### Appendix A:

List of Materials EPA shared with Small Entity Representatives in 2013

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA’s Planned Proposed Rules

Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Review of Emissions

Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

 Agenda for Pre-panel meeting, October 30, 2013

 Power Point Presentation: An Overview of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

Process, October 30, 2013

 Power Point Presentation: SBAR Pre-Panel Outreach Briefing: New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines (EG) for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

Landfills, October 7, 2013

 Table of annualized costs and emission reduction estimates by option

 A set of questions for EPA developed by potential SERs

 Agenda for Panel Outreach meeting, December 19, 2013

 “Issues for EPA Consideration” subm itted by Cornerstone Environmental Group

 Power Point Presentation: SBAR Pre-Panel Outreach Supplemental Briefing:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines (EG) for
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills, December 5, 2013

 Power Point Presentation: Small Busine ss Advocacy Review Panel Process Recap,

December 5, 2013

 “Background Information for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of Landfill NSPS
and EG Regulatory Options”

 Excel Spreadsheet: Landfill dataset (docket)

 Excel Spreadsheet: revised table of annualiz ed costs and emission reduction estimates by
option (docket)

 Excel Spreadsheet: Landfill su rvey responses (docket)

## EPA’s Pre-Panel Outreach Meetin g with Potential Small Entity Representatives

Review of New Source Performance St andards and Amendments to Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:00 p.m. – 4:00p.m., Eastern time zone

10:00 Welcome and Introductions (Alex Cristofaro, EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chair)

10:15 RFA/SBREFA Overview (Alex Cristofaro, EPA/OP)

10:30 Background Presentation (Hillary Ward, EPA/OAR)

11:15 Discussion (All)

11:50 Summary and Closing (Lanelle Wiggins/Stephanie Brown, EPA/OP)

**********************************************

Teleconference dial-in number: (866) 299-3188

Conference code: 202 566 2372

Dial the toll-free teleconference number li sted above. At the prompt, enter the conference code followed by the pound [#] sign. No te: You will hear music until the leader dials

into the call.

Attending the meeting in person:

This meeting will be held at EPA Hea dquarters in William Jefferson Clinton North, Room 5530 at 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Wash ington DC. Any invited potential Small Entity Representative may attend in person if desired.

We are unable to pay for travel expens es to Washington, DC for the meeting. If you would like to attend in person, you must RSVP with Stephanie N. Brown 202-564-1192, brown.stephanien@epa.gov for directions and building access information.

### Office of the Administrator

Office of Policy Office of Regulatory Policy and Management http:// www.epa.gov/op/orpm.html 

# An Overview of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process

Alexander Cristofaro, Small Business Advocacy Review Chair (SBAC)

Pre

- Panel Outreach Meeting, October 30, 2013

# Today, I’ll answer these questions...

• What is a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR)

Panel?

• How does a Panel fit into the rulemaking process?

• How do Small Entity Representatives (SERs) participate in the Panel process?

• What is the difference between this Pre

- Panel meeting and the future Panel meeting?

• What does the Panel do with SER recommendations?

2

# What is an SBAR Panel?

• Chaired by EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chair (EPA’s SBAC from Office of Policy)

• Other Panel members consist wholly of federal employees from:

 agency authoring the regulation (SBAC, plus program office manager);

 Office of Management and Budget (Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Director);

and

 Small Business Administration, Chief Counsel for Advocacy.

3

# What is an SBAR Panel? (cont’d.)



# • SBREFA amended the 1980 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which requires agencies to:

“assure that small entities have been given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process” 1 

# for any rule “which will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities.” 2

1 5 USC 609(a)

2 5 USC 602(a)(1)



## 4

# What is an SBAR Panel? (cont’d.)



# “the panel shall review any material the agency has prepared ..., including any draft proposed rule, collect advice and recommendations of each individual small entity representative identified by the agency after consultation with the Chief Counsel [for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration], on

issues related to” 1 

# the following:

 Who are the small entities to which the proposed rule will apply? 2



#  What are the anticipated compliance requirements of the upcoming proposed rule? 3



#  Are there any existing federal rules that may overlap or conflict with the regulation? 4



#  Are there any significant regulatory alternatives that could minimize the impact on small entities? 5



## 5 1 5 USC 609(b)(4)

2 5 USC 603(b)(3)

3 5 USC 603(b)(4)

4 5 USC 603(b)(5)

5 5 USC 603(c)

# How do SERs participate?

“ collect advice and recommendations ”

• You have the opportunity, because of your status as a small entity expected to be regulated by this rule, to

influence the decisions senior EPA officials make about the forthcoming regulation

• Advice and recommendations collected via two Outreach meetings with SERs:

 EPA holds a pre

- panel outreach meeting with potential SERs (this one), and

 after the Panel convenes, the Panel itself will hold an outreach meeting with SERs.

6

# How do SERs participate? (cont’d.)



#  You will have an opportunity to submit written

comments as well as the verbal comments you provide in the meetings.

 Reminder: Those of you joining this meeting to assist a potential SER (aka “helpers”) are asked to limit your input to representation of the small entity you are assisting.

7

# Pre

- Panel vs. Panel Outreach Mtg.?

• Pre

- Panel Outreach Meeting

 Conducted by EPA with SBA and OMB as invitees

 Overview of the RFA, how the Panel process works,

and the role of SERs

 Background and overview of proposed rulemaking



# • Panel Outreach Meeting

 Chaired by SBAC, but all Panel members have active

role

 Bulk of meeting spent discussing regulatory alternatives and input of SERs

8

# What does the Panel do with your recommendations?

• EPA, OMB, and SBA prepare a joint Panel report:

 Submitted to the EPA Administrator

 Considered during senior

- management decision

making prior to the issuance of the proposed rule

 Placed in the rule’s docket when the proposed rule is published

9

# Panel within the rulemaking process?

“ any material the agency has prepared ”

 It is EPA’s policy to host SBAR Panels like this one well before a proposed rule is written so we have adequate time to incorporate your advice and recommendations into senior management decision

- making about the proposed rule.

 EPA will not provide draft proposed rule text, though we expect to discuss regulatory alternatives in as great a detail as we can.

 Participation in the outreach meetings does not preclude or take the place of participation in the normal public comment period at the time the rule is proposed.

10

# Thank You

• We realize that small entities make significant sacrifices to participate

• Thank you for taking time and effort away from your business or organization to assist the Panel in this important work

11

# Contact Information

• Contact my staff:

 Stephanie Brown, RFA/SBREFA staff contact EPA Office of Policy

202

- 564

- 1192 Brown.StephanieN@epa.gov

 Lanelle Wiggins, RFA/SBREFA Team Leader EPA Office of Policy

202

- 566

- 2372 Wiggins.Lanelle@epa.gov

12

# SBAR Pre

- Panel Outreach Briefing:

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines (EG)

for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills

Briefing for Potential SERs

October 7, 2013

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote.

# Purpose & Overview

► 

# Purpose:

► 

# To explain your role as a Small Entity Representative (SER) in providing feedback

► 

# To provide an overview of potential changes under consideration for NSPS standards for MSW Landfills as a result of the statutorily

- required reviews

► 

# To provide an overview of potential changes under consideration for the Emission Guidelines for MSW Landfills

► 

# Agenda:

► 

# SER guidance

► 

# Introduction to MSW landfills

► 

# Introduction to New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines

► 

# Overview of the required review (court

- ordered)

► 

# Additional changes under consideration

► 

# Approaches considered

► 

# Impacts of potential options

► 

# Next steps

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote. 2

# What is a Small Entity Representative (SER)?

► 

# A SER is a representative of a small entity who may be subject to the requirements of a proposed rule that the EPA has under development.

► 

# SERs’ participation in the rulemaking process helps to ensure that the EPA hears the concerns and suggestions of small entities.

► 

# The Panel (EPA, SBA, & OMB) uses your input to prepare a report that includes the Panel’s recommendations on minimizing the burden on small entities. The report is part of the rulemaking record and is considered by Agency decision makers.

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote.

