to review the MSW 

landfills NSPS, (2) to propose a resolution or to provide 

clarification regarding implementation issues that were 

addressed in prior proposed rules published on May 23, 2002 (67 

FR 36475) and September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53271), as they apply to 

new sources, and (3) to take comment on specific aspects of 

EPA’s review that will be considered in promulgating the final 

NSPS standard. These proposed revisions appear in the proposed 

40 CFR part 60 subpart XXX. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 30 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Many changes have occurred in the landfill industry since 

the landfills NSPS was originally promulgated in 1996 that have 

necessitated this review. Among the factors contributing to the 

need for review are the following: changes in landfill 

characteristics (i.e., size, ownership, age) and population; 

proliferation of landfill gas energy projects; the availability 

of more comprehensive data on landfills from mandatory 

(Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)) and voluntary EPA 

programs; and the introduction of new techniques for monitoring 

landfill gas emissions. The number and size distribution of MSW 

landfills in the United States has also evolved since 1996. As a 

result, the corresponding emission profiles and per landfill 

compliance costs have also changed. Some landfills have closed, 

some have opened, and others have continued to accept waste. 

Public opposition to local MSW disposal facilities and the 

increasing cost of disposal at locations near where the waste is 

generated have resulted in consolidation and led to an increase 

in long-distance hauls to large regional landfills. As a result, 

the corresponding emission profiles and per landfill compliance 

costs have also changed.

The number of landfill gas to energy projects has also 

increased substantially. In 1996, there were approximately 160

operational landfill gas energy projects and approximately 700
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 31 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

candidate landfills according to data obtained by the EPA 

Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). According to LMOP, as 

of March 2014, there were 636 operational projects using 

landfill gas to produce energy and 450 landfills that remain 

candidates for energy recovery. LMOP is a voluntary assistance 

program that encourages recovery and beneficial use of landfill 

gas, and in turn, helps to reduce methane emissions from 

landfills by encouraging recovery and beneficial use of landfill 

gas. The. During our review, the EPA has also become aware of 

techniques and procedures for monitoring landfill gas emissions 

that were not available at the time of the original rule.

The EPA is required to review the MSW Landfills NSPS and 

sections IV, V, and VI of this preamble present our initial 

determinations. In addition, the EPA has determined that it is 

appropriate to propose a revised NSPS based on these initial 

determinations. 

This action also provides clarification regarding issues 

that arose during the implementation of the current landfills 

regulations and proposes regulatory text addressing some of 

those issues. We addressed these issues in previous notices as 

published on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475) and September 8, 2006

(71 FR 53271). These issues include the definition of landfill 

gas treatment and other topics. such as surface monitoring, how 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 32 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

to address closed areas of landfills and when to allow removal 

of controls. Although the cited notices addressed these issues 

in the context of subparts Cc and WWW, the clarifications and 

resolutions discussed in sections VII and VIII of this preamble 

would affect only landfills that commence construction, 

reconstruction, or modification on or after [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

The EPA plans to address amendments and clarifications 

resulting from implementation activities for landfills subject 

to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and state or federal plans 

implementing subpart Cc in a separate action. 

This action also requests comment on specific aspects of 

the EPA’s review, the consideration of which will be integral to 

the EPA in taking final action to promulgate a new NSPS. These 

provisions include landfill gas treatment, wellhead monitoring, 

and surface monitoring. See section IX of this preamble for a 

discussion of those provisions. 

C. Where in the Code of Federal Regulations will these changes 

appear? 

The EPA is proposing to add new subpart XXX to 40 CFR part 

60. Subpart XXX would apply to landfills that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or modification on or after 

[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 33 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Proposed subpart XXX in 40 CFR part 60 contains a revision to 

the NMOC emission rate threshold, as well as provisions that 

provide clarification and proposed resolutions to technical and 

implementation issues.

IV. Summary of Proposed Changes Based on Periodic Review of the 

MSW Landfills NSPS Under the CAA

The EPA is proposing to reduce the NMOC emission rate 

threshold for installing and operating a gas collection and 

control system to 40 Mg/yr from the current NSPS level of 50 

Mg/yr. The proposal retains the design capacity cutoff of 2.5 

million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters that appears in subpart 

WWW. See sections V and VI of this preamble for a discussion of 

the proposed rule changes. The new subpart also resolves or 

clarifies issues that the EPA and stakeholders identified during 

implementation of the current landfills NSPS.

The EPA is proposing athis revised emission threshold that

takes into account the value oftotal methane emission reductions 

that can be achieved in landfill gasaddition to the reductions 

of NMOC emissions that are realized when the GCCS is installed 

at an earlier point in time. While the proposal continues to 

require measurement of NMOC as a surrogate for landfill gas, the 

EPA asserts that the methane reductions achieved are consistent 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 34 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

with the President’s Methane Strategy as described in section 

III of this preamble.

V. What analyses did the EPA conduct to determine BSER?

The EPA first undertook a review to determine whether a 

well designed and well operated landfill GCCS, which EPA 

previously determined was BSER for controlling landfill gas, 

remains BSER for that purpose. The EPA considered GCCSs, as well 

as other emission control technologies that are either currently 

in place at landfills, or susceptible to being used in that 

contextcould be adopted, and considered the emission reductions 

achieved by those systems. Based on this analysis, the EPA 

determined that a well designed and operated landfill GCCS 

remains BSER. The EPA then undertook an analysis to determine 

whether applying the existing criteria for installing and 

operating a landfill GCCS to the expected population of new MSW 

landfills was appropriate.remains the preferred approach to 

implementing BSER. To do so, the EPA developed and applied a 

model program in Microsoft® Access to revisit the design 

capacity cutoff, the NMOC emission rate cutoff, and the time

allowed for installing and expanding a gas collection system. In 

addition to reviewing the thresholds that determine the schedule 

for installing and expanding the GCCS system, the EPA also 

reviewed whether the schedule for removing the GCCS needed 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 35 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

adjustment. Finally (see section V.A of this preamble). For the 

above analyses, the EPA compared the environmental benefits and 

corresponding costs that are expected to be achieved under 

various control options to the environmental benefits and 

corresponding costs that are expected to be achieved under the

baseline. 

A. Review of Control Technology

Prior to promulgation of the MSW landfills NSPS (40 CFR 

part 60, subpart WWW) in 1996, we conducted a review that 

identified the existing types of emission control systems being 

used and the corresponding emission reductions that were being 

achieved in practice. Based on that evaluation, we determined

BSER to be: (1) a well designed and well operated landfill GCCS 

and (2) a control device capable of reducing NMOC in the 

collected gas by 98 percent by weight (56 FR 24468, May 30, 1991 

and 61 FR 9914, March 12, 1996). For BSER, we set design and 

operating standards for the gas collection system and set an 

emission limit for the control system. Then, we established a 

schedule for installing and then expanding the GCCS based on the 

landfill’s design capacity (2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 

million cubic meters) and the estimated NMOC emissions rate (50 

Mg/yr). 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 36 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

The current technology review shows that the same types of 

collection and control systems reviewed in 1996 (see Docket ID 

No. A-88-09) continue to be prominently used to reduce landfill 

gas emissions and the design and operational standards

promulgated in 1996 continue to be robust. Section VI of this 

preamble discusses our findings resulting from consideration of 

potential revisions affecting the criteria and schedule for 

installing and then expanding the GCCS. We undertook this 

evaluation to determine if the thresholds associated with BSER 

established in 1996 are still relevant today, “taking into 

account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air 

quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements” 

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

In 1996, the EPA set design and operational standards in 

subpart WWW for the GCCS and an emission limit for the control 

device (61 FR 9907; March 12, 1996).6

 

6 In developing the current NSPS, the EPA determined that in order to set a 

performance standard such as a collection efficiency for the gas collection 

system it would be necessary to quantify the landfill gas available for 

collection in comparison to the amount collected and that it was not 

technically feasible to measure the amount of gas available for collection. 

On that basis, the EPA concluded that it was necessary to establish a design 

and operation standard for the gas collection system (56 FR 24484, May 30, 

1991).

Subpart WWW established

design criteria for both horizontal and vertical collection 

systems because both types of systems are used. The criteria 

ensure that owners and operators design, construct, and operate 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 37 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

gas collection systems to maximize collection and minimize 

emissions of landfill gas. Landfill GCCS designed according to 

these criteria are expected to, at a minimum: (1) be capable of 

handling the maximum gas generation rate, (2) have a design that 

provides for monitoring and adjusting the operation of the 

system, (3) be able to collect gas effectively from all areas of 

the landfill that warrant control, and (4) be expandable through

the addition of further collection system components to collect 

gas from new areas of the landfill as they require control.

Within 1 year of reaching or exceeding an NMOC emission rate of 

50 Mg/yr, landfill owners and operators must submit (or update 

in the case of modification or reconstruction) a collection and 

control system design plan prepared by a professional engineer 

to the EPA or delegated authority for approval. 

Gas collection system technology review. Our review shows 

that a gas collection system comprising gas collection wells, 

horizontal or vertical piping, and blowers continues to be the 

most prominentcommon technology used to collect landfill gas, 

regardless of whether a landfill is complying with subpart WWW, 

state or local regulations, or voluntarily controlling landfill 

gas for other reasons. Landfills continue to collect landfill 

gas using gas collection systems that are similar to the types 

of systems described in the background information of the 1996 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 38 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

landfill NSPS and emission guidelines proposal.7

Landfill owners and operators collect landfill gas for a 

variety of reasons: To control odor, to minimize fire and 

explosion hazards, to recover landfill gas to be used for energy 

recovery, to sell carbon credits, and to comply with local, 

state, or federal air quality standards. Landfill owners and 

As of 2013, 

hundreds of landfills have installed collection systems to 

comply with subpart WWW. The EPA is also aware that many 

landfill owners and operators have installed collection systems 

on a voluntary basis. As of 2013, approximately 500 landfills 

voluntarily collect and control landfill gas using the same 

technologies required by subpart WWW. The EPA estimated this 

number by comparing the list of landfills that are modeled to 

have installed a GCCS in 2014 in the NSPS/EG dataset to the list 

of landfills that are reported to have a GCCS installed in the 

LMOP database. See section V.B of this preamble for a discussion 

of the dataset of landfills and corresponding model that the EPA 

used to examine the potential impact of changes to the landfills 

NSPS. The LMOP database is a voluntary national database of 

landfills and landfill gas energy projects, including

information on which landfills have a GCCS in place.

 

7 Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills-Background Information for 

Proposed Standards and Guidelines, U.S. EPA (EPA-450/3-90-011a)(NTIS PB 91-

197061)).
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 39 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

operators are motivated to design and operate their landfill gas 

collection systems to efficiently collect and control landfill 

gas and they continue to install a gas collection system 

comprising gas collection wells, horizontal or vertical piping, 

and blowers to collect and control landfill gas.

Gas collection system as BSER. For this NSPS review, the 

EPA is proposing that the combination of design and operational 

criteria in subpart WWW continue to ensure that the collection 

system efficiently collects landfill gas and that a gas 

collection and control system meeting these criteria continues 

to represent BSER for MSW landfills that commence construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The EPA is also proposing 

that a combined design and operation standard for the gas 

collection system remains the best format for the rule. In 

developing subpart WWW, the EPA determined that in order to set 

a performance standard such as a collection efficiency for the 

gas collection system it would be necessary to quantify the 

landfill gas available for collection in comparison to the 

amount collected and that it was not technically feasible to 

measure the amount of gas available for collection. On that 

basis, the EPA concluded that it was necessary to establish a 

design and operation standard for the gas collection system (56 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 40 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

FR 24484, May 30, 1991). The EPA has not determined that the 

circumstances have changed so as to require the establishment of 

a standard of performance for the gas collection system. (CAA 

section 111(h)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7411(h)(3 ).) Therefore, for the 

gas collection system, the EPA proposes to maintain the design 

and operational standards in subpart WWW in subpart XXX. 

Gas control system technology review. As part of the BSER 

review prior to promulgation of subpart WWW in 1996, we 

conducted a technology review that identified the existing types

of emission control systems, emerging technologies, and the 

emission reductions achieved in practice by those systems. 

Properly operated GCCS reducing NMOC by 98 percent by weight had 

been demonstrated on landfills of the size affected by subpart 

WWW. The EPA selected a reduction of 98 percent as the level 

representing BSER for control of landfill gas because this is 

the level achievable by demonstrated technologies. Based on this 

analysis, the EPA selected 98 percent reduction, expressed as a 

performance level (i.e., a rate-based standard or percent 

control), as the appropriate BSER-based standard. The EPA 

determined that this level was reasonable considering costs,

nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 41 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

requirements.8

Each of the estimated 1,000 gas collection systems in place 

today, both required and voluntary, has an associated combustion 

device used to control emissions of landfill gas. At a minimum, 

landfills employ a flare to combust the gas. Both open and 

enclosed flares were determined to be among BSER combustion 

devices and these technologies continue to be used today. The 

following combustion controls can achieve at least 98 percent 

destruction of NMOCs and we propose that they continue to 

represent BSER: enclosed flares and incinerators, and devices

that burn landfill gas to recover energy, such as boilers, 

turbines, and internal combustion engines. Additionally, non The 

EPA continues to believe that 98 percent reduction is 

appropriate because this continues to be the level achievable by 

demonstrated technologies. Current data are consistent with 98

percent destruction. However, we request comment and additional 

data on the NMOC destruction efficiency of incinerators and 

Subpart WWWXXX, therefore, requires all control 

devices to demonstrate 98 percent reduction by weight of NMOC or 

an outlet concentration of 20 ppmvd of NMOC, as hexane. Enclosed 

combustion devices have the option of reducing emissions to 20 

parts per million, dry volume.

 

8 Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills - Background Information for 

Final Standards and Guidelines, EPA-453/R-94-021. EPA Office of Air and 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 42 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

devices that burn landfill gas to recover energy, such as 

boilers, turbines, and internal combustion engines.

Non-enclosed flares used at landfills meeting the criteria 

in 40 CFR 60.18(b) are thought to have destruction efficiencies 

similar to enclosed flares and incinerators, and devices that 

burn landfill gas to recover energy, such as boilers, turbines, 

and internal combustion engines. 

However, in April 2012 the EPA conducted an external peer 

review on flaring efficiency and made available to the public a 

draft technical report, “Parameters for Properly Designed and 

Operated Flares.”9

 Radiation/Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards 

Division, December 1995, page 2-79.

In this report, the EPA evaluated test data 

and identified a variety of parameters that may affect flare 

performance and that could be monitored to help assure good 

combustion efficiency. Nevertheless, none of the flare 

performance data used in this report comes from flares used at 

MSW landfills, and it does not provide any new test data on nonassisted flare types, which, to our knowledge, are the only nonenclosed flare type found in this source category. Thus, while 

we have no new information to suggest that flares at MSW 

landfills complying with 40 CFR 60.18(b) will not achieve at 

9 U.S. EPA, Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated Flares, Report for Flare 

Review Panel, April 2012. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/flare/2012flaretechreport.pdf.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 43 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

least 98 percent destruction of NMOCs (and methane), we solicit 

comments and additional information on flare performance 

specifically for this source category in order to determine 

whether non-enclosed flares continue to represent BSER for new 

landfills. Examples of information requested for this source 

category include: prevalence of flaring; number and types of 

flares used; waste gas characteristics such as flow rate, 

composition and heat content; use of flare gas recovery and 

other flare emission minimization practices; and existing flare 

monitoring systems.

Gas control system as BSER. Based on the above, for this 

stage of the NSPS review, the EPA has determined that a control 

system designed and operated within the parameters demonstrated 

in the performance test to reduce NMOC (and, in turn, methane) 

by 98 percent by weight or reduction to 20 parts per million by 

volume, continues to represent BSER for controlling landfill gas 

emissions. Therefore, the EPA proposes in subpart XXX to 

maintain the current performance standard from subpart WWW for 

the gas control system.

Other current technologies. The EPA is also considering

emission control technologies or practices other than GCCS that 

are currently in place as part of its review. The EPA 

qualitatively evaluated the emission reductions achieved by 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 44 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

those systems in practice and also considered whether such 

technologies or practices could be relied upon in establishing a 

standard of performance under CAA section 111.

The EPA reviewed several best management practices (BMPs) 

for GCCS that may achieve greater reductions in landfill gas

emissions than a well designed and well operated system alone. 

The EPA reviewed these BMPs to determine if and how they could 

be incorporated into subpart XXX in conjunction with the current 

performance-based standard. 

One BMP the EPA considered was collecting landfill gas from 

leachate removal systems in order to control landfill gas that 

exists below the waste mass along the bottom of the landfill. 

The EPA is aware of landfills with leachate recirculation 

systems that have connected the landfill gas collection system 

and leachate collection system; however, references suggest that 

connection of these systems is not common at landfills that do 

not employ leachate recirculation.10

 

10 SCS Engineers, Technology and Management Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions. Prepared for California Integrated Waste Management Board. Prepared by 

SCS Engineers. April 2008.

The efficiency of capturing 

LFG emissions through this BMP depends on the efficiency of both 

the gas collection system and the leachate recirculation system. 

Proposed 40 CFR 60.762(b)(2)(i)(D) recognizes that leachate 

collection components may be part of a site-specific collection 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 45 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

and control system design plan. Because the design plan is not 

prescriptive and instead contains design and operational 

standards that are site-specific, the design plan has the 

flexibility to include collection of landfill gas from leachate 

collection systems. However, since we do not currently have 

sufficient information on the efficacy of collecting gas from 

leachate removal systems in circumstances that do not include 

leachate recirculation and since the use of leachate 

recirculation is not prevalent in the landfill industry, the EPA 

does not currently consider this BMP to be part of BSER for 

controlling landfill gas, including methane, emissions. The EPA 

does, however, request comments on the efficacy and costs of 

enhancing gas collection systems to collect LFG from leachate 

removal or storage systems. The EPA also requests comment on the 

types of landfills currently collecting gas from leachate 

removal systems and the specifics of the gas collection systems 

used in practice. The EPA will use this information to evaluate 

if and when the use of an enhanced gas collection system that 

collects landfill gas from the leachate removal system may be 

appropriate.

Another BMP the EPA considered is requiring a gas 

collection system to prevent waterlogged wells, perhaps through 

the use of leachate removal pumps. Leachate and condensate can 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 46 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

accumulate in collection wells, blocking landfill gas capture. 

Because a flooded well cannot collect gas, fixing a flooded well 

would have a high emission reduction potential. Wellhead 

operating parameters in proposed subpart XXX require that each 

owner or operator of an MSW landfill either operate the 

collection system with a negative pressure at each wellhead or,

in areas with a geomembrane or synthetic cover, establish

acceptable pressure limits in the design plan. These performance 

standards would help identify any inoperable wells resulting 

from flooding. The proposed surface emissions monitoring would

also identify any elevated methane levels resulting from an 

inoperable well. The EPA has determined that the operating 

requirements in proposed subpart XXX provide a sufficient system 

to detect and correct waterlogged wells and thus ensure that the 

gas collection system is well operated.

The EPA does not currently consider requiring that the gas 

collection system be operated in such a way as to prevent 

waterlogged wells, rather than requiring that the wells be 

monitored so as to identify any such wells, to be BSER. 

Nonetheless, the EPA requests comment on whether the current 

combination of wellhead monitoring and surface emission 

monitoring is sufficient for identifying inoperable wells, 

especially in cases where wells have been installed for a 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 47 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

significant amount of time. If the proposed monitoring systems 

are believed to be deficient for identifying flooded wells, the 

EPA also asks for comment on whether any additional 

recordkeeping, such as periodic measurement of liquid levels in 

gas wells, might be useful in identifying flooded wells that are 

not collecting gas.

The EPA also considered a BMP of requiring redundant seals 

and enhanced sealing materials on wellheads. One study includes

a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) survey suggesting that 

landfill gas wellheads and other surface penetrations present 

high potential for concentrated leaks of organic compounds.11

Proposed subpart XXX requires the preparation of a sitespecific design plan by a professional engineer, which must be 

approved by the EPA or a delegated authority. Because the design 

plan is not prescriptive and instead contains design and 

operational standards that are site-specific, the design plan 

has the flexibility to determine the appropriate number or type 

of seals in order to accommodate the conditions and climates at 

The 

use of advanced seals at wellheads may help to ensure that the 

well can apply sufficient vacuum to the landfill to facilitate 

gas extraction while preventing leaks of landfill gas to the 

atmosphere. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 48 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

different landfills. The EPA believes that this site-specific 

approach is preferable to specifying the use of a particular 

number of seals. This site-specific approach also provides for 

continued flexibility for future design plans to incorporate new 

sealing materials that may be more efficient than those

currently available today. The design plan, coupled with 

wellhead and surface monitoring requirements, ensures that leaks

from wells are minimized. 

With this proposal, the EPA is clarifying that all cover 

penetrations must be checked during quarterly surface monitoring

and this clarification would apply to checking around each 

wellhead for any elevated emission levels. Proposed subpart XXX 

requires corrective action for any surface monitoring reading 

over 500 ppm. Finally, the EPA is taking comment on tighter 

traverse patterns for surface monitoring, coupled with more 

rigorous surface maintenance activity, as another level of 

protection against leaks from improperly sealed wells. 

Further, one reference indicates that many engineers 

already require two and sometimes three seals in a well when 

preparing design plans for GCCS. For all of these reason, the 

EPA believes that a site-specific approach is more effective 

than prescribing the use of a particular number of seals or the 

 11 ARCADIS. Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 49 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

use of a particular type of sealing material. As a result, at 

this point in its review, the EPA has determined that the use of 

advanced seals is not a component of BSER. The EPA, 

nevertheless, requests comment on whether the use of advanced 

seals should be a component of BSER.

The EPA also reviewed several emerging technologies that 

may achieve additional landfill gas emission reductions. The EPA 

evaluated whether the technology is adequately demonstrated and 

the extent to which the technology could be applied to new 

landfills.

The EPA considered a number of technologies that increase

the methane oxidation rate of the landfill, thereby reducing the 

amount of methane that could escape through the surface of the 

landfill. Co-oxidation of NMOC has been observed during use of 

these alternative landfill cover materials, which has the 

potential to reduce odors and toxic air pollutants.12

 Waste Landfills. Prepared for USEPA/ORD. January 2012.

Oxidative 

covers, including biocovers, use methanotrophic bacteria to 

oxidize methane into water, carbon dioxide, and biomass. A

biocover is an additional layer of final cover that is typically 

made of two layers, a permeable layer to evenly distribute the

landfill gas to the oxidation media, and a layer of oxidation 

12 U.S. EPA. Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. June 2011.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 50 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

media typically made of soil, compost or other porous media. 

While these innovative final cover practices at MSW landfills 

have the potential for achieving a moderate amount of methane 

emission reductions, final cover practices are currently 

addressed under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) and not under the CAA. As a result, the EPA 

does not currently consider them to be BSER; however, research 

indicates that biocovers may help to reduce emissions of 

methane, a primary constituent of landfill gas. 

Another method for increasing the oxidation rate is to 

route passively vented landfill gas through a vessel containing 

methane-oxidizing media, commonly referred to as a biofiltration 

cell. Biofilters have been tested for use at landfills over only 

the past 10 to 15 years, and, although they may achieve moderate 

to high reductions in uncontrolled methane emissions, we cannot 

conclude at this time that these systems have been adequately 

demonstrated.13,14

 

13 Buske, D. and M. Lannan. The Biofilter Effect on Landfill Gas Capture. 2009 

SWANA Landfill Gas Symposium Proceedings.

Further, new landfills are expected to be large 

and have active gas collection systems to comply with the 

requirements in the proposed subpart XXX., as we explain 

14 Gebert, J.; and Groengroeft, A., 2006, "Performance of a passively vented 

field-scale biofilter for the microbial oxidation of landfill methane". Waste 

Management Research 26: 399-407.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 51 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

below.15,16 Biofiltration cells are feasible for use only at small 

landfills or landfills with passive gas collection systems due 

to the size of the biofiltration bed required to treat the 

mixture of air and landfill gas. New landfills are expected to 

be large and have active gas collection systems to comply with 

the requirements in the proposed subpart XXX. In addition, due 

to the nature of passive gas collection systems, this technology 

lacks the ability to control and monitor the oxidation of 

methane in the landfill gas.17

No data exist on the long-term performance, effectiveness, 

or maintenance requirements of these systems.18,19,20

 

15 Buske, D. and M. Lannan. The Biofilter Effect on Landfill Gas Capture. 2009 

SWANA Landfill Gas Symposium Proceedings.

For these 

reasons, these methane oxidation technologies were not 

considered to be BSER. However, the EPA is requesting 

information about application of these technologies to better 

understand these characteristics for full-scale use of biocovers 

and biofilters. The EPA is seeking information and data about 

16 Gebert, J.; and Groengroeft, A., 2006, "Performance of a passively vented 

field-scale biofilter for the microbial oxidation of landfill methane". Waste 

Management Research 26: 399-407. 17 USEPA. Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. June 2011. 

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/landfills.pdf. 18 Ibid. 19 Abichou, T, J. Chanton, D. Powelson, “Field Performance of Biocells, Biocovers, 

and Biofilters to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills,” State 

University Systems of Florida, Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Management March 2006.

20 Yazdani, R, and Imhoff, P. Contractor’s report to CalRecycle: Biocovers at 

Landfills for Methane Emissions Reduction Demonstration. October 2010.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 52 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

the long-term performance, effectiveness, and/or maintenance 

requirements of full-scale use of biocovers and biofilters, as 

well as comment on appropriate mechanisms to monitor the 

performance of these alternatives. Comment is also requested on

biocover parameters and their effect on oxidation. Such 

parameters may include depth, soil characteristics, measurement, 

and their effect on percent oxidation.

B. What data and control criteria did the EPA consider in 

evaluating potential changes to the timing of installing, 

expanding, and removing the GCCS?

To examine the potential impact of changes to the timing of 

initiating landfill gas collection and control, the EPA 

developed a dataset of information for existing and new 

landfills, as described below, and applied a model to assess 

when controls were needed under the baseline control scenario as 

well as various regulatory options. Each regulatory option 

assessed variations in the design capacity and emission rate 

thresholds, as well as changes to the initial lag time and 

expansion lag time. The “initial lag time” is the time period 

between when the landfill exceeds the emission rate threshold 

and when controls are required to be installed and started up 

(30 months in subpart WWW). The “expansion lag time” is the 

amount of time allotted for the landfill to expand the GCCS into 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 53 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

new areas of the landfill (5 years for active areas and 2 years 

for areas that are closed or at final grade in subpart WWW).

The EPA created a dataset of information for existing and 

new landfills, which included landfill-specific data such as 

landfill open and closure year, landfill design capacity, 

landfill design area, and landfill depth. The creation of the 

landfill dataset is detailed in the docketed memorandum, 

“Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission 

Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014.”

The EPA used attributes of these existing landfills to 

develop model landfills to represent new landfills opening in 

the first 5 years after subpart XXX is proposed (2014-2018). The 

model future landfills were developed by evaluating the most 

recently opened existing landfills and assuming that the sizes 

and locations of landfills opening in the future would be 

similar to the sizes and locations of landfills that opened in 

the last 8 years with complete data (2003-2010). 

The EPA then incorporated technical landfill parameters 

from this dataset, such as landfill size, annual waste 

acceptance rate, and open year, into a model in order to 

estimate when each landfill would install GCCS under various 

regulatory options. This model used a first-order decay equation 

to model the landfill gas emissions (i.e., NMOC and methane)
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 54 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

from each landfill for 50 years following the effective date of 

subpart XXX. 

The EPA programmed a Microsoft® Access database to 

calculate the cost and emission impacts associated with 

different regulatory options (hereinafter referred to as the 

“model”). To determine when landfills exceeded regulatory

emission thresholds, the model uses Tier 1 default values from 

subpart WWW for the methane generation potential (L0) and the 

methane generation rate (k), but uses the NMOC concentration in 

“Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-4221

 

21 U.S. EPA, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 

Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 1995. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42//.

)” for 

determining when landfills would meet the regulatory NMOC 

emissions threshold. The Tier 1 default values in subpart WWW

for L0 and k are conservatively high for the purpose of 

estimating actual emissions; therefore, they are used only for 

estimating uncontrolled emissions to determine when landfills 

could exceed the threshold and be required to install controls. 

For the average NMOC concentration, the model uses the default 

value specified in AP-42. Subpart WWW allows the use of Tier 2 

tests to determine NMOC concentration, and industry experience 

suggests the majority of landfills have conducted Tier 2 tests 

and obtained estimates that are consistent with the AP-42 NMOC 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 55 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

value; thus, the AP-42 NMOC value was deemed to be more 

representative than Tier 1 NMOC values for determining when 

landfills would meet the regulatory NMOC emissions threshold for 

installing a landfill GCCS. 

When modeled landfill gas emissions for a particular 

landfill exceeded the emission rate threshold, the EPA assumed 

that collection equipment was installed and started operating at 

the landfill after the initial lag time specified in each 

option. The EPA also assumed that as the landfill was filled 

over time, the landfill would expand the GCCS into new areas of 

waste placement in time intervals that coincide with the 

expansion lag time specified in each option.

To determine when controls may be capped or removed, and to 

calculate the amount of landfill gas, NMOC, and methane 

collected under each option, the model uses L0, k, and NMOC 

values from AP-42 instead of the Tier 1 default values. To 

determine when control systems may be removed, subpart WWW

requires landfills to conduct actual measurements of the 

collected gas flow rate and NMOC concentration. Because the AP42 default values are more representative of actual emissions 

from landfills than Tier 1 values, they are more useful for 

predicting when a landfill would be able to remove its control 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 56 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

system. For the same reason, AP-42 values were used to determine 

actual annual emissions reductions achieved by control systems. 

