Vol. 79 Thursday, 

No. 137 July 17, 2014 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60 

Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills; Proposed Rule 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41772 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0451; FRL–9913–51– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS23 

Emission Guidelines and Compliance 

Times for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) is to request public input on 

methods to reduce emissions from 

existing municipal solid waste (MSW) 

landfills. The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) intends to consider the 

information received in response to the 

ANPRM in evaluating whether 

additional changes beyond those in the 

proposed revisions for new sources are 

warranted. MSW landfill emissions are 

commonly referred to as ‘‘landfill gas’’ 

or ‘‘LFG’’ and contain methane, carbon 

dioxide (CO2), and nonmethane organic 

compounds (NMOC). Some existing 

landfills are currently subject to control 

requirements in either the landfill new 

source performance standards (NSPS) or 

the federal or state plans implementing 

the landfill emission guidelines; both 

the NSPS and emission guidelines were 

promulgated in 1996. The EPA believes 

that these guidelines merit review to 

determine the potential for additional 

reductions in emissions of LFG. Such 

reductions would reduce air pollution 

and the resulting harm to public health 

and welfare. Significant changes have 

occurred in the landfill industry over 

time, including changes to the size and 

number of existing landfills, industry 

practices, and gas control methods and 

technologies. The ANPRM recognizes 

changes in the population of landfills 

and presents preliminary analysis 

regarding methods for reducing 

emissions of LFG. In determining 

whether changes to the emission 

guidelines are appropriate, the EPA 

will, in addition to evaluating the 

effectiveness of various methods for 

reducing emissions of LFG, consider the 

total methane emission reductions that 

can be achieved in addition to the 

reductions of NMOC emissions. The 

EPA is also seeking input on whether it 

should regulate methane directly. The 

ANPRM also addresses other regulatory 

issues including the definition of LFG 

treatment systems and requirements for 

closed areas of landfills, among other 

topics. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before September 15, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2014–0451, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2014–0451 in the subject line of your 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0451. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0451, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. In addition, please mail a copy 

of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014– 

0451. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI to 

only the mail or hand/courier delivery 

address listed above, attention: Mr. 

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 

Control Officer (Room C404–02), U.S. 

EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0451. The http://

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West 

Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning this ANPRM, 

contact Ms. Hillary Ward, Fuels and 

Incineration Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 

(E143–05), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

3154; fax number: (919) 541–0246; 

email address: ward.hillary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

ACT Alternative compliance timeline 

ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

AR4 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 

ARB Air Resources Board 

BMP Best management practice 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential business information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 Carbon dioxide 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41773 

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent 

CRDS Cavity ringdown spectroscopy 

DOC Degradable organic carbon 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared 

GCCS Gas collection and control system 

GHG Greenhouse gas 

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

GWP Global warming potential 

HAP Hazardous air pollutants 

HOV Higher operating value 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

LFG Landfill gas 

LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

m3 Cubic meters 

Mg Megagram 

Mg/yr Megagram per year 

MSW Municipal solid waste 

NAAQS National ambient air quality 

standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NMOC Nonmethane organic compounds 

NOX Nitrogen oxides 

NSPS New source performance standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM2.5 Fine particulate matter 

ppm Parts per million 

ppmv Parts per million by volume 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RPM Radial plume mapping 

SEM Surface emissions monitoring 

SIP State implementation plan 

TDL Tunable diode laser 

Tg Teragram 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

VOC Volatile organic compounds 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this document. 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

II. Background 

A. Landfill Gas Emissions and Climate 

Change 

B. What is the EPA’s authority for 

reviewing the emission guidelines? 

C. What is the purpose and scope of this 

action? 

D. Why are we reviewing the emission 

guidelines? 

E. What is the statutory authority for 

landfill emission guidelines? 

F. What are the landfill emission 

guidelines and what sources would be 

affected by a review of the emission 

guidelines? 

G. How would changes in applicability 

affect sources currently subject to 

subpart WWW? 

III. Why is the EPA concerned about air 

quality effects from MSW landfills? 