3

# What are MSW Landfills?

► 

# An MSW landfill is an entire disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household waste is placed in or on land

► 

# Landfills may also receive RCRA subtitle D waste (e.g., commercial solid waste, non

- hazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and industrial waste)

► 

# The pollutant of concern is MSW landfill emissions

► 

# Commonly referred to as landfill gas

► 

# Generated by the decomposition of organic waste

► 

# Landfill gas composition:

► 

# 50 percent methane

► 

# 50 percent carbon dioxide

► 

# Less than 1 percent nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC)

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote.

4

# Modern MSW Landfill

Gas

Extraction

Wells Gas Header Pipe Intermediate/

Final Cover Flare/

LFGTE

Plant Leachate

Plant

Waste

Cells Liner System

Monitoring

Probes

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote. 5

# How big is the MSW landfill industry?

► 

# Over 2000 active landfills in the United States

► 

# 729 landfills are currently subject to either the NSPS or EG

► 

# Ownership of MSW landfills may be public or private

► 

# Over the next 5 years, 20 new landfills are predicted

► 

# Screening analysis indicates approximately 100 landfills are

owned by small businesses

► 

# Approximately 15 small entities own landfills that are subject to the

Federal plan

► 

# Impacts analysis based on landfills directly regulated under the

Federal plan

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote. 6

# What are NSPS?

► 

# NSPS are technology

- based standards that apply to stationary sources that “cause, or contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”

► 

# NSPS applies to landfills that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after May 30,1991

► 

# The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA review, and if necessary, revise an NSPS at least every 8 years.

► 

# Costs are considered in the development of NSPS

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote.

7

# What are EG?

► 

# EG apply to existing landfills that accepted waste on or after November 8, 1987

► 

# Provide guidance for regulating landfill gas emissions which the States are required to implement through individual State plans

► 

# State plans must generally be as stringent as the EG, but states have the flexibility to apply less stringent limits or compliance schedules on a case

- by

- case basis

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote.

8

# What are the current rule requirements?

► 

## The NSPS and EG were promulgated on March 12, 1996

► 

## Landfill gas is the regulated pollutant for the NSPS and the designated pollutant for the EG

► 

## NMOC are measured as a surrogate for landfill gas in both rules

► 

## NMOC also contain hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (e.g. benzene, ethylene, toluene, xylene)

► 

## NSPS and EG reduced VOCs, air toxics, and malodorous compounds from existing and new landfills. Also achieved significant methane reductions.

Parameter 

# Value

Size Threshold 2.5 million megagrams (mass) or 2.5 cubic meters
(volume)

Emission Threshold 50 Mg/yr NMOC

Collection System and Control System

Installation Period 30 months

Method of Gas Control Open flare, enclosed flare, or treatment for

beneficial use

Wellfield Expansion Period 5 years for active cells; 2 years for closed cells or
final grade

Monitoring Monthly gas extraction well monitoring,
quarterly surface monitoring

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote. 

### 9

# Why reevaluate the NSPS and EG?

► 

# Landfill gas has adverse effects on public health and welfare

► 

# NMOC (with a significant portion containing VOC) interacts with sunlight and nitrogen oxides (NOx) to form ground level ozone

► 

# Ozone health effects: alteration of pulmonary function, damage to lung structure, adverse effects on blood enzymes, the central nervous system, and the endocrine system

► 

# Ozone welfare effects: reduced plant growth, reduced crop yield, deterioration of certain synthetic materials

► 

# Many of the NMOC in landfill gas are known or suspected carcinogens

► 

# Also have the potential to produce noncancer health effects and adverse effects on the kidneys, liver, and central nervous system

► 

# Additional public welfare concerns: odor nuisance, on and off

- site methane migration which could lead to explosions or fires

10

# Why reevaluate the NSPS and EG?

► 

# Notice of Intent to Sue (Oct. 23, 2008) requests the NSPS be reviewed

► 

# NSPS review required by the Clean Air Act and compelled by a court

- ordered deadline (Mandatory duty suit filed June 30, 2011)

► 

# EPA agreed to propose the rule by February 4, 2014 and take final action on the proposal by December 17, 2014

► 

# Data collected from several sources for the review

► 

# Voluntary ICR

► 

# EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) Landfill and Landfill Gas Energy Project Database

► 

# Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)

► 

# Data indicated a need to evaluate and account for changes that have occurred in the landfill industry since the NSPS and EG were originally promulgated in 1996

• Proliferation of landfill gas to energy projects



# • Variety of new monitoring techniques



# ► 

# Final data set includes:

► 

# 1,851 existing landfills

► 

# 20 predicted future landfills

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote. 11

# Why reevaluate the NSPS and EG?

► 

# While a review of the landfill emission guidelines is not statutorily required, we believe that revisions to these rules are also appropriate for the following reasons:

► 

# Tools are now available to conduct a more robust assessment of the size, type, and emissions of landfills as well as their ability to support energy recovery projects

• Indicates a need to reevaluate the thresholds and other requirements established in the emission guidelines



# • Data collection efforts also indicate the population of existing landfills is much larger than the projected number of new sources

► 

# The emission guidelines rely heavily on the NSPS

• Guidelines need review to see if cross

- references to the NSPS are still appropriate for existing sources

► 

# After the original rulemaking, Federal plan was issued to implement EG requirements in States and Indian Country where State and Tribal plans were not adopted

• With a Federal plan in place, the EPA has implemented a regulation for existing sources



# • If action taken on existing sources, EPA will likely need to update the Landfills Federal plan



# Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote. 12

# Are there additional issues being considered?

► 

# Amendments to the rules were proposed in 2002 and 2006 to address accountability and transparency

► 

# A number of issues from those amendments may be addressed in this action including:

► 

# Clarification of landfill owner/operator and treatment system owner/operator compliance responsibilities

► 

# Definition of landfill gas treatment

► 

# Startup, shutdown, and malfunction

► 

# We are also exploring changes to the surface monitoring requirements

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote.

13

# What has the EPA done so far?

► 

# Held a technical meeting on October 22, 2012 to discuss various

issues related to MSW landfills

► 

## Participants included: industry, states, environmental groups, and academics



# ► 

# Assessed numerous technical options using data from voluntary survey, GHGRP, and LMOP

► 

## Model landfills created to address gaps in dataset



# ► 

# Evaluated impacts of options by varying the following:

► 

# Design size

► 

# Emission rate threshold

► 

# Time allotted for gas collection system installation

► 

# Time allotted for wellfield expansion

► 

# Surface monitoring requirements

► 

# Held a “Federalism” consultation meeting on September 10, 2013

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote.

14

# Impacts of Potential Options

IF... THEN... POTENTIAL IMPACTS...

We lower the design size threshold Additional landfills will become
subject to the rule. Higher emission reductions than those achieved by

the current rule. Likely to increase annual reporting

burden for landfills under the

emission threshold. Additional permitting for landfills under the

threshold.

We remove the design size threshold Small number of additional landfills
will be required to install controls. Slightly higher reductions than those

achieved by the current rule. Require NMOC reporting from a significant number of landfills that would not be required to control. Creates a potential permitting issue.

We lower the emission threshold Significantly higher emission
reductions than those achieved by

the current rule. High net cost.

We shorten the time allowed for gas
collection and control system

installation Controls will be required earlier. Majority of additional reductions achieved within the first few years. Costs incurred earlier, contributing to a higher annualized cost over 10 year period.

We shorten the time allowed for well field expansion Collect gas from areas or cells on a more frequent basis. Significantly higher emission reductions than those achieved by the current rule. High cost effectiveness.



# Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote. 15

# Options Under Consideration for New and Existing Landfills

Option Description

1

- Reduce time allotted for installation

2

- Reduce emission threshold

- Reduce time allotted for installation and expansion

3

- Reduce design size threshold

- Reduce emission threshold

- Reduce time allotted for installation

4

- Reduce design size threshold

- Reduce emission threshold

- Reduce time allotted for installation and expansion

5

- Increase design size threshold

- Reduce emission threshold

- Reduce time allotted for expansion

6

- Increase design size threshold

- Reduce emission threshold

Deliberative

– Do Not Cite or Quote 16

# What are the next steps?

► 

# Do you have any additional information of which EPA

should be aware?

► 

# If so, please provide to Hillary Ward: Ward.Hillary@epa.gov

► 

# Do you have any other approaches that you would like

the EPA to consider?