To estimate the costs of each regulatory option, the EPA 

incorporated the estimated landfill gas recovery rates from the 

first-order decay equation and an estimated well field acreage 

into a set of cost equations based on EPA’s Landfill Gas Energy 

Cost Model (LFGcost), version 2.3, which was developed by EPA’s 

LMOP. (LFGcost estimates gas collection, flare and energy 

recovery system capital, operating, and maintenance costs.) The 

EPA also collected data on monitoring and testing costs such as 

initial performance tests, subpart WWW Tier 1 and Tier 2 

calculations, and quarterly surface monitoring that were not 

provided in the LFGcost model. 

The capital costs are all presented in year 2012 dollars 

and annualized using an interest rate of 7 percent over the 

lifetime of the equipment (typically 15 years), or in the case 

of drill mobilization costs, the length of time between each 

wellfield expansion. These annualized capital costs were added 

to the annual operating and maintenance costs estimated by 

LFGcost. The annualized cost includes capital requirements 

related to the purchase, installation, operation and maintenance 

of GCCS, and costs related to testing and monitoring 

requirements. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 57 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

For certain landfills that were expected to generate 

revenue by using the LFG for energy, the EPA also estimated LFG 

energy recovery rates and associated costs to install and 

operate the energy recovery equipment as well as the revenue 

streams from the recovered energy. These revenues were 

subtracted from the annualized capital and operating and 

maintenance costs at each landfill in order to obtain a net cost 

estimate for each option in each year. The emission reduction 

and cost and revenue equations and assumptions are detailed in 

the docketed memorandum from ERG to the EPA, “Methodology for 

Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills

Regulations. 2014.”

Often the EPA examines the impacts of NSPS at 5 years after

rule implementation; however, the EPA selected 10 years for this 

landfills NSPS review, which is year 2023. Due to the emission 

characteristics of new landfills that begin to accept waste in 

2014 or after and the applicability provisions of the NSPS, 5 

years would not provide a representative population of landfills 

for evaluating alternative standards, and in fact none of the 

modeled landfills would be expected to have installed controls 

by year five. Landfills do not become subject to the control 

requirements of the NSPS on the date that they begin operation. 

Instead, landfills exceeding the design capacity threshold 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 58 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

become subject to control requirements 30 months after the 

emissions exceed the NMOC emission threshold. It may take well 

over 5 years for a newly constructed landfill to exceed the NMOC 

threshold, depending on the rate of waste acceptance and other 

site-specific factors. Therefore, evaluating the impacts of the 

rule at 5 years would significantly underestimate the impacts 

that subpart XXX may have on affected facilities. 

The EPA recognizes that landfills have a unique emissions 

and emission control timeline over their lifetime, compared to 

other stationary sources of emissions. The quantity of emission 

reductions achieved and the costs to achieve those reductions 

will vary depending on where each landfill is in its lifecycle. 

By year 10 (year 2023), landfills in this analysis are further 

along in their lifecycle than they would be at year five and 

over half of the modeled landfills have installed controls, 

incurred costs, and achieved emission reductions under several 

options the EPA considered in its review of the NSPS.

C. What control options did the EPA consider?

When determining which control options would represent 

BSER, the EPA ran many permutations of various control options. 

Some options adjusted a single threshold in isolation; for 

example, reducing the NMOC emission threshold while keeping the 

design capacity threshold constant, or conversely, reducing the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 59 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

design capacity threshold while keeping the NMOC emission 

threshold constant. Other options adjusted multiple control 

parameters simultaneously, taking into account the relationship 

between the parameters. For example, recognizing that NMOC 

emissions are a function of waste-in-place, some options that 

significantly reduced the NMOC emission threshold also reduced 

the design capacity thresholds to avoid situations where the 

NMOC emission threshold would be exceeded long before the design 

capacity threshold. Other options increased the design capacity 

threshold while reducing the NMOC emission threshold by 

relatively small increments in order to minimize the reportingonly burden that would be imposed on landfills that had exceeded 

the design capacity threshold, but not the NMOC emission 

threshold, and would therefore be reporting, but not 

controlling. 

In addition to adjusting applicability and emission control 

thresholds, other model runs varied the initial and/or expansion 

lag times. These variations estimated the impacts of requiring 

landfill owners or operators to install gas collection systems 

more quickly after crossing each applicable NMOC emission 

threshold. Specifically, some model runs assessed the impacts of 

reducing the initial lag time from 30 months (modeled as 3 years 

for the purpose of this analysis, as discussed in the docketed 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 60 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

memorandum “Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts 

of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014”) to 2 years. Model runs 

varying the expansion lag time were also run. For expansion lag 

times, subpart WWW allows 2 years after initial waste placement 

in closed areas and 5 years after initial waste placement in 

active areas of the landfill. As a result, the actual expansion 

lag time varies by landfill depending on how quickly expansion 

areas are filled and closed. Modern large landfill designs tend 

to expand the collection system 5 years after initial waste 

placement in active areas of the landfill. Based on input 

received during public outreach, most modern large landfills do 

not reach final grade within 2 years and a majority of landfills 

are complying with the 5 year provision. Therefore, a 4-year 

expansion lag time was assumed to represent the baseline, as 

discussed in more detail in the docketed memorandum “Methodology 

for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills

Regulations. 2014.” A shorter expansion lag time of 2 years 

after initial waste placement was examined as an alternative 

regulatory option. Some model runs evaluated the impacts of 

reducing both the initial and expansion lag times in parallel 

and other model runs evaluated the impacts of reduced emission 

and/or design capacity thresholds in conjunction with reduced 

initial and/or expansion lag times.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 61 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Preliminary results of the model runs showed that the 

current set of design capacity and NMOC emission threshold 

parameters in subpart WWW was the most cost effective option in 

year 2023. Options that reduced the NMOC emission threshold 

slightly, either in isolation or in conjunction with a reduction 

in the design capacity threshold had only a slightly higher cost 

effectiveness than the baseline. See the docketed memorandum 

“Cost and Emissions Impacts Resulting from the Landfills NSPS 

Review. 2014” and the docketed item “Modeling Database 

Containing Inputs and Results of Proposed Revisions to MSW 

Landfill NSPS. 2014.” Options that reduced the initial and/or 

expansion lag times to 2 years were typically less cost 

effective than the options that reduced the NMOC emission 

threshold. 

Based on the results of the preliminary analysis, the EPA 

presented different model runs during Federalism consultations 

and small entity outreach that represented the range of 

variation in both the threshold and lag time parameters. For the 

options presented, Small entity representatives (SERs) and 

Federalism consultation participants provided feedback to the 

EPA, which included implementation concerns with varying certain 

parameters as part of this NSPS review, as discussed in the 

following section. The EPA took these concerns into 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 62 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

consideration when developing the set of proposed options in 

this action. 

D. What are the implementation concerns with changing the design 

capacity criteria?

Options that increase the design capacity threshold provide 

some opportunities for reduced reporting burden; however, these 

options also introduce the potential to miss emission reduction 

opportunities at certain landfills that exceed the NMOC emission 

thresholds but do not meet the design capacity thresholds. 

Further, installation of GCCS at landfills with design 

capacities between 2.5 and 3.0 million Mg are well demonstrated.

According to the LMOP database, there are more than 50 landfills 

out of 70 in this size range that have installed GCCS.

Options that reduce the design capacity threshold without 

also lowering the NMOC emission threshold would create 

additional reporting and permitting burden without any 

additional environmental benefit. These types of options would 

not change the number of landfills required to control 

emissions, but they would increase the number of landfills 

required to obtain an operating permit and also increase the 

number of landfills required to complete Tier 1 or Tier 2 

emission calculations and reports. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 63 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

When the EPA promulgated the 2.5 million Mg design capacity 

threshold in 1996, we considered the impact on small entities 

based on public comment (61 FR 9910). Today, small entities 

still tend to own smaller sized landfills, whereas larger 

entities tend to own larger regional landfills. Approximately 10 

percent of the landfills subject to subpart WWW or the MSW 

landfills state or federal plan implementing subpart Cc are 

owned by small entities. Further, the cost burden for installing 

a collection and control system is more significant for small 

landfills, which are more often owned by small entities, than 

larger landfills. Certain costs to construct the gas collection 

system (e.g., flat fees for drill rig mobilization, and 

monitoring and construction costs) remain relatively constant 

regardless of the size of the landfill. 

For these reasons, the EPA is not proposing any changes to

the current design capacity threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 

million m3.

E. What are the implementation concerns with reducing the NMOC 

threshold?

The EPA recognizes that NMOC emissions are site specific, 

varying widely from landfill to landfill and understands that a 

majority of landfills currently affected by subpart WWW conduct 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 64 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Tier 2 testing in order to refine their NMOC emission estimates 

before installing a GCCS.

Lowering the NMOC emission threshold would result in 

earlier GCCS installations, 13 percent more emission reductions, 

and a dollar-per-Mg cost to control NMOC that is slightly higher 

than the baseline ($6,000/Mg NMOC vs. $4,400/Mg NMOC). Despite 

these higher costs, the EPA also recognizes the value of 

reducing methane emissions ($1.50/Mg CO2e vs. $1.10/Mg CO2e at 

baseline) that are associated with a lower NMOC emission 

threshold, as discussed in sections III and VI.B of this 

preamble. Based on these considerations, among others, the EPA 

is proposing to reduce the NMOC emission threshold from 50 Mg/yr 

to 40 Mg/yr. See section VI.B of this preamble for more details. 

F. What are the implementation concerns with shortening the 

initial or expansion lag times?

The emission reductions achieved by reducing the initial or 

expansion lag time are affected by the size of the landfill, 

waste placement patterns, and annual acceptance rates. For 

example, the size of the landfill and the filling cycle affects 

how much and when emission reductions would be achieved. Based 

on comments received from SERs and Federalism consultation 

participants, modern landfill designs typically do not reach 

final grade before 7 years. Because the landfills NSPS allows 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 65 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

two options for expanding the GCCS (2 years after initial waste 

placement in closed areas and 5 years after initial waste 

placement in active areas), any reduction to the 2 year lag time 

for closed areas would not likely achieve any actual additional 

reductions from these larger landfills because the majority of 

landfills are complying with the 5 year allowance period instead 

of the 2 year allowance period. Modifying the 5 year provision 

may also have a limited actual impact on emission reductions. 

Many landfills in wet climates are already installinginstall

wells ahead of the 5 year schedule for odor or energy recovery 

purposes. When examining the effects of shortening the lag 

times, the emission reductions vary over the time period 

considered. To visually observe how reducing the lag times 

affects emissions and reductions over the 10-year period 

following proposal, see the charts comparing emissions from 

reduced lag times in the docketed memorandum, “Cost and 

Emissions Impacts Resulting from the Landfills NSPS Review. 

2014.” 

When isolating the timeframe for initial GCCS installation 

from the other control criteria, modeling showed that the 

reductions in year 2023 are lower than those estimated to be 

achieved under the current baseline. Although the initial GCCS 

would be installed earlier, for example in year 2020, it would 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 66 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

also be designed slightly smaller (i.e., a smaller number of 

wells) than a GCCS installed in a later year. By 2023, the 

system would not have been expanded yet, thus, the total amount 

of emission reductions achieved in 2023 will be less than the 

baseline until the system is expanded in 2024.

Reducing the expansion lag time would achieve a short 

period of modeled reductions during every expansion cycle

because the GCCS would be expanded one year earlier. Emission

reductions in year 2023 would be approximately 27 percent higher 

than an option that did not shorten the expansion lag time. 

However, when considered over a 10-year period, the additional 

emission reduction would be approximately 8 percent. 

Small entity representatives and Federalism consultation 

participants expressed concern about the potential shortening of 

lag times. For details, refer to the docketed report “Summary of 

Small Entity Outreach. 2014.”

According to the commenters, reduced lag times would result 

in the installation of more GCCS equipment in active fill areas. 

Wells located in these areas are more frequently damaged as a 

result of daily filling operations and the movement of 

equipment. Damaged wells must be repaired with well extensions 

and/or redrilling of wells. In addition, waste in active fill 

areas undergoes significant settlement. This settlement affects 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 67 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

the alignment of gas header equipment, requiring more frequent 

repairs, troubleshooting, and replacement of equipment. These 

repairs can add a significant cost to the construction and 

operation of a GCCS that is not currently accounted for in the 

LFGcost estimates and also increase the amount of system 

downtime.

In addition to the implementation concerns, reducing the 

lag times would require more frequent mobilization of drill rig 

equipment, purchase of GCCS infrastructure, and system repairs, 

which could lead to higher costs. In year 2023, the dollar-perMg cost to reduce the initial and/or expansion lag times in 

conjunction with reducing the NMOC threshold are significantly 

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

to $11,300/Mg NMOC vs. $6,000/Mg NMOC). This higher cost is due 

in part to the timing of the first round of wellfield expansions 

at these new landfills, many of which were modeled to expand 

their systems in 2023, and thus incurring additional costs in 

that year to operate both the initial GCCS and the first set of 

expansion wells. 

Small entity representatives and Federalism consultation 

participants raised several practical concerns with reducing the 

expansion lag time. Reducing the expansion lag time would result 

in more wells located in active fill areas because more of the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 68 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

face of the landfill is active after only 2 years of waste 

acceptance and the landfill owner or operator must add wells 

into these active areas sooner.

In addition, active fill areas are still in the aerobic 

phase of waste decomposition. Installing wells in areas with 

high oxygen levels increases the chance of subsurface fires. It 

also leads to more frequent exceedances of the current wellhead 

monitoring standards for oxygen. In these cases the landfill 

owner or operator would also be unlikely to request a higher 

operating value for oxygen because they would have difficulty 

meeting the two criteria in proposed 40 CFR 60.763(c) for a 

higher operating value demonstration: a higher operating value 

must not cause fires and must not significantly inhibit 

anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens. Neither of these 

criteria would apply to wells located in active fill areas.

Horizontal LFG collection wells may provide some relief to 

these implementation concerns that were raised by the SERs, 

while also allowing for the wells to be installed more quickly 

after the waste is placed in the landfill. These types of wells 

consist of perforated pipe in gravel-filled trenches constructed 

within the waste mass as an active area is filled. The wellheads 

are installed remotely outside of the active fill area to allow 

landfill owners/operators to monitor the wells. Although the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 69 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

horizontal collection infrastructure is installed as the waste 

is placed in the fill area, the collectors are not brought 

online under an active vacuum until a sufficient refuse layer 

has been placed on top of the collectors. This time period is 

necessary in order to prevent air infiltration in the landfill. 

However, this time period is often shorter than the timeframe 

needed to install vertical wells, and can be as short as a few 

months after refuse is buried.22

The EPA is aware of several horizontal collector 

installations, including several landfills in California23

The shorter length of time associated with bringing 

horizontal collectors online can be especially important at 

landfills employing liquids recirculation techniques or located 

in wetter climates, given the higher LFG generation rates at 

those sites (see section V.G of this preamble). Bringing these 

collectors online more quickly and more proactively addresses 

odor concerns at landfills. These systems are also useful in 

and 18 

different landfills that reported using horizontal collectors in 

the voluntary data collection effort for this rulemaking (see 

“Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission 

Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014”). 

 

22 Barlaz et al., Controls on Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency: Instantaneous 

and Lifetime Performance 59 J. Air & Waste Mgmt. Ass’n 1399, 1402-03 (Dec. 2009).
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 70 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

landfills that practice “over-filling,” where new waste is 

placed on top of a section of the landfill that was capped 

temporarily. SERs did express some implementation concerns with 

horizontal collectors, indicating that these systems have a 

shorter lifetime than vertical wells and require more frequent 

replacement. 

For the reasons presented in this section, the EPA is not 

proposing to shorten the initial or expansion lag times from the 

lag times codified in subpart WWW. However, the EPA requests 

comment on the feasibility and potential benefits of reducing 

either or both of the lag times. Specifically, the EPA requests 

comment on the practicality, cost, and emission reduction 

implications of installing or expanding the wellfield on active 

areas in a shorter timeframe. The EPA believes that this may be 

appropriate since horizontal collector systems have been 

installed at several landfills that were not in operation when 

the NSPS was originally promulgated in 1996. The EPA also 

requests data and/or comment on the potential emission 

reductions and corresponding costs that could result from 

reduced lag times. The EPA also notes that the cost analysis 

presented in section X of this preamble is based on vertical 

wells and the EPA is interested in any comments and data that 

 23 SCS Engineers, Technology and Management Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 71 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

address any differential in costs between these two types of 

systems. 

G. Request for Comment on BSER

The EPA is requesting comment on several items regarding 

BSER. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed design and 

operational standards for new sources that EPA believes are 

necessary to ensure a GCCS is well designed and well operated. 

The EPA is requesting comment on additional emission control 

technologies that are in place at landfills—other than a GCCS as 

described here—that could be considered BSER. We request 

descriptions of such systems, an indication of their current 

use, data demonstrating emission reductions, and corresponding 

costs of such systems. The EPA is also requesting comment on 

whether a well designed and well operated GCCS in conjunction 

with any of the technologies or practices discussed in section

V.A of this preamble should be considered to be BSER.

The EPA is also taking comment on whether it should 

consider reducing the design capacity threshold or initial lag 

times for landfills that are located in a wet climate or that 

recirculate leachate or add other liquids to the landfills to 

accelerate waste decomposition. Wetter wastes decompose more 

quickly than drier wastes and as a result generate more landfill 

 Emissions. Prepared for California Integrated Waste Management Board.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 72 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

gas in the short term. Therefore, it may be appropriate to 

require these landfills to install the gas collection system 

sooner, which SERs indicated is already occurring in practice 

for landfills in wetter climates. Similarly, smaller landfills 

in wetter climates, or those employing leachate recirculation, 

may also generate earlier spikes in landfill gas emissions that 

could exceed the NMOC threshold. Although these landfills are 

exempt from proposed subpart XXX under the design capacity 

threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters, if a 

smaller design capacity threshold were adopted for these wet 

landfills, more emission reductions may be achieved. 

If a separate set of thresholds and/or lag times were to 

apply to these wet landfills, the EPA requests comment on how a 

wet landfill might be defined. For example, a wet landfill could 

be defined as a landfill that has precipitation of greater than 

25 inches per year and/or recirculates leachate (or other 

liquids). 

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes Based on Review of the 

NSPS

To determine which option to propose, the EPA considered 

the emission reductions that are expected to be achieved under 

the criteria in the baseline (subpart WWW), as well as emission 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 73 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

reductions that would be achieved under several control options 

more stringent than the baseline.

A. What are the environmental impacts and costs associated with

the baseline?

In this analysis, the baseline contains the same gas 

collection and control requirements and thresholds (2.5 million 

Mg or 2.5 million cubic meters and 50 Mg NMOC per year) that are 

in subpart WWW. For the baseline, the initial lag time is 30 

months; and the expansion lag time is 2 years after initial 

waste placement in cells that are closed or at final grade or 5 

years after initial waste placement in active areas of the 

landfill. These parameters are described in detail in section V 

of this preamble. 

Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the impacts of the 

baseline for year 2023. The table includes emission reductions 

for NMOC, methane, and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) and 

corresponding annualized net costs based on the annualized

control, testing, and monitoring costs, and annual revenues from 

energy recovery (when applicable), as discussed in section V.B 

of this preamble. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 74 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Table 2. Baseline Emission Reductions and Costs in 2023

No. of 

landfi

lls 

affect

ed

No. of 

landfil

ls 

control

ling

No. of 

landfil

ls 

reporti

ng but 

not 

control

ling

Annual 

Net 

Cost 

($2012

)a

Annual 

NMOC 

Reducti

ons 

(Mg/yr)

Annual 

Methane 

Reducti

ons

(Mg/yr)

Annual 

CO2e 

Reducti

ons 

(Mg/yr)

NMOC cost 

effective

ness 

($/Mg)

Methane 

cost 

effective

ness 

($/Mg)

CO2e cost 

effective

ness 

($/Mg)

17 8 9 2,708,

000

610 94,800 2,371,0

00

4,400 29 1.1

a The annualized net cost ($2,708,000) is the difference between the average annualized revenue 

($21,315,300) and the sum of annualized control cost ($23,956,900) and the average annualized 

testing and monitoring costs ($66,400).

The baseline is estimated to require control at eight

landfills in 2023, and achieve reductions of 610 Mg/yr NMOC, 

94,800 Mg/yr methane (2,371,000 Mg/yr CO2e). The annualized net 

cost is $2.7 million. The cost effectiveness of the baseline is 

estimated to be $4,400 per Mg NMOC, and $29 per Mg methane

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

to each pollutant separately. 

In this analysis, the EPA projects 21 new landfills would 

commence construction, reconstruction, or modification between 

2014 and 2018. The basis of this projection is discussed in 

detail in the docketed memorandum “Summary of Landfill Dataset 

Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills 

Regulations. 2014.” These 21 landfills are projected to emit, 

1,040 Mg/yr of NMOC and 161,600 Mg/yr of methane in 2023 if the 

landfills had no emission controls in place. However, the 

baseline is modeled to require 38 percent (8/21) of these 

projected landfills to install emission controls by at least 

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font: 8 pt
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 75 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

year 2023. In terms of emissions, the baseline is expected to 

achieve 59 percent reduction in estimated emissions from these 

landfills in 2023. Further, the eight landfills installing 

controls under the baseline represent 77 percent of the 

estimated total waste-in-place in 2023 from all 21 of the 

projected landfills.

The baseline allows landfills to remove the GCCS only after 

the following criteria are met 1) the landfill is closed, 2) the 

landfill has had the GCCS in operation for at least 15 years, 

and 3) three successive tests for NMOC emissions are below the 

NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg/yr. Until the GCCS is removed, 

the landfill must continue to operate the system in accordance 

with 40 CFR 60.763, which includes wellhead monitoring and 

surface emissions monitoring to detect and correct for any 

emission exceedances. 

B. How did the EPA determine which control option to propose? 

When determining which control options would represent 

BSER, the EPA considered several factors: the implementation 

concerns identified in section V of this preamble; and the 

incremental emission reductions, cost, and co-benefits that 

would be achieved beyond the baseline. 

The EPA compared the annualized net cost and emission 

impacts in 2023 of the various regulatory options to the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page 

Page 76 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

annualized net costs and emission impacts in 2023 of the 

baseline. The EPA analyzed numerous iterations of alternate 

control and reporting thresholds and presented potential control 

options to SERs and Federalism consultation participants, as 

described in section V of this preamble. After considering 

feedback from the SERs and Federalism consultation participants, 

the EPA selected for consideration three regulatory alternatives 

as presented in Table 3 of this preamble. Table 3 of this 

preamble summarizes the incremental impacts of each control 

option, when compared to the baseline. The table shows the 

emission reductions and corresponding annualized net costs for 

NMOC and methane in 2023.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 77 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Table 3. Emission Reductions and Costs for Control Options in Year 2023

Control 

Parameters

No. of 

landfills 

affecteda

No. of 

landfills 

controllinga

Annual 

Net Cost 

(2012$)

Annual 

NMOC 

Reductions 

(Mg/yr)

Annual 

Methane 

Reductions 

(Mg/yr)

Annual 

Methane 

Reductions 

(Mg 

CO2e/yr)

NMOC cost 

effectiveness 

($/Mg)

Methane cost 

effectiveness 

($/Mg)

Methane cost 

effectiveness* 

($/Mg CO2e)

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

Baseline 

(2.5 design 

capacity/50 

Mg/yr NMOC)

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

Incremental values versus the Baseline

Option (3.0 

design 

capacity/40 

Mg/yr NMOC

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

Option (2.5 

design 

capacity/40 

Mg/yr NMOC

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

Option (2.0 

design 

capacity/40 

Mg/yr NMOC

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

a Landfills are affected by the landfills NSPS based on design capacity. Once affected, they calculate and report 

emissions until they exceed the NMOC threshold, which triggers control requirements. 

Formatted Table
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 78 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Baseline. The baseline affects 17 new landfills, meaning 

that 17 landfills meet the design capacity thresholds and would 

have to report their emissions during this period. Eight of 

these landfills would have controls in place in year 2023. The 

baseline values are compared to landfills’ emissions assuming 

that no GCCS are installed. This comparison to a no-control 

scenario may overestimate both the costs and emissions reduction 

resulting from implementation of subpart XXX due to other 

regulatory or voluntary reasons for installing GCCS, as 

discussed below.

The EPA is aware that some state or local ordinances 

require landfill gas combustion for odor, safety, or methane 

control reasons. For example, methane regulations in California24

 

24 California Code of Regulations, title 17, subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 

6, sections 95460 to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills.

require GCCS to be installed at all landfills accepting waste 

after January 1, 1977, having at least 450,000 tons of waste-inplace, and having a gas heat input capacity threshold of 3.0 

MMBtu/hr or greater to install GCCS. The emission reductions 

from these programs could not be quantified for the projected 

set of model landfills because the EPA cannot reliably estimate 

where these future landfills will be installed. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 79 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Finally, based on data from LMOP, the EPA is also aware of 

approximately 500 landfills that have voluntarily installed a 

gas collection system that would not otherwise be required under 

federal NSPS or emission guideline regulations (see section V.A 

of this preamble for details). These systems may have been 

installed to recover energy and generate revenue, including sale 

of electricity or landfill gas as well as to create carbon 

credits. However, because it is not known how many projected new 

landfills will voluntarily collect and combust their gas in the 

absence of NSPS regulation, the reductions associated with 

voluntary gas collection system installations were not 

considered when establishing the reductions associated with the 

baseline. 

Regulatory options. The EPA considered three regulatory 

options more stringent than the baseline, as presented in Table 

3 of this preamble. Based on the characteristics of the 

projected landfills, all three of the more stringent options 

would require a total of 11 landfills to install controls by 

2023. Thus, 11 landfills would incur costs and achieve emission 

reductions in 2023 under all of the more stringent options, 

compared with eight landfills under the baseline.

Although the overall difference in the number of landfills 

requiring control in 2023 under the more stringent options is 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 80 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

only three landfills, it is important to note that each of these 

options would require controls to be installed earlier than the 

baseline, because lower NMOC emission thresholds would subject 

landfills to the control requirements at an earlier date. 

Table 4 presents the number of landfills with control 

systems installed, by year, for the baseline and options 

considered in this analysis. Due to the 30-month initial lag 

time period, no controls are anticipated to be installed prior 

to 2020 under any of the options under consideration.

Table 4. Total Number of New Landfills Projected to Control 

Landfill Gas Emissions in Each Year of the 10-year Period, by 

Option

Number of Landfills with 

Control Systems Installed

Control Parameters 2014-2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Baseline 2.5/50 0 0 6 7 8

Option 3.0/40 0 3 6 7 11

Option 2.5/40 0 3 6 7 11

Option 2.0/40 0 3 6 7 11

Emission reductions. Under all three of the options 

considered, three additional landfills would be required to 

install controls in 2023 compared to the baseline. The 

reductions achieved under these three options are the same

because each option has the same NMOC threshold trigger of 40 

Mg/yr. The corresponding emission reductions in 2023 would be an 

additional 79 Mg/year NMOC, 12,300 Mg/year methane (307,600 

Formatted Table
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 81 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Mg/year CO2e) compared to the baseline. The wide range in 

magnitude of emission reductions among pollutants is due to the 

composition of landfill gas: NMOC represents less than 1 percent 

of landfill gas, while methane represents approximately 50 

percent. CO2e is an expression of methane in terms of the carbon 

dioxide equivalents, given the methane global warming potential 

(GWP) of 2525

Cost. Under both options 2.5/40 and 3.0/40, the incremental

annual cost would be $471,000. The cost is identical for these 

two options because all of the projected new landfills that 

exceed the NMOC thresholds and install controls by 2023 have a 

design capacity greater than 3.0 million Mg. Based on the 

characteristics of recently constructed landfills, it is likely 

that most new landfills will be larger sites. The incremental 

annual cost of option 2.0/40 is $2,700 higher, at $472,700 due 

to additional reporting costs for one landfill that is projected 

to exceed the lowered design capacity threshold but not the NMOC 

threshold. All of these options represent approximately 17 

percent in additional costs beyond the baseline.

. Each of these options represents approximately a 

13 percent reduction beyond the baseline. 

 

25 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K 

and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 82 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

In terms of cost effectiveness, the overall dollar-per-Mg

cost for NMOC reductions is $4,400 per Mg NMOC under the 

baseline in Table 3 of this preamble. Note the cost of 

controlling methane is significantly lower than for NMOC because 

methane constitutes approximately 50 percent of landfill gas, 

while NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas. The 

incremental dollar-per-Mg cost for NMOC reductions is $6,000 per 

Mg NMOC under all of the other options. For option 2.0/40, 

however, there are additional reporting requirements for one 

landfill affected by this option that would result in a 

marginally higher actual cost compared with the option 2.5/40. 

Therefore, we are not proposing option 2.0/40. Other than the 

added reporting costs, the emission reductions and control costs 

are identical for options 2.5/40 and 3.0/40. For the reasons 

stated in section V.D of this preamble (potential to miss 

reductions at landfills that exceed the NMOC emission thresholds 

but do not meet the design capacity thresholds and application 

of GCCS at landfills with design capacities between 2.5 and 3.0 

million Mg is well demonstrated), alternative option 3.0/40 is 

also not being proposed.

Proposed option 2.5/40. Based on the emission reduction and 

cost discussions above and consistent with the President’s 

Methane Strategy as discussed in section III of this preamble, 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 83 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

the EPA is proposing to reduce the NMOC threshold to 40 Mg/yr. 

Lowering the NMOC threshold would result in earlier GCCS 

installations and additional NMOC and methane reductions 

compared to the baseline, as shown in Table 3 of this preamble. 

This lowered threshold achieves reductions without adjusting the 

initial and expansion lag times and incurring the associated 

costs and implementation concerns. 

Reducing the NMOC threshold from the baseline-level of 50 

Mg/yr to 40 Mg/yr would affect only three more landfills in 2023

but would achieve an estimated 13 percent additional reduction 

in emissions of NMOC and methane compared to the baseline.