A. Background on the MSW Landfill Sector 

B. What emissions are associated with 

existing MSW landfills? 

C. What emission reductions are currently 

being achieved from MSW landfills? 

D. What are the health and welfare effects 

of LFG emissions? 

IV. Topics for Which the EPA is Seeking 

Input 

A. Taking Reductions in Methane 

Emissions Into Account in Reviewing the 

Emission Guidelines 

B. Potential Changes to Regulatory 

Framework for Existing Sources 

C. Emission Reduction Techniques and 

GCCS Best Management Practices 

D. Alternative Monitoring, Reporting, and 

Other Requirements 

E. Alternative Emission Threshold 

Determination Techniques 

F. Considerations for Implementation at 

Closed vs. Active Landfills 

G. Implementation Issues 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This ANPRM addresses existing MSW 

landfills and associated solid waste 

management programs. Potentially 

affected categories and entities include 

those listed in Table 1 of this document. 

TABLE 1—REGULATED ENTITIES

Category NAICSa Examples of affected facilities 

Industry: Air and water resource and solid waste management 924110 Solid waste landfills. 

Industry: Refuse systems—solid waste landfills ......................... 562212 Solid waste landfills. 

State, local and tribal government agencies .............................. 924110 Administration of air and water resource and solid waste management programs. 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated. The EPA is specifically 

requesting input on MSW landfills 

subject to state plans or federal plan (40 

CFR part 62, subpart GGG) that 

implement the emission guidelines at 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cc. The EPA will 

also take this information into account 

in determining if additional changes to 

the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW are appropriate. If you have any 

questions regarding whether the EPA is 

seeking input regarding a particular 

MSW landfill, contact the person listed 

in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments? 

1. Submitting CBI 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI to 

only the following address: Mr. Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (Room C404–02), U.S. EPA, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0451. 

If you have any questions about CBI 

or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

Make sure to submit your comments 

by the comment period deadline 

identified in the preceding section titled 

DATES. 

2. Docket 

The docket number for the review of 

the municipal solid waste landfills 

emission guidelines is Docket ID No. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41774 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. 

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, 

R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, 

Switzerland, 104 pp. 

2Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills-Background Information for Proposed 

Standards and Guidelines, U.S. EPA (EPA–450/3– 

90–011a) (NTIS PB 91–197061) page 2–15. 

3Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings 

for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the 

Clean Air Act, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009) 

(Endangerment Finding). 

4Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous 

oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6). 

5Total U.S. methane emissions were just below 

600 million Mg CO2e in 2012. ‘‘Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012.’’ 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html. 

6U.S. EPA. 2012. ‘‘Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012. Executive 

Summary.’’ Available at http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHGInventory-2014-Chapter-Executive-Summary.pdf. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0451. Docket ID 

Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215 and A– 

88–09 contain supporting information 

for 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and 

WWW. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this ANPRM is 

available on the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN) Web site. Following 

signature, the EPA will post a copy of 

this document at http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/atw/landfill/landflpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

II. Background 

A. Landfill Gas Emissions and Climate 

Change 

In June 2013, President Obama issued 

a Climate Action Plan directing the EPA 

and other federal agencies to take a wide 

variety of significant steps to reduce 

methane emissions. The plan, which 

encompassed a wide range of actions 

and voluntary initiatives, recognized 

that methane emissions constitute a 

significant percentage of domestic 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 

highlighted reductions in methane 

emissions since 1990, and outlined 

specific actions that could be taken to 

achieve additional progress. 

Specifically, the federal agencies were 

instructed to focus on ‘‘assessing current 

emissions data, addressing data gaps, 

identifying technologies and best 

practices for reducing emissions, and 

identifying existing authorities and 

incentive-based opportunities to reduce 

methane emissions.’’ 

The focus on reducing methane 

emissions reflects the fact that methane 

is a potent GHG with a global warming 

potential (GWP) that is 25 times greater 

than that of CO2.1 Methane has an 

atmospheric life of 12 years, and 

because of its potency as a GHG and its 

atmospheric life, reducing methane 

emissions is one of the best ways to 

achieve a near-term beneficial impact in 

mitigating global climate change. 

