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” submitted 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 Business 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 annualized costs and emission reduction estimates by 

option (docket) 

 Excel Spreadsheet: Landfill survey responses (docket) 
EPA’s Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting with Potential Small Entity 

Representatives 

Review of New Source Performance Standards 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 listed above. At the prompt, enter the 

conference code followed by the pound [#] sign. Note: You will hear music until the leader dials 

into the call. 

Attending the meeting in person: 

This meeting will be held at EPA Headquarters in William Jefferson Clinton North, 

Room 5530 at 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC. Any invited potential Small 

Entity Representative may attend in person if desired. 

We are unable to pay for travel expenses 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 decisionmaking 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.

Costsincurred 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.

17
Option

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 7th presentation to 

the SER’s:

1. What options are you considering for making revisions 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 included in your slides? How 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 wellhead performance standards currently in NSPS 

(i.e., oxygen, temperature and pressure of extraction wells) if we have to shorten the 

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 threshold (2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3), 

what design size thresholds are you considering and how did you assess the 

emission reductions that would result?

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

thresholds are you considering and 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 considering and how did you assess the emission reductions that 

would result?

e. If EPA shortens the time allowed for well field expansion (2yr/5yr rule), what 

timing options are you considering 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 closed 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 State 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 rule 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 

relied on more than ICR data. ICR data was relied on more than the GHGRP 

data)?

9. Why must the SER’s return our comments before the state and local comments are due 

November 8th? We do not believe this is equitable treatment, particularly as our meeting 

is scheduled a month later than the Federalism Consultation meeting held in September. 
Panel Outreach Meeting with Small Entity Representatives 

Review of New Source Performance Standards 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 Michels, 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 consider beyond those that were presented 

at the October 30,2013 Pre-Panel Meeting and the December 5, 2013 

Supplemental Meeting 

 Monitoring and recordkeeping: reactions 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 listed above. At the prompt, enter the 

conference code followed by the pound [#] sign. Note: 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 option for small entities. 

Current treatment system definition allows implementation of innovative gas to energy project. 

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

Treatment is not a control device but instead preparation for a control device. 

Treatment does not typically have emissions (periodic use of a vent 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 H2S, siloxane, and CO2 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 treatment 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 inappropriate and unnecessary: 

1. because the treatment systems are not control devices, 

2. because the proposals would not provide the operator of the treatment 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 monitoring will inhibit the development of 

LFGTE at small entity facilities which are already challenged with numerous technical 
and financial barriers to entry due to their small LFG flow. Adding more unnecessary 

regulatory and financial burden to these projects is inappropriate. 

A one-size-fits-all approach, such as EPA put forth in the proposed 2006 rule, does not account 

for the site-specific characteristics that may 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 ensure that LFG is properly combusted. 

Regulating Wellhead Operation 

I have been personally dealing with NSPS 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 letters, reports and paperwork. Let me illustrate 

the above noted issues with one example: 

An oxygen exceedance greater than 15 days triggered 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 letter the agency required 

the facility to respond in great detail about the event, corrective 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 20th day. It was just a simple tuning issue. This is only one 

example of the pitfalls of prescriptive 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 temperature 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 standards 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 standards do not provide any protection to the 

environment. We believe that landfill owners are already heavily incentivized to maximize 

GCCS collection efficiency to control odor, control 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-compliance 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 temperature at or above 55 degrees Celsius (0C) does not 

mean there is a fire or indicate improper operation. A well temperature at or above 550C may be 

normal operating conditions for a facility based on site-specific climate and waste 

characterization. In the rulemaking record, EPA states that vacuum adjustment is the solution to 

reduce temperature, not system expansion. Nonetheless, some delegated agencies have required 

automatic system expansions as a result of well temperature above the action level. 

Of the current wellhead operating standards, only pressure is directly tied to controlling 

emissions. We do not believe that the wellhead pressure standard provides additional 

environmental protection in light of other operating incentives described above. However, this 

negative pressure parameter could be maintained to ensure a minimum standard of gas collection 

is maintained. 