Further, this proposal would maintain the same control device 

removal criteria as the baseline except that the controls would 

have to stay on until three successive tests for NMOC emissions 

were below the NMOC emission threshold of 40 Mg/yr instead of 50 

Mg/yr. Depending on the waste-in-place of the landfill at 

closure and other site-specific factors (e.g., waste 

composition, climate), it may take more than 30 years after 

closure for a large modern landfill to emit less than the NMOC 

emission threshold, and in turn qualify for capping or removing 

the GCCS. Although the emission reductions associated with these 

later years in the landfills’ lifetimes are not incorporated in 

the environmental and economic impacts of the baseline and 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 84 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

options under consideration, the lower threshold associated with 

this proposal would require controls to be installed for a

slightly longer period than the baseline. 

Although some commenters have expressed concerns about the 

quantity of emissions after landfills have closed and the GCCS 

has ceased to operate, the analysis the EPA conducted 

demonstrates that GCCS would be installed for a significant 

period after landfill closure that is commensurate with the size 

and corresponding emissions profile of each affected landfill. 

For these reasons, the EPA is proposing that emissions must be 

below an emissions threshold of 40 Mg/yr as one of the three 

criteria for determining when a GCCS may be capped or removed. 

The EPA is also requesting comment on whether these three 

criteria are appropriate, and if alternative criteria such as 

consecutive quarterly measurements below a surface emission 

threshold should also be considered. RCRA, specifically subpart 

F of Part 258, also requires supplemental basic post-closure 

care to maintain cover integrity.

Reducing the NMOC threshold also recognizes the opportunity 

to build upon progress to date and achieve even more reductions 

of landfill gas and its components, consistent with the 

President’s Methane Strategy as discussed in section III of this 

preamble. Landfill gas generated from established waste (waste 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 85 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

that has been in place for at least a year) is typically 

composed of roughly 50 percent methane and 50 percent carbon 

dioxide by volume, with trace amounts ofless than 1 percent

NMOC. Because the components of landfill gas are associated with 

substantial health, welfare, and climate effects, additional 

reductions of landfill gas would improve air quality and reduce 

health and welfare effects associated with exposure to landfill 

gas emissions. Note that in 2012, landfills continued to be the 

third largest source of human-related methane emissions in the 

United States, representing 18.1 percent of total methane 

emissions.26

Alternative option 2.0/34. Consistent with the President’s 

Methane Strategy and the potential to achieve a near-term 

beneficial impact in mitigating global climate change (see 

section III of this preamble), the EPA considered even more 

stringent alternatives in its analysis of control options 

that may achieve additional reductions of methane and NMOC. 

For example, reducing the NMOC threshold below 40 Mg/yr in 

conjunction with reducing the design capacity to below 2.5 

million Mg or 2.5 million cubic meters, an alternative 

Methane emissions represent 8.7 percent of all GHG 

emissions (in CO2e) in the United States. 

 

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0",

Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian

text
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 86 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

option 2.0/34 would require controls at 11 landfills by 

2023, which is the same number of landfills required to 

control under this proposal. However, under this more 

stringent option, four of the 11 landfills would install 

controls one year earlier. The extent of the emission 

reductions for this option depends on the time period 

considered. For example, in year 2023, emission reductions 

would not be any greater than the proposal. However, when 

averaged over the 10-year period (2014-2023), this more 

stringent option would achieve additional NMOC and methane 

reductions compared with the proposal. Refer to the 

Environmental Impacts Analysis,27

 

27 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed New 

and the docketed memoranda 

“Cost and Emissions Impacts Resulting from the Landfills 

NSPS Review. 2014” for details on the estimated reductions. 

Additional emission reductions would be expected to be 

achieved over the lifetime of the landfills subject to 

subpart XXX because the lower NMOC threshold would require 

earlier installation of controls and also require the 

controls to remain installed for a longer period. The 

annualized cost to implement alternative option 2.0/34 

would be higher than the proposal. The EPA did not analyze 

an option that reduced the NMOC threshold below 40 Mg/year 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 87 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

without also reducing the design capacity threshold. In 

light of these additional reductions, as well as the 

additional costs to affected entities, the EPA is 

soliciting comment on whether an NMOC threshold below 40 

Mg/yr in conjunction with a reduced design capacity 

threshold should be considered for new landfills subject to 

subpart XXX.

VII. Summary of Clarifications and Resolutions That Are the 

Result of Implementation Activity

The EPA proposed amendments to the landfills NSPS (40 CFR 

part 60, subpart WWW) on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475) to address 

implementation issues. Consideration of public comments received 

and additional implementation activity led to the proposal of 

further clarifications on implementing the landfills regulations

on September 8, 2006. After considering public comments received 

on the September 8, 2006 amendments and additional 

implementation activity, we are proposing resolutions and 

clarifications of the issues specifically identified below under 

new subpart XXX. The EPA plans to address amendments and 

clarifications resulting from implementation activities as they 

apply to subparts Cc and WWW in a separate notice. The EPA will 

also address any potential changes to subparts Cc and WWW in a 

 Subpart to the New Source Performance Standards.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 88 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

separate notice. Thus EPA is not taking final action on either 

the May 23, 2002 or the September 8, 2006 proposed rules at this 

time. In addition to the specifically identified resolutions and 

clarifications associated with the May 23, 2002 and September 8, 

2006 proposed rules, we are proposing a number of provisions in 

subpart XXX that are intended to address other implementation 

issues that have arisen in the context of subpart WWW.

2002 Proposed amendments. On May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475), 

the EPA proposed several amendments to subpart WWW, including 

clarifying what constitutes treated landfill gas by adding a 

definition of treatment system that specified that the system 

must filter, de-water, and compress landfill gas. 

2006 Proposed amendments. Public comments on the May 23, 

2002 amendments created new questions and caused the EPA to 

reconsider the approach we had taken on several proposed 

amendments, including our approach to clarifying what 

constitutes treated landfill gas. Specifically, we proposed 

refined definitions of “treated landfill gas” and “treatment 

system” by adding specific numerical values for filtration and 

de-watering to provide long-term protection of the combustion 

equipment, which would also support good combustion. The 

September 8, 2006 amendments also proposed to clarify the 

monitoring requirements for treatment systems. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 89 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

The following resolutions and clarifications apply to 

proposed subpart XXX. 

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 

Treatment System Monitoring

Subpart XXX contains requirements for landfill gas 

treatment that are consistent with the September 8, 2006 

proposed amendments, except that the treatment definition would 

require the water dew point of landfill gas to be reduced to at 

least 45 ̊F, rather than lowered by at least 20 ̊F. We also 

propose to specify a location for the temperature monitoring 

device that would demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

45 ̊F requirement. The measurement device would be located at (or 

immediately after) the coalescing filter or other direct contact 

moisture removal device that follows the chiller and removes the 

condensed moisture. If a landfill owner/operator uses dewatering equipment that is not based on cooling the gas, such as 

a desiccant system, the landfill owner/operator would monitor 

dew point instead of temperature. For particulate matter 

filtration, we propose to retain the requirement for a filter 

system to have an absolute rating no greater than 10 microns. 

We also propose to clarify monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements for treatment systems. To ensure that 

treatment systems are operating properly to achieve the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 90 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

filtration and de-watering levels specified in the revised 

proposed treatment system definition, owners/operators would 

install equipment to continuously monitor pressure drop across a 

filter, temperature for a chiller-based de-watering system, and 

dew point for a non-chiller-based de-watering system. 

Owners/operators would record 24-hour block averages. 

Owners/operators may use other site-specific monitoring 

parameters if they demonstrate that such parameters would 

effectively monitor filtration or de-watering system 

performance. For other site-specific monitoring parameters, 

owners/operators must develop operating ranges for each 

monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer’s 

recommendations or engineering analysis and submit those ranges, 

along with justification, for approval by the Administrator in 

an amended design plan. The proposed recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for treatment systems are similar to those for 

control device temperature monitoring requirements already in 

the NSPS. 

The EPA is considering and taking public comment on an 

alternative approach to defining landfill gas treatment and the 

corresponding monitoring requirements, as discussed in section

IX.A of this preamble.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 91 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Uses of Treated Landfill Gas.treated landfill gas. Subpart 

WWW allows landfill owners or operators the option of achieving 

compliance by routing the collected gas to a treatment system 

“that processes the collected gas for subsequent sale or use.” 

We propose to include language in subpart XXX (40 CFR 

60.762(b)(2)(iii)(C)) to clarify that the use of treated 

landfill gas is not limited to use as a fuel for a stationary 

combustion device, as some people have previously interpreted 

this compliance option, but also includes other uses such as the 

production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for 

pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical 

manufacturing process. 

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions

The general provisions in 40 CFR part 60 provide that 

emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emissions 

limit during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) 

shall not be considered a violation of the applicable emission 

limit unless otherwise specified in the applicable standard (see 

40 CFR 60.8(c))(emphasis added). As reflected in the italicized 

language, an individual subpart can supersede this provision. In 

today’s action, the EPA is proposing standards in subpart XXX 

that apply at all times, including periods of startup or 

shutdown, and periods of malfunction. In addition, to enable the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 92 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

EPA to determine the severity of an emissions exceedance for 

periods when the gas collection system or a control device is 

not operating, the EPA is proposing to add a recordkeeping and 

reporting requirement for landfill owners or operators to 

estimate emissions during such periods.

C. Closed Areas

To determine whether NMOC emissions from nonproductive 

areas of the landfill are less than 1 percent of the total 

landfill NMOC emissions (and hence controls are not required), 

subpart WWW relies on modeled (calculated) NMOC rates (see 40 

CFR 60.759(a)(3)(ii)). To refine the measurements of these 

nonproductive areas, the EPA is proposing to allow owners or 

operators of landfills subject to subpart XXX to use measured or 

modeled flow of landfill gas to determine if an area is 

nonproductive. The EPA proposes that owners or operators of 

physically separated, closed areas of landfills subject to 

subpart XXX may use the procedures in proposed 40 CFR 60.764(b), 

which determine the flow rate of landfill gas using actual or 

modeled measurements, to determine NMOC emissions. 

D. Surface Monitoring

Subpart WWW requires quarterly surface monitoring to 

demonstrate that the cover and gas collection system are working 

properly. The intent of the surface monitoring provision is to 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 93 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

maintain a tight cover that minimizes landfill gas emissions 

through the landfill surface. In this proposal, we are 

reiterating the intent that landfills must monitor along a 

pattern that traverses the landfill at specified intervals and 

where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of 

landfill gas, which includes all cover penetrations and openings 

within the area of the landfill where waste has been placed and 

a gas collection system is required. The EPA is also considering 

and taking public comment on revisions to the surface monitoring 

requirements, as discussed in section IX of this preamble.

E. Electronic Reporting

The EPA is proposing electronic reporting of required 

performance test reports, NMOC emission rate reports, and annual 

reports. We also propose that industry should be required to 

maintain only electronic copies of the records to satisfy 

federal recordkeeping requirements. The proposed electronic 

submission and storage procedures are discussed in detail in 

section VIII.E of this preamble.

The proposal to submit performance test data electronically 

to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted

using test methods that are supported by the Electronic 

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

landfills NSPS are not supported by the ERT. Thus, electronic 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 94 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

reporting of performance tests may not be required for some 

landfills initially, but will be required when applicable 

methods are added to the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and 

test methods supported by the ERT is available at: 

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

F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements

Subpart WWW addresses operational standards for wellheads. 

Under 40 CFR 60.753(c), landfill owners/operators may request 

and demonstrate a higher operating temperature, nitrogen, or 

oxygen value at a particular well. The EPA is clarifying in this 

preamble the intent of the following requirement: “A higher 

operating value demonstration must be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval and must include supporting data 

demonstrating that the elevated parameter neither causes fires 

nor significantly inhibits anaerobic decomposition by killing 

methanogens.” The demonstration must meet both criteria; that is 

a higher operating value must not cause fires and must not 

significantly inhibit anaerobic decomposition by killing

methanogens.

The EPA proposes to clarify in subpart XXX that any 

alternate operating value for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen 

proposed by an owner or operator according to the proposed 40 

CFR 60.763(c) must be submitted to the Administrator (i.e., the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 95 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

EPA Administrator or delegated authority) for approval. The 

request may be submitted separately from a design plan revision. 

However, the design plan would have to be updated on the 

schedule described in the next section. 

The EPA is also considering and taking comment on the 

possibility of adjusting the landfill wellhead monitoring 

requirements, as discussed in the section IX.B of this preamble.

G. Requirements for Updating the Design Plan

We propose adding three criteria for when an affected 

source must update its design plan and submit it to the 

Administrator under subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.767(h)). We propose 

requiring submittal of a revised design plan as follows: (1) 

within 90 days of expanding operations to an area not covered by 

the previously approved design plan; (2) prior to installing or 

expanding the gas collection system in a manner other than 

described in a previously approved design plan; and (3) prior to 

implementing an alternative operating parameter value for 

temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen. 

H. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests

Subpart WWW outlines the timeline for correcting for air 

infiltration in the gas collection system within 15 days of any 

exceedance of temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen parameters. We 

propose clarifying this requirement in subpart XXX (40 CFR 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 96 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

60.765(a)(5)) to require the landfill to submit an alternative 

corrective action timeline request to the Administrator if the 

landfill cannot correct for air infiltration within 15 calendar 

days of the initial exceedance and the landfill is unable to (or 

does not plan to) expand the gas collection within 120 days of 

the initial exceedance.

I. Other Corrections and Clarifications

We propose to standardize the terms “control system” and 

“collection and control system” throughout proposed subpart XXX 

in order to use consistent terminology throughout the regulatory 

text. Subparts Cc and WWW include phrases such as “control or 

treatment system”; however, 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii) indicates 

that a treatment system described in 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C) 

is considered to be a type of control system, and therefore the 

term “control system” is sufficient and more concise. Further, 

some other parts of subpart WWW refer to “collection and control 

device” or “control equipment”; however, the terms “device” and 

“equipment” are synonymous with the term “system” in the context 

of these rules and were replaced with “control system” or 

“control system equipment” in several places as appropriate, for 

consistency. Finally, many parts of subpart WWW inaccurately 

reference “control system” instead of “collection and control 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 97 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

system” when referring back to paragraphs in 40 CFR 60.752(b). 

These corrections and clarifications appear in subpart XXX. 

We also propose to make the following clarifications and 

corrections to subpart XXX, which are consistent with the May 

23, 2002 and September 8, 2006 proposed amendments in subpart 

WWW. 

Consistent with the May 23, 2002 and September 8, 2006 

proposed amendments, we propose to include language in subpart 

XXX to exempt owners/operators of boilers and process heaters 

with design capacities of 44 megawatts or greater from the 

requirement to conduct an initial performance test (40 CFR 

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

Consistent with the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, 

we propose to remove the term “combustion” from the requirement 

to monitor temperature of enclosed combustors (40 CFR 

60.768(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 60.768(c)(1)(i)).

Consistent with the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, 

we propose to incorporate a corrected test method crossreference in 40 CFR 60.765(c)(3) of subpart XXX necessitated by 

the reorganization of Method 21 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

Consistent with the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, 

we propose to amend the definition of “household waste” and add 

a definition of “segregated yard waste” in subpart XXX (40 CFR 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 98 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

60.761) to clarify our intent regarding the applicability of the 

landfills NSPS to landfills that do not accept household waste, 

but accept segregated yard waste.

We are clarifying that the definition of “Modification” in 

subpart XXX includes a change in mass or volume and we are 

requesting comment on the definition of modification as 

discussed in section VIII.I of this preamble.

VIII. Rationale for the Clarifications and Resolutions That Are 

the Result of Implementation Activity

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 

Treatment System Monitoring

Landfill Gas Treatmentgas treatment. In the May 23, 2002 

proposed amendments, we proposed a definition for “treatment 

system” that would be used to determine if a facility qualifies 

for the treatment option provided in subpart WWW. The purpose of 

this definition was to provide consistency as to what qualifies 

as a treatment system and to reduce the burden on state and 

local agencies and EPA Regions currently performing case-by-case 

determinations related to the adequacy of treatment options 

being employed across the nation. The proposed definition of 

treatment system was “a system that filters, de-waters, and 

compresses landfill gas.”
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 99 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Following the May 23, 2002 proposal of the treatment system 

definition, several commenters requested further clarification 

as to what levels of filtration and de-watering would be 

considered acceptable to meet the definition of treatment. Some 

commenters requested that EPA allow owners/operators to treat 

their gas such that it would meet the end-use combustion 

equipment “manufacturer’s requirements” for fuel quality. Other 

commenters requested that EPA develop specific particulate, 

moisture, and compression targets that demonstrate “treated 

landfill gas.”

We agreed with commenters that the definition of treatment 

system needed additional detail. We contacted manufacturers of 

combustion devices that are used to recover energy from landfill 

gas, and we obtained their written specifications and 

recommendations for fuel quality. As suggested by the 

commenters, we reviewed the available manufacturers’ 

specifications for acceptable moisture and particulate levels. 

Because different manufacturers have different specifications, 

our proposed definition of “treatment system” did not refer 

directly to the manufacturers’ requirements. Instead, we 

developed specific filtration and de-watering targets based on 

those requirements.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 100 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

On September 8, 2006, we proposed levels of de-watering and 

filtration that were consistent with most manufacturers’ 

specifications for landfill gas burned in energy recovery 

devices such as reciprocating engines, gas turbines, and 

boilers. We also proposed a supplemental definition of treatment 

system, as follows: “* * * a system that has an absolute 

filtration rating of 10 microns or less, lowers the water dew 

point of the landfill gas by at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit with 

a de-watering process, and compresses the landfill gas.” The 

term “absolute filtration rating” means the diameter of the 

largest hard spherical particle that would pass through the 

filter. These treatment levels would minimize degradation of the 

combustion device and promote proper destruction of NMOC.

Following the September 8, 2006 supplemental amendments, 

several commenters objected to the 20 ̊F dew point reduction 

requirement and the requirement to monitor temperature reduction 

across the moisture removal system. Commenters cited several 

reasons, including the following:

• In cold climates, it might not be feasible to meet the 

proposed definition because the gas can be cooled from 

wellhead to temperatures in the 40 ̊F-range simply because 

of ambient conditions, and lowering the temperature further 

is not feasible.

• Verifying inlet and outlet temperatures is difficult 

because they vary depending on the pressures in the system. 

Accounting for these conditions could require multiple 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 101 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

points of measure plus use of an algorithm to determine the 

reduction.

• The proposed standard does not take into account water 

removal that may be occurring in other parts of the gas 

collection system, such as the header.

• The level of treatment needed depends on the type and 

design of the specific combustion equipment being used, so 

some commenters favored case-by-case determinations.

The EPA maintains the position that the intent of the 

treatment option is to require active lowering of the dew point 

consistent with the better available treatment systems, and that 

we did not intend knock-out pots (for example) to qualify. 

Numerical specificationsThe numerical specifications ensure that 

the treated gas is suitable for use in a wide range of 

applications. They also allow uniform national application of 

the NSPS, provide certainty to the landfill industry and 

regulated agencies, and avoid case-by-case determinations that 

are likely to be complex, time-consuming, and yield inconsistent 

results. 

However, the EPA agrees with the comments that the 2006 

proposed 20 ̊F dew point reduction requirement contains some 

ambiguity. For example, is the 20 ̊F relative to the gas 

temperature at the wells, in the main header prior to 

compression, or just prior to the chiller? Does the gas need to 

be chilled 20 ̊F below atmospheric temperature, which could be 

impractical in cold climates? We also agree with the commenters 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 102 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

that if the treatment system first compresses and then chills 

the gas, measuring the gas temperature before the compressor and 

after the chiller would not give an accurate indication of the 

dew point reduction due to the change in pressure, and 

algorithms would be required to calculate the reduction. 

In light of these comments, we reviewed designs from 

manufacturers of gas treatment compression-dehydration skids for 

the landfill gas utilization industry to determine if the 

numerical moisture requirement could be expressed as an absolute 

dew point or temperature that could be measured at a single 

location, rather than requiring a 20 ̊F reduction. Such a 

requirement would eliminate ambiguity and make it easier for 

landfills and regulatory agencies to determine compliance. 

Manufacturers commonly compress the gas first and then cool the 

gas to reduce the dew point. Manufacturers commonly offer dew 

points of 38 to 45 ̊F. They also reheat the final dehydrated 

product prior to it leaving their treatment unit. Therefore, we 

propose a dew point reduction to 45 ̊F, rather than a reduction 

by 20 ̊F.

The EPA requests comments on all aspects of this proposed 

definition of landfill gas treatment. 

Continuous monitoring. To ensure continuous compliance with 

the treatment option, we are proposing similar monitoring 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 103 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

requirements to the September 8, 2006 supplemental proposal, 

except that temperature or dew point is measured at a single 

location to determine that it has been reduced to 45 ̊F, rather 

than measuring it before and after the moisture removal device. 

Landfill owners/operators would install instrumentation to 

continuously monitor pressure drop across a filter, temperature 

for a chiller-based de-watering system, and dew point for a nonchiller-based de-watering system. These requirements would 

ensure that the treatment system is continuously operating in 

the manner in which it was designed to operate to achieve the 

specific filtration, de-watering, and compression targets that 

define a treatment system for the purposes of the landfills 

NSPS. 

Continuous monitoring is appropriate for treatment systems 

because it ensures timely identification of sudden failures in 

equipment such as chillers and filters and ensures that 

treatment systems are operating properly to achieve the 

filtration and de-watering levels specified in the rule. 

Continuous monitoring is available for the selected treatment 

system operating parameters and is required to ensure continuous 

compliance.

For filtration systems, the pressure drop (24-hour average) 

across the filter would be continuously monitored and maintained 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 104 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

above the minimum pressure drop established by engineering 

analysis or manufacturer’s specifications. Alternatively, the 

owners/operators can request approval to monitor another 

parameter that indicates proper performance of the filtration 

system. Pressure drop was selected as a monitoring parameter 

because it is a good indicator of proper filter operation. A 

noticeable reduction in pressure drop across the filter 

indicates a breach of the filter material.

Continuous monitoring of temperature for a chiller-based 

de-watering system, dew point from a de-watering system that is 

not chiller-based, or another approved parameter that is 

indicative of proper performance of the de-watering system, 

would also be required. If the owner/operator requests to 

measure a parameter other than temperature or dew point, then 

the monitored parameter (24-hour average) would have to be kept 

within the operating range established by engineering analysis 

or manufacturer’s specifications. The owner or operator would 

submit the treatment system design and justification for the 

operating parameter ranges for approval by the Administrator in 

the design plan required by 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2) of subpart WWW.

For chiller-based de-watering systems, we selected 

temperature as a monitoring parameter because it indicates that 

the chiller is operating properly and the target 45 ̊F dew point 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 105 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

is achieved. Continuous measurement of the gas temperature at 

the chiller outlet is required. The temperature measurement 

device should be located at (or immediately after) the 

coalescing filter or other direct contact moisture removal 

device that follows the chiller and removes the condensed 

moisture. Because the gas will be saturated at the temperature 

it leaves the filter, the temperature in that location is a good 

measure of the dew point. Temperature monitors are readily 

available, commonly used, reliable, and less expensive than 

alternative monitoring systems.

If a de-watering system that is not based on chilling, for 

example, a desiccant system, is used, then temperature would not 

be an appropriate parameter to monitor. In such cases, 

monitoring of the dew point would indicate whether the system is 

operating properly to achieve a temperature of 45 ̊F. Dew point 

can be continuously monitored using a hygrometer with a dew 

point readout. The hygrometer should be located after the 

equipment that performs the moisture removal. Dew point monitors 

are available and suitable for landfill gas applications.

Data collection is required at 15-minute intervals, 

consistent with current landfills NSPS requirements for flare 

pilot flame monitoring and enclosed combustor temperature 

monitoring that apply to landfills that opt to comply with the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 106 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

control options rather than the treatment option. A 24-hour 

block average for determining compliance with the treatment 

system operating parameter limits is sufficient to indicate any 

significant change in treatment system operation and would be 

less burdensome than more frequent averaging. Owners or 

operators of treatment systems would be required to report 

periods when the 24-hour block average for a monitored parameter 

(e.g., pressure drop, temperature, dew point) is outside the 

operating range established in the approved design plan.

Compliance schedule. Landfills subject to subpart XXX that 

choose to comply with subpart XXX by treating the landfill gas 

according to 40 CFR 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(C) would comply with the 

treatment requirements upon choosing to control landfill gas 

using the treatment option. 

Uses of Treated Landfill Gas. Subpart WWW allows landfill 

owners or operators the option of achieving compliance by 

routing the collected gas to a treatment system “that processes 

the collected gas for subsequent sale or use.” We propose 

language in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(C)) to clarify 

that the use of treated landfill gas is not limited to use as a 

fuel for a stationary combustion device as some have interpreted 

the provision. We clarify the intent of the treatment option to 

allow other beneficial uses such as vehicle fuel, production of 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 107 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in 

a chemical manufacturing process. Newer uses of landfill gas are 

being implemented and result in the production of useful energy 

or products, reducing the use of fossil fuels or other raw 

materials and the associated emissions. For the uses mentioned, 

the gas is treated at least as well as the specified treatment 

requirements. Site-specific approval of alternative monitoring 

parameters would be required for uses other than combustion 

because treatment systems for these end uses are relatively few 

in number and have unique designs. Owners or operators would be 

required to apply for approval of monitoring parameters.

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010), the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA 

section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during 

periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), 

holding that under CAA section 302(k), emissions standards or 

limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM 

exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 

112 standards apply continuously.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 108 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Periods of Startupstartup or Shutdownshutdown. Consistent 

with Sierra Club v. EPA (551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008)), the EPA 

has established standards in subpart XXX that apply at all 

times. The part 60 general provisions, which define startup, 

shutdown and malfunction, were written for typical industrial or 

manufacturing sources and associated processes. Many of these 

sources and processes may, at times, be shut down entirely for 

clean-out, maintenance, or repairs, and then restarted. Applying 

the standards at all times, including periods of startup and 

shutdown, is intended to minimize excess emissions when the 

source or process ceases operation or commences operation, or 

malfunctions. Landfill emissions, however, are produced by a 

continuous biological process that cannot be stopped or 

restarted. For landfills, the primary SSM concern is with 

malfunction of the landfill GCCS and associated monitoring 

equipment, not with the startup or shutdown of the entire 

source. Thus, SSM provisions in the subpart XXX focus primarily 

on malfunction of the gas collection system, gas control system, 

and gas treatment system, which is part of the gas control 

system.

Periods of Malfunctionmalfunction. Periods of startup, 

normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine 

aspects of a source’s operations. However, by contrast, 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 109 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

malfunction is defined as “any sudden, infrequent, and not 

reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control 

equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions” (40 CFR 

60.2). The EPA has determined that CAA section 111 does not 

require that emissions that occur during periods of malfunction 

be factored into development of CAA section 111 standards. 

Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law requires that the EPA 

anticipate and account for the innumerable types of potential 

malfunction events in setting emission standards. CAA section 

111 provides that the EPA set standards of performance which 

reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through 

“the application of the best system of emission reduction” that 

the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. A malfunction is 

a failure of the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” 

and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such 

events in setting standards based on the “best system of 

emission reduction.” The “application of the best system of 

emission reduction” is more appropriately understood to include 

operating units in such a way as to avoid malfunctions.

Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission 

standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 110 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the difficulties associated 

with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 

duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the 

performance of units that are malfunctioning is not “reasonably” 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (“The EPA typically has wide latitude in 

determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed 

on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to 

‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’”) See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 

(“In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, 

or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. 

After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits 

caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as 

strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a 

variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the 

administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, 

not for specification in advance by regulation.”). In addition, 

emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher 

than emissions at any other time of source operation and thus 

accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 111 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

significantly less stringent than levels that are achieved by a 

well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to 

interpret CAA section 111 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 111 and 

is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 111 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of 

the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 

cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The 

EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, “sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was not instead 

“caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation” (40 

CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction)).

Further, to the extent the EPA files an enforcement action 

against a source for violation of an emission standard, the 

source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action 

and the federal district court will determine what, if any, 

relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 

actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 112 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 

administrative penalties are appropriate. 

In several prior rules, the EPA had included an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions 

in an effort to create a system that incorporates some 

flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in 

many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance 

while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent 

of efforts, emission standards may be violated under 

circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. 

Although the EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these 

circumstances, it included the affirmative defense to provide a 

more formalized approach and more regulatory clarity. See 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case enforcement 

discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. 

EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of “upsets beyond the 

control of the permit holder”). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a source could demonstrate in 

a judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met the 

requirements of the affirmative defense in the regulation, civil 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 113 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

penalties would not be assessed. Recently, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

such an affirmative defense in one of the EPA’s section 112(d) 

regulations. NRDC v. EPA, No. 10-1371 (D.C. Cir. April 18, 2014) 

2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 (vacating affirmative defense 

provisions in section 112(d) rule establishing emission 

standards for Portland cement kilns). The court found that the 

EPA lacked authority to establish an affirmative defense for 

private civil suits and held that under the CAA, the authority 

to determine civil penalty amounts lies exclusively with the 

courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the Court found: “As the 

language of the statute makes clear, the courts determine, on a 

case-by-case basis, whether civil penalties are ‘appropriate.’” 

See NRDC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 at *21 (“[U]nder this 

statute, deciding whether penalties are ‘appropriate’ in a given 

private civil suit is a job for the courts, not EPA.”). In light 

of NRDC, the EPA is not including a regulatory affirmative 

defense provision in this rulemaking. As explained above, if a 

source is unable to comply with emissions standards as a result 

of a malfunction, the EPA may use its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion to provide flexibility, as appropriate. Further, as 

the D.C. Circuit recognized, in an EPA or citizen enforcement 

action, the court has the discretion to consider any defense 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 114 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate. Cf. 

NRDC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 at *24. (arguments that 

violation were caused by unavoidable technology failure can be 

made to the courts in future civil cases when the issue arises). 

The same logic applies to EPA administrative enforcement 

actions.