In response to the directive in the 

2013 Climate Action Plan, the ‘‘Climate 

Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce 

Methane Emissions’’ (the Methane 

Strategy) was released in March 2014. 

The Methane Strategy noted that the 

landfill standards at issue here and 

voluntary programs already in place 

have considerably reduced methane 

emissions, while creating jobs and 

improving public health. With respect 

to landfills, the Methane Strategy directs 

the agency to build upon progress to 

date through updates to the EPA’s rules 

for reducing emissions from new, 

modified, and reconstructed landfills; to 

issue an ANPRM to explore options to 

address emissions from existing 

landfills; and to encourage energy 

recovery from LFG through voluntary 

programs. 

The EPA has long recognized the 

climate benefits associated with 

reducing methane emissions from 

landfills. In the 1991 Landfill NSPS 

Background Information Document,2 the 

EPA noted that reduction of methane 

emissions from MSW landfills is one of 

the many options available to reduce 

global warming. When the EPA 

promulgated the NSPS for MSW 

landfills, which regulates MSW landfill 

emissions (landfill gas), in 1996, the 

EPA noted the climate co-benefit of 

controlling methane, which was not as 

well understood at the time as today (61 

FR 9917, March 12, 1996). In 1996, the 

EPA stated: 

‘‘An ancillary benefit from regulating air 

emissions from MSW landfills is a reduction 

in the contribution of MSW landfill 

emissions to global emissions of methane. 

Methane is a major greenhouse gas, and is 20 

to 30 times more potent than CO2 on a 

molecule-per-molecule basis. There is a 

general concern within the scientific 

community that the increasing emissions of 

greenhouse gases could lead to climate 

change, although the rate and magnitude of 

these changes are uncertain.’’ 

Since 1996, the EPA and the scientific 

community have gained a better 

understanding of GHGs, including 

methane, and their effects on climate 

change and human health and welfare. 

In 2009, the EPA Administrator issued 

the document known as the 

Endangerment Finding under CAA 

section 202(a)(1).3 In the Endangerment 

Finding, which focused on public 

health and public welfare impacts 

within the United States, the 

Administrator found that elevated 

concentrations of GHGs 4 in the 

atmosphere may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger the public 

health and welfare of current and future 

generations. In light of this finding, the 

EPA has been examining regulatory 

options for reducing GHG emissions. 

The EPA is reviewing the MSW 

landfills emission guidelines and in 

light of the President’s Climate Action 

Plan, the Methane Strategy, and 

improvements in the science related to 

GHG emissions, is exploring 

opportunities to achieve additional 

reductions in emissions, including 

methane emissions. The EPA intends to 

issue a proposed review of the emission 

guidelines by March 2015 and take final 

action on the proposal by March 2016. 

Landfill gas is a collection of air 

pollutants, including methane and 

NMOC. Landfill gas is typically 

composed of roughly 50-percent 

methane, 50-percent CO2, and less than 

1 percent NMOC by volume. The NMOC 

portion of LFG, although a small 

amount by volume, can contain a 

variety of significant air pollutants. 

NMOC includes various organic 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC). 

When 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and 

WWW were promulgated in 1996, 

NMOC was selected as a surrogate for 

MSW landfill emissions because NMOC 

contains the landfill air pollutants that 

pose more concern due to their adverse 

health and welfare effects. Today, there 

is a greater emphasis on methane 

emissions because of their effects on 

climate change. Note that in 2012, 

landfills represented 18.1 percent of 

total U.S. methane emissions.5 Methane 

represents 8.7 percent of all GHG 

emissions (in CO2e) in the United 

States.6 For these reasons, the EPA is 

considering changes to the emission 

guidelines that are based on reducing 

the methane and NMOC components of 

LFG. The EPA is seeking input on 

whether it should regulate methane 

directly. 

B. What is the EPA’s authority for 

reviewing the emission guidelines? 