We ask that EPA keep in mind that wellhead standards 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 field 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 desirable. EPA should allow more flexibility in 

SEM monitoring and locations. 

Integrated SEM in grids with 25 ppmv limit (California’s approach) 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. Current 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 B

New Source Performance Standards (NS

Emission Guidelines (EG) for

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Land

Briefing for Potential SERs

December 5, 2013

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do 
Overview

►Clean Air Act Section 111(b)►Clean Air Act Section 111(d)►Rationale for the Landfill NSPS Review►Rationale for Reviewing the Landfill Emiss

Guidelines

►Additional Information about Various Rule 

Parameters

►Next Steps

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do No
Clean Air Act Section 111: New Sou

► Clean Air Act Section 111(b) established requirem

new stationary sources; requirements referred to source performance standards (NSPS)

► EPA is required to list categories of stationary sources w

or contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasanticipated to endanger public health or welfare”

► Standards must reflect “the degree of emission limitatio

through the application of the best system of emission rwhich the Administrator determines has been adequatedemonstrated”

► Costs are considered► Standards are reviewed at least every 8 years and revis

appropriate

► NSPS applies to landfills that commenced constr

modification, or reconstruction on or after May 30

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not 
Clean Air Act Section 111: Existing Sou

► Clean Air Act Section 111(d) sets up a partnership 

states and EPA 

► EPA’s role: 

► Establish process for states to issue performance stand

existing sources in the source category

► Provide emission guidelines (EG) to the states on the le

standard they need to meet

► Review and approve state plans► Promulgate a Federal plan for states that either don’t su

or for which EPA disapproves their plan 

► State’s role:

► Develop section 111(d) plan establishing standards of p

for the affected sources in their state

► Submit plan to EPA that is responsive to the EPA guidel► Implement plan if EPA approves it

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do No
Clean Air Act Section 111: Existing Sou

► Section 111(d) provides greater flexibility to EPA and s

design a program in consultation with diverse range ostakeholders

► EPA may specify different guidelines or compliance tim

both) for different sizes, types, and classes of designawhen costs, physical limitations, geographical locationfactors make subcategorization appropriate 40 C.F.R. 60.22(b)(5)

► EG applies to existing landfills that accepted waste on 

November 8, 1987 

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not R
Why is EPA reviewing the Landfill NSPS

► In 2008, Environmental Defense Fund filed a Notice o

Sue and requested that the Landfill NSPS be reviewe

► A mandatory duty suit was filed in 2011 ► EPA was compelled by a court ordered deadline to rev

Landfill NSPS

► When promulgated in 1996, best system of emission 

was established as a well-designed and well-operated (LFG) collection and control system with a control devof reducing non-methane organic compounds (NMOC

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do No
Why 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 

Energy Project Database

► Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)

► Data indicated a need to evaluate and account fo

that have occurred in the landfill industry since thand EG were originally promulgated in 1996

► Proliferation of landfill gas to energy projects► Variety of new monitoring techniques

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do No
Why is the EPA reviewing the EG?

► As part of its data collection efforts for the NSPS 

EPA received new information regarding existing 

► Information allows a more robust assessment of the siz

emissions of landfills

► EG’s applicability thresholds, monitoring, recordk

and control requirements rely on and parallel the 

► Review will ensure that those cross-references are still 

► Because the number of existing sources is signifi

higher than projected new sources, any cost-effeemission reductions may realize their greatest besources subject to the emission guidelines

► Because the NSPS and EG are so interrelated, w

recognized a resource savings by reviewing simu

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not Re
Why is EPA reviewing various parameters that 

established in the original NSPS and EG?