Limit on SSM Durationduration. Subpart WWW limits the 

duration of SSM events to 5 days for the landfill gas collection 

system and 1 hour for treatment or control devices. Proposed 

subpart XXX does not include the 5-day and 1-hour time

limitations because some malfunctions cannot be corrected within 

these timeframes. Excluding these provisions is consistent with 

Sierra Club v. EPA (551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008)), which 

concluded that that emission standards apply at all times, 

including periods of SSM, and 40 CFR 60.11(d), which states that 

at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction, owners or operators shall, to the extent 

practicable, maintain and operate any source facility including 

associated air pollution control equipment in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions. The proposed revisions clarify that the 

NSPS standards continue to apply during periods of SSM. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 115 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

To prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere

during control device malfunctions, we propose to include a

requirement in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.763(e)) that states that 

in the event the collection or control system is not operating, 

the gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the 

collection and control system contributing to venting of gas to 

the atmosphere must be closed within 1 hour. Note that 40 CFR 

60.753(e) of subpart WWW says “inoperable.” This provision was 

written when there was an allowance for periods of SSM: Subpart 

WWW (40 CFR 60.755(e)) allows SSM periods of 5 days for the 

landfill gas collection system and 1 hour for periods when 

collection or control devices were “not operable” due to 

malfunction. During those periods, the emission standards do not 

apply. However, proposed subpart XXX states that the standards 

apply at all times, including periods of SSM, and there is no 

allowance for SSM periods. Thus, the term “inoperable” no longer 

applies. The EPA proposes to use the term “not operating,” which 

includes periods when the gas collection or control system is 

not operating for whatever reason, including when the gas 

collection or control system is inoperable. 

The practice to shut down the gas mover equipment and all 

valves contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere 

minimizes emissions from the landfill while the control system 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 116 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

is not operating and is being repaired. Compliance with 40 CFR 

60.763(e) does not constitute compliance with the applicable 

standards in 40 CFR 60.762. Compliance with 40 CFR 60.763(e) is 

necessary to demonstrate compliance with the general duty to 

minimize emissions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) during control or 

collection system malfunctions.

Under subpart XXX, landfill owners/operators must keep 

records of combustion temperature, bypass flow, and periods when 

the flare flame or the flare pilot flame is out. However, 

without additional provisions, the EPA would have no way to 

gauge the severity of an emissions exceedance that may occur 

when these operating parameters are not being met or when the 

control device is not operating. Therefore, the EPA is including 

provisions for landfill owners/operators to estimate NMOC

emissions when the control device or collection system is not 

operating. The landfill owners/operators may use whatever 

information is available to estimate NMOC emissions during the 

period, including but not limited to, landfill gas flow to or 

bypass of the control device, the concentration of NMOC (from 

the most recent performance test or from AP-42), and the amount 

of time the control device is not operating. Landfill 

owners/operators would keep records of the estimated emissions 

and would report the information in the annual compliance 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 117 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

report. (See provisions in proposed subpart XXX: 60.767(f)(7) 

and 60.768(c)(5).)

C. Closed Areas

In the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, the EPA 

requested public comments on how to address closed areas of 

landfills and when to allow removal of controls. Under 40 CFR 

60.759(a)(3)(ii) of subpart WWW, landfills owners/operators can 

exclude from control, provided that the total NMOC emissions of 

all excluded areas can be shown to contribute less than 1 

percent of the total amount of NMOC emissions from the landfill.

As discussed in the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments 

(71 FR 53277), it has come to our attention that there are 

situations in which the quantity of gas production has greatly 

declined in separate closed areas of some landfills, and the 

methane content has fallen such that the area is producing 

insufficient gas to properly operate a GCCS and control device. 

Actual measurements may show that the quantity of landfill gas 

from the area is less than 1 percent of the total gas from the 

entire landfill, but using the first order decay equation, it is 

calculated to be greater than 1 percent of the total gas from 

the entire landfill. 

The EPA proposes in subpart XXX that owners or operators of 

physically separated, closed areas of landfills may use the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 118 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

procedures in 40 CFR 60.764(b), which determine the flow rate of 

landfill gas using actual measurements, to determine NMOC 

emissions. Alternatively, owners or operators of physically 

separated, closed areas may use subpart XXX (40 CFR 

60.769(a)(3)(ii)), which relies on modeled (calculated) NMOC 

rates. The EPA proposes to allow the use of actual flow 

measurements because using actual flow measurements yields a 

more precise measurement of NMOC emissions for purposes of 

determining if NMOC emissions from the closed, nonproductive 

area of the landfill are less than 1 percent of the total NMOC 

emissions from the entire landfill. Landfills would be allowed 

to stop collecting gas from the closed separated area if it 

accounts for less than 1 percent of total landfill NMOC 

emissions. 

The measurement approach would be allowed only in closed 

areas that are physically separated from other parts of the 

landfill (e.g., with liners). If the closed area is not 

separated, gas can migrate between that area and the rest of the 

landfill. In such a situation, measurements might not accurately 

reflect emissions from the given landfill area because gas could 

be moving underground and escaping or being collected from an 

adjacent section of the landfill.

D. Surface Monitoring
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 119 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

The landfills NSPS requires quarterly surface monitoring to 

demonstrate that the cover and gas collection system are working 

properly. The intent of the surface monitoring provision is to 

maintain a tight cover that minimizes the migration of emissions 

through the landfill surface. The operational requirements in 

subpart WWW specify that the landfill must “operate the 

collection system so that the methane concentration is less than 

500 parts per million above background at the surface of the 

landfill. To determine if this level is exceeded, the owner or 

operator shall conduct surface testing around the perimeter of 

the collection area along a pattern that traverses the landfill 

at 30 meter intervals and where visual observations indicate 

elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed 

vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover.” 

Several commenters on the September 8, 2006 notice asserted 

that the monitoring of every cover penetration was unnecessary 

or too burdensome. One commenter believed quarterly monitoring 

of penetrations was needed and suggested rule amendments to 

require the surface monitoring be conducted not only in areas 

where distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover can 

be seen, but also in other areas such as at the base of gas 

collection wells or at the top of the gas collection boot. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 120 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

In proposed subpart XXX, we are reiterating the position 

that landfills must monitor all cover penetrations and openings 

within the area of the landfill where waste has been placed and 

a gas collection system is required. Specifically, landfill 

owners/operators must conduct surface monitoring at 30-meter 

intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas. Cover penetrations can be 

observed visually and are clearly a place where gas would be 

escaping from the cover, so monitoring of them is required by 

the regulatory language. The regulatory language gives 

distressed vegetation and cracks as an example of a visual 

indication that gas may be escaping, but this example does not 

limit the places that should be monitored by landfill staff or 

by enforcement agency inspectors. Thus, the landfill must 

monitor any openings that are within an area of the landfill 

where waste has been placed and a gas collection system is 

required. The EPA is clarifying this intent in 40 CFR 60.763(d), 

as follows: owners/operator must also monitor “* * * where 

visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill 

gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the 

cover and all cover penetrations.”

Regarding how to monitor landfill surfaces including 

surface penetrations, subpart XXX states that surface emission 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 121 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

monitoring must be performed in accordance with section 8.3.1 of 

Method 21 of appendix A of part 60, except that the probe must 

be placed within 5 to 10 centimeters of the ground.

E. Electronic Reporting

Through this proposal, the EPA is presenting a process to 

increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that 

owners or operators of MSW landfills submit electronic copies of 

required performance test reports, NMOC emission rate reports, 

and annual reports by direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). 

The CDX is the EPA’s portal for submittal of electronic 

data. The EPA-provided ERT software is used to generate 

electronic reports of performance tests that will be uploaded 

into the CDX using the CEDRI. NMOC emission rate reports and 

annual reports will be submitted using subpart specific forms in 

the CEDRI. The submitted report package will be stored in the 

CDX archive (the official copy of record) and the EPA’s public 

database called WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have access to 

all reports and data in WebFIRE and accessing these reports and 

data will be very straightforward and easy (see the WebFIRE 

Report Search and Retrieval link at 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 122 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSubm

ission). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can 

be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and 

CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX website 

(http://www.epa.gov/cdx). A description of the WebFIRE database 

is available at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.

Electronic data transmittal and reporting is becoming an 

increasingly common element of modern life (as evidenced by 

electronic banking and income tax filing). Electronic reporting 

of environmental data is also common practice in many media 

offices at the EPA; programs such as the Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI), the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, Acid Rain 

and NOx Budget Trading Programs, and the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) new chemical program all require electronic 

submissions to the EPA. The changes being proposed today are 

needed to continue the transition to electronic reporting. Under 

current requirements, paper reports are often stored in filing 

cabinets or boxes, which make the reports more difficult to 

obtain and use for data analysis and sharing. Electronic storage 

of such reports would make data more accessible for review, 

analyses, and sharing. Electronic reporting can eliminate paperbased, manual processes. This will save time and resources,
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 123 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

simplify data entry, eliminate redundancies, and provide data 

quickly and accurately to the affected sources, air agencies, 

the EPA, and the public.

Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA would have 

air emissions and performance test data in hand; thus, it is 

possible that fewer or less substantial information collection 

requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA-required 

technology and risk-based reviews may be needed. This may result 

in a decrease in the need for industry staff time to respond to 

data collection requests.

Affected sources could also see reduced costs as a result 

of electronic reporting. The electronic reporting system forms 

will contain only the data elements specified by the 

regulations. As such, the data required to be included in each 

report will be clearly spelled out, reducing the time spent in 

determining required data elements and eliminating the time 

spent on including unnecessary data. The time savings realized 

by making the reports standardized could reduce facility costs. 

Reducing the reporting burden is also achieved through labor 

savings because some of the required data are already in 

existing EPA databases and do not need to be submitted again. 

Existing source files can be reused and already contain a 

portion of the required data. Electronic reporting could 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 124 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

minimize submission of unnecessary or duplicative reports in 

cases where facilities report to multiple government agencies 

and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA’s electronic reporting 

system to view report submissions. Where air agencies continue 

to require a paper copy of these reports and will accept a hard 

copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the option 

to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to 

submit to the air agencies, thus minimizing the time spent 

reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and 

storage costs associated with retaining paper records could 

likewise be minimized by replacing those records with 

electronically submitted data and reports.

Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and 

automated review of the electronically submitted data. For 

example, because the performance test data would be readilyavailable in a standard electronic format, air agencies would be 

able to review reports and data electronically rather than 

having to conduct a review of the reports and data manually. 

Having reports and associated data in electronic format will 

facilitate review through the use of software “search” options, 

as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in electronic 

format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the 

reported data being accessible to them through the EPA’s 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 125 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

electronic reporting system wherever and whenever they want or 

need access (as long as they have access to the Internet).

The general public would also benefit from electronic 

reporting of emissions data because the data would be available 

for viewing sooner and would be easier for the public to access. 

The EPA website that stores the submitted electronic data will 

be easily accessible to the public and will provide a userfriendly interface that any stakeholder could access.

Another advantage to electronic reporting is that it makes 

data that can be used for the development of emission factors 

more readily available. An emission factor is a representative 

value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant 

released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the 

release of that pollutant (e.g., kilograms of particulate 

emitted per megagram of coal burned). Such factors facilitate 

estimation of emissions from various sources of air pollution

and are an important tool in developing emissions inventories, 

which in turn are the basis for numerous efforts including 

trends analysis, regional and local scale air quality modeling, 

regulatory impact assessments, and human exposure modeling. In 

most cases, emission factors are simply averages of all 

available data regardless of the data quality, and they are 

generally assumed to be representative of long-term averages for 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 126 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

all facilities in the source category (i.e., a population 

average).28

The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting 

that many of the EPA’s emission factors are outdated or not 

representative of a particular industry emission source. While 

the EPA believes that the emission factors are suitable for 

their intended purpose, we also recognize that emissions 

profiles on different pieces of equipment can change over time 

due to a number of factors (fuel changes, equipment 

improvements, industry work practices), and it is important for 

emission factors to be updated to keep up with these changes. 

The EPA is currently pursuing emission factor development 

improvements that include procedures to incorporate the source 

test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically. By 

requiring the electronic submission of the reports identified in 

this proposed action, the EPA would be able to access and use 

the submitted data to update emission factors more quickly and 

efficiently, creating factors that are characteristic of what is 

currently representative of the industry sector. Likewise, an 

increase in the number of test reports used to develop the 

emission factors will provide more confidence that the factor is 

of higher quality and representative of the whole industry 

 

28 For more information on emission factors and their uses, see: 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 127 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

sector. The EPA’s new emission factor development procedures 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/procedures/index.html) that 

incorporate the use of electronic test data automatically 

perform routines to indicate when a factor is no longer 

representative of an industry sector based on current data and 

calculates an updated factor. Because these routines are run 

automatically, the process is quick, and we are able to provide 

representative factors sooner. Emission factors are used in the 

development of emissions inventories, and as such, improved 

emission factors means that the quality of these inventories 

will be improved on a much quicker scale than they would under 

the current paper reporting requirements.

The electronic reporting system will also result in 

information that is submitted in a standardized format. 

Standardizing the reporting format will require the reporting of 

specific data elements, thereby helping to ensure completeness 

of the data and allowing for accurate assessment of data 

quality. In the past, incomplete test reports have resulted in 

lower quality emission factors because the data could not be 

adequately reviewed to determine representativeness. Imbedded 

quality assurance checks will perform some of the required 

method calculations, reducing errors in test reports. The system 

 http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 128 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

will perform statistical analyses routines to evaluate below 

detection limit data and outliers prior to performing the 

emission factor calculations. The result will be a factor of the 

highest quality rating that is most representative for the 

source category. And because the system is entirely electronic, 

it eliminates transcription errors in moving data from paper 

reports to data systems for analysis. These quality assurance 

checks and procedures will increase the accuracy of test report 

data, improve the overall quality of test data, and lead to more 

accurate emission factors and higher quality emissions 

inventories. These features benefit all users of the data.

Because those records, data, and reports that will be 

required to be submitted to the EPA electronically will be 

stored safely and will be available to all stakeholders at all 

times, we propose that industry should be required to maintain 

only electronic copies of these records to satisfy federal 

recordkeeping requirements. Thus, in this rulemaking, we are 

proposing to eliminate the requirement to maintain hard copies 

of records, data, and reports submitted to the EPA’s CDX. This 

provision will benefit industry sources that currently maintain 

these reports in hardcopy form; no more rooms of file cabinets 

to store these reports will be needed, while maintaining the 

accessibility of this information on site. We note, however,
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 129 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

that air agencies that require submission of reports in hardcopy

form may also require hardcopy records.

We plan to store records, data, and reports submitted to 

the EPA’s CDX electronically in two sites (CDX and WebFIRE), 

with frequent backups. Upon submission of a report, CEDRI will 

archive a copy of each submitted report in the CDX (this copy 

becomes the official copy of record). Both WebFIRE and CDX 

backup their files on a daily basis. The EPA’s National Computer 

Center (where the WebFIRE files are stored) maintains a dual 

back-up file (one kept on site and the other stored off site). 

The CDX also employs a dual backup system to avoid problems in 

the event of a catastrophe at the location of the servers 

storing the files. Thus, the EPA has established redundancy into 

the electronic reporting and storage system to ensure submitted 

data are retained. In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy development, and other 

air pollution control activities, having an electronic database 

populated with these reports would save industry; state, local, 

and tribal agencies; and the EPA significant time, money, and 

effort while also improving the quality of emission inventories 

and, as a result, air quality regulations. 

F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 130 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

During implementation of subpart WWW, the question has been 

raised about whether a landfill needs agency approval to 

establish higher operating values for temperature, nitrogen, or 

oxygen as allowed under subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.753(c)). Subpart 

WWW (40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(1)(B)) specifically states that the 

design plan shall include any alternatives to the operational 

standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting provisions of subpart 

WWW proposed by the owner or operator. Therefore, the EPA is 

confirming in subpart XXX that alternative values allowed for 

under subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.763(c)) should be submitted for 

approval by the Administrator or the delegated state authority.

and then, after it is approved, submitted again to the 

Administrator or the delegated state authority as part of a 

design plan revision.

Another question has been raised during implementation 

concerning supporting data requirements for the allowance of an 

elevated wellfield monitoring parameter. The EPA is clarifying 

its intent in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.763(c)), such that the 

demonstration must meet this criteria: a higher operating value 

must not cause fires and must not significantly inhibit 

anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens.

G. Requirements for Updating Design Plan 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 131 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Currently subpart WWW does not directly specify when a 

design plan should be updated and submitted to the Administrator 

for approval. To clarify questions received during 

implementation on the timing of submittals of updated design 

plans, we are proposing in subpart XXX to outline a set of three 

criteria under a consolidated section 40 CFR 60.767(h) for when 

a design plan must be submitted for approval. A revised design 

plan must be submitted for approval: within 90 days of expanding 

operations to an area not covered by the previously approved 

design plan; before installing or expanding the gas collection 

system in a way that is not consistent the previous design plan; 

and prior to implementing an approved alternative operating 

parameter value for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen, if the 

owner or operator has requested alternative operating parameter 

values.

The EPA is proposing to maintain the same site-specific 

design plan review and approval procedures, recognizing the 

unique site-specific topography, climate and other factors 

affecting the design of a GCCS. However, the EPA solicits 

comment on ways to streamline the design plan submission and 

approval procedures as part of its review of this NSPS. Examples 

of streamlining may include the potential development of a 

process by which approved alternative operating parameters could 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 132 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

be automatically linked to updates of design plans or 

development of a process by which alternative operating 

parameters and updated design plans could be approved on a 

similar schedule.

H. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests

During implementation of subpart WWW, the question has been 

raised about whether a landfill needs agency approval of 

corrective action timelines that exceed 15 calendar days but are 

less than the 120 days allowed for installing a GCCS. The intent 

of the rule is to require agency approval of corrective action 

timelines only if a landfill does not fix an exceedance in 15 

days and is unable to or does not plan to expand the gas 

collection system within 120 days. We have included provisions 

in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.765(a)(5)) to clarify this point. 

Excluding system expansion, all other types of corrective 

actions expected to exceed 15 calendar days should be submitted 

to the agency for approval of an alternate timeline. In 

addition, if a landfill owner or operator expects the system 

expansion to exceed the 120-day allowance period, it should 

submit a request and justification for an alternative timeline. 

We have not proposed a specific schedule for submitting these 

requests for alternative corrective action timelines because 

investigating and determining the appropriate corrective action, 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 133 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

as well as the schedule for implementing the corrective action, 

will be site specific and depend on the reason for the 

exceedance. We clarify that a landfill should submit an 

alternative time line request as soon as possible (i.e., as soon 

as they know that they would not be able to correct the 

exceedance in 15 days or expand the system in 120 days) to avoid 

being in violation of the rule. If the landfill waits until 120 

days after the exceedance to submit an alternative time line, 

then by the time the regulatory agency has the chance to review 

the time line and determine if it is approvable, the landfill 

will already be in violation of the requirement to expand the 

system within 120 days. After submitting the alternative 

timeline request, the landfill should work with its permitting 

authority to communicate the reasons for the exceedances, status 

of the investigation, and schedule for corrective action. 

To address implementation concerns associated with the time 

allowed for corrective action, the EPA requests comment on an 

alternative that extends the requirement for notification from 

15 days to as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days. 

Many requests for an alternative compliance timeline express the 

need for additional time to make necessary repairs to a well 

that requires significant construction activities. Extending the 

time period to as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 134 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

may reduce the burden and ensure sufficient time for correction. 

If the EPA were to extend the time period to as soon as 

practicable, but no later than 60 days, then the EPA is also 

considering the removal of the provision to submit an 

alternative timeline for correcting the exceedance. Thus, by no 

later than day 60, the landfill would have to either have 

completed the adjustments and repairs necessary to correct the 

exceedance, or be prepared to have the system expansion 

completed by day 120. The EPA is also requesting input on 

whether 60 days is the appropriate amount of time that would 

allow owners or operators to make the necessary repairs.

I. Other Corrections and Clarifications

The clarifications and provisions described in this section 

apply to new subpart XXX. During implementation of subpart WWW, 

the EPA learned about potential confusion in the rule caused by 

the terms “control and treatment system” and “control system.” 

It was requested that the EPA revise the term “control or 

treatment system” to read “control system.” We agree that the 

term treatment system is a subset of the control system as 

described in subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)) and are 

proposing to make this change in proposed subpart XXX. While 

making this change, we also conducted an extensive review of the 

remainder of the rule text to make several editorial and 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 135 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

consistency changes to how the terms “control system” and 

“collection and control system” were used. As part of this 

review, we clarified our intent for the terms “device” and 

“equipment” to be used interchangeably with “system” in the 

context of the landfills NSPS; and we are proposing to replace 

these terms with “system” in several places, as appropriate, for 

consistency. We also identified editorial inconsistencies in the 

use of how the terms “control system” and “collection and 

control system” were referenced and we are proposing in subpart 

XXX to change the text to reference the correct term, consistent 

with the intent of the rule text.

We propose to include language in subpart XXX to exempt 

owners or operators of boilers and process heaters with design 

capacities of 44 megawatts or greater from the requirement to 

conduct an initial performance test. Available data demonstrate 

that boilers and process heaters with heat input capacities of 

44 megawatts or greater consistently achieve the required level 

of control, and the exemption of these boilers from testing has 

been included in several other air regulations, such as those 

for the chemical industry and petroleum refineries.

We propose to apply new language in subpart XXX (40 CFR 

60.768(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 60.768(c)(1)(i)) by removing the term 

“combustion” from the requirement to monitor temperature of 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 136 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

enclosed combustors. The amendment clarifies that the 

“combustion” temperature does not have to be monitored, because, 

for some enclosed combustors, it is not possible to monitor 

temperature inside the combustion chamber to determine 

combustion temperature. Instead, temperature can be monitored at 

another location, as long as the monitored temperature relates 

to proper operation of the enclosed combustor.

We propose to include a corrected test method crossreference in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.765(c)(3)) necessitated by 

the reorganization of Method 21 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.

We propose to include definitions of “household waste” and 

“segregated yard waste” in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.761) to 

clarify our intent regarding the applicability of subpart XXX to 

landfills that do not accept household waste, but accept 

segregated yard waste. We intend for subpart XXX to apply to 

municipal solid waste landfills that accept general household 

waste (including garbage, trash, sanitary waste), as indicated 

in the definitions. We did not intend these rules to apply to 

landfills that accept only segregated yard waste and nonhousehold waste such as construction and demolition and yard 

waste.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 137 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

We are clarifying the definition of “Modification” in 

subpart XXX to include an increase in the permitted design 

capacity in terms of not only the volume, but also the mass. 

The EPA is exploring options to achieve additional 

emissions reductions from existing landfills under CAA section 

111(d) in an ANPRM. The EPA will consider all of the information 

it receives in response to the ANPRM in the context of its 

review of the NSPS and will respond to that information 

accordingly. In light of our interest in valuing methane 

reductions in our review of these standards as well as the 

number of cost-effective measures for existing landfills 

described in the ANPRM, the EPA is also exploring whether it is 

reasonable to review the definition of modification for 

landfills. A revision to the definition may provide additional 

opportunities to apply cost-effective measures to mitigate 

landfill gas emissions in modified sources because of the close 

relationship of control strategies that may apply to both 

modified landfills and existing sources. The EPA requests 

comment on changes that may be appropriate and whether these 

changes should be enacted to achieve additional emissions

reductions.

IX. Request for Comment on Specific Provisions
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 138 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

The EPA is specifically requesting public comment on three 

issues: landfill gas treatment, wellhead monitoring, and 

enhanced surface monitoring.

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 

Treatment System Monitoring

The EPA is requesting public comment on an alternative 

approach for defining treatment system and treated landfill gas. 

The alternative approach would define Treated landfill gas as 

landfill gas processed in a treatment system according to 

subpart XXX and would define Treatment system as a system that 

filters, de-waters, and compresses landfill gas. The alternative 

approach would be available for only new landfills subject to 

subpart XXX that treat the landfill gas for subsequent sale or 

beneficial use. The EPA is considering providing this 

flexibility for new landfills that beneficially use landfill 

gas, given the site-specific and end-use specific treatment 

requirements for different energy recovery technologies. The EPA 

is also requesting comment on providing this flexibility for all 

landfills. Most landfills that beneficially use landfill gas 

either combust the landfill gas in a device that achieves 98 

percent destruction of NMOCs or they treat gas for sale or onsite use. This level of treatment and subsequent combustion not 

only achieves the environmental benefits of reducing landfill 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 139 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

gas emissions, but also utilizes landfill gas as an energy 

resource.

This technical aspects of this alternative approach isare

consistent with public comments on previous notices (67 FR 

36475, May 23, 2002 and 71 FR 53271, September 8, 2006). It is 

also consistent with input from the SERs and recent Federalism 

consultation participants who stated that the extent of 

filtration, de-watering, and compression can be site dependent, 

and that different sites require different levels of gas 

treatment to protect the combustion devices that use treated 

landfill gas as a fuel and ensure good combustion. The 

alternative treatment provisions are also consistent with the 

2002 proposed definition of treatment system as “a system that 

filters, de-waters, and compresses landfill gas.” The 

alternative definition of treatment system gas allows the level 

of treatment to be tailored to the type and design of the 

specific combustion equipment in which the landfill gas is used. 

Instead of meeting numerical specifications for treated landfill 

gas, owners/operators would specify the level of treatment based 

on the type and design of the specific combustion equipment that 

uses the treated landfill gas. Owners/operators would identify 

monitoring parameters and keep records that demonstrate that 

such parameters effectively monitor filtration, de-watering, or 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 140 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

compression system performance necessary for the end use of the 

treated landfill gas. We are also proposing to define “treated 

landfill gas” to mean landfill gas processed in a treatment 

system. The intent of the treatment option is to require active 

lowering of the dew point consistent with the better available 

treatment systems, as such, we did not intend knock-out pots 

(for example) to qualify. 

Owners/operators would develop a site-specific treatment 

system monitoring plan that would not only accommodate sitespecific and end-use specific treatment requirements for 

different energy recovery technologies, but would also ensure 

environmental protection. Most landfill owners and operators 

that treat landfill gas combust the landfill gas in a combustion 

device that achieves 98 percent destruction of NMOCs. Thus, the 

treatment option offers a similar level of environmental 

protection as combusting the landfill gas. Landfill owners and 

operators that are beneficially using landfill gas are motivated 

to efficiently treat landfill gas for the intended purpose in 

order to protect energy recovery equipment, maintain warranties 

on equipment, and meet the gas specifications often specified in 

contractual requirements with third parties purchasing the gas. 

Thus, preparing the monitoring plan would document procedures to 

ensure that the landfill gas has been adequately treated for the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 141 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

intended use. Having a properly operated and efficient treatment 

system should minimize downtime of the entire GCCS (or routing 

of the landfill gas to a flare due to shutdown of end-use 

equipment) because the end-use equipment will continue to 

operate properly and will need less maintenance if the gas is 

treated appropriately. By minimizing downtime of the entire 

system, the destruction of NMOC will be maximized.

The plan would be required to include monitoring parameters 

addressing all three elements of treatment (filtration, dewatering, and compression) to ensure the treatment system is 

operating properly for the intended end use of the treated 

landfill gas. The plan would be required to include monitoring 

methods, frequencies, and operating ranges for each monitored 

operating parameter based on manufacturer’s recommendations or 

engineering analysis for the intended end use of the treated 

landfill gas. Documentation of the monitoring methods and 

ranges, along with justification, must be included in the sitespecific monitoring plan. In the plan, the owner/operator would 

also need to identify who is responsible (by job title) for data 

collection, explain the processes and methods used to collect 

the necessary data, and describe the procedures and methods that 

are used for quality assurance, maintenance, and repair of all 

continuous monitoring systems. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 142 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

The monitoring plan may rely on references to existing 

corporate documents (e.g., standard operating procedures, 

quality assurance programs or other documents) provided that the 

elements required by the monitoring plan are easily 

recognizable.

The owner or operator would be required to revise the 

monitoring plan to reflect changes in processes, monitoring 

instrumentation, and quality assurance procedures; or to improve 

procedures for the maintenance and repair of monitoring systems 

to reduce the frequency of monitoring equipment downtime.

The plan must be kept on site and must be available for 

inspection. In addition, upon request by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator would be required to make all information that 

is collected in conjunction with the monitoring plan available 

for review during an audit or inspection.

B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements

The EPA is requesting public comment on alternative 

wellhead monitoring requirements. in proposed subpart XXX. One 

alternative monitoring provision could be in the form of an 

exclusion from the temperature and oxygen/nitrogen monitoring 

requirements, or a reduction in the frequency of monitoring. For 

example, the EPA could reduce the frequency of wellhead 

monitoring for these three parameters (temperature and 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 143 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

oxygen/nitrogen) from monthly to a quarterly or semi-annual 

schedule. Owners or operators would continue to monitor the 

wellhead for negative pressure. 

The EPA is specifically requesting comment on whether this 

adjustment should apply only to landfills that beneficially use 

landfill gas, and if so whether any quantity of the recovered 

LFG should qualify for alternative wellhead monitoring. 

Alternatively, the EPA is requesting comment on whether it would 

be more appropriate to require a certain percentage of the 

overall recovered LFG to be beneficially used in order to exempt 

landfills from or reduce the frequency of the wellhead 

monitoring requirements. The EPA also request comments on the 

availability of this flexibility to small entities owning or 

operating landfills, regardless of beneficial use.

The EPA would provide these alternatives to encourage new 

landfills to beneficially use landfill gas. Both of these 

alternative options (exclusion or reduced monitoring frequency) 

would provide monitoring relief to these landfills. Landfill 

owners and operators must operate their GCCS in a manner that 

collects the most landfill gas and minimizes losses of landfill 

gas through the surface of the landfill. In addition, landfills 

would still have to prepare and submit to the regulating 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 144 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

authority a gas collection design plan, prepared by a 

professional engineer. 

