1

November 13, 2013

Via Electronic Transmission: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401

Mr. Joseph Sopata

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (6406-J)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Waste Management Comments Regarding Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0401

Dear Mr. Sopata:

Waste Management (“WM”) is pleased to offer the following supplemental comments on the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s” or “Agency’s”) Proposed Regulation 

of Fuels and Fuel Additives: RFS Pathways II and Technical Amendments to the RFS2 Standards

(hereinafter referred to as the “RFS2 Amendments”) 78 Fed. Reg. 36,042 (June 14, 2013). Our 

supplemental comments respond to a number of issues and claims made in joint comments by 

the Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club and the Center for a Competitive Waste Industry. 

WM is the leading provider of comprehensive waste and environmental services in North 

America. We are also a leading producer of renewable, waste-based energy – enough to power 

nearly 1.2 million homes each year. Headquartered in Houston, WM operates in 48 states in 

the U.S. and most Canadian provinces. Our network of operations includes 390 collection 

operations, 352 waste transfer stations, 125 recycling facilities for differing commodities, 36 

organic composting and processing facilities, 266 active landfill disposal sites, 138 landfill gasto-energy projects, 17 waste-to-energy (WTE) plants, and five independent power production 

plants (operations as of January 2012). WM is also exploring innovative technologies to make 

renewable fuels from waste. For example, in 2008 WM formed a joint venture with Linde 

North America to build the world’s largest facility to convert landfill gas into clean vehicle fuel. 

The plant is producing enough ultra-low-carbon fuel to power 300 of our heavy-duty collection 

trucks.
2

“Landfill biogas-to-energy projects are harmful to the environment and create a perverse 

incentive to generate more waste and pollution.”

WM Response:

In response to the comment that landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) projects harm the environment 

-- nothing could be further from the truth. EPA, state and local governments and communities 

support and promote LFGTE projects as sources of abundant, clean energy. EPA’s Office of 

Atmospheric Programs established the Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) to promote 

LFGTE projects and market the benefits of project development to communities. “EPA 

launched LMOP to encourage productive use of this resource (landfill gas (LFG) as part of the 

United States' commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (See LMOP Website

http://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-info/index.html#a04)

The EPA website describes beneficial use of LFG as a fuel that allows communities to prevent 

methane from escaping to the air by capturing and using LFG as a local energy source. EPA 

estimates “that a LFGTE project will capture roughly 60 to 90 percent of the methane emitted 

from the landfill, depending on system design and effectiveness. The captured methane is 

destroyed (converted to water and the much less potent CO2) when the gas is burned to 

produce electricity. This serves to reduce significantly greenhouse gas emissions. EPA further 

describes additional environmental benefits on its website -- “Producing energy from LFG 

avoids the need to use non–renewable resources such as coal, oil, or natural gas to produce the 

same amount of energy. This can avoid power plant emissions of CO2 and criteria pollutants 

such as sulfur dioxide (which is a major contributor to acid rain), particulate matter (a 

respiratory health concern), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and trace hazardous air pollutants.” (ibid.)

EPA developed a brochure for communities evaluating LFGTE projects and noted the types of 

benefits communities can derive from such projects: 

■ Fuel cost savings

■ Reduced operating expenses

■ Job creation related to projects

■ Improved economic development near the landfill

■ Enhanced image as an innovative community

■ A safer landfill with reduced potential for odors

■ Improved local air quality

■ Reduced greenhouse gas emissions

■ A reliable local fuel source

■ Less need for polluting fossil fuels

See http://www.epa.gov/lmop/documents/pdfs/new_community_brochure.pdf
3

A financial incentive for landfill gas in the RFS program is in direct contrast to the goal to reduce, 

reuse and recycle waste.

WM Response:

Contrary to the commenters’ claim, a financial incentive to further the use LFG as a feedstock 

for transportation fuel is wholly consistent with federal renewable energy goals, and will help 

to increase significantly the production of cellulosic ethanol and diesel fuels. Over the last 

decades, the US Congress, EPA and more than half of the States have promoted beneficial 

landfill gas projects by offering financial incentives, regulatory flexibility and partnership and 

assistance programs. Encouraging new LFGTE projects is a fundamental component of both the 

Office of Atmospheric Programs’ climate change, mitigation initiatives, and the Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response’s Materials Management 2020 Initiative. 