► Landfill NSPS and EG differ from most stationary sou

that they have an emission profile that can last for dec

► Promulgated in 1996, the original NSPS were designe

manner that accounted for the changing aspects of latime

► Parameters such as the emission threshold, design ca

monitoring, and surface monitoring were developed to control of emissions from large landfills

► Because these parameters are central to the structure 

it is appropriate to evaluate the incremental impacts othese parameters

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not 
Additional Information about V

Rule Parameters

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not 
NSPS Landfill Size Threshold and NMO

Emissions Threshold 

► EPA is reviewing the design capacity cutoff (current ru

million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters design capacitNMOC threshold (current rule is 50 Mg/yr)

► Adjustments to either of these parameters will affect e

reductions achieved

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not 
Schedule for Installing or Expanding Co

► EPA is exploring options that adjust times for installing 

controls after thresholds have been triggered (current 30 months)

► Timing and extent of reductions are dependent on the 

installation of controls

► EPA is also exploring a change to the schedule for ex

gas collection system (current rule allows 2 years aftewaste placement in closed areas and 5 years after iniplacement in active areas)

► Incremental emission reductions may be achieved ea

gas collection system is expanded

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not 
Landfill Gas Treatment

► Treatment is one of three control options (combust LFG in a 

enclosed combustion device or treat the LFG in a treatmen

► Received significant comments over time requesting clarific

constitutes sufficient gas treatment

► Received comments on regulatory uncertainty in treatmen

determinations and the inability to consistently enforce the control option

► Received comments on whether numeric limits are needed 

treatment

► Amendments proposed in 2002 and 2006 attempted to add

outstanding issues related to landfill gas treatment (specificconstitutes sufficient treatment)

► Proposed to define treatment as filtration, dewatering, and 

of the landfill gas (2002)

► Proposed numeric limits to define treatment and ensure lo

protection of the combustion equipment (2006)

► Proposal needs to provide a path forward for defining treatm

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not 
Parametric Monitoring for Wells

► Temperature/nitrogen/oxygen levels indicate whether 

collection system is operating properly

► Elevated nitrogen/oxygen levels indicate too much air 

landfill, which could contribute to fires. Elevated tempmay significantly inhibit anaerobic decomposition by kmethanogens

► EPA is reviewing the temperature/oxygen/nitrogen we

requirements

► EPA is also exploring whether surface monitoring requ

are sufficient indicators of whether the gas collection asystems are being operated properly

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not 
Clarification of Responsibilities for LFG 

Energy Projects

► Landfill gas is commonly collected and combusted to 

electricity, steam, or other useful energy by using a vaequipment. Such equipment can be owned, operatedon the landfill site or off site at separate industrial, cominstitutional facilities

► Multiple parties can be involved in the ownership or o

landfill and the associated landfill gas collection, contrtreatment systems

► Clarifying responsibilities could improve implementatio

enforcement for existing LFG energy projects

► Parties would also know their responsibilities without 

before participating in future LFG energy projects

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not 
Surface Monitoring Requirements

► Low surface emissions demonstrate that LFG collectio

and cover are working properly

► EPA is exploring the need to address visual observati

potentially indicating elevated concentrations of landfi

► We have received information about new surface mon

techniques and are exploring whether these new techappropriate

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not 
Closed Areas of Landfills

► Owners/operators may exclude from control a “nonpro

area of a landfill if the area accounts for less than 1 petotal NMOC emissions from the landfill

► EPA has learned that it is difficult to demonstrate that 

area accounts for less than 1 percent of landfill NMOC using the calculation method in the rule, which is basemodeled LFG flow

► EPA is exploring the use of measured and modeled la

flow to address the need for more accurate measuremNMOC emissions

Internal Deliberative Material for SBAR Panel Members Only – Do Not 
Next Steps

► The Panel’s formal Outreach Meeting is scheduled fo

December 19th from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm

► It is anticipated that written comments from SERs will 

early January

► For assistance with technical questions, please c

► Hillary Ward ► Ward.Hillary@epa.gov.

► For general panel process questions, please con

► Lanelle Wiggins► Wiggins.Lanelle@epa.gov
Offic

Office of Regulatory P

http://w

Small Business Advocacy ReviePanel Process RecapPanel Outreach Meeting with SERsDecember 19, 2013
This presentation recaps

• What is the purpose of a Small Business Advoca

Review (SBAR) Panel?

• How do Small Entity Representatives (SERs) par

in the Panel and rulemaking process?