As proposed, subpart XXX requires landfill owners and 

operators to operate each interior wellhead in the collection 

system with a landfill gas temperature less than 55°C and with 

either a nitrogen level less than 20 percent or an oxygen level 

less than 5 percent. Instead of having the landfill owner or 

operator conduct monthly monitoring of temperature and 

nitrogen/oxygen at the wellheads, the EPA is considering relying 

on landfill surface emission monitoring requirements in 

combination with maintenance of negative pressure at wellheads

to indicate proper operation of the GCCS and minimization of 

surface emissions. The potential removal of the temperature and

nitrogen/oxygen operational standards and associated wellhead 

monitoring requirements for these three parameters would be 

complemented by the surface monitoring provisions discussed in 

this preamble. As discussed in section VII.F and VIII.F of this 

preamble, we are reiterating that landfills must monitor all 

cover penetrations and openings within the area of the landfill 

where waste has been placed and a gas collection system is 

required. 

Given recent technological advancements in data storage and 

transmission, the EPA is also considering an alternative to 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 145 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

automate the wellhead monthly monitoring provisions. Automation 

could reduce long-term burden on landfill owner/operators as 

well as delegated authorities by allowing for a more frequent, 

but less labor-intensive, data collection system consisting of 

remote wellhead sensors (i.e. thermistors, electronic pressure 

transducers, oxygen cells) and a centralized data logger. 

The use of continuous monitoring would allow more immediate 

detection and repair. This would eliminate the time between when 

the exceedance of the parameter occurs and when it is detected. 

It could also improve enforceability of the rule by allowing 

inspectors to review information on the data logger in real time 

during a site visit. Another advantage to automating the 

monitoring is that it could provide flexibility for 

incorporating additional parameters into the monitoring program. 

The EPA is soliciting comment on this alternative, including the 

types of parameters that are best suited for an automated 

monitoring alternative, examples of successful automated 

monitoring programs at MSW landfills and their associated costs, 

additional considerations for equipment calibration, and input 

on any averaging times that might be appropriate to determine 

when one or more monitored parameters have been exceeded.

C. Enhanced Surface Monitoring Requirements
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 146 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

The EPA is requesting public comment on potential 

alternative approaches to the surface emission monitoring in 

proposed subpart XXX. Subpart XXX collection and control 

requirements are intended for landfills to maintain a tight 

cover that minimizes any emissions of landfill gas through the 

surface. The surface emissions monitoring procedures in proposed 

subpart XXX require quarterly surface emissions monitoring to 

demonstrate that the cover and gas collection system are working 

properly. The operational requirements in subpart XXX (40 CFR 

60.763(d)) specify that the landfill must “* * * operate the 

collection system so that the methane concentration is less than 

500 parts per million above background at the surface of the 

landfill. To determine if this level is exceeded, the owner or 

operator shall conduct surface testing around the perimeter of 

the collection area and along a pattern that traverses the 

landfill at 30 meter intervals and where visual observations 

indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as 

distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover.”

Proposed subpart XXX requires quarterly monitoring and 

includes provisions for increased monitoring and corrective 

procedures if readings above 500 ppm are detected. 

Instrumentation specifications, monitoring frequencies, and 

monitoring patterns are structured to provide clear and 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 147 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

straightforward procedures that are the minimum necessary to 

assure compliance. 

In this notice, we are requesting public comment on 

potential alternatives to the surface monitoring procedures in 

proposed subpart XXX. Potential alternatives could include 

provisions such as those in a California regulation (provisions 

in California Air Resources Board, Final Regulation Order, 

Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Article 

4, Subarticle 6, sections 95460 to 95476, title 17, California 

Code of Regulations)) and include changing the walking pattern 

that traverses the landfill, adding an integrated methane 

concentration measurement, and allowing sampling only when wind 

is below a certain speed. 

For subpart XXX, we are requesting comment on reducing the 

interval for the walking pattern that traverses the landfill 

from 30 meters (98 ft.) to 25 ft. We are also requesting comment 

on the addition of a methane concentration limit of 25 ppm as 

determined by integrated surface emissions monitoring. This 

would be in addition to the 500 ppm emission concentration as 

determined by instantaneous surface emissions monitoring. 

Integrated surface emissions monitoring provides an average 

surface emission concentration across a specified area. For 

integrated surface emissions monitoring, the specified area 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 148 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

would be individually identified 50,000 square foot grids. A 

tighter walking pattern and the addition of an integrated 

methane concentration would more thoroughly ensure that the 

collection system is being operated properly, that the landfill 

cover and cover material are adequate, and that methane 

emissions from the landfill surface are minimized. As part of 

these potential changes, the EPA is also considering not 

allowing surface monitoring when the average wind speed exceeds 

5 miles per hour or the instantaneous wind speed exceeds 10 

miles per hour because air movement can affect whether the 

monitor is accurately reading the methane concentration during 

surface monitoring. We are considering this change because 

measurements during windy periods are usually not representative 

of the emissions.

The EPA estimated the costs associated with both the 

proposed subpart XXX surface monitoring requirements (which are 

the same as the surface monitoring requirements in subpart WWW) 

and potential changes to the surface monitoring provisions under 

the proposed option 2.4/40 and applied them to the set of new 

landfills that would be subject to control requirements under 

the respective option. To determine the costs, the EPA used the 

following assumptions: most landfills will hire a contractor to 

conduct the quarterly monitoring. The landfill will incur labor 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 149 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

costs based on the time it takes to walk the traverse (hours per 

acre), the size of the landfill (acres), and a labor rate 

(dollars per hour). The landfill will also incur an equipment 

rental rate (dollars per hour). Equipment rental rates are 

dollar per day/week/month, depending on the size of the landfill 

and time to traverse the acreage during each quarterly period.

See the docketed memo “Methodology for Estimating Testing and 

Monitoring Costs for the MSW Landfill Regulations. 2014,” which 

contains the details for determining the costs that a landfill 

would incur to conduct enhanced surface monitoring.

Using the techniques discussed in section V.A of this 

preamble, the EPA estimated the number of landfills that are 

expected to install controls under the baseline, as well as the 

proposed option 2.5/40. Then, the EPA applied surface monitoring 

costs to the respective set of landfills because landfills that 

must install controls must also conduct surface monitoring. 

Table 5 of this preamble compares the enhanced surface 

monitoring costs that would be incurred for new landfills under 

the baseline and proposed option 2.5/40. 

Table 5. Comparison of Baseline Surface Monitoring Versus 

Enhanced Surface Monitoring in 2023

Control 

Option

Surface 

Monitoring 

Option

No. of

landfills 

affected

No. of 

landfills 

controlling

Total 

Annual 

Cost

(2012$)

Incremental 

Cost

Total Cost 

per 

controlled 

landfill

Incremental 

Cost per 

Controlled 

Landfill

Baseline 

(2.5/50)

No 

change(30 

meter 

17 8 42,300 N/A 5,300 N/A
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 150 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Control 

Option

Surface 

Monitoring 

Option

No. of

landfills 

affected

No. of 

landfills 

controlling

Total 

Annual 

Cost

(2012$)

Incremental 

Cost

Total Cost 

per 

controlled 

landfill

Incremental 

Cost per 

Controlled 

Landfill

traverse)

Enhanced

(25-foot 

traverse, 

integrated 

sample)

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

Proposed 

option 

(2.5/40)

No 

change(30 

meter 

traverse)

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

Enhanced

(25-foot 

traverse, 

integrated 

sample)

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

Several factors contribute to the cost of enhanced surface 

monitoring. Monitoring along a traverse with a 25 ft. interval

would increase monitoring time, and thus the labor costs, 

compared to monitoring along a 30 meter (98 ft.) interval. 

Monitoring along the tighter traverse pattern would take 

approximately four times as long, because the distance is 

approximately four times. For a landfill to conduct the 

integrated surface emissions monitoring, the EPA assumed the 

landfill would rent a handheld portable vapor analyzer with a 

data logger. The data logger is necessary to obtain an 

integrated reading over a single 50,000 square foot grid. 

However, the EPA does not expect that requiring an integrated 

methane concentration would add significant cost because 

landfills could use the same instrument that they currently use 

for the instantaneous readings and these instruments can be 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 151 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

programmed to provide an integrated value as well as an 

instantaneous value.

The EPA recognizes that these provisions could reduce 

surface emissions and that these emissions reductions are 

difficult to quantify. The EPA also understands that there are 

potential implementation concerns with these enhanced 

procedures. Surface monitoring is a labor intensive process and 

tightening the grid pattern would increase costs. Of the eight

landfills expected to install controls under the baseline, it 

would take these landfills over 29 hours, on average, to 

complete each quarterly traverse pattern. Tightening the 

traverse pattern to 25-feet instead of 30-meters would require 

over 79 hours per quarter, or more than 200 additional hours per 

year compared to the current 30-meter traverse pattern. At this 

time, the EPA is not proposing surface monitoring provisions 

that differ from those outlined in subpart WWW, but we are 

soliciting comment on techniques and data to estimate the 

emission reductions associated with enhanced surface monitoring. 

The EPA is requesting comment on allowing the use of 

alternative remote measurement and monitoring techniques for 

landfills that exceed the surface monitoring concentrations in 

subpart XXX. The EPA would like information to determine whether 

or not to allow these alternative techniques to be used to 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 152 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

demonstrate that surface emissions are below the methane surface 

concentrations in the subpart XXX. Alternative remote 

measurement and monitoring techniques may include radial plume 

mapping (RPM), optical remote sensing, Fourier Transform 

Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, cavity ringdown spectroscopy 

(CRDS), tunable diode laser (TDL), tracer correlation, 

micrometeorological eddy-covariance, static flux chamber, or

differential absorption. The EPA is also seeking comment on the 

frequency of testing and the format of the standard to use these 

technologies as an alternative to average surface concentration 

as measured by Method 21. Incorporation of these technologies in 

subpart XXX would require a change in format of the standard to 

be consistent with the technology.

D. Alternative Emission Threshold Determination Techniques

The EPA is considering adjusting the emission threshold 

determinations that dictate when a GCCS must be installed, 

including variations in the modeling parameters as well as 

adding site-specific emission threshold determination. These 

alternatives may provide additional reporting and compliance 

flexibilities for owners and operators of affected landfills. 

1. Modeling Adjustments

As proposed, subpart XXX has three different tiers 

available to an affected landfill to estimate whether or not the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 153 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

landfill exceeds the NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg per year. 

The simplest Tier 1 calculation method uses default values for 

the potential methane generation capacity (L0) and methane 

generation rate (k) to determine when the landfill exceeds the 

50 Mg NMOC per year emission rate cutoff. The default L0 is 170 

m3 per Mg of waste (equal to 5,458 cubic feet methane per ton of 

waste) and the k values are 0.05 per year for areas receiving 25 

inches or more of rainfall per year and 0.02 per year for areas 

receiving less than 25 inches of rainfall. The Tier 1 default 

NMOC concentration is 4,000 ppmv as hexane. If the Tier 1 

calculated NMOC exceeds 50 Mg per year, the landfill must 

install controls or demonstrate, using more complex Tier 2 or 3 

procedures, that NMOC emissions are less than 50 Mg per year.

The EPA is soliciting comment on allowing for alternative 

Tier 1 default values and modeling techniques based on the 

amount of organics in the waste. For example, the L0 is a 

function of the moisture content and organic content of the 

waste and L0 decreases as the amount of organic matter decreases. 

Recent studies have shown that average U.S. landfill L0 values 

have decreased 22 percent between 1990 and 2012 (from 102.6 m3

per Mg of waste to 79.8 m3 per Mg of waste) due to increased 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 154 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

recovery of organic materials.29

Subpart HH of the GHGRP also provides separate k-values for 

different types of materials, which could be used as alternate 

Tier 1 default values in the revised NSPS. Sewage sludge and 

food waste have the highest k values, followed by garden waste, 

diapers, paper, textiles, and wood and straw.11

Subpart XXX could allow for 

landfill-specific L0 values to be calculated based on the amount 

of degradable organic carbon (DOC), similar to components of 

Equation HH-1 in the GHGRP for MSW landfills (40 CFR part 98 

subpart HH).

The IPCC model employs a modeling method to accommodate 

separate k and DOC modeling parameters as well as separate 

calculations for six different categories of organic wastes.30

If the EPA incorporates alternative Tier 1 modeling values 

in subpart XXX, the EPA would also need to allow for an 

alternative first-order decay model structure to compute a total 

methane generation rate for the landfill based on the sum of the 

methane generated from each separate waste stream. This 

alternative model may incorporate material-specific k and L0

values, instead of a single pair of k and L0 values applied to 

 

29 Stege, Alex. The Effects of Organic Waste Diversion on LFG Generation and 

Recovery from U.S. Landfills. SWANA’s 37th Annual Landfill Gas Symposium. 2014. 30 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC Guidelines for National 

Greenhouse Gas

Inventories. Volume 5 (Waste), Chapter 3 (Solid Waste Disposal). 2006.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 155 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

bulk MSW. The EPA requests comment on whether the alternative 

modeling parameters and model structure in subpart HH, or other 

default parameters or modeling procedures would be appropriate 

to use for emission threshold determinations in subpart XXX.

2. Site-specific Measurements

Under the proposed subpart XXX, there are three different 

tiers available to an affected landfill to estimate whether or 

not the landfill exceeds the NMOC emission threshold of 50 

Megagrams per year. If an affected landfill fails a Tier 2 test 

(i.e., the calculated NMOC emissions are greater than 50 

Mg/year), then the landfill must conduct Tier 3 testing or 

install and operate an active GCCS. The EPA received comments

while conducting outreach with small entities that recommended a 

new Tier 4 surface emission monitoring (SEM) demonstration to 

allow increased flexibility for landfills that exceed modeled 

NMOC emission rates if they can demonstrate that site-specific 

methane emissions are low. This SEM demonstration would be 

conducted using similar procedures in proposed subpart XXX (see

proposed 40 CFR 60.765(d)). If the monitoring finds that methane 

emissions are below a level that the EPA finalizes in the NSPS 

review, then installation of a GCCS could be delayed. 

As an example, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) 

adopted the Methane Emissions from MSW Landfills regulation in 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 156 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

2009.31

The EPA is soliciting comment about this new Tier 4 option 

or other ideas for more flexible emission threshold 

determination “Tiers” and what implementation procedures for 

each determination may be appropriate. As the EPA takes this new

Tier 4 option under consideration, there are some implementation 

procedures that would need to be established. The EPA requests 

comment on all aspects of implementing a new Tier 4 option, 

including the following specific items: (1) which areas of the 

landfill would be subject to SEM requirements because these

areas would no longer be limited to areas with GCCS installed 

for applicability purposes; (2) what number of exceedances over 

a specified time period that would require GCCS installation 

(proposed subpart XXX specifies a new well must be installed at 

three or more exceedances in a quarter); (3) what frequency of 

SEM demonstration (e.g., quarterly monitoring for landfills 

accepting waste, annual monitoring for closed landfills) is 

Under this rule, if a landfill exceeds the waste-in-place 

and heat input thresholds, the landfill may conduct an SEM 

demonstration prior to being required to install a GCCS. If the 

surface methane emissions show any exceedances above 200 ppm the 

landfill must install a GCCS. This SEM demonstration is similar 

to the Tier 4 option being considered by the EPA.

 

31 California Code of Regulations, title 17, subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 157 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

appropriate; and (4) what exceedance level is appropriate for 

determining if a GCCS must be installed (200 ppm or some other 

level).

X. Impacts of Proposed Revisions

The impacts shown in this section are expressed as the 

incremental difference between facilities affected by baseline 

and the proposed reduction of the NMOC emission threshold to 40 

Mg/yr from the current NSPS level of 50 Mg/yr. There are 

incremental costs, emissions, and secondary impacts associated 

with capturing and/or utilizing the additional LFG under this 

proposal.

As discussed in section V.B of this preamble, for most 

NSPS, impacts are expressed 5 years after the effective date of 

the rule. However, for the landfills NSPS, impacts are expressed 

10 years after (year 2023) because the landfills regulations 

require controls at a given landfill only after the increasing 

NMOC emission rate reaches the level of the regulatory 

threshold. Additionally, the regulations allow the collection 

and control devices to be capped or removed at each landfill 

after certain criteria are met, which includes having the GCCS 

operate a minimum of 15 years. Controls would not be required 

over the same time period for all landfills. The impacts are a 

 6, section 95463, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 158 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

direct result of control; therefore, the annualized impacts 

change from year to year. By 2023, over half of the modeled new 

landfills are expected to have installed controls and thus, the 

EPA considered the impacts of the proposal relative to the 

baseline in 2023, as discussed in section V.B and VI of this 

preamble. The methodology for estimating the impacts of the NSPS 

is discussed in section VI of this preamble and in the docketed 

memorandum “Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts 

of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014.” The results of applying 

this methodology to the population of future landfills 

potentially subject to this proposal are in the docketed 

memorandum “Cost and Emission Impacts Resulting from the 

Landfill NSPS Review. 2014.” The impacts of subpart XXX are 

summarized as the impacts to new landfills estimated to be built 

during the first 5 years of the standards, between 2014 and 

2018. Table 3 of this preamble summarizes the emission 

reductions and costs associated with the control options 

considered.

A. What are the air quality impacts?

The proposal would achieve an additional 13 percent 

reduction in NMOC from landfills constructed since 2013, or 79 

Mg/yr, when compared to the baseline, as shown in Table 6 of 

this preamble. The proposal would also achieve substantial 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 159 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

reductions in methane emissions. These reductions are achieved 

by reducing the NMOC threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 40 Mg/yr.

Table 6. Emission Reductions in 2023 for New Landfills Subject 

to Additional Controls Under Proposed Option 2.5/40

Parameter Quantity

Baseline NMOC Emission 

Reductions(Mg)a 610

Proposed Incremental NMOC Emission 

Reductions (Mg) 79

Baseline Methane Emission Reductions 

(Mg)a 94,800

Proposed Methane Emission Reductions 

(Mg) 12,300

Baseline Methane Emission Reductions 

(Mg CO2e)a 2.4 million

Proposed Methane Emission Reductions 

(Mg CO2e) 307,600

% Emission Reduction from Proposal 13% below baseline a These are the reductions that would be achieved from new landfills if subpart XXX 

retained the same gas collection and control requirements that are in subpart WWW. 

B. What are the water quality and solid waste impacts?

Leachate is the liquid that passes through the landfilled 

waste and strips contaminants from the waste as the leachate

percolates. Precipitation generates the vast majority of 

leachate volume. Installation of a gas collection system will 

generate additional liquid, in the form of gas condensate, and 

it will be routed to the same leachate treatment mechanisms in 

place for precipitation-based leachate. Collected leachate can 

be treated on site or transported off site to wastewater 

treatment facilities. Some landfills have received permits 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 160 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

allowing for recirculation of leachate in the landfill, which 

may further reduce the volume of leachate requiring treatment. 

Additional liquid generated from gas condensate is not expected 

to be significant and insufficient data are available to 

estimate the increases in leachate resulting from expanded gas 

collection and control requirements.

The additional gas collection and control components 

required by this proposal have finite lifetimes (approximately 

15 years) and these pipes and wells will be disposed of at the 

end of their useful life. There are insufficient data to 

quantify the solid waste resulting from disposal of this control 

infrastructure. 

Further, the incremental costs of control for the proposal 

are not expected to have an appreciable market effect on the 

waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of solid waste 

disposed in landfills because the costs for gas collection 

represent a small portion of the overall costs to design, 

construct, and operate a landfill. There is insufficient 

information to quantify the effect increased gas control costs 

might have on the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills 

versus other disposal mechanisms as recycling, waste-to-energy, 

or composting.

C. What are the secondary air impacts?
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 161 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Secondary air impacts may include grid emissions from 

purchasing electricity to operate the GCCS components, byproduct emissions from combustion of landfill gas in flares or 

energy recovery devices, and offsets to conventional grid 

emissions from new landfill gas energy supply. 

The secondary air impacts are presented as net impacts, 

considering both the energy demand and energy supply resulting 

from the proposal. The methodology used to prepare the estimated 

secondary impacts for this preamble is discussed in the docketed 

memorandum “Estimating Secondary Impacts of the Landfills NSPS 

Review. 2014.”

Because NOx and SO2 are covered by capped emissions trading 

programs, and methodological limitations prevent us from 

quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do not estimate an 

increase in secondary air impacts for this rule from additional 

demand for grid purchased electricity to operate control 

systems. The net impacts were computed for mercury and CO2e. 

After considering the offsets from LFG electricity, the impacts 

of the proposal are expected to reduce overall mercury emissions 

by 577 tons per year (tpy) and reduce CO2 emissions by 26,139

tpy. These CO2 emission reductions are in addition to the CO2e 

emission reductions achieved from the direct destruction of 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 162 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

methane in flares or engines presented in Table 6 of this 

preamble.

D. What are the energy impacts?

The proposal is expected to have a very minimal impact on 

energy supply and consumption. Active gas collection systems 

require energy to operate the blowers and pumps and the proposal 

will increase the volume of landfill gas collected. When the 

least cost control is a flare, energy may be purchased from the 

grid to operate the blowers of the landfill gas collection 

system. However, when the least cost control option is an 

engine, the engine may provide this energy to the gas control 

system and then sell the excess to the grid. Considering the 

balance of energy generated and demanded from the estimated 

least cost controls, the proposal is estimated to have a net 

impact of 42,400 megawatt hours (MWh) of additional energy 

supply per year.

E. What are the cost impacts?

To meet the proposed emission limits, a landfill is 

expected to install the least cost control for combusting the 

landfill gas. The cost estimates (described in sections V and VI 

of this preamble) evaluated each landfill to determine whether a 

gas collection and flare or a gas collection with flare and 

engine equipment would be least cost, after considering local 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 163 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

power buyback rates and whether the quantity of landfill gas was 

sufficient to generate electricity. The control costs include 

the costs to install and operate gas collection infrastructure 

such as wells, header pipes, blowers, and an enclosed flare. For 

landfills where the least cost control option was an engine, the 

costs also include the cost to install and operate one or more 

reciprocating internal combustion engines to convert the 

landfill gas into electricity. Revenue from electricity sales 

was incorporated into the net control costs using state-specific 

data on wholesale purchase prices, where engines were deemed to 

be the least cost control option. Testing and monitoring costs 

at controlled landfills include the cost to conduct initial 

performance tests on the enclosed flare or engine control 

equipment, quarterly surface monitoring, continuous combustion 

monitoring, and monthly wellhead monitoring. At uncontrolled 

landfills, the testing and monitoring costs include calculation 

and reporting of NMOC emission rates using either Tier 1 or Tier 

2 testing. 

The nationwide incremental annualized net cost for the 

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

costs. Table 7 of this preamble presents the costs. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 164 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Table 7. Incremental Cost Impacts in 2023 for New Landfills 

Subject to Additional Controls under the Proposal

Type of 

CostOption

Total No. 

of 

Landfills

Incurring 

Costa

Incremental 

Annualized 

Control 

Cost 

($2012)

Average 

Annualized 

Revenue

Average 

Annualized 

Testing 

and 

Monitoring 

Cost

Average Net 

Total 

Annualized 

Cost

ControlTotal Costs

of Baseline ($2012)

13 $465,100

Baseline 

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

Incremental Costs Above Baseline ($2012)

Testing 

and 

Monitoring 

Costs 

Proposed

2.5/40

17 3,178,800 2,713,700 $5,900 471,000

a Under proposal, a total of 11 landfills are expected to install controls by 2023, 

compared with eight landfills under the baseline. A total of 17 landfills meet the 

design capacity criteria of 2.5 million Mg and must report their NMOC emission rates 

under the proposal. This is the same number of landfills expected to report under the 

baseline.

F. What are the economic impacts?

Because of the relatively low cost of the proposal and the 

lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, the EPA is 

unable to estimate the impacts of the options on the supply and 

demand for MSW landfill services. However, because of the 

relatively low incremental costs of the proposal, the EPA does 

not believe the proposal would lead to changes in supply and 

demand for landfill services or waste disposal costs, tipping 

fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. Hence, the 

overall economic impact of the proposal should be minimal on the 

affected industries and their consumers.

Formatted: Left, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0

pt, No widow/orphan control, Keep with next,

Keep lines together, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust

space between Asian text and numbers

Formatted: Font:

Formatted: Font: Not Superscript/ Subscript

Formatted: Font: Not Superscript/ Subscript

Inserted Cells

Inserted Cells

Inserted Cells

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt,

Keep with next, Keep lines together

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font: Font color: Black, Not

Superscript/ Subscript

Deleted Cells

Deleted Cells

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt,

No widow/orphan control, Keep with next, Keep

lines together, Don't adjust space between

Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space

between Asian text and numbers

Formatted: Font:

Formatted: Font color: Black, Not Raised by /

Lowered by

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt,

Keep with next, Keep lines together, Tab stops:

Not at 1.35"

Inserted Cells

Inserted Cells

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt,

Keep with next, Keep lines together

Formatted: Font color: Black, Not Raised by /

Lowered by

Inserted Cells

Formatted: Space Before: 2 pt
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 165 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

G. What are the benefits?

The proposal is expected to achieve additional emission 

reductions from MSW landfills from landfills constructed, 

modified or reconstructed on or after [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. By lowering the NMOC 

emissions threshold to 40 Mg/yr, the proposal would achieve 

additional reductions of 79 Mg NMOC/year, 12,300 Mg/yr methane 

(307,000 Mg/yr CO2e) in 2023. These pollutants are associated 

with substantial health, welfare, and climate effects.

This rulemaking is not an “economically significant 

regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 because it is not 

likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. Therefore, we have not conducted a Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) or a benefits analysis for this rulemaking. 

Although we expect that these avoided emissions will result in 

improvements in air quality and reduce health effects associated 

with exposure to air pollution related emissions, we have not 

quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing these emissions 

for this rulemaking. This does not imply that there are no 

benefits associated with these emission reductions. We provide a 

qualitative description of benefits associated with reducing 

these pollutants below. When determining if the benefits of an 

action exceed its costs, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 166 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

the agency to consider qualitative benefits that are difficult 

to quantity but nevertheless essential to consider.

H. What are the health and welfare effects of LFG emissions? 

1. Health Impacts of VOC and Various Organic HAP

The pollutant regulated under the landfills NSPS is “MSW 

landfill emissions.” Municipal solid waste landfill emissions, 

also commonly referred to as LFG, are a collection of air 

pollutants, including methane and NMOC, some of which are toxic. 

LFG generated from established waste (waste that has been in 

place for at least a year) is typically composed of roughly 50-

percent methane and 50-percent CO2 by volume, with less than 1 

percent NMOC. The NMOC portion of landfill gas can contain a 

variety of air pollutants. NMOC include, including various 

organic HAPs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). If left 

uncontrolled, VOCs can contribute to the formation of groundlevel ozone, a common pollutant with adverse health impacts.

Nearly 30 organic HAPs have been identified in uncontrolled 

landfill gas, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and 

vinyl chloride.32

 

32 U.S. EPA. 1998. Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition, Volume 

I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 2: Solid Waste Disposal, Section 

2.4: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills”. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 167 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Benzene. The EPA’s IRIS database lists benzene as a known 

human carcinogen (causing leukemia) by all routes of exposure, 

and concludes that exposure is associated with additional health 

effects, including genetic changes in both humans and animals 

and increased proliferation of bone marrow cells in mice.33,34,35

The EPA states in its IRIS database that data indicate a causal 

relationship between benzene exposure and acute lymphocytic 

leukemia and suggest a relationship between benzene exposure and 

chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic 

leukemia. The IARC has determined that benzene is a human 

carcinogen and the DHHS has characterized benzene as a known 

human carcinogen.36,37

 

33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Integrated Risk 

Information System File for Benzene. Research and Development, National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 

electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. 34 International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC monographs on the evaluation 

of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals 

and dyestuffs, International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health 

Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345-389, 1982. 35 Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry, V.A. 1992. Synergistic 

action of the benzene metabolite hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity 

of granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad. 

Sci. 89:3691-3695. 36 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1987. Monographs on the 

evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Supplement 7, 

Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.

37 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program 11th 

Report on Carcinogens available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/16183.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 168 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

A number of adverse noncancer health effects including 

blood disorders, such as preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have 

also been associated with long-term exposure to benzene.38,39

Ethylbenzene. Ethylbenzene is a major industrial chemical 

produced by alkylation of benzene. It is a constituent of crude 

petroleum and it is found in gasoline and diesel fuels. Acute 

(short-term) exposure to ethylbenzene in humans results in 

respiratory effects such as throat irritation and chest 

constriction, and irritation of the eyes, and neurological 

effects such as dizziness. Chronic (long-term) exposure of 

humans to ethylbenzene may cause eye and lung irritation, with 

possible adverse effects on the blood. Animal studies have 

reported effects on the blood, liver, and kidneys and endocrine 

system from chronic inhalation exposure to ethylbenzene. No 

information is available on the developmental or reproductive 

effects of ethylbenzene in humans, but animal studies have 

reported developmental effects, including birth defects in 

animals exposed via inhalation. Studies in rodents40

 

38 Aksoy, M. 1989. Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health 

Perspect. 82: 193-197.

reported 

39 Goldstein, B.D. 1988. Benzene toxicity. Occupational medicine. State of the Art 

Reviews 3: 541-554. 40 Maltoni C., Conti B., Giuliano C. and Belpoggi F. 1985. Experimental studies on 

benzene carcinogenicity at the Bologna Institute of Oncology: Current results and 

ongoing research. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 7:415-446.

Maltoni C., Ciliberti A., Pinto C., Soffritti M., Belpoggi F. and Menarini L. 

1997. Results of long-term experimental carcinogenicity studies of the effects of 

gasoline, correlated fuels, and major gasoline aromatics on rats. Annals NY Acad. 