► 

# We request that you provide written comments prior to the start of the panel to focus future discussions.

► 

# The panel is scheduled to convene in November.

Deliberative document. Do not cite or quote.

17Option Ownership

Category Under

Federal

Plan Under

State Plan All Landfills Under Federal

Plan Under State

Plan All Landfills NMOC Landfill Gas NMOC Landfill Gas NMOC Landfill Gas Avg. Annualized
Cost per Landfill ($) Avg. NMOC
Reductions per
Landfill (metric
tons) Avg. Landfill Gas
Reductions per
Landfill (metric
tons)

1 Small Entity 5 15 20 20,000 520,000 540,000 30 16,000 60 32,000 80 49,000 27,000 5 2,500
Not Small Entity 30 65 95 240,000 1,870,000 2,100,000 180 102,000 330 190,000 510 292,000 22,000 5 3,100

All Entities 35 80 115 260,000 2,380,000 2,640,000 210 118,000 390 222,000 600 341,000 23,000 5 3,000

2 Small Entity 10 70 80 380,000 4,910,000 5,290,000 60 33,000 410 232,000 460 265,000 66,000 5 3,300
Not Small Entity 150 540 690 3,980,000 34,710,000 38,690,000 780 447,000 2,380 1,364,000 3,170 1,811,000 56,000 5 2,600

All Entities 160 610 770 4,360,000 39,620,000 43,990,000 840 480,000 2,790 1,596,000 3,630 2,076,000 57,000 5 2,700

3 Small Entity 5 30 35 180,000 3,950,000 4,130,000 60 33,000 330 187,000 390 220,000 118,000 10 6,300
Not Small Entity 60 160 220 1,430,000 25,980,000 27,420,000 660 378,000 1,760 1,005,000 2,420 1,383,000 125,000 10 6,300

All Entities 65 190 255 1,610,000 29,930,000 31,540,000 720 411,000 2,080 1,192,000 2,800 1,603,000 124,000 10 6,300

4 Small Entity 10 80 90 1,350,000 8,190,000 9,540,000 120 67,000 590 335,000 700 402,000 106,000 10 4,500
Not Small Entity 170 590 760 7,600,000 50,330,000 57,920,000 1,100 628,000 3,190 1,826,000 4,290 2,454,000 76,000 5 3,200

All Entities 180 670 850 8,950,000 58,510,000 67,460,000 1,210 694,000 3,780 2,162,000 4,990 2,856,000 79,000 5 3,400

5 Small Entity 10 70 80 230,000 3,670,000 3,900,000 20 14,000 280 162,000 310 176,000 49,000 5 2,200
Not Small Entity 150 540 690 3,130,000 29,700,000 32,830,000 550 316,000 1,870 1,068,000 2,420 1,384,000 48,000 5 2,000

All Entities 160 610 770 3,360,000 33,370,000 36,730,000 580 330,000 2,150 1,230,000 2,730 1,560,000 48,000 5 2,000

6 Small Entity 5 20 25 (40,000) 2,520,000 2,490,000 10 4,000 200 112,000 200 116,000 100,000 10 4,600
Not Small Entity 40 100 140 610,000 19,540,000 20,150,000 400 230,000 1,140 650,000 1,540 881,000 144,000 10 6,300

All Entities 45 120 165 570,000 22,070,000 22,640,000 410 234,000 1,330 763,000 1,740 997,000 137,000 10 6,000

Notes:
Costs have been annualized at 7% and numbers have been independently rounded.

States and Territories Under Federal Plan:

Alaska

American Samoa

Arkansas

Connecticut

Hawaii

Massachusetts
Michigan

Mississippi

New Jersey

North Carolina

Northern Mariana Islands
Virgin Islands

Virginia
Washington

Wisconsin Incremental Annual Emission Reductions (metric tons)

No. Incrementally Affected Landfills Annualized Cost (Total) Under Federal Plan Under State Plan All Landfills Incremental Annualized Cost ($) Per Landfill Averages

### Pre

- call Questions from SER’s on the NSPS

10/ 4 /13

EPA, please try to address the following questions throughout your October 7 th 

### presentation to

the SER’s :

1. What options are you considering for making revision s to NSPS/EG to the following provisions ?

a. Owner/operator definition

b. Treatment definition

c. Expanding SEM

2. Will EPA consider other NSPS issues beyond the 2002 and 2006 proposals and the six options include d in your slides? Ho w can the SERs propose other rule changes?

3. In regards to the SEM revisions that are indicated, what types of revisions are being proposed?

4. Is there any potential revision to the wel lhead performance standards currently in NSPS (i.e., oxygen, temperature and pressure of extraction wells) if we have to shorten t he 2yr/5yr period ?

5. Does EPA plan to keep landfill gas as the regulated pollutant for NSPS/EG, and will

NMOC be continue to be the surrogate parameter both rules?

6. What is EPA ’s goal in terms of additional NMOC reductions with these NSPS/EG

revisions ? What cost threshold is EPA considering reasonable in terms of dollars per ton

of NMOC reduced ?

7. EPA option questions:

a. How were these 6 options developed and selected for consideration? Are other options or combinations possible?

b. If EPA lowers the design size thresho ld (2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3),

what design size threshold s are you consider ing and how did you assess the

emission reductions that would result ?

c. If EPA lowers the emission threshold (50 Mg/yr NMOC), what emission

threshold s are you consider ing an d how did you assess the emission reductions

that would result ?

d. If EPA shortens the time allowed for GCCS installation (30 months), what timing options are you consider ing and how did you assess the emission reductions that

would result ?

e. If EPA shortens th e time allowed for well field expansion (2yr/5yr rule), what timing options are you consider ing and how did you assess the emission

reductions that would result ?

f. Option 5 and 6 include “Increase design size threshold” in their description. What threshold options are you considering? Would the rule still incorporate a two

- step

### test (i.e., does one first meet the design threshold before evaluating the emission threshold)?

8. EXCEL spreadsheet questions:

a. How many landfills in the data set are cl osed landfills? How many are active

landfills?

b. Why did EPA separate out landfill #’s affected by State Plans or the Federal Plan?

c. Why does EPA think the costs for landfills under the Federal Plan are so much

less than the costs for landfill under the Sta te plans?

d. Please confirm if a math error has occurred in column N.

e. Please add a column that calculates the cost per ton of NMOC reduction to each option/entity.

f. What is included in the annualized cost for the landfills?

i. Is this only equipment installation or does your costs include the permitting , monitoring, and reporting requirements that will be required according to the revisions?

g. Can EPA provide the actual data that were used to determine the number of landfills affected, the cost of compliance, and the NMOC/methane reduction

calculations?

h. Did EPA consider the cost of r ule revisions that state and local jurisdictions will

incur ?

i. What sources of information did EPA use to calculate costs? What weight was given to each source of information used to calculate costs (i.e., LMOP data was

r elied on more than ICR data. ICR data was relie d on more than the GHGRP data)?

9. Why must the SER’s return our comments before the sta t e and local comments are due

November 8 th 

### ? We do not believe this is equitable treatment, particularly as our meeting

is scheduled a month later than the Federa lism Consultation meet ing held in September

.

## Panel Outreach Meeting with Small Entity Representatives

Review of New Source Performance St andards and Amendments to Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon, Eastern time zone

EPA HQ – William J Clinton North 4530

10:00 Welcome and Introductions (Alex Cristofaro, EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chair)

 Panel member introductions/remarks

 SER introductions

10:15 SER Presentation (Khaled Mahmood, for Mike Mich els, Cornerstone Environmental Group, representing Riverview MI)

10:30 SER Presentation (Anne Germaine, representing Caroline County MD)

10:45 Open Discussion (SERs and EPA) This is an opportunity for SERs to provide comments to EPA on the following:

 Clarifications that are needed in the landfill rules

 Options and ideas that EPA should consid er beyond those that were presented at the October 30,2013 Pre-Panel Meeting and the December 5, 2013 Supplemental Meeting

 Monitoring and recordkeeping: reacti ons to current requirements and

recommendations

 Technological advances that should be considered

 Availability of new models

 Additional issues

11:50 Summary and Closing (EPA)

**********************************************

Teleconference dial-in number: (866) 299-3188

Conference code: 202 566 2372

Dial the toll-free teleconference number li sted above. At the prompt, enter the conference code followed by the pound [#] sign. No te: You will hear music until the leader dials

into the call.