While the commenters contend that this policy will lead to generation of greater volumes of 

solid waste and lower recycling rates, they offer no data to support that conclusion. The 

Agency’s analyses; however, refute this claim. The EPA’s most recent report, Management of 

Municipal Solid Waste: 2011 Facts and Figures, (EPA-530-R-13-001, May 2013), shows that 

incentives for LFG beneficial use projects work in concert with reducing waste generation and 

increasing recycling rates. Since 2000 through 2011, the amount of MSW generated has 

declined by about three percent, while the amount of MSW recovered for recycling has 

grown by nearly 20 percent. Waste Management alone has steadily grown the amount of 

materials we recycle from 8.5 million tons in 2009 to nearly 14 million tons in 2012. One of our 

company 2020 sustainability goals is to double (from 2007) the amount of material we recycle 

to 20 million tons. We are well on the way towards meeting that goal.

The base line for the life-cycle analysis cannot be a landfill with active gas collection and a flare. 

The energy must be produced from long closed landfills for only in the distant past was it the 

norm for yard trimmings to be landfilled. The baseline should be composting and digestion of 

yard trimmings and food scraps

WM strongly disagrees with this comment for several reasons. “Long closed” landfills tend to 

be small and inappropriate for development of renewable fuel projects because the amount 

and quality of gas produced by the landfill is declining. In fact, it is unlikely that an older, closed 

landfill would have sufficient gas flows to support a gas collection system and the capital 

expenditure necessary to install the gas treatment equipment or connect the facility to an 

interstate pipeline. Typical renewable natural gas from landfill projects cost in the range of 

$15-$25 million to install, and so require long-term prospects for a sufficient amount and 

quality of LFG production to meet return on investment goals of project investors. While the 

commenters did not specify what they viewed as “long closed,” EPA recognizes in its New 

Source Performance Standards for MSW Landfills that closed landfills experience significantly 

declining gas volumes within 15 years of closure.
4

Commenters further contend that the baseline for the Agency’s life-cycle analysis should be 

composting or anaerobic digestion because it is no longer the norm for separated food and 

yard wastes to be landfilled. While the commenters provide the number of states that have 

instituted policies to divert yard wastes from landfills, they offer no supporting data on amount 

of food or yard wastes managed via composting or anaerobic digestion. EPA does maintain 

such statistics, and in the report referenced above (EPA-530-R-13-001, May 2013), noted that 

approximately eight percent (8%) of MSW is recovered and composted. Since 2000, that 

recovery rate has grown less than 2% from a rate of 6.5%, despite the implementation of state 

yard waste diversion policies. The EPA does not keep statistics on the amount of MSW 

components that are managed in anaerobic digesters, but it is significantly smaller than the 

amount composted. Given these statistics, EPA was clearly justified in selecting MSW 

landfilling with gas collection and flaring as the baseline for its life-cycle analysis of GHG 

reductions associated with use of LFG as a transportation fuel. The vast majority of MSW 

landfilled today is in large landfills subject to the EPA NSPS for Landfills, and that operate 

landfill gas collection and control systems.

An increasing percentage of landfills with LFG collection and control systems are operating 

beneficial LFG projects rather than simply flaring the gas. WM has 138 such projects at about 

half of our landfills. Not all landfills can support such projects because of difficulties in 

connecting to the electricity grid directly or because an end user is not located near the landfill 

to economically make use of the LFG as a fuel. EPA’s proposal to make LFG a cellulosic fuel 

feedstock will provide much needed impetus to develop additional beneficial use projects that 

produce renewable transportation fuel. Because many LFG to electricity projects are facing 

economic difficulties due to lower electricity rates, the number of new projects has dwindled. 

The opportunity to use LFG to produce renewable cellulosic transportation fuel will once more 

provide the economic incentive to develop new projects. The Coalition for Renewable Natural 

Gas members estimate that they will produce and distribute between 114-141 million ethanol 

equivalent gallons of landfill gas derived transportation fuel in 2014. This fuel will come from 

existing high BTU gas projects that are now upgrading and piping gas to utilities for electricity 

production and will begin to upgrade and pipe the LFG as transportation fuel to end users 

instead. Additionally, WM now produces about 5 million ethanol equivalent gallons of fuel 

from its Altamont renewable LNG project. We plan to commission a new project in third 

quarter of 2014 that will begin producing about a million gallons of RNG in late 2014, and 

beginning in 2015 will create about 10 million ethanol equivalent gallons.

“Methane from landfills does not necessarily come from cellulose or hemicellulose.”