Sci. 837:15-52.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 169 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

increases in the percentage of animals with tumors of the nasal 

and oral cavities in male and female rats exposed to 

ethylbenzene via the oral route. The reports of these studies 

lacked detailed information on the incidence of specific tumors, 

statistical analysis, survival data, and information on 

historical controls, thus the results of these studies were 

considered inconclusive by the International Agency for Research 

on Cancer41 and the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The NTP 

(1999) carried out a chronic inhalation bioassay in mice and 

rats and found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in male 

rats and some evidence in female rats, based on increased 

incidences of renal tubule adenoma or carcinoma in male rats and 

renal tubule adenoma in females.42 NTP (1999) also noted 

increases in the incidence of testicular adenoma in male rats. 

Increased incidences of lung alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma or 

carcinoma were observed in male mice and liver hepatocellular 

adenoma or carcinoma in female mice, which provided some 

evidence of carcinogenic activity in male and female mice43

 

41 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2000. Monographs on the 

Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Some Industrial Chemicals. Vol. 77, p. 

227-266. IARC, Lyon, France.

. IARC 

42 National Toxicology Program (NTP), 1999. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies 

of Ethylbenzene (CAS No. 100-41-4) in F344/N Rats and in B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation 

Studies). Technical Report Series No. 466. NIH Publication No. 99-3956. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National 

Institutes of Health. NTP, Research Triangle Park, NC.

43 National Toxicology Program (NTP), 1999. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies 

of Ethylbenzene (CAS No. 100-41-4) in F344/N Rats and in B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation 

Studies). Technical Report Series No. 466. NIH Publication No. 99-3956. U.S. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 170 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(2000) classified ethylbenzene as Group 2B, possibly 

carcinogenic to humans, based on the NTP studies.44

Toluene.45

The central nervous system (CNS) is the primary target for 

toluene toxicity in both humans and animals for acute and 

chronic exposures. CNS dysfunction (which is often reversible) 

and narcosis have been frequently observed in humans acutely 

exposed to low or moderate levels of toluene by inhalation: 

symptoms include fatigue, sleepiness, headaches, and nausea. 

Central nervous system depression has been reported to occur in 

chronic abusers exposed to high levels of toluene. Symptoms 

Under the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment, there is inadequate information to assess the 

carcinogenic potential of toluene because studies of humans 

chronically exposed to toluene are inconclusive; toluene was not 

carcinogenic in adequate inhalation cancer bioassays of rats and 

mice exposed for life; and increased incidences of mammary 

cancer and leukemia were reported in a lifetime rat oral

bioassay.

 Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National 

Institutes of Health. NTP, Research Triangle Park, NC.

44 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2000. Monographs on the 

Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Some Industrial Chemicals. Vol. 77, p. 

227-266. IARC, Lyon, France. 45 All health effects language for this section came from: U.S. EPA. 2005. “Full 

IRIS Summary for Toluene (CASRN 108-88-3)” Environmental Protection Agency, 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Office of Health and Environmental 

Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. 

Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0118.htm.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 171 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

include ataxia, tremors, cerebral atrophy, nystagmus 

(involuntary eye movements), and impaired speech, hearing, and 

vision. Chronic inhalation exposure of humans to toluene also 

causes irritation of the upper respiratory tract, eye 

irritation, dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep.

Human studies have also reported developmental effects, 

such as CNS dysfunction, attention deficits, and minor 

craniofacial and limb anomalies, in the children of women who 

abused toluene during pregnancy. A substantial database 

examining the effects of toluene in subchronic and chronic 

occupationally exposed humans exists. The weight of evidence 

from these studies indicates neurological effects (i.e., 

impaired color vision, impaired hearing, decreased performance 

in neurobehavioral analysis, and changes in motor and sensory 

nerve conduction velocity, headache, and dizziness) as the most 

sensitive endpoint.

Vinyl Chloride.46

 

46 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 

on Vinyl Chloride. 2000. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/1001.htm.

Most vinyl chloride is used to make 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Acute 

(short-term) exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air 

has resulted in central nervous system effects (CNS), such as 

dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches in humans. Chronic (long-
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 172 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

term) exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation and oral 

exposure in humans has resulted in liver damage. Cancer is a 

major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation, as 

vinyl chloride exposure has been shown to increase the risk of a 

rare form of liver cancer in humans. The EPA has classified 

vinyl chloride as a Group A, “human carcinogen.” IARC has 

classified vinyl chloride as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).47

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). VOC emissions are 

precursors to both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone 

formation. Exposure to PM2.5 and ozone is associated with 

significant public health effects.48,49 PM2.5 is associated with 

health effects, including premature mortality for adults and 

infants, cardiovascular morbidity such as heart attacks, and 

respiratory morbidity such as asthma attacks, acute and chronic 

bronchitis, hospital admissions and emergency room visits, work 

loss days, restricted activity days and respiratory symptoms, as 

well as visibility impairment.50

 

47 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2008. Monographs on the 

Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans. Vol. 97, pp311. Lyon, 

France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available online at 

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol97/index.php.

Ozone is associated with health 

48 U.S. EPA. 2009. “Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final 

Report).” EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment—RTP 

Division. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/. 49 U.S. EPA. 2013. “Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related 

Photochemical Oxidents (Final Report).” EPA-600-R-10-076F. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/. 50 U.S. EPA. 2009. “Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final 

Report).” EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment—RTP 

Division. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 173 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

effects, including premature mortality, lung damage, asthma 

aggravation and other respiratory symptoms, hospital and 

emergency department visits, and school loss days and premature 

mortality, as well as injury to vegetation and climate effects.51

2. Climate Impacts of Methane. Emissions

In addition to the improvements in air quality and 

resulting benefits to human health and non-climate welfare 

effects previously discussed, this rule is expected to result in 

climate co-benefits due to anticipated methane reductions. In 

2012, landfills were the third-largest anthropogenic source of 

methane emissions in the United States, accounting for 

approximately 18 percent of domestic methane emissions.52

 

51 U.S. EPA. 2013. “Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related 

Photochemical Oxidents(Final Report).” EPA-600-R-10-076F. National Center for 

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

Methane 

is a potent GHG with a global warming potential that is 25 times 

greater than CO2 that, once emitted into the atmosphere, absorbs 

terrestrial infrared radiation, which contributes to increased 

global warming and continuing climate change., which accounts 

for methane’s stronger absorption of infrared radiation per ton 

in the atmosphere but also its shorter lifetime (on the order of 

a decade compared to centuries or millennia for carbon 

52 U.S. EPA. 2012. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-

2012. Executive Summary.” Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2014-

Chapter-Executive-Summary.pdf.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 174 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

dioxide).53 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report, methane is the second 

leading long-lived climate forcer after CO2 globally.54

As discussed in detail in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, 

climate change threatens public health in a number of ways: 

direct temperature effects, the effect of higher atmospheric CO2

concentrations on characteristics of air quality, and changes in 

vector-borne diseases. In addition to direct temperature health 

effects and climate change induced air quality effects, there is 

also the potential for increased mortality rates, injuries, 

infectious diseases, and stress-related disorders resulting from 

more frequent extreme weather events. According to the 

assessment literature, under changing climate and environmental 

conditions there will also likely be an increase in the spread 

of serial episodes of food and water-borne pathogens among 

susceptible populations, depending on the pathogens’ survival, 

 

53 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core 

Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, 

Switzerland, 104 pp.

54 Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, L.V. Alexander, S.K. Allen, N.L. 

Bindoff, F.-M. Bréon, J.A. Church, U. Cubasch, S. Emori, P. Forster, P. 

Friedlingstein, N. Gillett, J.M. Gregory, D.L. Hartmann, E. Jansen, B. Kirtman, R. 

Knutti, K. Krishna Kumar, P. Lemke, J. Marotzke, V. Masson-Delmotte, G.A. Meehl, 

I.I. Mokhov, S. Piao, V. Ramaswamy, D.Randall, M. Rhein, M. Rojas, C. Sabine, D. 

Shindell, L.D. Talley, D.G. Vaughan and S.-P. Xie. 2013: “Technical Summary. In: 

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I 

to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” 

[Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 175 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

persistence, habitat range, and transmissioncaused by human 

emissions of GHGs threatens public health in multiple ways. By 

raising average temperatures, climate change increases the 

likelihood of heat waves, which are associated with increased 

deaths and illnesses. While climate change also increases the 

likelihood of reductions in cold-related mortality, evidence 

indicates that the increases in heat mortality will be larger 

than the decreases in cold mortality in the United States. 

Compared to a future without climate change, climate change is 

expected to increase ozone pollution over broad areas of the 

United States, including in the largest metropolitan areas with 

the worst ozone problems, and thereby increase the risk of 

morbidity and mortality. Other public health threats also stem 

from projected increases in intensity or frequency of extreme 

weather associated with climate change, such as increased 

hurricane intensity, increased frequency of intense storms, and 

heavy precipitation. Increased coastal storms and storm surges 

due to rising sea levels are expected to cause increased 

drownings and other health impacts. Children, the elderly, and 

the poor are among the most vulnerable to these climate-related 

health effects. 

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

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 176 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

As with public health, there are multiple pathways in which 

the greenhouse gas air pollution and resultant climate change 

affect climate-sensitive economic sectors and environmental 

media. These sectors include agriculture; forestry; water 

resources; sea level rise in coastal areas; energy, 

infrastructure, and settlements; and ecosystems and wildlife.

As documented in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, climate 

change caused by human emissions of GHGs also threatens public 

welfare in multiple ways. Climate changes are expected to place 

large areas of the country at serious risk of reduced water 

supplies, increased water pollution, and increased occurrence of 

extreme events such as floods and droughts. Coastal areas are 

expected to face increased risks from storm and flooding damage 

to property, as well as adverse impacts from rising sea level, 

such as land loss due to inundation, erosion, wetland 

submergence and habitat loss. Climate change is expected to 

result in an increase in peak electricity demand, and extreme 

weather from climate change threatens energy, transportation, 

and water resource infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate 

ongoing environmental pressures in certain settlements, 

particularly in Alaskan indigenous communities. Climate change 

also is very likely to fundamentally rearrange U.S. ecosystems 

over the 21st century. Though some benefits may balance adverse 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 177 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

effects on agriculture and forestry in the next few decades, the 

body of evidence points towards increasing risks of net adverse 

impacts on U.S. food production, agriculture and forest 

productivity as temperature continues to rise. These impacts are 

global and may exacerbate problems outside the United States 

that raise humanitarian, trade, and national security issues for 

the United States. 

While the EPA recognizes the potential methane reductions 

resulting from the range of changes to the current control 

framework outlined in this proposal would provide for economic 

climate co-benefits, the EPA has not presented monetized 

estimates of these potential co-benefits because the U.S. 

Government (USG) has not released directly modeled estimates of 

the social cost of methane (SC-CH4), a metric that estimates the 

monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in 

methane emissions in a given year. 

In recent rulemakings expected to have impacts on methane 

emissions, the EPA has considered the benefits of methane 

emission reductions in sensitivity analyses using an approach to 

approximate the value of marginal non-CO2 GHG emission 

reductions. In these sensitivity analyses, the global warming 

potential is used to convert the reductions in methane emissions 

to CO2-equivalents, which are then valued using the USG SC-CO2
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 178 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

estimates. The EPA has not presented these estimates in a main 

benefit-cost analysis due to the well-documented limitations 

associated with using GWP and the SC-CO2 to value changes in 

non-CO2 GHG emissions.

Methane is also a precursor to ground-level ozone, a 

health-harmful air pollutant, and a greenhouse gas contributing 

to global warming.. Additionally, ozone is a short-lived climate 

forcer that contributes to global warming. 

In remote areas, methane is a dominant precursor to 

tropospheric ozone formation.55 Approximately 4050 percent of the 

global annual mean ozone increase since preindustrial times is 

believed to be due to anthropogenic methane.56 Projections of 

future emissions also indicate that methane is likely to be a 

key contributor to ozone concentrations in the future.57

 

55 U.S. EPA. 2013. “Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related 

Photochemical Oxidents (Final Report).” EPA-600-R-10-076F. National Center for 

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

Unlike 

NOX and VOC, which affect ozone concentrations regionally and at 

hourly time scales, methane emissions affect ozone

56 Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (HTAP). 2010. Hemispheric 

Transport of Air Pollution 2010. Informal Document No.10. Convention on Long-range 

Transboundary Air Pollution Executive Body 28th Session. ECE/EB.AIR/2010/10 

(Corrected). Chapter 4, pp. 148-149.56 Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. 

Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. 

Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic 

and Natural Radiative Forc¬ing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, 

M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley 

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, 

USA. Pg. 680.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 179 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

concentrations globally and on decadal time scales given 

methane’s relatively long atmospheric lifetime compared to these 

other ozone precursors.58 Reducing methane emissions, therefore, 

canmay contribute to efforts to reduce global background ozone 

concentrations, human exposure to ozone, and that contribute to

the incidence of ozone-related health effects around the 

world.59,60

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

These benefits are global and occur in both urban and 

rural areas.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is a “significant regulatory action” because it 

raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been documented in the docket for this 

action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215). 

 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 59 West, J.J., Fiore, A.M. 2005. “Management of tropospheric ozone by reducing 

methane emissions.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:4685-4691.

Formatted: Highlight
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 180 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 2498.01. 

The information required to be collected is necessary to 

identify the regulated entities subject to the proposed rule and 

to ensure their compliance with the proposed rule. The 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory and are 

being established under authority of CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 

7414). All information other than emissions data submitted as 

part of a report to the agency for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to CAA 

section 114(c) and the EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

part 2, subpart B.

The proposed rule requires very similar information 

collection requirements as the ICR currently approved for 

existing landfills under subpart WWW (ICR number 1557.08). 

However, this ICR will affect new landfills that are 

constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after [INSERT THE 

 60 Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. “Intercontinental impacts of ozone pollution on 

human mortality,” Environ. Sci. & Technol. 43: 6482-6487.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 181 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] that have a design 

capacity of 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million cubic meters. 

The proposed rule will require affected landfills to submit 

a one-time initial design capacity report, and a periodic 

amended design capacity report if the design capacity is 

increased above the threshold. The proposed rule will also 

require an annual or every 5 year submittal of an NMOC emission 

rate report, depending on whether the landfill conducts Tier 1 

or Tier 2 testing, respectively. Prior to installing GCCS, the 

proposed rule requires the landfill owner or operator to submit 

a design plan for approval by the delegated authority. The 

proposed rule also requires a one-time closure report after the 

landfill ceases to accept waste and another one-time report just 

prior to the removal or cessation of gas collection and control 

equipment. The proposed rule requires annual reports to be 

submitted to document any exceedances or periods when the GCCS

was not operating as well an initial performance test of the 

control system. The proposed rule also requires records to be 

maintained for at least 5 years. The types of records depend on 

whether or not the landfill has installed gas collection and 

control equipment and are detailed in the supporting statement 

for ICR number 2498.01.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 182 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

The EPA estimates that no new landfills will install 

controls during the first 3 years after the effective date of 

subpart XXX. Therefore, the burden estimates shown in this 

section represent the burden associated with many of the onetime recordkeeping and reporting requirements as well as the 

reports that are required from landfills with design capacities 

under the proposed threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million 

cubic meters.

The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden 

for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the

effective date of the standards) for the proposal is estimated 

to be 51 hours per response. An estimated eight responses per 

year will be submitted each year and there will be approximately 

12 annual respondents per year. This burden is estimated to cost 

$39,300 per year. This includes an annual labor cost of $33,200

and a purchased services cost of $6,100. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 183 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

To comment on the agency's need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 

methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, which includes this 

ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. Submit any 

comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES 

section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit 

comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: 

Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [INSERT THE DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is 

best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by 

[INSERT THE DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection requirements contained in 

this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 184 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of the proposed rule 

on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business that is primarily engaged in the collection and 

disposal of refuse in a landfill operation as defined by NAICS 

codes 562212 with annual receipts less than $35.5 million; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 

county, town, school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000, and (3) a small organization 

that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The small entities subject to the requirements of this 

proposed rule may include private small businesses and small 

governmental jurisdictions that own or operate landfills.

Although it is unknown how many new landfills will be owned or

operated by small entities, recent trends in the waste industry 

have been towards consolidated ownership among larger companies. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 185 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

The EPA has determined that approximately 10 percent of the 

existing landfills subject to similar regulations (40 CFR Part 

60 subparts WWW and Cc or the corresponding state or federal 

plan) are small entities. 

Because the ownership of new landfills in the future is 

unknown, the EPA performed a screening analysis that assumed new

landfills would be physically and financially similar to and 

have the same type of ownership as recently established 

landfills. Based upon historical data, the screening analysis 

predicted that four new landfills would be owned by small 

entities, but that none would be owned by small governments. 

One of the four small landfills is predicted to be 

incrementally affected by proposal. The screening analysis 

compared estimated annualized compliance costs for the proposal 

to company sales based on historical data. The maximum ratio of 

compliance cost to company revenue was 12 percent for this 

modeled small entity. To determine whether the impacts estimated 

for 2023 are representative of longer-term impacts to small 

landfills, the EPA further investigated 30 years of cost 

information (2014-2043) for the four small model landfills. Over 

the 30-year time frame, two small landfills are never 

incrementally affected by the proposal. One landfill has impacts 

of up to 12 percent (as described above), but impacts of this 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 186 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

magnitude only occur in two years of the 30 years. In general, 

average impacts over the 30-year timeframe are approximately 1 

percent or less and maximum impacts are less than 3 percent. In 

some years, incremental impacts are negative, indicating that 

the proposed provisions are less costly than the baseline NSPS. 

These impacts are shown in more detail in the Economic Impact 

Analysis.

Based upon this analysis, we conclude there will not be 

SISNOSE arising from this proposal. First, these proposed 

revisions do not impact a substantial number of small entities. 

Only two small entities are potentially impacted, which does not 

constitute a substantial number. Additionally, the impacts to 

these small entities are not significant. Only one of the two 

landfills has impacts greater than 3 percent of sales in two of 

the 30 years examined. The costs incurred by small entities are 

the result of having to install controls earlier than would have 

been the case under the existing NSPS. (These costs would have 

been incurred in later years under the existing NSPS.) There 

will continue be a lag between the opening of the landfill and 

the implementation of controls during which the site will be 

generating revenue through tipping fees. This analysis only 

considers control costs and revenues associated with the 

collection of landfill gas and does not estimate the future 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 187 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

collection of tipping fees which will be set at a level to 

adequately plan for known, future requirements. 

Given the trend toward larger landfills, it is possible 

that there will be fewer small landfills in the future than in 

data from the past 5 years. Additionally, while we assume that 

the new landfills will be financially and operationally similar 

to recently opened landfills, numerous factors could influence 

the actual size, location, and revenue of landfills that open in 

the future. Based upon this analysis, we conclude there will not 

be significant impact on a substantial number of small entities

(SISNOSE) arising from this proposal. The model landfills are 

based on landfills currently in operation that will not be 

subject to the proposed revisions. All small landfills that will 

be subject to these proposed revisions will make decisions about 

their development and operations with full knowledge of the 

requirements proposed.

Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because the EPA has now 

determined that this proposal would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the 

EPA had originally convened a panel to obtain advice and 

recommendations from small entity representatives potentially 

subject to this rule’s requirements. The panel was not formally 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 188 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

concluded; however, a summary of the outreach conducted and the 

written comments submitted by the small entity representatives 

that the SBAR Panel consulted can be found in the docket for 

this rulemaking. Although this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of 

this rule on small entities. For more information, please refer

to the economic impact and small business analysis that is in 

the docket. We continue to be interested in the potential 

impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal agencies, unless 

otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and 

the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to 

provide notice to small governments that might be significantly 

or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan 

must enable officials of affected small governments to have 

meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 189 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

and must inform, educate, and advise small governments on 

compliance with the regulatory requirements.

This action does not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 

in any one year. This action applies to landfills that were 

constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after [INSERT THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Impacts resulting 

from the proposed subpart XXX are far below the applicable 

threshold. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

In developing this rule, the EPA consulted with small 

governments pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of 

the UMRA to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the 

rule that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The EPA held meetings as discussed in section XI.E 

of this preamble under Federalism consultations. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will 

not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 190 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

13132. The proposed rule will not have impacts of $25 million or 

more in any one year. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does 

not apply to this action, the EPA did consult with state and 

local officials and representatives of state and local 

governments in developing this action. The EPA conducted a 

Federalism Consultation Outreach Meeting on September 10, 2013. 

Due to interest in that meeting, additional outreach meetings 

were held on November 7, 2013 and November 14, 2013. 

Participants included the National Governors’ Association, the 

National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State 

Governments, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference 

of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the 

International City/County Management Association, the National 

Association of Towns and Townships, the County Executives of 

America, the Environmental Council of States, National 

Association of Clean Air Agencies, Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, environmental 

agency representatives from 43 states, and approximately 60 

representatives from city and county governments. The comment 

period was extended to allow sufficient time for interested 

parties to review briefing materials and provide comments. 

Concerns raised during that consultation include: implementation 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 191 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

concerns associated with shortening of gas collection system 

installation and/or expansion timeframes, the need for clarity 

in regards to the definition of landfill gas treatment, concerns 

regarding significant lowering of the design capacity or 

emission thresholds, the need for clarifications associated with 

wellhead operating parameters and the need for consistent, clear 

and rigorous surface monitoring requirements. The EPA provided 

responses to these concerns in sections V, VII, and VIII of this

preamble. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with 

EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state 

and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on 

this proposed action from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Based 

on methodology used to predict future landfills as outlined in 

the docketed memorandum “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the 

Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 

2014,” future tribal landfills are not anticipated to be large 

enough to become subject to the rulemaking. Thus, Executive 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 192 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health 

or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 

5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it 

does not establish an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it 

is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have 

concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse

energy effects because there are a small number of new landfills 

expected to be subject control requirements under subpart XXX in 

2023. Further, the energy demanded to operate these control 

systems will be offset by additional energy supply from landfill 

gas energy projects.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 193 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS.

The EPA conducted searches for VCS for the Landfills NSPS 

through the enhanced National Service Standards Network Database 

managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The 

EPA also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched 

their databases. Searches were conducted for EPA Methods 2E, 3, 

3A, 3C, 21, 25, and 25C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No 

applicable voluntary standards were identified for Methods 2E, 

21, and 25C.

The search identified nine VCS that were potentially 

applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After 

reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined that the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 194 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

nine candidate VCS (ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ASTM 

D3154-00 (2006), ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), 

ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), 

CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), ISO 14965:2000(E)) identified for 

measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to 

emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to 

lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other 

important technical and policy considerations. The EPA’s review, 

including review comments for these nine methods, is documented 

in the memorandum, “Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for 

Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 40 

CFR Part 60, Subpart XXX” in the docket for this rulemaking 

(EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215).

The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 

rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 195 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low income populations in 

the United States.

To gain a better understanding of the landfill source 

category and near-source populations, the EPA conducted a 

proximity analysis at a study area of 3 miles of the source 

category for this rulemaking. This analysis identifies, on a 

limited basis, the subpopulations that may be exposed to air 

pollution from the regulated sources and thus are expected to 

benefit most from this regulation. This analysis does not 

identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly 

affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the 

level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. To the 

extent that any minority, low-income or indigenous subpopulation 

is disproportionately impacted by hazardous air emissions due to 

the proximity of their homes to sources of these emissions, that 

subpopulation also stands to see increased environmental and 

health benefit from the emission reductions called for by this 

rule.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review

page

Page 196 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

In regards to the landfills NSPS, the EPA has concluded 

that it is not practicable to determine whether there would be 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous 

populations from this proposed rule because it is unknown where 

new facilities will be located. The demographic analysis results 

and the details concerning their development are presented in 

the March 25, 2014 document entitled, “2014 Environmental 

Justice Screening Report for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” a 

copy of which is available in the docket for this rulemaking 

(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215).
Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

pagePage 197 of 276

249

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font:

Bold Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Normal, Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Font: Bold

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

.

Dated:

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator.

Formatted: Line spacing: Double
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 198 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, 

chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 60—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read 

as follows:

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

2. Add subpart XXX to read as follows: 

Sec.

Subpart XXX—Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills That Commenced Construction, 

Reconstruction, or Modification on or After [INSERT THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

§ 60.760 Applicability, designation of affected source, and 

delegation of authority.

§ 60.761 Definitions.

§ 60.762 Standards for air emissions from municipal solid 

waste landfills.

§ 60.763 Operational standards for collection and control 

systems.

§ 60.764 Test methods and procedures.

§ 60.765 Compliance provisions.

§ 60.766 Monitoring of operations.

§ 60.767 Reporting requirements.

§ 60.768 Recordkeeping requirements.

§ 60.769 Specifications for active collection systems.

§Subpart XXX—Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills That Commenced Construction,

Formatted: Left: 1.25", Right: 1.25"

Formatted: Underline

Formatted: Font: Calibri

Formatted: Font: Calibri

Formatted: Font: Calibri

Formatted: Font: Calibri

Formatted: Font: Calibri

Formatted: Font: Calibri

Formatted: Font: Calibri

Formatted: Font: Calibri

Formatted: Font: Calibri

Formatted: Font: Calibri

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing:

Double
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 199 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Reconstruction, or Modification on or After [INSERT THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

§ 60.760 Applicability, designation of affected source, and 

delegation of authority.

(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each 

municipal solid waste landfill that commenced construction, 

reconstruction or modification on or after [INSERT THE DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Physical or 

operational changes made to a MSW landfill solely to comply 

with subpart Cc or WWW of this part are not considered 

construction, reconstruction, or modification for the 

purposes of this section.

(b) The following authorities shall be retained by the 

Administrator and not transferred to the state: 

§ 60.764(a)(5).

(c) Activities required by or conducted pursuant to a 

CERCLA, RCRA, or state remedial action are not considered 

construction, reconstruction, or modification for purposes 

of this subpart.

§ 60.761 Definitions.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 200 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein 

shall have the meaning given them in the Act or in subpart 

A of this part.

Active collection system means a gas collection system 

that uses gas mover equipment.

Active landfill means a landfill in which solid waste 

is being placed or a landfill that is planned to accept 

waste in the future.

Closed landfill means a landfill in which solid waste 

is no longer being placed, and in which no additional solid 

wastes will be placed without first filing a notification 

of modification as prescribed under § 60.7(a)(4). Once a 

notification of modification has been filed, and additional 

solid waste is placed in the landfill, the landfill is no 

longer closed.

Closure means that point in time when a landfill 

becomes a closed landfill.

Commercial solid waste means all types of solid waste 

generated by stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and 

other nonmanufacturing activities, excluding residential 

and industrial wastes.

Controlled landfill means any landfill at which 

collection and control systems are required under this 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 201 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

subpart as a result of the nonmethane organic compounds 

emission rate. The landfill is considered controlled at the 

time a collection and control system design plan is 

submitted in compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(i).

Design capacity means the maximum amount of solid 

waste a landfill can accept, as indicated in terms of 

volume or mass in the most recent permit issued by the 

state, local, or Tribal agency responsible for regulating 

the landfill, plus any in-place waste not accounted for in 

the most recent permit. If the owner or operator chooses to 

convert the design capacity from volume to mass or from 

mass to volume to demonstrate its design capacity is less 

than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters, the 

calculation must include a site specific density, which 

must be recalculated annually.

Disposal facility means all contiguous land and 

structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the 

land used for the disposal of solid waste.

Emission rate cutoff means the threshold annual 

emission rate to which a landfill compares its estimated 

emission rate to determine if control under the regulation 

is required.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 202 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Enclosed combustor means an enclosed firebox which 

maintains a relatively constant limited peak temperature 

generally using a limited supply of combustion air. An 

enclosed flare is considered an enclosed combustor.

Flare means an open combustor without enclosure or 

shroud.

Gas mover equipment means the equipment (i.e., fan, 

blower, compressor) used to transport landfill gas through 

the header system.

Household waste means any solid waste (including 

garbage, trash, and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived 

from households (including, but not limited to, single and 

multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger 

stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and 

day-use recreation areas). Household waste does not include 

fully segregated yard waste.

Industrial solid waste means solid waste generated by 

manufacturing or industrial processes that is not a 

hazardous waste regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, parts 264 and 265 of this 

title. Such waste may include, but is not limited to, waste 

resulting from the following manufacturing processes: 

electric power generation; fertilizer/agricultural 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 203 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

chemicals; food and related products/by-products; inorganic 

chemicals; iron and steel manufacturing; leather and 

leather products; nonferrous metals 

manufacturing/foundries; organic chemicals; plastics and 

resins manufacturing; pulp and paper industry; rubber and 

miscellaneous plastic products; stone, glass, clay, and 

concrete products; textile manufacturing; transportation 

equipment; and water treatment. This term does not include 

mining waste or oil and gas waste.

Interior well means any well or similar collection 

component located inside the perimeter of the landfill 

waste. A perimeter well located outside the landfilled 

waste is not an interior well.

Landfill means an area of land or an excavation in 

which wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is 

not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection 

well, or waste pile as those terms are defined under §257.2 

of this title.

Lateral expansion means a horizontal expansion of the 

waste boundaries of an existing MSW landfill. A lateral 

expansion is not a modification unless it results in an 

increase in the design capacity of the landfill.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 204 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Modification means an increase in the permitted mass 

or volume design capacity of the landfill by either 

horizontal or vertical expansion based on its permitted 

design capacity as of [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Modification does not occur until 

the owner or operator commences construction on the 

horizontal or vertical expansion.

Municipal solid waste landfill or MSW landfill means 

an entire disposal facility in a contiguous geographical 

space where household waste is placed in or on land. An MSW 

landfill may also receive other types of RCRA Subtitle D 

wastes (§257.2 of this title) such as commercial solid 

waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small 

quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste. 

Portions of an MSW landfill may be separated by access 

roads. An MSW landfill may be publicly or privately owned. 

An MSW landfill may be a new MSW landfill, an existing MSW 

landfill, or a lateral expansion.

Municipal solid waste landfill emissions or MSW 

landfill emissions means gas generated by the decomposition 

of organic waste deposited in an MSW landfill or derived 

from the evolution of organic compounds in the waste.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 205 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

NMOC means nonmethane organic compounds, as measured 

according to the provisions of § 60.764.