• What does the Panel do with SER recommendat
Purpose of a Panel

• SBREFA

1 amended the 1980 Regula

Flexibility Act (RFA), which requires agencies to:

“assure that small entities have been given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking” proany rule “which will have a significant economic on a substantial number of small entities.”

2

1 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 19962 5 USC 609(a)
SER participation

• The Panel is conducting this Outreach Meeting w

today to collect your verbal advice and recommeon the following issues:

 Who are the small entities to which the proposed rule will ap What are the anticipated compliance requirements of the up

proposed rule? 

 Are there any existing federal rules that may overlap or con

regulation? 

 Are there any significant regulatory alternatives that 

minimize the impact on small entities? 

• You will also have the chance to provide the Pan

written advice and recommendations, due Janua
What does the Panel do 

with your recommendations?

• EPA, OMB, and SBA prepare a joint 

report:

 Submitted to the EPA Administrator Considered during senior-management decisi

making prior to the issuance of the proposed 

 Placed in the rule’s docket when the propose

published
Thank You

• We realize that small entities make 

significant sacrifices to participate

• Thank you for taking time and effor

from your business or organization tassist the Panel in this important wo
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 determined 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 equations 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 option 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 emissions 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 emission rate cutoffs, design capacity cutoffs, initial lag 

time to install gas collection and control systems (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 cubic 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, instead 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 after the submittal of its NMOC emission report to 

install the GCCS, and so the total time to install a GCCS would be approximately 36 months after 

the excess emissions occurred. The alternative regulatory options include shorter 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 initial 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 filled 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 options 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 with 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 the 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 waste 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

4t 0 CH k L M e    

Where: 

 CH4t = Methane, ft3

 in year t 

 k = Methane generation rate, year-1

 L0 = Potential methane generation capacity, ft3

 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 LFGt = CH4t × 2 

Where: 

 LFGt = Landfill gas, ft3

 in year t 

CH4t = Methane, ft3

 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 NMOCt = LFGt ÷ 35.32 × 595 × 3.6E-9

Where 

NMOCt = NMOC in year t, Mg in year t 

LFGt = Landfill gas, ft3

 in year t 

35.32 = Conversion, ft3

 per m3 

595 = Concentration of NMOC in LFG, ppm NMOC by volume as hexane 

3.6E-9 = Conversion factor, Mg NMOC per m3

 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 CO2eq = CH4t × 0.0423 ÷ 2000 ÷ 0.90718 × GWPCH4

Where: 

 Mg CO2eqt = Carbon dioxide equivalents, Mg in year t 

 CH4t = Methane, ft3

 in year t (From Equation 1) 

 0.0423 = Density of methane, lb per ft3

 2000 = Conversion, lb per short ton 

 0.90718 = Conversion, short ton per Mg 

 GWPCH4 = 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 (L0) and methane generation rate (k) to determine when the landfill exceeds the 50 

Mg NMOC per year emission rate cutoff. To determine when landfills may 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 default L0 and k defaults). 

Installing controls. The combination of the Tier 1 defaults for k and L0 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 LFGNSPS/EG and 

NMOCNSPS/EG, tend to overestimate actual emissions at most landfills (due to the conservatively high L0

and k values). 

Landfills have conducted Tier 2 tests and gotten much lower values that are consistent with the 

AP-42 average NMOC concentration of 595 ppmv. The use of AP-42 L0 and k values in the emission 

calculation produces results that more closely match actual landfill emissions. The use of these values, in 

combination with the NMOC concentration of 595 ppmv, result in estimates of LFG and NMOC that are 

in accordance with the AP-42; in this evaluation these estimates were called LFGAP-42 and NMOCAP-42.

Removing controls. LFGAP-42 and NMOCAP-42 were used to determine 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 default L0 and k defaults). Because the AP-42 values for 

L0 and k produce results that more closely match actual 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 precipitation 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 the county-level location of each landfill. The k factors 

were assigned to each landfill based on the resulting 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 operational 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 the regulatory option. See 

Table 1, below. 

 Once the landfill has reached the maximum gas production and the gas production starts to 

decrease, the analysis assumes that the GCCS will collect all of the emitted gas. 