### Issues for EPA Consideration While reviewing the Landfill NSPS/EG

Date for Delivery: 12/19/2013

Presented in-person by: Khaled Mahmood, Cornerstone Environmental Group on behalf of The City of Riverview, Michigan (small entity).

EPA is considering regulatory options to revise Landfill NSPS and EG. Due to time constraint I will touch base on three issues mainly 1) LFG Treatment System 2) Wellfield compliance & 3) Surface Emission Monitoring.

LFG Emission Control via Treatment:

Treatment filters, dewaters, and compresses the LFG.

Treatment is an alternative to flaring or combustion.

Treatment is a good opti on for small entities.

Current treatment system definition allows implem entation of innovative ga s to energy project.

Treatment allows use of the LFG as an en ergy source and thereby good for the environment

Treatment is not a control device but in stead preparation for a control device.

Treatment does not typically have emissions (periodic use of a ve nt stack being the exception).

The City of Riverview employs “treatment” for its LFG in 2 ways:

1. Some raw LFG is sold to DTE Biomass. DTE filters the LFG, compresses it, and dewaters prior to destruction in gas turbines which generate electricity for distribution to the local grid.

2. Some raw LFG is used by the City in a BioCNG treatment system which filters it, compresses it, dewaters it, and lowers the H 2 

### S, siloxane, and CO 2 

### concentration, prior to a fueling station where it is discharged into vehicles and destroyed. The waste gas from the BioCNG system is vented into the gas collection system and blended with other LFG and routed to DTE treatment system.

In summary, the City has two treatment systems on the same landfill. Both treatment systems are treating the LFG to different levels. These trea tment levels are dictated by the control devices located after treatment. Both treatment systems function well. Both treatment systems have safety shutoffs if malfunctions occur. Neither treatment systems have emissions. Neither treatment systems are control devices.

In 2006 EPA proposed revising “treatment” to include operating limits and monitoring. We believe these proposals are ina ppropriate and unnecessary:

1. because the treatment system s are not control devices,

2. because the proposals would not provide the ope rator of the treatmen t system with any

information that would enable a reduction in emissions because the filtration, compression, nor the dewatering process produce emissions that could be reduced, and

3. because regulating the operating limits and m onitoring will inhibit the development of LFGTE at small entity facilities which are already challenged with numerous technical

### and financial barriers to entry due to th eir small LFG flow. Adding more unnecessary regulatory and financial burden to these projects is inappropriate.

A one-size-fits-all approach, su ch as EPA put forth in the pr oposed 2006 rule, does not account for the site-specific characteristics that ma y impact operating requirements for each LFG treatment system and control device.

In closing we believe that all treatment systems need are a site-specific preventative maintenance plan and a Start-up, Shutdown and Malfunction Plan. Operating according to these two plans is sufficient to assure that it is done properly. 

### As such, we believe that regulating the treatment of LFG is simply not necessary to ensu re that LFG is properly combusted.

Regulating Wellhead Operation

I have been personally dealing with N SPS regulations/MRR for the last 14 years.

EPA’s current wellhead compliance mechanism is very prescriptive and raises more questions, requires a significant amount of paperwork and reduces ZERO emissions.

Compliance mechanism attributes to generating le tters, reports and paperwork. Let me illustrate the above noted issues with one example: An oxygen exceedance greater than 15 days trigge red a letter to the agency for alternate compliance time line. The facility reported this event as a deviation in the semi-annual Title V compliance report and subsequently in the Title V annual compliance certification. The facility

received a notice of violation for this issue. In the notice of violation le tter the agency required the facility to res pond in great deta il about the event, co rrective action, and plan to prevent future occurrence of such event. So, what happened to the well that exceeded oxygen for 15-days? The well returned to compliance on 20 th 

### day. It was just a simple tuning issue. This is only one example of the pitfalls of pres criptive nature of the NSPS/EG regulation. The issue and its resolution did NOT provide any reductions in NMOC but cost the facility significant $$.

We urge EPA to eliminate the temperatu re and oxygen standards in the NSPS/EG: Since the rule promulgation in 1996, the industry has gained significant and widespread field operations experience. The existing wellhead st andards are not the best indicator of GCCS performance because they are arbitrary limits on a limited number of parameters which do not accurately represent proper GCCS performance.

Further, the existing wellhead operating sta ndards do not provide a ny protection to the

environment. We believe that landfill owners are already heavily incentivized to maximize GCCS collection efficiency to control odor, co ntrol subsurface migration, minimize groundwater impacts, maintain cap stability and integrity, control surface emissions, and maximize energy recovery. In addition, landfill owners diligently operate to avoid causing subsurface fires as potential damage to leachate containment liners, gas collection and control systems and other environmental controls can result in non-complia nce and be extremely costly to mitigate.

### The temperature limit in NSPS/EG was established as an alert level that may indicate a problem that prompts further investigation; well te mperature at or above 55 degrees Celsius ( 0 C) does not mean there is a fire or indicate improper operation. A well temperature at or above 55 0 C may be normal operating conditions for a facility based on site-s pecific climate and waste characterization. In the rulemaking record, EPA stat es that vacuum adjustment is the solution to reduce temperature, not system expansion. Noneth eless, some delegated agencies have required automatic system expansions as a result of well temperature above the action level.

Of the current wellhead operating standards, onl y pressure is directly tied to controlling emissions. We do not believe that the wellhead pressure standard provides additional environmental protection in light of other opera ting incentives described above. However, this negative pressure parameter could be maintained to ensure a minimum sta ndard of gas collection

is maintained.

We ask that EPA keep in mind that wellhead st andards do not measure emissions that can only be done with surface emission monitoring. We ask that EPA relax wellhead standards and let the landfill owners operate their well fi eld in whatever safe manner they feel appropriate such that

surface emissions are maintain below the standard.

Surface Emission Monitoring (SEM)

Current SEM is adequate and no tweaking is desi rable. EPA should allo w more flexibility in SEM monitoring and locations.

Integrated SEM in grids with 25 ppmv limit (California’s appr oach) is not desirable. Integrated SEM will be burdensome for a small facility like Riverview, significant increase in cost, new equipment and training of personnel.