Nondegradable waste means any waste that does not 

decompose through chemical breakdown or microbiological 

activity. Examples are, but are not limited to, concrete, 

municipal waste combustor ash, and metals.

Passive collection system means a gas collection 

system that solely uses positive pressure within the 

landfill to move the gas rather than using gas mover 

equipment.

Segregated yard waste means vegetative matter 

resulting exclusively from the cutting of grass, the 

pruning and/or removal of bushes, shrubs, and trees, the 

weeding of gardens, and other landscaping maintenance 

activities.

Sludge means any solid, semisolid, or liquid waste 

generated from a municipal, commercial, or industrial 

wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 

or air pollution control facility, exclusive of the treated 

effluent from a wastewater treatment plant.

Solid waste means any garbage, sludge from a 

wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, 

or air pollution control facility and other discarded 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 206 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained 

gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 

mining, and agricultural operations, and from community 

activities, but does not include solid or dissolved 

material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved 

materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 

discharges that are point sources subject to permits under 

33 U.S.C. 1342, or source, special nuclear, or by-product 

material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended (42 U.S.C 2011 et seq.).

Sufficient density means any number, spacing, and 

combination of collection system components, including 

vertical wells, horizontal collectors, and surface 

collectors, necessary to maintain emission and migration 

control as determined by measures of performance set forth 

in this part.

Sufficient extraction rate means a rate sufficient to 

maintain a negative pressure at all wellheads in the 

collection system without causing air infiltration, 

including any wellheads connected to the system as a result 

of expansion or excess surface emissions, for the life of 

the blower.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 207 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Treated landfill gas means landfill gas processed in a 

treatment system as defined in this subpart. 

Treatment system means a system that has an absolute 

filtration rating of 10 microns or less, lowers the water 

dew point of the landfill gas to 45 degrees Fahrenheit or 

lower with a de-watering process, and compresses the 

landfill gas. 

Untreated landfill gas means any landfill gas that is 

not treated landfill gas.

§ 60.762 Standards for air emissions from municipal solid 

waste landfills.

(a) Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a 

design capacity less than 2.5 million megagrams by mass or 

2.5 million cubic meters by volume shall submit an initial 

design capacity report to the Administrator as provided in 

§ 60.767(a). The landfill may calculate design capacity in 

either megagrams or cubic meters for comparison with the 

exemption values. Any density conversions shall be 

documented and submitted with the report. Submittal of the 

initial design capacity report shall fulfill the 

requirements of this subpart except as provided for in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 208 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(1) The owner or operator shall submit to the 

Administrator an amended design capacity report, as 

provided for in § 60.767(a)(3).

(2) When an increase in the maximum design capacity of 

a landfill exempted from the provisions of § 60.762(b) 

through § 60.769 of this subpart on the basis of the design 

capacity exemption in paragraph (a) of this section results 

in a revised maximum design capacity equal to or greater 

than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters, 

the owner or operator shall comply with the provision of 

paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a 

design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million 

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters, shall either comply 

with paragraph (b)(2) of this section or calculate an NMOC 

emission rate for the landfill using the procedures 

specified in § 60.764. The NMOC emission rate shall be 

recalculated annually, except as provided in 

§ 60.767(b)(1)(ii) of this subpart. The owner or operator 

of an MSW landfill subject to this subpart with a design 

capacity greater than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams and 

2.5 million cubic meters is subject to part 70 or 71 

permitting requirements.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 209 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(1) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is less than 

40 megagrams per year, the owner or operator shall:

(i) Submit an annual emission report to the 

Administrator, except as provided for in 

§ 60.767(b)(1)(ii); and

(ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission rate annually using 

the procedures specified in § 60.764(a)(1) until such time 

as the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater 

than 40 megagrams per year, or the landfill is closed.

(A) If the NMOC emission rate, upon recalculation 

required in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, is equal 

to or greater than 40 megagrams per year, the owner or 

operator shall install and start up a collection and 

control system in compliance with paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section.

(B) If the landfill is permanently closed, a closure 

notification shall be submitted to the Administrator as 

provided for in § 60.767(d).

(2) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to 

or greater than 40 megagrams per year, the owner or 

operator shall:
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 210 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(i) Submit a collection and control system design plan 

prepared by a professional engineer to the Administrator 

within 1 year:

(A) The collection and control system as described in 

the plan shall meet the design requirements of paragraph 

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

(B) The collection and control system design plan 

shall include any alternatives to the operational 

standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, 

monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting provisions of 

§§ 60.763 through 60.768 proposed by the owner or operator.

(C) The collection and control system design plan 

shall either conform with specifications for active 

collection systems in § 60.769 or include a demonstration 

to the Administrator's satisfaction of the sufficiency of 

the alternative provisions to § 60.769.

(D) If the owner or operator chooses to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission control requirements of this 

subpart using a treatment system as defined in this subpart 

and according to the requirements of paragraph 

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

control system design plan must include:
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 211 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(1) Design specifications for the filtration, dewatering, and compression systems that demonstrate 

conformance with the treatment system definition contained 

in § 60.761.

(2) The minimum pressure drop across the filtration 

system, or other monitoring parameter(s) and operating 

ranges that indicate proper performance of the filtration 

system. The collection and control plan must include 

information, such as manufacturer’s recommendations or 

engineering analyses, to justify the minimum pressure drop 

or operating ranges for other monitoring parameters.

(3) The landfill gas temperature for a chiller-based 

de-watering system, the landfill gas dew point for a nonchiller-based de-watering system, or other operating 

parameters and operating ranges that indicate proper 

performance of the de-watering system. The collection and

control plan must include information, such as 

manufacturer’s recommendations or engineering analyses, to 

justify the operating ranges for temperature, dew point, or 

other monitoring parameters.

(E) The Administrator shall review the information 

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

of this section and either approve it, disapprove it, or 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 212 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

request that additional information be submitted. Because 

of the many site-specific factors involved with landfill 

gas system design, alternative systems may be necessary. A 

wide variety of system designs are possible, such as 

vertical wells, combination horizontal and vertical 

collection systems, or horizontal trenches only, leachate 

collection components, and passive systems.

(ii) Install and start up a collection and control 

system that captures the gas generated within the landfill 

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

(b)(2)(iii) of this section within 30 months after the 

first annual report in which the emission rate equals or 

exceeds 40 megagrams per year, unless Tier 2 or Tier 3 

sampling demonstrates that the emission rate is less than 

40 megagrams per year, as specified in § 60.767(c)(1) or 

(2).

(A) An active collection system shall:

(1) Be designed to handle the maximum expected gas 

flow rate from the entire area of the landfill that 

warrants control over the intended use period of the gas 

control system equipment;
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 213 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

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

cells in the landfill in which the initial solid waste has 

been placed for a period of:

(i) 5 years or more if active; or

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

(3) Collect gas at a sufficient extraction rate;

(4) Be designed to minimize off-site migration of 

subsurface gas.

(B) A passive collection system shall:

(1) Comply with the provisions specified in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(ii)(A)(1), (2), and (2)(ii)(A)(4) of this section.

(2) Be installed with liners on the bottom and all 

sides in all areas in which gas is to be collected. The 

liners shall be installed as required under §258.40.

(iii) Route all the collected gas to a control system 

that complies with the requirements in either paragraph 

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

(A) An non-enclosed flare designed and operated in 

accordance with § 60.18 except as noted in § 60.764(e);

(B) A control system designed and operated to reduce 

NMOC by 98 weight-percent, or, when an enclosed combustion 

device is used for control, to either reduce NMOC by 98 

weight percent or reduce the outlet NMOC concentration to 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 214 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

less than 20 parts per million by volume, dry basis as 

hexane at 3 percent oxygen. The reduction efficiency or 

parts per million by volume shall be established by an 

initial performance test to be completed no later than 180 

days after the initial startup of the approved control 

system using the test methods specified in § 60.764(d). The 

performance test is not required for boilers and process 

heaters with design heat input capacities equal to or 

greater than 44 megawatts that burn landfill gas for 

compliance with this subpart.

(1) If a boiler or process heater is used as the 

control device, the landfill gas stream shall be introduced 

into the flame zone.

(2) The control device shall be operated within the 

parameter ranges established during the initial or most 

recent performance test. The operating parameters to be 

monitored are specified in § 60.766;

(C) Route the collected gas to a treatment system that 

processes the collected gas for subsequent sale or 

beneficial use such as fuel for combustion, production of 

vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline 

injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical 

manufacturing process. The treated gas must be used as a 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 215 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

fuel, or must be used for other beneficial uses such as 

vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline 

injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical 

manufacturing process. Venting of treated landfill gas to 

the ambient air or combustion in a flare is not allowed 

under this option. (If flares are used, they must meet 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B)).

(D) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the 

gas treatment system shall be subject to the requirements 

of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section. For 

purposes of this subpart, atmospheric vents located on the 

condensate storage tank are not part of the treatment 

system and are exempt from the requirements of paragraph 

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

(E) Landfill gas that is treated for the uses listed 

in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) of this section must be treated 

in a treatment system as defined in § 60.761 that meets the 

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

landfill owner or operator who is treating landfill gas for 

the uses listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this section must 

apply for approval of monitoring parameters that 

demonstrate that the landfill gas is meeting the definition 

of treated landfill gas in § 60.761. The landfill owner or 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 216 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

operator must meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements listed in §§ 60.766, 60.767, and 

60.768 that apply to treatment systems.

(iv) Operate the collection and control device 

installed to comply with this subpart in accordance with 

the provisions of §§ 60.763, 60.765 and 60.766.

(v) The collection and control system may be capped or 

removed provided that all the conditions of paragraphs 

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

(A) The landfill shall be a closed landfill as defined 

in § 60.761 of this subpart. A closure report shall be 

submitted to the Administrator as provided in § 60.767(d);

(B) The collection and control system shall have been 

in operation a minimum of 15 years; and

(C) Following the procedures specified in § 60.764(b) 

of this subpart, the calculated NMOC gas produced by the 

landfill shall be less than 40 megagrams per year on three 

successive test dates. The test dates shall be no less than 

90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart.

(c) For purposes of obtaining an operating permit 

under title V of the Act, the owner or operator of a MSW 

landfill subject to this subpart with a design capacity 

less than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 217 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

is not subject to the requirement to obtain an operating 

permit for the landfill under part 70 or 71 of this 

chapter, unless the landfill is otherwise subject to either 

part 70 or 71. For purposes of submitting a timely 

application for an operating permit under part 70 or 71, 

the owner or operator of a MSW landfill subject to this 

subpart with a design capacity greater than or equal to 2.5 

million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters, and not 

otherwise subject to either part 70 or 71, becomes subject 

to the requirements of §§70.5(a)(1)(i) or 71.5(a)(1)(i) of 

this chapter, regardless of when the design capacity report 

is actually submitted, no later than:

(1) [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS 

PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for MSW landfills that 

commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on 

or after [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] but before [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER];

(2) Ninety days after the date of commenced 

construction, modification, or reconstruction for MSW 

landfills that commence construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS 

PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 218 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(d) When a MSW landfill subject to this subpart is 

closed, the owner or operator is no longer subject to the 

requirement to maintain an operating permit under part 70 

or 71 of this chapter for the landfill if the landfill is 

not otherwise subject to the requirements of either part 70 

or 71 and if either of the following conditions are met:

(1) The landfill was never subject to the requirement 

for a control system under paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section; or

(2) The owner or operator meets the conditions for 

control system removal specified in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of 

this section.

§ 60.763 Operational standards for collection and control 

systems.

Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill with a gas 

collection and control system used to comply with the 

provisions of § 60.762(b)(2)(ii) of this subpart shall:

(a) Operate the collection system such that gas is 

collected from each area, cell, or group of cells in the 

MSW landfill in which solid waste has been in place for:

(1) 5 years or more if active; or

(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade;
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 219 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(b) Operate the collection system with negative 

pressure at each wellhead except under the following 

conditions:

(1) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or 

operator shall record instances when positive pressure 

occurs in efforts to avoid a fire. These records shall be 

submitted with the annual reports as provided in 

§ 60.767(f)(1);

(2) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner 

or operator shall develop acceptable pressure limits in the 

design plan;

(3) A decommissioned well. A well may experience a 

static positive pressure after shut down to accommodate for 

declining flows. All design changes shall be approved by 

the Administrator;

(c) Operate each interior wellhead in the collection 

system with a landfill gas temperature less than 55 °C and 

with either a nitrogen level less than 20 percent or an 

oxygen level less than 5 percent. The owner or operator may 

establish a higher operating temperature, nitrogen, or 

oxygen value at a particular well. A higher operating value 

demonstration must be submitted to the Administrator for 

approval and must include supporting data demonstrating 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 220 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

that the elevated parameter neither causes fires nor 

significantly inhibits anaerobic decomposition by killing 

methanogens. The demonstration must satisfy both criteria 

in order to be approved (i.e., neither causing fires nor 

killing methanogens is acceptable).

(1) The nitrogen level shall be determined using 

Method 3C, unless an alternative test method is established 

as allowed by § 60.762(b)(2)(i) of this subpart.

(2) Unless an alternative test method is established 

as allowed by § 60.762(b)(2)(i) of this subpart, the oxygen 

shall be determined by an oxygen meter using Method 3A or 

3C except that:

(i) The span shall be set so that the regulatory limit 

is between 20 and 50 percent of the span;

(ii) A data recorder is not required;

(iii) Only two calibration gases are required, a zero 

and span, and ambient air may be used as the span;

(iv) A calibration error check is not required;

(v) The allowable sample bias, zero drift, and 

calibration drift are ±10 percent.

(d) Operate the collection system so that the methane 

concentration is less than 500 parts per million above 

background at the surface of the landfill. To determine if 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 221 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

this level is exceeded, the owner or operator shall conduct 

surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area 

and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 meter 

intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed 

vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover and all cover 

penetrations. The owner or operator may establish an 

alternative traversing pattern that ensures equivalent 

coverage. A surface monitoring design plan shall be 

developed that includes a topographical map with the 

monitoring route and the rationale for any site-specific 

deviations from the 30 meter intervals. Areas with steep 

slopes or other dangerous areas may be excluded from the 

surface testing.

(e) Operate the system such that all collected gases 

are vented to a control system designed and operated in 

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

collection or control system is not operating, the gas 

mover system shall be shut down and all valves in the 

collection and control system contributing to venting of 

the gas to the atmosphere shall be closed within 1 hour; 

and
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 222 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(f) Operate the control system at all times when the 

collected gas is routed to the system.

(g) If monitoring demonstrates that the operational 

requirements in paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section 

are not met, corrective action shall be taken as specified 

in § 60.765(a)(3) through (5) or § 60.765(c) of this 

subpart. If corrective actions are taken as specified in 

§ 60.765, the monitored exceedance is not a violation of 

the operational requirements in this section.

§ 60.764 Test methods and procedures.

(a)(1) The landfill owner or operator shall calculate 

the NMOC emission rate using either the equation provided 

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

provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. Both 

equations may be used if the actual year-to-year solid 

waste acceptance rate is known, as specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) of this section, for part of the life of the 

landfill and the actual year-to-year solid waste acceptance 

rate is unknown, as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 

this section, for part of the life of the landfill. The 

values to be used in both equations are 0.05 per year for 

k, 170 cubic meters per megagram for LO, and 4,000 parts per 

million by volume as hexane for the CNMOC. For landfills 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 223 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

located in geographical areas with a thirty year annual 

average precipitation of less than 25 inches, as measured 

at the nearest representative official meteorologic site, 

the k value to be used is 0.02 per year.

(i) The following equation shall be used if the actual 

year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate is known.

Where:

MNMOC = Total NMOC emission rate from the landfill, 

megagrams per year.

k = methane generation rate constant, year−1.

Lo = methane generation potential, cubic meters 

per megagram solid waste.

Mi = mass of solid waste in the ith section, 

megagrams.

ti = age of the ith section, years.

CNMOC = concentration of NMOC, parts per million by 

volume as hexane.

3.6 × 10−9 = conversion factor.

The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be 

subtracted from the total mass of solid waste in a 

particular section of the landfill when calculating the 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 224 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

value for Mi if documentation of the nature and amount of 

such wastes is maintained

(ii) The following equation shall be used if the 

actual year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate is unknown.

MNMOC = 2LoR (e−kc−e−kt) CNMOC(3.6 × 10−9)

Where:

MNMOC = mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per 

year.

Lo = methane generation potential, cubic meters 

per megagram solid waste.

R = average annual acceptance rate, megagrams 

per year.

k = methane generation rate constant, year−1.

t = age of landfill, years.

CNMOC = concentration of NMOC, parts per million by 

volume as hexane.

c = time since closure, years; for active 

landfill c=O and e−kc1.

3.6×10−9 = conversion factor.

The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be 

subtracted from the total mass of solid waste in a 

particular section of the landfill when calculating the 

value of R, if documentation of the nature and amount of 

such wastes is maintained.

(2) Tier 1. The owner or operator shall compare the 

calculated NMOC mass emission rate to the standard of 40 

megagrams per year.

Formatted: Not Superscript/ Subscript
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 225 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(i) If the NMOC emission rate calculated in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section is less than 40 megagrams per year, 

then the landfill owner shall submit an emission rate 

report as provided in § 60.767(b)(1), and shall recalculate 

the NMOC mass emission rate annually as required under 

§ 60.762(b)(1).

(ii) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to 

or greater than 40 megagrams per year, then the landfill 

owner shall either comply with § 60.762(b)(2), or determine 

a site-specific NMOC concentration and recalculate the NMOC 

emission rate using the procedures provided in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section.

(3) Tier 2. The landfill owner or operator shall 

determine the NMOC concentration using the following 

sampling procedure. The landfill owner or operator shall 

install at least two sample probes per hectare of landfill 

surface that has retained waste for at least 2 years. If 

the landfill is larger than 25 hectares in area, only 50 

samples are required. The sample probes should be located 

to avoid known areas of nondegradable solid waste. The 

owner or operator shall collect and analyze one sample of 

landfill gas from each probe to determine the NMOC 

concentration using Method 25 or 25C of appendix A of this 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 226 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

part. Taking composite samples from different probes into a 

single cylinder is allowed; however, equal sample volumes 

must be taken from each probe. For each composite, the 

sampling rate, collection times, beginning and ending 

cylinder vacuums, or alternative volume measurements must 

be recorded to verify that composite volumes are equal. 

Composite sample volumes should not be less than one liter 

unless evidence can be provided to substantiate the 

accuracy of smaller volumes. Terminate compositing before 

the cylinder approaches ambient pressure where measurement 

accuracy diminishes. If more than the required number of 

samples are taken, all samples must be used in the 

analysis. The landfill owner or operator must divide the 

NMOC concentration from Method 25 or 25C of appendix A of 

this part by six to convert from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as 

hexane. If the landfill has an active or passive gas 

removal system in place, Method 25 or 25C samples may be 

collected from these systems instead of surface probes 

provided the removal system can be shown to provide 

sampling as representative as the two sampling probe per 

hectare requirement. For active collection systems, samples 

may be collected from the common header pipe. The sample 

location on the common header pipe must be before any gas 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 227 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

moving, condensate removal, or treatment system equipment. 

For active collection systems, a minimum of three samples 

must be collected from the header pipe.

(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 60.8), the owner or 

operator must submit the results of the performance test, 

including any associated fuel analyses, according to the 

method specified by either paragraph (a)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of 

this section.

(A) For data collected using test methods supported by 

the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the 

EPA’s ERT website 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), the owner or 

operator must submit the results of the performance test to 

the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI) accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp), unless otherwise 

approved by the Administrator. Performance test data must 

be submitted in a file format generated through the use of 

the EPA’s ERT. Owners or operators who claim that some of 

the performance test information being submitted is 

confidential business information (CBI) must submit a 

complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT, 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 228 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 

flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly 

marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBIRoberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office, 

Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page 

Rd., Durham, NC 27703 of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. The same file with the 

CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(B) For data collected using test methods that are not 

supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

website, the owner or operator must submit the results of 

the performance test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4.

(ii) The landfill owner or operator shall recalculate 

the NMOC mass emission rate using the equations provided in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section and using 

the average NMOC concentration from the collected samples 

instead of the default value in the equation provided in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 229 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(iii) If the resulting mass emission rate calculated 

using the site-specific NMOC concentration is equal to or 

greater than 40 megagrams per year, then the landfill owner 

or operator shall either comply with § 60.762(b)(2), or 

determine the site-specific methane generation rate 

constant and recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the 

site-specific methane generation rate using the procedure 

specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

(iv) If the resulting NMOC mass emission rate is less 

than 40 megagrams per year, the owner or operator shall 

submit a periodic estimate of the emission rate report as 

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

NMOC concentration every 5 years using the methods 

specified in this section.

(4) Tier 3. The site-specific methane generation rate 

constant shall be determined using the procedures provided 

in Method 2E of appendix A of this part. The landfill owner 

or operator shall estimate the NMOC mass emission rate 

using equations in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of 

this section and using a site-specific methane generation 

rate constant k, and the site-specific NMOC concentration 

as determined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section instead 

of the default values provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 230 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

section. The landfill owner or operator shall compare the 

resulting NMOC mass emission rate to the standard of 40 

megagrams per year.

(i) If the NMOC mass emission rate as calculated using 

the site-specific methane generation rate and concentration 

of NMOC is equal to or greater than 40 megagrams per year, 

the owner or operator shall comply with § 60.762(b)(2).

(ii) If the NMOC mass emission rate is less than 50 

megagrams per year, then the owner or operator shall submit 

a periodic emission rate report as provided in 

§ 60.767(b)(1) and shall recalculate the NMOC mass emission 

rate annually, as provided in § 60.767(b)(1) using the 

equations in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and using the 

site-specific methane generation rate constant and NMOC 

concentration obtained in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

The calculation of the methane generation rate constant is 

performed only once, and the value obtained from this test 

shall be used in all subsequent annual NMOC emission rate 

calculations.

(5) The owner or operator may use other methods to 

determine the NMOC concentration or a site-specific k as an 

alternative to the methods required in paragraphs (a)(3) 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 231 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

and (a)(4) of this section if the method has been approved 

by the Administrator.

(b) After the installation and startup of a collection 

and control system in compliance with § 60.765, the owner 

or operator shall calculate the NMOC emission rate for 

purposes of determining when the system can be removed as 

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

equation:

MNMOC = 1.89 × 10−3QLFGCNMOC

Where:

MNMOC = mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per 

year.

QLFG = flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per 

minute.

CNMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per million by 

volume as hexane.

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

determined by measuring the total landfill gas flow rate at 

the common header pipe that leads to the control system

using a gas flow measuring device calibrated according to 

the provisions of section 4 of Method 2E of appendix A of 

this part.

(2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, shall be 

determined by collecting and analyzing landfill gas sampled 

from the common header pipe before the gas moving or 

Formatted: Not Superscript/ Subscript
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 232 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

condensate removal equipment using the procedures in Method 

25 or Method 25C of appendix A of this part. The sample 

location on the common header pipe shall be before any 

condensate removal or other gas refining units. The 

landfill owner or operator shall divide the NMOC 

concentration from Method 25 or Method 25C of appendix A of 

this part by six to convert from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as 

hexane.

(3) The owner or operator may use another method to 

determine landfill gas flow rate and NMOC concentration if 

the method has been approved by the Administrator.

(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 60.8), the owner operator 

must submit the results of the performance test, including 

any associated fuel analyses, according to the method 

specified by either paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this 

section.

(A) For data collected using test methods supported by 

the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the 

EPA’s ERT website 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), the owner or 

operator must submit the results of the performance test to 

the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 233 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(CEDRI) accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp), unless otherwise 

approved by the Administrator. Performance test data must 

be submitted in a file format generated through the use of 

the EPA’s ERT. Owners or operators who claim that some of 

the performance test information being submitted is 

confidential business information (CBI) must submit a 

complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT, 

including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 

flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly 

marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI: 

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02),

Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 

Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703 of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. The same file with the 

CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(B) For data collected using test methods that are not 

supported by the EPA‘s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

website, the owner or operator must submit the results of 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 234 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

the performance test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4.

(ii) [Reserved]

(c) When calculating emissions for PSD purposes, the 

owner or operator of each MSW landfill subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall estimate the NMOC emission 

rate for comparison to the PSD major source and 

significance levels in §§51.166 or 52.21 of this chapter 

using AP–42 or other approved measurement procedures.

(d) For the performance test required in 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B), Method 25 or 25C (Method 25C may be 

used at the inlet only) of appendix A of this part must be 

used to determine compliance with the 98 weight-percent 

efficiency or the 20 ppmv outlet concentration level, 

unless another method to demonstrate compliance has been 

approved by the Administrator as provided by 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B). Method 3 or 3A shall be used to 

determine oxygen for correcting the NMOC concentration as 

hexane to 3 percent. The following equation shall be used 

to calculate efficiency:

Control Efficiency = (NMOCin− NMOCout)/(NMOCin)

Where:

NMOCin = mass of NMOC entering control device.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 235 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

NMOCout = mass of NMOC exiting control device.

(e) For the performance test required in 

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

combusted landfill gas as determined in § 60.18(f)(3) is 

calculated from the concentration of methane in the 

landfill gas as measured by Method 3C. A minimum of three 

30-minute Method 3C samples are determined. The measurement 

of other organic components, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide 

is not applicable. Method 3C may be used to determine the 

landfill gas molecular weight for calculating the flare gas 

exit velocity under § 60.18(f)(4).

(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 60.8), the owner or 

operator must submit the results of the performance tests, 

including any associated fuel analyses, required by 

§ 60.764(b) or (d) or this subpart according to the method 

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

section.

(i) For data collected using test methods supported by 

the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the 

EPA’s ERT website 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), the owner or 

operator must submit the results of the performance test to 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 236 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI) accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp), unless otherwise 

approved by the Administrator. Owners or operators who 

claim that some of the performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business information (CBI) must 

submit a complete file generated through the use of the 

EPA’s ERT, including information claimed to be CBI, on a 

compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used 

electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. 

EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted 

to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. 

(ii) For data collected using test methods that are 

not supported by the EPA‘s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

website, the owner or operator must submit the results of 

the performance test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4.

(2) [Reserved]

§ 60.765 Compliance provisions.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 237 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(a) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), the 

specified methods in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of 

this section shall be used to determine whether the gas 

collection system is in compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii).

(1) For the purposes of calculating the maximum 

expected gas generation flow rate from the landfill to 

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

the following equations shall be used. The k and Lo kinetic 

factors should be those published in the most recent 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP–42) or 

other site specific values demonstrated to be appropriate 

and approved by the Administrator. If k has been determined 

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

from the test shall be used. A value of no more than 15 

years shall be used for the intended use period of the gas 

mover equipment. The active life of the landfill is the age 

of the landfill plus the estimated number of years until 

closure.

(i) For sites with unknown year-to-year solid waste 

acceptance rate:

Qm = 2LoR (e−kc− e−kt)

Where:

Qm = maximum expected gas generation flow rate, 

cubic meters per year.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 238 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Lo = methane generation potential, cubic meters 

per megagram solid waste.

R = average annual acceptance rate, megagrams 

per year.

k = methane generation rate constant, year−1.

t = age of the landfill at equipment 

installation plus the time the owner or 

operator intends to use the gas mover 

equipment or active life of the landfill, 

whichever is less. If the equipment is 

installed after closure, t is the age of the 

landfill at installation, years.

c = time since closure, years (for an active 

landfill c = O and e−kc= 1).

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

acceptance rate:

QM= ∑ 2kLoMi(e−kti) n

i=1

Where:

QM = maximum expected gas generation flow rate, 

cubic meters per year.

k = methane generation rate constant, year−1.

Lo = methane generation potential, cubic meters 

per megagram solid waste.

Mi = mass of solid waste in the ith section, 

megagrams.

ti = age of the ith section, years.

(iii) If a collection and control system has been 

installed, actual flow data may be used to project the 

maximum expected gas generation flow rate instead of, or in 

conjunction with, the equations in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and 

Formatted: _GHG equation
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 239 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(ii) of this section. If the landfill is still accepting 

waste, the actual measured flow data will not equal the 

maximum expected gas generation rate, so calculations using 

the equations in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) or other 

methods shall be used to predict the maximum expected gas 

generation rate over the intended period of use of the gas 

control system equipment.

(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density 

of gas collectors for compliance with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A)(2), the owner or operator shall 

design a system of vertical wells, horizontal collectors, 

or other collection devices, satisfactory to the 

Administrator, capable of controlling and extracting gas 

from all portions of the landfill sufficient to meet all 

operational and performance standards.

(3) For the purpose of demonstrating whether the gas 

collection system flow rate is sufficient to determine 

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

operator shall measure gauge pressure in the gas collection 

header at each individual well, monthly. If a positive 

pressure exists, action shall be initiated to correct the 

exceedance within 5 calendar days, except for the three 

conditions allowed under § 60.763(b). If negative pressure 

Formatted: Underline
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 240 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

cannot be achieved without excess air infiltration within 

15 calendar days of the first measurement, the gas 

collection system shall be expanded to correct the 

exceedance within 120 days of the initial measurement of 

positive pressure. Any attempted corrective measure shall 

not cause exceedances of other operational or performance 

standards. An alternative timeline for correcting the 

exceedance may be submitted to the Administrator for 

approval.

(4) Owners or operators are not required to expand the 

system as required in paragraph (a)(3) of this section 

during the first 180 days after gas collection system 

startup.

(5) For the purpose of identifying whether excess air 

infiltration into the landfill is occurring, the owner or 

operator shall monitor each well monthly for temperature 

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

well exceeds one of these operating parameters, action 

shall be initiated to correct the exceedance within 5 

calendar days. If correction of the exceedance cannot be 

achieved within 15 calendar days of the first measurement, 

then either the gas collection system shall be expanded to 

correct the exceedance within 120 days of the initial 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 241 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

exceedance or an alternative timeline shall be submitted. 