The EPA is not statutorily obligated to 

conduct a review of the emission 

guidelines, but has the discretionary 

authority to do so when circumstances 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41775 

7This date in 1987 is the date on which permit 

programs were established under the Hazardous 

and Solid Waste Amendments of RCRA. This date 

was also selected as the regulatory cutoff in the EG 

for landfills no longer receiving wastes because EPA 

judged States would be able to identify active 

facilities as of this date. 

indicate that this is appropriate. Based 

on changes in the landfills industry and 

changes in size, ownership, and age of 

landfills since the emission guidelines 

were promulgated in 1996, the EPA has 

concluded that it is appropriate to 

review the landfills emission guidelines 

at this time. As part of the data 

collection efforts for the statutorily 

mandated review of the MSW landfills 

NSPS, the EPA received, and has since 

compiled, new information on existing 

landfills. That information, together 

with the information being solicited 

through this ANPRM, will allow the 

EPA to conduct an assessment of the 

current practices, emissions and the 

potential for reductions in emissions. 

Any changes to the emission guidelines 

that might result from this review will 

ultimately apply to landfills that 

accepted waste on or after November 8, 

1987 7, and that commenced 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification prior to publication of 

proposed revisions to the landfills 

NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX, as 

discussed in further detail in sections 

II.F and II.G of this document. 

C. What is the purpose and scope of this 

action? 

The purpose of this ANPRM is to 

request public input on methods to 

reduce emissions from existing MSW 

landfills and to request input on 

potential resolutions or clarifications 

regarding issues that have arisen during 

implementation of the existing 

standards. 

D. Why are we reviewing the emission 

guidelines? 

The EPA is considering changes to the 

emission guidelines for a number of 

reasons, including the following: (1) The 

opportunity to build on progress to date 

and achieve additional reductions of 

LFG and its components, consistent 

with the President’s Methane Strategy, 

(2) changes in size, ownership, and age 

of landfills as reflected in new data, (3) 

new options for demonstrating 

compliance, and (4) the completion of 

efforts regarding implementation issues 

for which the EPA previously proposed 

resolution. The EPA is considering these 

topics in its review, as discussed in the 

following sections. 

1. Opportunity To Achieve Additional 

Reductions From Existing Landfills 

The EPA recognizes the opportunity 

to build on progress to date and achieve 

additional reductions of LFG and its 

components. A subset of existing 

landfills are controlled by either the 

landfill emission guidelines (40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cc) or by the landfill 

NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW). 

Controls installed as a result of these 

regulations have successfully reduced 

LFG emissions. Although methane 

emissions from landfills in 2012 are 30 

percent lower than they were in 1990, 

methane emissions from landfills 

continue to be a concern. Despite these 

controls installed to date, in 2012, 

landfills emitted 102.8 teragrams (Tg) 

(or 102.8 million metric tons) CO2e, 

making landfills the third largest source 

of human-related methane emissions in 

the United States. The number of 

existing landfills (≤1,800) is 

significantly higher than the number of 

new landfills (21) that are projected to 

open in the next 5 years. Therefore, if 

there are cost effective changes for 

existing landfills, revising these 

regulations may realize a great benefit 

given the number of existing landfills. 

In this ANPRM, the EPA is exploring 

and requesting input on approaches that 

have the potential to achieve additional 

emission reductions from MSW 

landfills. Some of these approaches are 

adjustments to the current framework of 

the landfills regulations, others would 

complement the existing framework, 

and still others would be entirely 

outside the current framework. These 

approaches are presented in section IV 

of this document and include potential 

adjustments to the design capacity 

threshold; the NMOC emissions 

threshold; and the timing of installing, 

expanding and removing the gas 

collection and control system (GCCS). 

Approaches also include potential 

changes to emission threshold 

determinations, consideration of best 

management practices (BMPs), and new 

technologies that could improve 

collection and control of LFG emissions. 

The EPA will consider the input and 

data received on these approaches 

during the review of the landfills 

emission guidelines and determine 

whether it is appropriate to revise the 

emission guidelines to further reduce 

LFG emissions from existing landfills. 