Riverview is a site with 211 acres of landfill foot print. Cu rrent estimate shows $5,000 of annual cost to perform NSPS SEM in the entire footprint. If the Riverview has to perform the SEM in accordance with Integrated SEM (~184 Grids of 50,000 sqft) it will cost approximately $100,000.00; a significant increase in cost of compliance.SBAR Pre-Panel Outreach Supplemental Briefing:New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) andEmission Guidelines (EG) forMunicipal Solid Waste (MSW) LandfillsBriefing for Potential SERsDecember 5, 2013InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseOverview►Clean Air Act Section 111(b)►Clean Air Act Section 111(d)►Rationale for the Landfill NSPS Review►Rationale for Reviewing the Landfill EmissionGuidelines►Additional Information about Various RuleParameters►Next StepsInternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotRelease2Clean Air Act Section 111: New Sources►Clean Air Act Section 111(b) established requirements fornew stationary sources; requirements referred to as newsource performance standards (NSPS)►EPA is required to list categoriesof stationary sources which “causeor contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably beanticipated to endanger public health or welfare”►Standards must reflect “the degree of emission limitation achievablethrough the application of the best system of emission reductionwhich the Administrator determines has been adequatelydemonstrated”►Costs are considered►Standards are reviewed at least every 8 years and revised ifappropriate►NSPS applies to landfills that commenced construction,modification, or reconstruction on or after May 30,19913InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseClean Air Act Section 111: Existing Sources►Clean Air Act Section 111(d) sets up a partnership betweenstates and EPA►EPA’s role:►Establish process for states to issue performance standards forexisting sources in the source category►Provide emission guidelines (EG) tothe states on the level of thestandard they need to meet►Review and approve state plans►Promulgate a Federal plan for statesthat either don’t submit a planor for which EPA disapproves their plan►State’s role:►Develop section 111(d) plan establishing standards of performancefor the affected sources in their state►Submit plan to EPA that is responsive to the EPA guidelines►Implement plan if EPA approves it4InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseClean Air Act Section 111: Existing Sources►Section 111(d) provides greater flexibility to EPA and states todesign a program in consultation with diverse range ofstakeholders►EPA may specify different guidelines or compliance times (orboth) for different sizes, types, and classes of designated facilitieswhen costs, physical limitations, geographical location, or otherfactors make subcategorization appropriate 40 C.F.R. §60.22(b)(5)►EG applies to existing landfills that accepted waste on or afterNovember 8, 19875InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseWhy is EPA reviewing the Landfill NSPS?►In 2008, Environmental Defense Fund filed a Notice of Intent toSue and requested that the Landfill NSPS be reviewed►A mandatory duty suit was filed in 2011►EPA was compelled by a court ordered deadline to review theLandfill NSPS►When promulgated in 1996, best system of emission reductionwas established as a well-designed and well-operated landfill gas(LFG) collection and control system with a control device capableof reducing non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) by 98%6InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseWhy is EPA reviewing the NSPS and EG?►Data collected from several sources for the review►Voluntary information collection request (ICR)►EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) and Landfill GasEnergy Project Database►Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)►Data indicated a need to evaluate and account for changesthat have occurred in the landfill industry since the NSPSand EG were originally promulgated in 1996►Proliferation of landfill gas to energy projects►Variety of new monitoring techniques7InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseWhy is the EPA reviewing the EG?►As part of its data collection efforts for the NSPS review,EPA received new information regarding existing landfills►Information allows a more robust assessment of the size, type, andemissions of landfills►EG’s applicability thresholds, monitoring, recordkeeping,and control requirements rely on and parallel the NSPS►Review will ensure that those cross-references are still appropriate►Because the number of existing sources is significantlyhigher than projected new sources, any cost-effectiveemission reductions may realize their greatest benefit fromsources subject to the emission guidelines►Because the NSPS and EG are so interrelated, werecognized a resource savings by reviewing simultaneously8InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseWhy is EPA reviewing various parameters that wereestablished in the original NSPS and EG?►Landfill NSPS and EG differ from most stationary source rules inthat they have an emission profile that can last for decades►Promulgated in 1996, the original NSPS were designed in amanner that accounted for the changing aspects of landfills overtime►Parameters such as the emission threshold, design capacity, wellmonitoring, and surface monitoring were developed to ensurecontrol of emissions from large landfills►Because these parameters are central to the structure of the rule,it is appropriate to evaluate the incremental impacts of changes tothese parameters9InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotRelease10Additional Information about VariousRule ParametersInternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseNSPS Landfill Size Threshold and NMOCEmissions Threshold►EPA is reviewing the design capacity cutoff (current rule is 2.5million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters design capacity) and theNMOC threshold (current rule is 50 Mg/yr)►Adjustments to either of these parameters will affect emissionreductions achieved11InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseSchedule for Installing or Expanding Controls►EPA is exploring options that adjust times for installing initialcontrols after thresholds have been triggered (current rule allows30 months)►Timing and extent of reductions are dependent on the initialinstallation of controls►EPA is also exploring a change to the schedule for expanding agas collection system (current rule allows 2 years after initialwaste placement in closed areas and 5 years after initial wasteplacement in active areas)►Incremental emission reductions may be achieved each time thegas collection system is expanded12InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseLandfill Gas Treatment►Treatment is one of three control options (combust LFG in a flare orenclosed combustion device or treatthe LFG in a treatment system)►Received significant comments over time requesting clarification of whatconstitutes sufficient gas treatment►Received comments on regulatory uncertainty in treatmentdeterminations and the inability to consistently enforce the treatmentcontrol option►Received comments on whether numeric limits are needed to definetreatment►Amendments proposed in 2002 and 2006 attempted to addressoutstanding issues related to landfillgas treatment (specifically whatconstitutes sufficient treatment)►Proposed to define treatment as filtration, dewatering, and compressionof the landfill gas (2002)►Proposed numeric limits to define treatment and ensure long-termprotection of the combustion equipment (2006)►Proposal needs to provide a path forward for defining treatment13InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseParametric Monitoring for Wells►Temperature/nitrogen/oxygen levels indicate whether the LFGcollection system is operating properly►Elevated nitrogen/oxygen levels indicate too much air in thelandfill, which could contribute to fires. Elevated temperaturesmay significantly inhibit anaerobic decomposition by killingmethanogens►EPA is reviewing the temperature/oxygen/nitrogen wellheadrequirements►EPA is also exploring whether surface monitoring requirementsare sufficient indicators of whether the gas collection and controlsystems are being operated properly14InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseClarification of Responsibilities for LFGEnergy Projects►Landfill gas is commonly collected and combusted to produceelectricity, steam, or other useful energy by using a variety ofequipment. Such equipment can be owned, operated, or locatedon the landfill site or off site at separate industrial, commercial, orinstitutional facilities►Multiple parties can be involved in the ownership or operation of alandfill and the associated landfill gas collection, control, and/ortreatment systems►Clarifying responsibilities could improve implementation andenforcement for existing LFG energy projects►Parties would also know their responsibilities without ambiguitybefore participating in future LFG energy projects15InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseSurface Monitoring Requirements►Low surface emissions demonstrate that LFG collection systemand cover are working properly►EPA is exploring the need to address visual observationspotentially indicating elevated concentrations of landfill gas►We have received information about new surface monitoringtechniques and are exploring whether these new techniques areappropriate16InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseClosed Areas of Landfills►Owners/operators may exclude from control a “nonproductive”area of a landfill if the area accounts for less than 1 percent oftotal NMOC emissions from the landfill►EPA has learned that it is difficult to demonstrate that such anarea accounts for less than 1 percent of landfill NMOC emissionsusing the calculation method in the rule, which is based onmodeled LFG flow►EPA is exploring the use of measured and modeled landfill gasflow to address the need for more accurate measurement ofNMOC emissions17InternalDeliberativeMaterialforSBARPanelMembersOnly– DoNotReleaseNext Steps►The Panel’s formal Outreach Meeting is scheduled for Thursday,December 19thfrom 10:00 am to 12:00 pm►It is anticipated that written comments from SERs will be due inearly January►For assistance with technical questions, please contact:►Hillary Ward►Ward.Hillary@epa.gov.►For general panel process questions, please contact:►Lanelle Wiggins►Wiggins.Lanelle@epa.gov18Office of the AdministratorOffice of PolicyOffice of Regulatory Policy and Managementhttp://www.epa.gov/op/orpm.htmlSmall Business Advocacy ReviewPanel Process RecapPanel Outreach Meeting with SERsDecember 19, 2013This presentation recaps...• What is the purpose of a Small Business AdvocacyReview (SBAR) Panel?• How do Small Entity Representatives (SERs) participatein the Panel and rulemaking process?• What does the Panel do with SER recommendations?2Purpose of a Panel• SBREFA1amended the 1980 RegulatoryFlexibility Act (RFA), which requiresagencies to:“assure that small entities have been given anopportunity to participate in the rulemaking” process forany rule “which will have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of small entities.”21Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 199625 USC 609(a)3SER participation• The Panel is conducting this Outreach Meeting with SERstoday to collect your verbal advice and recommendationson the following issues:Who are the small entities to which the proposed rule will apply?What are the anticipated compliance requirements of the upcomingproposed rule?Are there any existing federal rules that may overlap or conflict with theregulation?Are there any significant regulatory alternatives that couldminimize the impact on small entities?• You will also have the chance to provide the Panel withwritten advice and recommendations, due January 10th.4What does the Panel dowith your recommendations?• EPA, OMB, and SBA prepare a joint Panelreport:Submitted to the EPA AdministratorConsidered during senior-management decisionmaking prior to the issuance of the proposed rulePlaced in the rule’s docket when the proposed rule ispublished5Thank You• We realize that small entities makesignificant sacrifices to participate• Thank you for taking time and effort awayfrom your business or organization toassist the Panel in this important work6

### Internal Deliberative Material For SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Release

1 Background Information for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of Landfill NSPS and EG Regulatory Options

To estimate the cost and emission impacts of each regulatory option EPA determ ined which landfills met the design capacity and emission rate cutoffs for each regulatory option, then calculated the annual

emission reductions and costs for each landfill for each year from 2014 through 2063 under each regulatory option using the equati ons described below. The resulting costs and emission reductions incurred by each landfill during the period of 2014 through 2023 were used to assess the overall impacts of each option.