 To determine the amount of LFG and NMOC collected, the analysis uses the LFGAP-42 and 

NMOCAP-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 NMOCNSPS/EG NMOCAP-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, which 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 included 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 and 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-specific 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 annualized capital cost of flares, wells, wellheads (including piping to 

collect gas), and engines over the lifetime of the equipment. The equipment is assumed to be replaced 

when its lifetime is over, so the annualized capital costs are incurred as long as the landfill still has 

controls in place. In order to calculate the annualization factors, flares, wells, well heads, and engines are 

assumed to have a 15-year lifetime. In addition, there is a mobilization/installation charge to bring well 

drilling equipment on site each time the gas collection system is expanded. Because the landfill will be 

drilling wells to expand the control system during the expansion 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 assumed that the percent of design area filled (acres) 

would track the ratio of waste in place/design capacity (e.g., if a landfill has a waste-in-place amount 

equivalent to 40 percent of design capacity, then 40 percent 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 calculate capital costs for flares, wells, wellheads 

(including gas collection piping), mobilization/installation, 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 landfills. All landfills that are required to comply 

with the regulatory options are assumed to install flares; even landfills using engines would have flares as 

the back-up control device for periods when the engines 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

0.61

15yr max

capital 15,y 4,100 (1.01) 525,600

LFG

Flare z   













   
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 

LFG15yrmax = Maximum LFG collected for 15 year project period, ft3

 per year 

525,600 = Conversion factor, minutes per year 

$4,100 = Installed capital cost of knockout, blower, and flare system, 2008$ per 

ft3

/min LFG 

(1.01)4

 = Adjustment from 2008$ to 2012$, unitless2

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 number 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 gas collection system (i.e., wellfield) is expanded into new areas of 

the landfill, so the frequency is dependent on the expansion 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 engineering/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 approximately 1 MW capacity, which equates to 195 million ft3

per year of collected LFG (at 50 percent methane). Therefore, engines were assumed to be installed at 

landfills that have at least 195 million ft3

 per year of collected LFG for at least 15 years. 

EPA calculated and summed the engine capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) equations 

to determine at what electricity buyback rate an engine 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 when there is sufficient gas flow to support 

additional engines. As noted above, one engine requires 195 million ft3

 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 ft3

 per 

year) for at least 15 years. 

The capital costs for engines are based on the capital 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 generator, 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 calculate O&M costs for flares, wells, electricity, and 

engines. All cost equations are shown on an individual 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 and engine revenue from the generation and sale of 

electricity, two electricity prices were needed. Landfills must purchase electricity to operate the blowers 

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

Information Administration to estimate electricity purchase prices at the landfill. 

Landfills utilizing engines generate revenue from the sale of the LFG-produced electricity. The 

amount of revenue generated depends primarily on the buyback rate negotiated between the landfill (or 

third party developer) and the electric company purchasing the LFG-generated power. ERG used average 

wholesale prices for each state from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to estimate 

electricity buyback rates3

. 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 and 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 the 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$, unitless4

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/electricity/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 calculated using the electricity usage of blowers 

and the electricity purchase price. 

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

Where: 

Electricity O&M = Electricity annual O&M costs, 2012$ 

0.002 = Electricity usage by blowers, kWh per ft3

 LFG 

Electricity purchase = Electricity purchase price, 2012$ per kWh 

LFG collected = Amount of LFG collected, ft3

 per year 

Engine O&M Costs 

 For landfills with engines installed, the O&M costs 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 calculated 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 generated 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 uncontrolled 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 testing and monitoring requirements that would apply 

to controlled and uncontrolled 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 costs 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 Monitoring Costs for Categories of Affected 

Landfills 

Affected 

Landfilla

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 

includedd 

Already 

includedd $125/day $49.73 NA 

Controlled 

(>283 acres 

up to 1,984 

acres) 

$1,105 Already 

includedd 

Already 

includedd $350/week $49.73 NA 

Controlled 

(> 1,984 

acres) 

$1,105 Already 

includedd 

Already 

includedd $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 control cost estimates for O&M.