2. New Data Available Since Emission 

Guidelines Were Originally 

Promulgated in 1996 

The EPA collected current data for the 

statutorily required review of the 

landfills NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW. Three sources were used for that 

effort: A landfill and LFG energy project 

database maintained by EPA’s Landfill 

Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), a 

voluntary survey of landfills, and the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

(GHGRP). The creation of the landfill 

dataset, including identification of the 

sources of the information contained 

therein, is detailed in the docketed 

memorandum, ‘‘Summary of Landfill 

Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission 

Reduction Analysis of Landfills 

Regulations. 2014.’’ The EPA used the 

dataset, which included landfill-specific 

data such as landfill open and closure 

year, landfill design capacity, landfill 

design area and landfill depth, to 

examine the effects of potential changes 

to the size and emission thresholds for 

installing controls. The dataset also 

provides information on landfill 

practices such as liquids recirculation, 

waste composition, presence and type of 

GCCS and energy recovery projects. The 

availability of new data on MSW 

landfills is discussed in section II.D.2 of 

this document. 

3. New Options for Demonstrating 

Compliance 

The EPA is considering and 

requesting input on potential options for 

demonstrating compliance. For 

example, the EPA is considering 

alternative wellhead monitoring 

requirements that could include 

exclusion or reduced frequency of 

temperature, oxygen/nitrogen 

monitoring requirements and whether 

such adjustments should be limited 

only to landfills that beneficially use 

LFG or should be available to all 

landfills, including small entities. The 

EPA is considering and requesting 

public input on potential approaches to 

surface emission monitoring. 

Approaches include changing the 

walking pattern that traverses the 

landfill, adding an integrated methane 

concentration measurement and 

allowing sampling only when wind is 

below a certain speed. These new 

options for demonstrating compliance 

are discussed in section IV.D of this 

document. The EPA will consider the 

input and data received on these 

approaches during the review of the 

landfills emission guidelines with the 

intent of further reducing LFG 

emissions from existing landfills. 

4. Concerns Arising From 

Implementation of Subparts Cc and 

WWW That the EPA Plans To Address 

in a Forthcoming Proposal 

The landfill emission guidelines were 

originally promulgated in 1996. Over 

time, the EPA has become aware of a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41776 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8CAA section 111(b)(1)(A). 

9See 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb through OOOO. 

10CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 111(a)(1). 

11CAA section 111(d)(2)(A). 

12CAA section 111(d)(2)(A). 

13 ‘‘State Plans for the Control of Certain 

Pollutants From Existing Facilities,’’ 40 FR 53340 

(November 17, 1975). 

14 40 CFR 60.22. In the 1975 rulemaking, the EPA 

explained that it used the term ‘‘emissions 

guidelines’’—instead of emissions limitations—to 

make clear that guidelines would not be binding 

requirements applicable to the sources, but instead 

are ‘‘criteria for judging the adequacy of State 

plans.’’ 40 FR 53343. 

15 40 CFR 60.23(a)(1). 

16 40 CFR 60.27(b). 

17See 40 CFR 60.27(a). 

18See ‘‘Phosphate Fertilizer Plants; Final 

Guideline Document Availability,’’ 42 FR 12022 

(March 1, 1977); ‘‘Standards of Performance for 

New Stationary Sources; Emission Guideline for 

Sulfuric Acid Mist,’’ 42 FR 55796 (October 18, 

1977); ‘‘Kraft Pulp Mills, Notice of Availability of 

Final Guideline Document,’’ 44 FR 29828 (May 22, 

1979); ‘‘Primary Aluminum Plants; Availability of 

Final Guideline Document,’’ 45 FR 26294 (April 17, 

1980); ‘‘Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of 

Existing Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 

Final Rule,’’ 61 FR 9905 (March 12, 1996). 

number of implementation issues 

associated with the regulatory 

requirements and for which landfill 

owners and operators, as well as 

regulators, need clarification. The EPA 

proposed amendments to the landfills 

NSPS and emission guidelines (40 CFR 

part 60, subpart WWW and 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Cc) on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 