General Assumptions and Procedures

 The baseline represents the emission reductions and costs associated with the requirements of the current rule. Each alternative regulatory optio n was compared to this baseline option.

 Landfill would install GCCS when the landfill exceeds the emission rate and design capacity

cutoffs.

 Landfill would remove GCCS when the actual em issions are below the emissions cutoff, the landfill is closed, and the controls have been in place for at least 15 years.

 Costs were annualized using a 7 percent interest rate, which is consistent with EPA guidance for

cost evaluations.

Alternative regulatory options varied the emissi on rate cutoffs, design capacity cutoffs, initial lag time to install gas collection and control system s (GCCS), and expansion lag time for GCCS:

 Emission rate cutoff. Baseline = 50 Mg NMOC per year. The alternative regulatory options

include alternative NMOC cutoffs.

 Design capacity cutoff. Baseline = 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 cubi c meters. The alternative regulatory options include alternative landfill size cutoffs.

 Initial lag time. Baseline = 30 months, modeled at 3-years because the first-order decay equation used to model emissions is on an annual, inst ead of monthly, basis. Further, because NMOC emission reports under the current rule are required to be submitted in June of the following year (6 months) the landfill would get 30 months afte r the submittal of its NMOC emission report to install the GCCS, and so the total time to insta ll a GCCS would be approximately 36 months after the excess emissions occurred. The alternative regul atory options include s horter initial lag times.

 Expansion lag time. Baseline = 2 or 5 years, modeled at 4 years. Expansion lag time is the amount of time until the landfill expands the GCCS into waste being placed in new areas of the landfill. The current rule allows 2 years after in itial waste placement in closed areas and 5 years after initial waste placement in active areas of the landfill, so the actual lag time varies by landfill depending how quickly expansion areas are fille d and closed, although more landfills probably tend toward the 5 years. Therefore, a 4-year expansion lag time was assumed to represent the baseline. The alternative regulatory opti ons include shorter expansion lag times.

### Internal Deliberative Material For SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Release

2 Estimating Annual Emissions

Estimating Waste

 If a landfill’s annual waste acceptance rate (WAR) and waste in place (WIP) values were

available in the landfill dataset and associated w ith a particular year, then those values were extrapolated to estimate the landfill’s WAR and WIP for each year.

 If WIP and WAR values were not available in th e landfill dataset, the annual WAR was estimated using the landfill open and closure years and the landfill capacity and assuming a constant WAR

over the lifetime of the landfill. The annual wast e in place was calculated by summing the waste acceptance rate over time.

Estimating Annual Emissions

 Estimated annual methane emissions from each landfill for each year during the period of 2014- 2063 using Equation 1.

Equation 1 kt 0 t 4 e M L k CH     

Where:

CH 4t = Methane, ft 3 in year t k = Methane generation rate, year -1

L 0 = Potential methane generation capacity, ft 3 methane per ton M = Mass of waste accepted in year t, tons t = Analysis year (year 1 through 50), year

 Estimated the volume of LFG produced by a landfill using Equation 2.

Equation 2 LFG t = CH 4t × 2

Where:

LFG t = Landfill gas, ft 3 in year t

CH 4t = Methane, ft 3 in year t 2 = Multiplier to convert methane to LFG (assuming that LFG is 50 percent methane), unitless

 Estimated the mass of NMOC emissions produced by each landfill, based on the amount of LFG produced at the landfill, using Equation 3.

Equation 3 NMOC t = LFG t ÷ 35.32 × 595 × 3.6E -9

Where

NMOC t = NMOC in year t, Mg in year t

LFG t = Landfill gas, ft 3 in year t 35.32 = Conversion, ft 3 per m 3
595 = Concentration of NMOC in LFG, ppm NMOC by volume as hexane 3.6E-9 = Conversion factor, Mg NMOC per m 3 LFG

### Internal Deliberative Material For SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Release

3  Estimated the mass of methane emissions, in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents, produced by each landfill using the Equation 4.

Equation 4 Mg CO 2 eq = CH 4t × 0.0423 ÷ 2000 ÷ 0.90718 × GWP CH4

Where: Mg CO 2 eq t = Carbon dioxide equivalents, Mg in year t

CH 4t = Methane, ft 3 in year t (From Equation 1) 0.0423 = Density of methane, lb per ft 3
2000 = Conversion, lb per short ton 0.90718 = Conversion, short ton per Mg

GWP CH4 = 25, Global Warming Potential of Methane

Calculating Emissions Using NSPS/EG and AP-42 Default Values

The current NSPS/EG requires the use of Tier 1 default value for the potential methane generation capacity (L 0 ) and methane generation rate (k) to de termine when the landfill exceeds the 50 Mg NMOC per year emission rate cutoff. To determ ine when landfills may remove controls, the current rules allow landfills to measure the actual collected g as flow rate as well as the concentration (instead of relying on Tier 1 default L 0 and k defaults).

Installing controls. The combination of the Tier 1 defaults for k and L 0 and the NMOC concentration of 595 ppmv were used to represent how landfills currently calculate NMOC emissions to determine if they have to install controls under the NSPS/EG. These values, known as LFG NSPS/EG and

NMOC NSPS/EG , tend to overestimate actual emissions at most landfills (due to the conservatively high L 0 and k values).

Landfills have conducted Tier 2 tests and gotten mu ch lower values that are consistent with the AP-42 average NMOC concentration of 595 ppmv. The use of AP-42 L 0 and k values in the emission calculation produces results that more closely match ac tual landfill emissions. The use of these values, in combination with the NMOC concentration of 595 pp mv, result in estimates of LFG and NMOC that are in accordance with the AP-42; in this evaluation these estimates were called LFG AP-42 and NMOC AP-42.

Removing controls. LFG AP-42 and NMOC AP-42 were used to determ ine when landfills would

remove controls. The current rules allow landfills to measure the actual collected gas flow rate as well as the concentration (instead of relying on Tier 1 defa ult L0 and k defaults). Because the AP-42 values for

L 0 and k produce results that more closely match actua l gas flow rates and emissions, AP-42 values were

used to determine when landfills would remove controls.

Applying Landfill-Specific k Factors

The k values depend on the amount of precipita tion at the landfill. For this evaluation, precipitation data by climate division from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were obtained and averaged over the period of 2000 to 2009. 1 These average precipitation

factors of each climate division were matched to th e county-level location of each landfill. The k factors were assigned to each landfill based on the resu lting amount of precipitation at each landfill.

1 NOAA climate division data are available online at: http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp#

and are available for download at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs

.

### Internal Deliberative Material For SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Release

4 Estimating Emission Reductions

To estimate emission reductions, the amount of LFG and NMOC emitted at each landfill was estimated using Equations 1-3.

 The model assumes that the collection equipment is installed and operati onal at the landfill after the initial lag time of the regulatory option.

 As the landfill is filled over time, the model assumes the landfill expands the GCCS into new areas of waste placement in accordance with the expansion lag time of th e regulatory option. See Table 1, below.

 Once the landfill has reached the maximum ga s production and the gas production starts to decrease, the analysis assum es that the GCCS will collect all of the emitted gas.

 To determine the amount of LFG and NM OC collected, the analysis uses the LFG AP-42 and

NMOC AP-42, estimates with the appropriate lag times, because this is the best estimate of actual gas collected.

 The emission reductions are equal to the amount of collected NMOC or methane that is combusted, which is estimated by multiplying the amount of collected gas by a destruction efficiency of 98 percent.