If the owner or operator is unable to correct an exceedance 

within 15 days, or does not plan to expand the collection 

and control system within 120 days, then the owner or 

operator must submit to the Administrator for approval an 

alternative timeline for correcting the exceedance. The 

owner or operator must submit an alternative time line for 

any type of corrective action other than system expansion 

that will take longer than 15 days. The owner or operator

must also submit an alternative time line and justification 

if they expect a system expansion to take longer than 120 

days. Any attempted corrective measure shall not cause 

exceedances of other operational or performance standards.

Any attempted corrective measure shall not cause 

exceedances of other operational or performance standards.

(6) An owner or operator seeking to demonstrate 

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

a collection system not conforming to the specifications 

provided in § 60.769 shall provide information satisfactory 

to the Administrator as specified in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(C) 

demonstrating that off-site migration is being controlled.

(b) For purposes of compliance with § 60.763(a), each 

owner or operator of a controlled landfill shall place each 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 242 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

well or design component as specified in the approved 

design plan as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i). Each well 

shall be installed no later than 60 days after the date on 

which the initial solid waste has been in place for a 

period of:

(1) 5 years or more if active; or

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

(c) The following procedures shall be used for 

compliance with the surface methane operational standard as 

provided in § 60.763(d).

(1) After installation and startup of the gas 

collection system, the owner or operator shall monitor 

surface concentrations of methane along the entire 

perimeter of the collection area and along a pattern that 

traverses the landfill at 30 meter intervals (or a sitespecific established spacing) for each collection area on a 

quarterly basis using an organic vapor analyzer, flame 

ionization detector, or other portable monitor meeting the 

specifications provided in paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) The background concentration shall be determined 

by moving the probe inlet upwind and downwind outside the 

boundary of the landfill at a distance of at least 30 

meters from the perimeter wells.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 243 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(3) Surface emission monitoring shall be performed in 

accordance with section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix A of 

this part, except that the probe inlet shall be placed 

within 5 to 10 centimeters of the ground. Monitoring shall 

be performed during typical meteorological conditions.

(4) Any reading of 500 parts per million or more above 

background at any location shall be recorded as a monitored 

exceedance and the actions specified in paragraphs (c)(4) 

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

the specified actions are taken, the exceedance is not a 

violation of the operational requirements of § 60.763(d).

(i) The location of each monitored exceedance shall be 

marked and the location and concentration recorded.

(ii) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of 

the adjacent wells to increase the gas collection in the 

vicinity of each exceedance shall be made and the location 

shall be re-monitored within 10 calendar days of detecting 

the exceedance.

(iii) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a 

second exceedance, additional corrective action shall be 

taken and the location shall be monitored again within 10 

days of the second exceedance. If the re-monitoring shows a 

third exceedance for the same location, the action 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 244 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section shall be 

taken, and no further monitoring of that location is 

required until the action specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v)

of this section has been taken.

(iv) Any location that initially showed an exceedance 

but has a methane concentration less than 500 ppm methane 

above background at the 10-day re-monitoring specified in 

paragraph (c)(4) (ii) or (iii) of this section shall be remonitored 1 month from the initial exceedance. If the 1-

month remonitoring shows a concentration less than 500 

parts per million above background, no further monitoring 

of that location is required until the next quarterly 

monitoring period. If the 1-month remonitoring shows an 

exceedance, the actions specified in paragraph (c)(4) (iii) 

or (v) of this section shall be taken.

(v) For any location where monitored methane 

concentration equals or exceeds 500 parts per million above 

background three times within a quarterly period, a new 

well or other collection device shall be installed within 

120 calendar days of the initial exceedance. An alternative 

remedy to the exceedance, such as upgrading the blower, 

header pipes or control device, and a corresponding 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 245 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

timeline for installation may be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval.

(5) The owner or operator shall implement a program to 

monitor for cover integrity and implement cover repairs as 

necessary on a monthly basis.

(d) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the 

provisions in paragraph (c) of this section shall comply 

with the following instrumentation specifications and 

procedures for surface emission monitoring devices:

(1) The portable analyzer shall meet the instrument 

specifications provided in section 3 of Method 21 of 

appendix A of this part, except that “methane” shall 

replace all references to VOC.

(2) The calibration gas shall be methane, diluted to a 

nominal concentration of 500 parts per million in air.

(3) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in 

section 3.1.3 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, the 

instrument evaluation procedures of section 4.4 of Method 

21 of appendix A of this part shall be used.

(4) The calibration procedures provided in section 4.2 

of Method 21 of appendix A of this part shall be followed 

immediately before commencing a surface monitoring survey.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 246 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(e) The provisions of this subpart apply at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction.

§ 60.766 Monitoring of operations.

Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B),

(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A) for an active gas collection system 

shall install a sampling port and a thermometer, other 

temperature measuring device, or an access port for 

temperature measurements at each wellhead and:

(1) Measure the gauge pressure in the gas collection 

header on a monthly basis as provided in § 60.765(a)(3); 

and

(2) Monitor nitrogen or oxygen concentration in the 

landfill gas on a monthly basis as provided in 

§ 60.765(a)(5); and

(3) Monitor temperature of the landfill gas on a 

monthly basis as provided in § 60.765(a)(5).

(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii) using an enclosed combustor shall 

calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the 

manufacturer's specifications, the following equipment.

(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a 

continuous recorder and having a minimum accuracy of ±1 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 247 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

percent of the temperature being measured expressed in 

degrees Celsius or ±0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is 

greater. A temperature monitoring device is not required 

for boilers or process heaters with design heat input 

capacity equal to or greater than 44 megawatts.

(2) A device that records flow to and bypass of the 

control device. The owner or operator shall:

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate 

measuring device that shall record the flow to the control 

device at least every 15 minutes; and

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed 

position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type 

configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure 

mechanism shall be performed at least once every month to 

ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position 

and that the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass 

line.

(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii) using a non-enclosed flare shall 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the 

manufacturer's specifications the following equipment:
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 248 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam 

sensor or thermocouple, at the pilot light or the flame 

itself to indicate the continuous presence of a flame.

(2) A device that records flow to and bypass of the 

flare. The owner or operator shall:

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate 

measuring device that shall record the flow to the control 

device at least every 15 minutes; and

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed 

position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type 

configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure 

mechanism shall be performed at least once every month to 

ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position 

and that the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass 

line.

(d) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate 

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

than a non-enclosed flare or an enclosed combustor or a 

treatment system shall provide information satisfactory to 

the Administrator as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B) 

describing the operation of the control device, the 

operating parameters that would indicate proper 

performance, and appropriate monitoring procedures. The 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 249 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

Administrator shall review the information and either 

approve it, or request that additional information be 

submitted. The Administrator may specify additional 

appropriate monitoring procedures.

(e) Each owner or operator seeking to install a 

collection system that does not meet the specifications in 

§ 60.769 or seeking to monitor alternative parameters to 

those required by § 60.763 through § 60.766 shall provide 

information satisfactory to the Administrator as provided 

in § 60.762(b)(2)(i) (B) and (C) describing the design and 

operation of the collection system, the operating 

parameters that would indicate proper performance, and 

appropriate monitoring procedures. The Administrator may 

specify additional appropriate monitoring procedures.

(f) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate 

compliance with § 60.765(c), shall monitor surface 

concentrations of methane according to the instrument 

specifications and procedures provided in § 60.765(d). Any 

closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the 

operational standard in three consecutive quarterly 

monitoring periods may skip to annual monitoring. Any 

methane reading of 500 ppm or more above background 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 250 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

detected during the annual monitoring returns the frequency 

for that landfill to quarterly monitoring.

(g) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate 

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

treatment system must calibrate, maintain, and operate 

according to the manufacturer’s specifications, the 

following equipment. 

(1) A device that monitors pressure drop across, or 

other approved parameter(s) for, the filtration system that 

is equipped with a continuous recorder that shall record 

such parameters at least once every 15 minutes. Records of 

hourly and 24-hour block averages computed from the 

continuous monitoring data must also be retained.

(2) A device that monitors the landfill gas 

temperature for a chiller-based dewatering system, the 

landfill gas dew point for a non-chiller-based dewatering 

system, or the approved operating parameter(s) for the 

dewatering system at the monitoring locations specified in 

the approved design plan. The temperature measurement 

device must be located at or immediately after the 

coalescing filter or other direct contact moisture removal 

device that follows the chiller and removes the condensed 

moisture. The dew point monitoring device should be located 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 251 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

after the equipment that performs the moisture removal. 

Each monitoring device must be equipped with a continuous 

recorder that records such parameters at least once every 

15 minutes. Records of hourly and 24-hour block averages 

computed from the continuous monitoring data must also be 

retained.

(3) Owners/operators may use monitoring parameters 

other than those listed in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of 

this section if they demonstrate that such parameters would 

effectively monitor filtration or de-watering system 

performance. Owners/operators must develop operating ranges 

for each monitored operating parameter based on 

manufacturer’s recommendations or engineering analysis and 

submit those ranges, along with justification, for approval 

in the design plan required by § 60.762(b)(2). 

Owners/operators must monitor the required parameters and 

keep them within the ranges specified in the approved 

design plan.

(4) A device that records flow to and bypass of the 

treatment system. The owner or operator must:

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate 

measuring device that records the flow to the treatment 

system at least every 15 minutes; and
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 252 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed 

position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type 

configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure 

mechanism must be performed at least once every month to 

ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position 

and that the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass 

line.

§ 60.767 Reporting requirements.

Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B),

(a) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements 

of this subpart shall submit an initial design capacity 

report to the Administrator.

(1) The initial design capacity report shall fulfill 

the requirements of the notification of the date 

construction is commenced as required by § 60.7(a)(1) and 

shall be submitted no later than:

(i) [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS 

PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for landfills that 

commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on 

or after [INSERT THE DATE THE PROPOSED RULE IS PUBLISHED IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] but before [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS 

PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 253 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(ii) Ninety days after the date of commenced 

construction, modification, or reconstruction for landfills 

that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction 

on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) The initial design capacity report shall contain 

the following information:

(i) A map or plot of the landfill, providing the size 

and location of the landfill, and identifying all areas 

where solid waste may be landfilled according to the permit 

issued by the state, local, or tribal agency responsible 

for regulating the landfill.

(ii) The maximum design capacity of the landfill. 

Where the maximum design capacity is specified in the 

permit issued by the state, local, or tribal agency 

responsible for regulating the landfill, a copy of the 

permit specifying the maximum design capacity may be 

submitted as part of the report. If the maximum design 

capacity of the landfill is not specified in the permit, 

the maximum design capacity shall be calculated using good 

engineering practices. The calculations shall be provided, 

along with the relevant parameters as part of the report. 

The state, Tribal, local agency or Administrator may 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 254 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

request other reasonable information as may be necessary to 

verify the maximum design capacity of the landfill.

(3) An amended design capacity report shall be 

submitted to the Administrator providing notification of an 

increase in the design capacity of the landfill, within 90 

days of an increase in the maximum design capacity of the 

landfill to or above 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million 

cubic meters. This increase in design capacity may result 

from an increase in the permitted volume of the landfill or 

an increase in the density as documented in the annual 

recalculation required in § 60.768(f).

(b) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements 

of this subpart shall submit an NMOC emission rate report 

to the Administrator initially and annually thereafter, 

except as provided for in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) or (b)(3) 

of this section. The Administrator may request such 

additional information as may be necessary to verify the 

reported NMOC emission rate.

(1) The NMOC emission rate report shall contain an 

annual or 5-year estimate of the NMOC emission rate 

calculated using the formula and procedures provided in 

§ 60.764(a) or (b), as applicable.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 255 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(i) The initial NMOC emission rate report may be 

combined with the initial design capacity report required 

in paragraph (a) of this section and shall be submitted no 

later than indicated in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of 

this section. Subsequent NMOC emission rate reports shall 

be submitted annually thereafter, except as provided for in 

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

(A) [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS 

PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for landfills that 

commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on 

or after [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], but before [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or

(B) Ninety days after the date of commenced 

construction, modification, or reconstruction for landfills 

that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction 

on or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

(ii) If the estimated NMOC emission rate as reported 

in the annual report to the Administrator is less than 40

megagrams per year in each of the next 5 consecutive years, 

the owner or operator may elect to submit an estimate of 

the NMOC emission rate for the next 5-year period in lieu 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 256 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

of the annual report. This estimate shall include the 

current amount of solid waste-in-place and the estimated 

waste acceptance rate for each year of the 5 years for 

which an NMOC emission rate is estimated. All data and 

calculations upon which this estimate is based shall be 

provided to the Administrator. This estimate shall be 

revised at least once every 5 years. If the actual waste 

acceptance rate exceeds the estimated waste acceptance rate 

in any year reported in the 5-year estimate, a revised 5-

year estimate shall be submitted to the Administrator. The 

revised estimate shall cover the 5-year period beginning 

with the year in which the actual waste acceptance rate 

exceeded the estimated waste acceptance rate.

(2) The NMOC emission rate report shall include all 

the data, calculations, sample reports and measurements 

used to estimate the annual or 5-year emissions.

(3) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements 

of this subpart is exempted from the requirements of 

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

installation of a collection and control system in 

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

collection and control system is in operation and in 

compliance with §§ 60.763 and 60.765.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 257 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(c) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions 

of § 60.762(b)(2)(i) shall submit a collection and control 

system design plan to the Administrator within 1 year of 

the first report required under paragraph (b) of this 

section in which the emission rate equals or exceeds 40 

megagrams per year, except as follows:

(1) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the 

NMOC emission rate after Tier 2 NMOC sampling and analysis 

as provided in § 60.764(a)(3) and the resulting rate is 

less than 40 megagrams per year, annual periodic reporting 

shall be resumed, using the Tier 2 determined site-specific 

NMOC concentration, until the calculated emission rate is 

equal to or greater than 40 megagrams per year or the 

landfill is closed. The revised NMOC emission rate report, 

with the recalculated emission rate based on NMOC sampling 

and analysis, shall be submitted within 180 days of the 

first calculated exceedance of 40 megagrams per year.

(2) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the 

NMOC emission rate after determining a site-specific 

methane generation rate constant (k), as provided in Tier 3 

in § 60.764(a)(4), and the resulting NMOC emission rate is 

less than 40 Mg/yr, annual periodic reporting shall be 

resumed. The resulting site-specific methane generation 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 258 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

rate constant (k) shall be used in the emission rate 

calculation until such time as the emissions rate 

calculation results in an exceedance. The revised NMOC 

emission rate report based on the provisions of 

§ 60.764(a)(4) and the resulting site-specific methane 

generation rate constant (k) shall be submitted to the 

Administrator within 1 year of the first calculated 

emission rate exceeding 40 megagrams per year.

(d) Each owner or operator of a controlled landfill 

shall submit a closure report to the Administrator within 

30 days of waste acceptance cessation. The Administrator 

may request additional information as may be necessary to 

verify that permanent closure has taken place in accordance 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 258.60. If a closure report 

has been submitted to the Administrator, no additional 

wastes may be placed into the landfill without filing a 

notification of modification as described under 

§ 60.7(a)(4).

(e) Each owner or operator of a controlled landfill 

shall submit an equipment removal report to the 

Administrator 30 days prior to removal or cessation of 

operation of the control equipment.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 259 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(1) The equipment removal report shall contain all of 

the following items:

(i) A copy of the closure report submitted in 

accordance with paragraph (d) of this section;

(ii) A copy of the initial performance test report 

demonstrating that the 15 year minimum control period has 

expired; and

(iii) Dated copies of three successive NMOC emission 

rate reports demonstrating that the landfill is no longer 

producing 40 megagrams or greater of NMOC per year.

(2) The Administrator may request such additional 

information as may be necessary to verify that all of the 

conditions for removal in § 60.762(b)(2)(v) have been met.

(f) The owner or operator of a landfill seeking to 

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

system designed in accordance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii) shall

submit to the Administrator annual reports of the recorded 

information in (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this section. The 

initial annual report shall be submitted within 180 days of 

installation and startup of the collection and control 

system, and shall include the initial performance test 

report required under § 60.8, as applicable. For enclosed 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 260 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

combustion devices, flares, and treatment systems

reportable exceedances are defined under § 60.768(c).

(1) Value and length of time for exceedance of 

applicable parameters monitored under § 60.766(a), (b), 

(c), (d), and (g).

(2) Description and duration of all periods when the 

gas stream is diverted from the control device or treatment 

system through a bypass line or the indication of bypass 

flow as specified under § 60.766.

(3) Description and duration of all periods when the 

control device or treatment system was not operating and 

length of time the control device or treatment system was 

not operating.

(4) All periods when the collection system was not 

operating.

(5) The location of each exceedance of the 500 parts 

per million methane concentration as provided in 

§ 60.763(d) and the concentration recorded at each location 

for which an exceedance was recorded in the previous month.

(6) The date of installation and the location of each 

well or collection system expansion added pursuant to 

paragraphs (a)(3), (b), and (c)(4) of § 60.765.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 261 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(g) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(iii) shall include the following information 

with the initial performance test report required under 

§ 60.8:

(1) A diagram of the collection system showing 

collection system positioning including all wells, 

horizontal collectors, surface collectors, or other gas 

extraction devices, including the locations of any areas 

excluded from collection and the proposed sites for the 

future collection system expansion;

(2) The data upon which the sufficient density of 

wells, horizontal collectors, surface collectors, or other 

gas extraction devices and the gas mover equipment sizing 

are based;

(3) The documentation of the presence of asbestos or 

nondegradable material for each area from which collection 

wells have been excluded based on the presence of asbestos 

or nondegradable material;

(4) The sum of the gas generation flow rates for all

areas from which collection wells have been excluded based 

on nonproductivity and the calculations of gas generation 

flow rate for each excluded area; and
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 262 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(5) The provisions for increasing gas mover equipment 

capacity with increased gas generation flow rate, if the 

present gas mover equipment is inadequate to move the 

maximum flow rate expected over the life of the landfill; 

and

(6) The provisions for the control of off-site 

migration.

(h) The owner or operator who has already been 

required to submit a design plan under § 60.767(c) must 

submit a revised design plan to the Administrator for 

approval as follows:

(1) Within 90 days of expanding operations to an area 

not covered by the previously approved design plan.

(2) Prior to installing or expanding the gas 

collection system in a way that is not consistent with the 

design plan that was submitted to the Administrator 

according to paragraph (c) of this section.

(3) Prior to implementing an approved alternative 

operating parameter value for temperature, nitrogen, or 

oxygen, if the owner or operator has requested alternative 

operating parameter values according to § 60.763(c).

§ 60.768 Recordkeeping requirements.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 263 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(a) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each 

owner or operator of an MSW landfill subject to the 

provisions of § 60.762(b) shall keep for at least 5 years 

up-to-date, readily accessible, on-site records of the 

design capacity report which triggered § 60.762(b), the 

current amount of solid waste in-place, and the year-byyear waste acceptance rate. Off-site records may be 

maintained if they are retrievable within 4 hours. Either 

paper copy or electronic formats are acceptable.

(b) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each 

owner or operator of a controlled landfill shall keep upto-date, readily accessible records for the life of the 

control system equipment of the data listed in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section as measured during 

the initial performance test or compliance determination. 

Records of subsequent tests or monitoring shall be 

maintained for a minimum of 5 years. Records of the control 

device vendor specifications shall be maintained until 

removal.

(1) Where an owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance 

with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii):
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 264 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(i) The maximum expected gas generation flow rate as 

calculated in § 60.765(a)(1). The owner or operator may use 

another method to determine the maximum gas generation flow 

rate, if the method has been approved by the Administrator.

(ii) The density of wells, horizontal collectors, 

surface collectors, or other gas extraction devices 

determined using the procedures specified in 

§ 60.769(a)(1).

(2) Where an owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance 

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

combustion device other than a boiler or process heater 

with a design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 

44 megawatts:

(i) The average temperature measured at least every 15 

minutes and averaged over the same time period of the 

performance test.

(ii) The percent reduction of NMOC determined as 

specified in § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B) achieved by the control 

device.

(3) Where an owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance 

with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) through use of a boiler or 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 265 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

process heater of any size: a description of the location 

at which the collected gas vent stream is introduced into 

the boiler or process heater over the same time period of 

the performance testing.

(4) Where an owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance 

with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(A) through use of a non-enclosed 

flare, the flare type (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, 

or nonassisted), all visible emission readings, heat 

content determination, flow rate or bypass flow rate 

measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during 

the performance test as specified in § 60.18; continuous 

records of the flare pilot flame or flare flame monitoring 

and records of all periods of operations during which the 

pilot flame of the flare flame is absent.

(5) Where an owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance 

with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) through use of a landfill gas 

treatment system:

(i) Hourly and 24-hour block averages computed from 

the device that monitors pressure drop across, or other 

approved parameter(s) for, the filtration system. 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 266 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(ii) Hourly and 24-hour block average temperature 

(chiller-based system) or dew point (non-chiller based 

system) or the approved operating parameters for the device 

that monitors the dewatering system operating parameters. 

(iii) Records of exceedances of the treatment system 

operating parameters that were approved in the design plan 

as required by § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(D).

(iv) Records of the flow of landfill gas to, and 

bypass of, the treatment system. 

(c) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each 

owner or operator of a controlled landfill subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall keep for 5 years up-todate, readily accessible continuous records of the 

equipment operating parameters specified to be monitored in 

§ 60.766 as well as up-to-date, readily accessible records 

for periods of operation during which the parameter 

boundaries established during the most recent performance 

test are exceeded.

(1) The following constitute exceedances that shall be 

recorded and reported under § 60.767(f):

(i) For enclosed combustors except for boilers and 

process heaters with design heat input capacity of 44 

megawatts (150 million British thermal unit per hour) or 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 267 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

greater, all 3-hour periods of operation during which the 

average temperature was more than 28 oC below the average 

combustion temperature during the most recent performance 

test at which compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) was 

determined.

(ii) For boilers or process heaters, whenever there is 

a change in the location at which the vent stream is 

introduced into the flame zone as required under paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section.

(iii) For treatment systems used to demonstrate 

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

operation during which the average operating parameter 

values are outside of the approved ranges identified in 

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

performance of the treatment system.

(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions 

of this subpart shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible 

continuous records of the indication of flow to the control 

system and the indication of bypass flow or records of 

monthly inspections of car-seals or lock-and-key 

configurations used to seal bypass lines, specified under 

§ 60.766.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 268 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(3) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions 

of this subpart who uses a boiler or process heater with a 

design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts or greater to 

comply with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) shall keep an up-to-date, 

readily accessible record of all periods of operation of 

the boiler or process heater. (Examples of such records 

could include records of steam use, fuel use, or monitoring 

data collected pursuant to other state, local, Tribal, or 

federal regulatory requirements.)

(4) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the 

provisions of this subpart by use of a non-enclosed flare 

shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous 

records of the flame or flare pilot flame monitoring 

specified under § 60.766(c), and up-to-date, readily 

accessible records of all periods of operation in which the 

flame or flare pilot flame is absent.

(5) Each owner or operator of a landfill seeking to 

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

system designed in accordance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii) shall

keep records of estimates of NMOC emissions for periods 

when the collection system or control device is not 

operating.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 269 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(d) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each 

owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart 

shall keep for the life of the collection system an up-todate, readily accessible plot map showing each existing and 

planned collector in the system and providing a unique 

identification location label for each collector.

(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions 

of this subpart shall keep up-to-date, readily accessible 

records of the installation date and location of all newly 

installed collectors as specified under § 60.765(b).

(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions 

of this subpart shall keep readily accessible documentation 

of the nature, date of deposition, amount, and location of 

asbestos-containing or nondegradable waste excluded from 

collection as provided in § 60.769(a)(3)(i) as well as any 

nonproductive areas excluded from collection as provided in 

§ 60.769(a)(3)(ii).

(e) Except as provided in § 60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each 

owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart 

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

accessible records of all collection and control system 

exceedances of the operational standards in § 60.763, the 

reading in the subsequent month whether or not the second 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 270 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

reading is an exceedance, and the location of each 

exceedance.

(f) Landfill owners or operators who convert design 

capacity from volume to mass or mass to volume to 

demonstrate that landfill design capacity is less than 2.5 

million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters, as provided 

in the definition of “design capacity”, shall keep readily 

accessible, on-site records of the annual recalculation of 

site-specific density, design capacity, and the supporting 

documentation. Off-site records may be maintained if they 

are retrievable within 4 hours. Either paper copy or 

electronic formats are acceptable.

§ 60.769 Specifications for active collection systems.

(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i) shall site active collection wells, 

horizontal collectors, surface collectors, or other 

extraction devices at a sufficient density throughout all 

gas producing areas using the following procedures unless 

alternative procedures have been approved by the 

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

(1) The collection devices within the interior and 

along the perimeter areas shall be certified to achieve 

comprehensive control of surface gas emissions by a 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 271 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

professional engineer. The following issues shall be 

addressed in the design: depths of refuse, refuse gas 

generation rates and flow characteristics, cover 

properties, gas system expandability, leachate and 

condensate management, accessibility, compatibility with 

filling operations, integration with closure end use, air 

intrusion control, corrosion resistance, fill settlement, 

and resistance to the refuse decomposition heat.

(2) The sufficient density of gas collection devices 

determined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall 

address landfill gas migration issues and augmentation of 

the collection system through the use of active or passive 

systems at the landfill perimeter or exterior.

(3) The placement of gas collection devices determined 

in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall control all gas 

producing areas, except as provided by paragraphs (a)(3)(i) 

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

(i) Any segregated area of asbestos or nondegradable 

material may be excluded from collection if documented as 

provided under § 60.768(d). The documentation shall provide 

the nature, date of deposition, location and amount of 

asbestos or nondegradable material deposited in the area, 

and shall be provided to the Administrator upon request.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 272 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(ii) Any nonproductive area of the landfill may be 

excluded from control, provided that the total of all 

excluded areas can be shown to contribute less than 1 

percent of the total amount of NMOC emissions from the 

landfill. The amount, location, and age of the material 

shall be documented and provided to the Administrator upon 

request. A separate NMOC emissions estimate shall be made 

for each section proposed for exclusion, and the sum of all 

such sections shall be compared to the NMOC emissions

estimate for the entire landfill. 

(A) The NMOC emissions from each section proposed for 

exclusion shall be computed using the following equation:

Qi = 2 k LoMi(e-kti) (CNMOC) (3.6 × 10−9)

Where:

Qi = NMOC emission rate from the ith section, 

megagrams per year.

k = methane generation rate constant, year−1.

Lo = methane generation potential, cubic meters 

per megagram solid waste.

Mi = mass of the degradable solid waste in the ith

section, megagram.

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

years.

CNMOC = concentration of nonmethane organic 

compounds, parts per million by volume.

3.6×10−9 = conversion factor.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 273 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(B) If the owner/operator is proposing to exclude, or 

cease gas collection and control from, nonproductive 

physically separated (e.g., separately lined) closed areas 

that already have gas collection systems, NMOC emissions 

from each physically separated closed area shall be 

computed using either the equation in § 60.764(b) or the 

equation in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) of this section. 

(iii) The values for k and CNMOC determined in field 

testing shall be used if field testing has been performed 

in determining the NMOC emission rate or the radii of 

influence (this distance from the well center to a point in 

the landfill where the pressure gradient applied by the 

blower or compressor approaches zero). If field testing has 

not been performed, the default values for k, LO and CNMOC

provided in § 60.764(a)(1) or the alternative values from 

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

solid waste contained within the given section may be 

subtracted from the total mass of the section when 

estimating emissions provided the nature, location, age, 

and amount of the nondegradable material is documented as 

provided in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 274 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(A) shall construct the gas collection 

devices using the following equipment or procedures:

(1) The landfill gas extraction components shall be 

constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density 

polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, fiberglass, stainless steel, or 

other nonporous corrosion resistant material of suitable 

dimensions to: convey projected amounts of gases; withstand 

installation, static, and settlement forces; and withstand 

planned overburden or traffic loads. The collection system 

shall extend as necessary to comply with emission and 

migration standards. Collection devices such as wells and 

horizontal collectors shall be perforated to allow gas 

entry without head loss sufficient to impair performance 

across the intended extent of control. Perforations shall 

be situated with regard to the need to prevent excessive 

air infiltration.

(2) Vertical wells shall be placed so as not to 

endanger underlying liners and shall address the occurrence 

of water within the landfill. Holes and trenches 

constructed for piped wells and horizontal collectors shall 

be of sufficient cross-section so as to allow for their 

proper construction and completion including, for example, 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 275 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

centering of pipes and placement of gravel backfill. 

Collection devices shall be designed so as not to allow 

indirect short circuiting of air into the cover or refuse 

into the collection system or gas into the air. Any gravel 

used around pipe perforations should be of a dimension so 

as not to penetrate or block perforations.

(3) Collection devices may be connected to the 

collection header pipes below or above the landfill 

surface. The connector assembly shall include a positive 

closing throttle valve, any necessary seals and couplings, 

access couplings and at least one sampling port. The 

collection devices shall be constructed of PVC, HDPE, 

fiberglass, stainless steel, or other nonporous material of 

suitable thickness.

(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with 

§ 60.762(b)(2)(i)(A) shall convey the landfill gas to a 

control system in compliance with § 60.762(b)(2)(iii) 

through the collection header pipe(s). The gas mover 

equipment shall be sized to handle the maximum gas 

generation flow rate expected over the intended use period 

of the gas moving equipment using the following procedures:

(1) For existing collection systems, the flow data 

shall be used to project the maximum flow rate. If no flow 
EO12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review page 

Page 276 of 276

249

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Left

data exists, the procedures in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section shall be used.

(2) For new collection systems, the maximum flow rate 

shall be in accordance with § 60.765(a)(1).