WM Response:

The commenters provided no scientific data to support their assertion, but instead surmised 

that LFG is instead, derived from food waste. It has been our experience that food waste 

disposed in the landfill has undergone partial or extensive decomposition before it ever reaches 

the landfill. This decomposition occurs aerobically in household trashcans, dumpsters, 
5

collection vehicles and transfer facilities before reaching the landfill. WM supports the 

Agency’s determination that fuels produced from landfill biogas are qualified to generate 

cellulosic renewable identification numbers (RINs) because the gas is derived from cellulosic 

materials. Numerous, peer-reviewed studies of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills across 

the U.S. have demonstrated that approximately 90 percent of the methane generated by these 

landfills results from the decomposition of cellulosic material (i.e., cellulose and hemicellulose)1 

While commenters claim that EPA cited only one 1989 study to underpin this conclusion, that is 

not true. The footnoted studies below are just a sample of the peer-reviewed literature 

available on this subject. Thus, the Agency’s determination is well supported by scientific data. 

Further, the science supports the proposal to qualify the entire volume of renewable fuels 

generated from landfill biogas as cellulosic where the fuel also meets the required 60 percent 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions.

“EPA provides no guarantee that biogas electricity will be used for the transportation sector.”

WM Response:

WM believes that the new contract requirements to track renewable biogas or renewable 

electricity when added to a common carrier pipeline or power grid to the final end user are 

appropriate and reasonable. The requirements for project registration, which includes thirdparty verification of the project facilities and contract documentation should provide ample 

assurance that the biogas or electricity is used for transportation purposes, and should guard

against double counting of RINs due to fraudulent sales to multiple users. The requirements 

closely track the project certification requirements, as well as the voluntary RIN Quality 

 

1

Barlaz, M. A., September 24, 2011 Letter to EPA citing below references to support landfill methane conclusions.

Barlaz, M. A., Ham, R. K. and D. M. Schaefer, 1989, "Mass Balance Analysis of

Decomposed Refuse in Laboratory Scale Lysimeters," Journal of Environmental

Engineering, ASCE, 115, 6, p. 1088 - 1102.

Barlaz, M. A., Ham, R. K. and D. M. Schaefer, 1990, "Methane Production from Municipal

Refuse: A Review of Enhancement Techniques and Microbial Dynamics,” CRC Critical

Reviews in Environmental Control, 19, 6, p. 557 - 584.

Eleazer, W. E, Odle, W. S., Wang, Y.-S. and M. A. Barlaz, 1997, “Biodegradability of

Municipal Solid Waste Components in Laboratory-Scale Landfills,” Env. Sci. Technol., 31,

3, p. 911 - 17.

Mehta, R., Barlaz, M. A., Yazdani, R., Augenstein, D., Bryars, M. and Sinderson, L., 2002,

“Refuse Decomposition in the Presence and Absence of Leachate Recirculation,” J. Env.

Eng., 128, 3, 228-236.

Barlaz, M. A., 2006, “Forest Products Decomposition in Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,”

Waste Management, 26, 4, p. 321 – 33.

Staley, B. F. and M. A. Barlaz, 2009, “Composition of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. and

Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield,” J. Environ. Eng. 135, 10, p. 901- 909.
6

Assurance program. We believe that these requirements are appropriate to ensure the 

liquidity of the RINs market, and to provide sufficient oversight of RIN generation.

“Traditional landfills do not generate commercially usable gas.”

WM Response:

The LMOP fleet of hundreds of projects and WM’s own 138 LFG beneficial use projects provide 

the clearest response to this silly statement. WM alone produces enough renewable energy 

from LFG to power over a half a million homes. Our projects provide electricity, which we sell 

to the grid, we directly pipe landfill gas to end users including NASA, the University of New 

Hampshire, Ford, GM and BMW, and produce renewable natural gas suitable for powering over 

300 of our own collection vehicles. All beneficial uses of landfill gas require some level of 

treatment, such as dewatering, filtering, removal of contaminants and compression to support 

the ultimate end use. However, landfill gas is now viewed as an asset rather than a 

Waste Management appreciates the opportunity to provide you with our supplemental 

comments, and we look forward to continuing to work with you as you finalize revisions to the 

RFS Pathways II rule. Should you have any questions about these comments, please feel free to 

call me at 202-639-1218 or e-mail me at kkelly5@wm.com.

Sincerely,

Kerry Kelly, Director

Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs

 Kerry Kelly