Table 1. Example of Collected NMOC Estimate at a Landfill with an Initial Lag Time of 3 Years and

an Expansion Lag Time of 4 Years

Year NMOC NSPS/EG NMOC AP-42 Collected NMOC

1 50.2 27.7 0.0

2 50.4 27.9 0.0

3 50.6 28.0 0.0

4 50.8 28.2 28.2

5 51.0 28.3 28.2

6 51.1 28.5 28.2

7 51.3 28.6 28.2

8 51.5 28.7 28.7

9 51.6 28.9 28.7

10 51.7 29.0 28.7

11 51.9 29.1 28.7

12 52.0 29.2 29.2

13 52.1 29.3 29.2

14 52.2 29.4 29.2

15 52.3 29.5 29.2

Estimating Control Costs

The cost equations used in this regulatory evaluation were derived from EPA’s Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model (LFGcost), version 2.3, whic h was developed by EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP).

 LFGcost estimates costs for gas collection, flare, and energy recovery systems and was developed based on cost data obtained from equipment vendors and consulting firms that have installed and operated numerous gas collection and control systems.

 LFGcost encompasses the types of costs in cluded in the EPA OAQPS control cost manual including capital costs, annual costs, and recovery credits.

o Total capital costs include purchased equipment costs, installation costs, engineering and design costs, costs for site preparation a nd buildings, costs of permits and fees, and working capital.

### Internal Deliberative Material For SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Release

5 o Total annual costs include direct costs, indirect costs, and recovery credits.

o Direct annual costs are those that are proportional to a facility-sp ecific metrics such as the facility’s productive output or size. \

o Indirect annual costs are independent of facility-specific metrics and may include categories such as administrative charges, taxes, or insurance.

o Recovery credits are for materials or energy recovered by the control system.

For this evaluation, all costs are presented in 2012$. The costs included in LFGcost are in 2008$ and were escalated to 2012$ using an escalation factor of 1 percent for capital costs and 2.5 percent for

O&M costs.

The analysis presents the annuali zed capital cost of flares, wells, wellheads (including piping to collect gas), and engines over the lifetime of the e quipment. The equipment is assumed to be replaced when its lifetime is over, so the annualized cap ital costs are incurred as long as the landfill still has controls in place. In order to calculate the annualizati on factors, flares, wells, well heads, and engines are assumed to have a 15-year lifetime. In addition, ther e is a mobilization/installation charge to bring well drilling equipment on site each time the gas collecti on system is expanded. Because the landfill will be drilling wells to expand the control system during the e xpansion lag year, this capital installation cost is assumed to have a lifetime equal to the expansion lag time. A number of the capital costs equations depend on the number of wells at each landfill. In order to estimate the number of wells at each landfill, EPA estimated the number of acres that have been filled with waste for each landfill for each year. EPA assume d that the percent of design area filled (acres) would track the ratio of waste in place/design capaci ty (e.g., if a landfill has a waste-in-place amount equivalent to 40 percent of design capacity, then 40 pe rcent of the planned acreage is filled). In addition, EPA assumed that each landfill would install one well per acre, consistent with the guidelines provided in the LFGcost model, and that the number of wells would increase periodically based on expansion lag

time.

Capital Costs

The equations used in this evaluation to cal culate capital costs for flares, wells, wellheads (including gas collection piping), mobilization/insta llation, and engines are presented below. All costs equations are shown on an individual landfill and year basis. To assess the capital costs of each regulatory option, the capital costs for all landfills assumed to install a GCCS under each regulatory option were summed if those capital costs were incurred anytime during the 10-year period of 2014-2023.

Flare Capital Costs

Flares are the primary control device used at la ndfills. All landfills that are required to comply with the regulatory options are assumed to install flar es; even landfills using engines would have flares as the back-up control device for periods when the e ngines are not operating. The capital flare costs are estimated using the equation below, which is based on the installed cost of the knockout, blower, and flare system as determined in LFGcost. The flares are sized based on the maximum LFG flow rate over the 15- year flare lifetime.

Equation 5 4 61

. 0

max 15yr

y 15, capital ) 01

. 1 ( 100

, 4 525,600 LFG

z Flare          

 

### Internal Deliberative Material For SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Release

6 Where:

Flare capital = Installed annualized cost of knockout, blower, and flare system, 2012$

z 15,y = Annualization factor where x=15 yrs and y=interest rate (0.07), unitless

LFG 15yrmax = Maximum LFG collected for 15 year project period, ft 3 per year 525,600 = Conversion factor, minutes per year $4,100 = Installed capital cost of knockout, blower, and flare system, 2008$ per

ft 3 /min LFG (1.01) 4 = Adjustment from 2008$ to 2012$, unitless 2

Well Capital Costs

The well capital costs are based on a dollar per foot of well depth installed estimate from LFGcost. As shown in the equation below, wells are assumed to have a depth of 10 feet less than the landfill depth. The method used to estimate the numbe r of wells at the landfill each year is described

above.

Equation 6 Well capital = z 15,y × (Depth – 10) × 90 × Wells annual × (1.01) 4

Where:

Well capital = Installed annualized cost of wells, 2012$

z 15,y = Annualization factor where x=15 yrs and y=interest rate (0.07), unitless Depth = Landfill waste depth, feet

10 = feet $90 = Installed capital cost of one well, 2008$ per foot of well depth

Wells annual = Number of wells operated each year (1.01) 4 = Adjustment from 2008$ to 2012$, unitless

Wellhead Capital Costs

The capital wellhead cost covers the equipment associated with each well, including the wellhead and gathering lines (and associated sumps) connecting the wells, and is dependent on the number of wells. The capital wellhead costs at each landfill are estimated using a dollar per wellhead installed cost from

LFGcost and the number of wells at each landfill.

Equation 7 Wellhead capital = z 15,y × 15,000 × Wells annual × (1.01) 4

Where:

Wellhead capital = Installed annualized cost of wellheads, 2012$

z 15,y = Annualization factor where x=15 yrs and y=interest rate (0.07), unitless $15,000 = Installed capital cost of one wellhead, 2008$ per well

Wells annual = Number of wells operated each year (1.01) 4 = Adjustment from 2008$ to 2012$, unitless

2 Escalation equation uses a formula of (1+escalation/100) t , where capital cost escalation is assumed to be 1 percent and t is equal to 4 years

### Internal Deliberative Material For SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Release

7 Mobilization/ Installation Costs for Wellfield Expansion

The cost occurs each time the g as collection system (i.e., wellfield) is expanded into new areas of the landfill, so the frequency is dependent on the expa nsion lag time. This cost is independent of the number of wells being added. It includes costs such as planning and set-up, mobilization costs to get the well drilling rig on site, and limited e ngineering/management costs. This cost is estimated using the following equation:

Equation 8 Installation capital = z x,y × 25,000 × (1.01) 4

Where:

Installation capital = Mobilization/installation annualized cost, 2012$

z x,y = Annualization factor where x=expansion lag time in yrs and y=interest rate (0.07), unitless $25,000 = Mobilization/Installation costs, per occurrence, 2008$ (1.01) 4 = Adjustment from 2008$ to 2012$, unitless

Engine Capital Costs

Engines are assumed to be installed only at landfills that produce enough LFG to power the engine and only when the electricity buyback rates allow the operation of the engine to be profitable. Standard engines used at landfills have approxima tely 1 MW capacity, which equates to 195 million ft 3
per year of collected LFG (at 50 percent methane). Th erefore, engines were assumed to be installed at

landfills that have at least 195 million ft 3 per year of collected LFG for at least 15 years.

EPA calculated and summed the engine capital and operation and mainte nance (O&M) equations to determine at what electricity buyback rate an e ngine is profitable. The profitable electricity buyback rate is greater than $0.0457 per kWh at 7 percent interest. ERG assumed engines were only installed in states with buyback rates exceeding those values.

Multiple engines may be present at a landfill wh en there is sufficient gas flow to support additional engines. As noted above , one engine requires 195 million ft 3 per year of collected LFG, so in order to have two engines on site, the landfill must have double that amount of LFG (390 million ft 3 per year) for at least 15 years.

The capital costs for engines are based on the cap ital costs for standard reciprocating enginegenerator sets in LFGcost. These costs include gas compression and treatment to remove particulates and moisture (e.g., a chiller), reciprocating engine and ge nerator, electrical interconnect equipment, and site work including housings, utilities, and total facility engineering, design, and permitting.

Equation 9 Engine capital = z 15,y × 1,850,000 × (1.01) 4 × Engine multiplier

Where: Engine capital = Installed annualized cost of engines, 2012$

z 15,y = Annualization factor where x=15 yrs and y=interest rate (0.07), unitless $1,850,000 = Installed capital cost of one reciprocating engine-generator set, 2008$ per engine (1.01) 4 = Adjustment from 2008$ to 2012$, unitless Engine multiplier = Number of engines needed

### Internal Deliberative Material For SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Release

8 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

The following equations were used to calculat e O&M costs for flares, wells, electricity, and engines. All cost equations are shown on an individua l landfill and year basis. These costs for all landfills were summed by year and the resulting annual sums were used to estimate NPV costs.

To accurately estimate annual electricity costs a nd engine revenue from the generation and sale of electricity, two electricity prices were needed. Landfil ls must purchase electricity to operate the blowers

used to collect LFG. EPA used comme rcial average retail electricity prices by State from the U.S. Energy

Information Administration to estimate el ectricity purchase prices at the landfill.

Landfills utilizing engines generate revenue from the sale of the LFG-produced electricity. The amount of revenue generate d depends primarily on the buyback ra te negotiated between the landfill (or third party developer) and the electric company pur chasing the LFG-generated power. ERG used average wholesale prices for each state from the U.S. Ener gy Information Administration (EIA) to estimate electricity buyback rates 3 . These wholesale prices generally fit in the range of typical buyback prices for LFG of $0.025 - $0.07/kWh, as discussed in LMOP’s Project Development Handbook. Additionally, LFGcost uses a default buyback rate of $0.06/kWh an d the U.S. average of the wholesale prices used is $0.058/kWh.

EIA wholesale data were not available for three States (HI, RI & WV); hence, electricity purchase prices were used to ratio the average U.S. wholesale price to estimate buyback rates for these States. Electricity price data for the U.S. territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands were not found. Therefore, an LFGcost scenario was created using economic inputs expected on an island to estimate a buyback rate of $0.12/kWh utilized by all three territories.

Flare O&M Costs

An estimate of the flare O&M costs from LFGcost was used to estimate th e flare annual costs, as shown in the equation below:

Equation 10 Flare O&M = 4,500 × (1.025) 4

Where:

Flare O&Ml = Flare annual O&M costs, 2012$ $4,500 = Annual O&M flare cost, 2008$ (1.025) 4 = Adjustment from 2008$ to 2012$, unitless 4

Well O&M Costs

An estimate of the well O&M costs from LFGcost was used to estimate the well annual costs, as shown in the equation below:

3 http://www.eia.gov/elect ricity/data/eia861/

4 Escalation equation uses a formula of (1+escalation/100) t , where O&M cost escalation is assumed to be 2.5 percent and t is equal to 4 years

### Internal Deliberative Material For SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Release

9 Equation 11 Well O&M = 2,250 × Wells annual × (1.025) 4

Where:

Well O&Ml = Well annual O&M costs, 2012$ $2,250 = Annual O&M well costs, 2008$ per well

Wells annual = Number of wells operating each year (1.025) 4 = Adjustment from 2008$ to 2012$, unitless

Electricity O&M Costs

The electricity cost of operating the blowers was ca lculated using the electricity usage of blowers and the electricity purchase price.

Equation 12 Electricity O&M = 0.002 × Electricity purchase × LFG collected

Where: Electricity O&M = Electricity annual O&M costs, 2012$ 0.002 = Electricity usage by blowers, kWh per ft 3 LFG Electricity purchase = Electricity purchase price, 2012$ per kWh

LFG collected = Amount of LFG collected, ft 3 per year

Engine O&M Costs

For landfills with engines installed, the O&M cost s of the engine were estimated using the annual costs for standard reciprocating engine-generator sets from LFGcost, and taking into account the amount of time that the engine is operating each year and the number of engines on site.

Equation 13 Engine O&M = 0.02 × 1,000 × 8,760 × 0.93 × (1.025) 4 × Engine multiplier

Where: Engine O&M = Engine annual O&M costs, 2012$ 0.02 = Annual O&M engine cost, 2008$ per kWh 1,000 = Amount of electricity as kW produced by a 1 MW engine, kW per engine 8,760 = Conversion factor, hours per year

0.93 = Fraction of time that the engine is online, unitless (1.025) 4 = Adjustment from 2008$ to 2012$, unitless Engine multiplier = Number of engines

Engine Revenue Costs

For landfills with engines installed, ERG calculate d the revenue of the electricity produced by the engines using the equation below. This equation assumes that all electricity generated is sold to the grid instead of some of the electricity ge nerated being used to power the GCCS.

### Internal Deliberative Material For SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Release

10 Equation 14 Engine

revenue = 1,000 × 8,760 × 0.93 × Electricity buyback × Engine multiplier

Where: Engine

revenue = Engine annual revenue, 2012$ 1,000 = Amount of electricity as kW produced by a 1 MW engine, kW per engine 8,760 = Conversion factor, hours per year

0.93 = Fraction of time that the engine is online, unitless Electricity buyback = Electricity buyback rate, 2012$ per KWh Engine multiplier = Number of engines

Estimating Testing and Monitoring Costs

EPA estimated testing and monitoring costs for uncontr olled and controlled landfills. The types of testing and monitoring required by the proposed amendments differ depending on whether the landfill is required

to control its emissions. Table 2 shows the various t esting and monitoring requirements that would apply

to controlled and unc ontrolled landfills.

Table 2: Applicability of Various Testing and Monitoring Requirements

Testing and Monitoring Requirement Applicability

NMOC Emission Rate



###  Annual (Tier 1)



###  Once every 5 years (Tier 2) Uncontrolled Landfills

Initial Performance Tests



###  NMOC % destruction or control device outlet ppmvd



###  Oxygen Controlled Landfills

Continuous Combustor Monitoring



###  Temperature



###  Flow rate Controlled Landfills

Monthly Wellhead Monitoring



###  Nitrogen or oxygen



###  Gauge pressure



###  Temperature Controlled Landfills

Quarterly Surface Monitoring Controlled Landfills

Table 3 summarizes the testing and monitoring cost s for controlled and uncontrolled landfills. These costs are added to the control costs in order to develop a total cost for each regulatory option.

### Internal Deliberative Material For SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Release

11 

### Table 3. Summary of Annual Testing and Moni toring Costs for Categories of Affected

Landfills

Affected

Landfill a Annualized

Initial

Performance

Test ($) b Continuous

Combustor Monitoring Monthly

Wellhead Monitoring Quarterly Surface Monitoring

NMOC Testing

($) c Equipment

Rental ($/period) Annual

Labor Cost

($/acre)

Uncontrolled Landfills Using Tier 1 NA NA NA NA NA $668 Using Tier 2 NA NA NA NA NA $2,700 Surface Monitoring

Controlled

(<=283 acres) $1,105 Already

included d Already

included d $125/day $49.73 NA

Controlled (>283 acres up to 1,984 acres) $1,105 Already

included d Already

included d $350/week $49.73 NA

Controlled

(> 1,984

acres) $1,105 Already

included d Already

included d $350/week $49.73 NA

a The listed acreages correspond to the length of time a monitor would need to be rented to complete surface monitoring for a landfill (daily, weekly, monthly).

 1 hour/acre for 25-foot traverse pattern.

 Loaded Labor Rate of 48.95 per hour for Civil Engineering Technician. US Bureau of Labor and Statistics. May 2011 Occupational Employment Statistics. http:/stat.bls.gov/oes/home.htm

 Equipment Rental Rates for TVA100b. http://usenvironmental.com/air/fids/thermo-tva-1000b/

b Cost of Method 25 test, USEPA Monitoring Costs Assessment Tool. November 30, 2009. $10,067, annualized over 15 years.

c 8 hours for Tier 1, every year; 12 hours for Tier 2, every 5 years.

 Loaded Labor Rate of for Civil Engineer $83.50 per hour. US Bureau of Labor and Statistics. May 2011 Occupational Employment Statistics. http:/stat.bls.gov/oes/home.htm.

 Cost of Method 25 test, USEPA Monitoring Costs Assessment Tool. November 30, 2009. $10,067, annualized over 5 years.

d Already included in the cont rol cost estimates for O&M.