36475), and September 8, 2006 (71 FR 

53271). Those amendments were never 

finalized. The EPA is not taking final 

action on either the May 23, 2002, or the 

September 8, 2006, proposed rules 

through this ANPRM, but we are 

soliciting input on the unresolved 

implementation issues. These issues 

include but are not limited to: LFG 

treatment, accounting for emissions 

from closed areas of landfills, surface 

monitoring, and corrective action 

timelines. Note that the EPA addressed 

some of these implementation issues as 

they apply to new MSW landfills in the 

Federal Register document that 

proposes a new subpart resulting from 

the EPA’s review of the landfills NSPS. 

The EPA plans to address amendments 

and clarifications resulting from 

implementation activities as they apply 

to subparts Cc and WWW in 

forthcoming amendments to these 

subparts. See section IV.G of this 

document for details. 

E. What is the statutory authority for 

landfill emission guidelines? 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111, 

which Congress enacted as part of the 

1970 CAA Amendments, establishes 

mechanisms for controlling emissions of 

air pollutants from stationary sources. 

This provision requires the EPA to 

promulgate a list of categories of 

stationary sources that the 

Administrator, in his or her judgment, 

finds ‘‘causes, or contributes 

significantly to, air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare.’’ 8 The EPA has 

listed more than 60 stationary source 

categories under this provision, 

including municipal solid waste 

landfills.9 Once EPA lists a source 

category, the EPA must, under CAA 

section 111(b)(1)(B), establish 

‘‘standards of performance’’ for 

emissions of air pollutants from new 

sources in the source categories.10 These 

standards are known as new source 

performance standards or NSPS, and 

they are national requirements that 

apply directly to the sources subject to 

them. 

When the EPA establishes NSPS for 

new sources in a particular source 

category, the EPA is also required, 

under CAA section 111(d)(1), to 

prescribe regulations for states to submit 

plans regulating existing sources in that 

source category for any air pollutant 

that, in general, is not regulated under 

the CAA section 109 requirements for 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) or regulated under 

the CAA section 112 requirements for 

HAP. CAA section 111(d)’s mechanism 

for regulating existing sources differs 

from the one that CAA section 111(b) 

provides for new sources because CAA 

section 111(d) is implemented through 

state plans that establish ‘‘standards of 

performance’’ for the affected sources 

and that contain other measures to 

implement and enforce those standards. 

‘‘Standards of performance’’ are 

defined under CAA section 111(a)(1) as 

standards for emissions that reflect the 

emission limitation achievable from the 

‘‘best system of emission reduction,’’ 

considering costs and other factors, that 

‘‘the Administrator determines has been 

adequately demonstrated.’’ CAA section 

111(d)(1) grants states the authority, in 

applying a standard of performance to 

particular sources, to take into account 

the source’s remaining useful life or 

other factors. 

Under CAA section 111(d), a state 

must submit its plan to the EPA for 

approval, and the EPA must approve the 

state plan if it is ‘‘satisfactory.’’ 11 If a 

state does not submit a plan, or if the 

EPA does not approve a state’s plan, 

then the EPA must establish a plan for 

that state.12 Once a state receives the 

EPA’s approval for its plan, the 

provisions in the plan become federally 

enforceable against the entity 

responsible for noncompliance, in the 

same manner as the provisions of an 

approved State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) under CAA section 110. 

The EPA issued regulations 

implementing CAA section 111(d) in 

1975.13 These implementing regulations 

provide that, in promulgating 

requirements for sources under CAA 

section 111(d), the EPA first develops 

regulations known as ‘‘emission 

guidelines,’’ which establish binding 

requirements that states must address 

when they develop their plans.14 The 

implementing regulations also establish 

timetables for state and EPA action: 

States must submit state plans within 9 

months of the EPA’s issuance of the 

guidelines,15 and the EPA must take 

final action on the state plans within 4 

months of the due date for those 

plans,16 although the EPA has authority 

to extend those deadlines.17

Over the last 40 years, under CAA 

section 111(d), the agency has regulated 

four pollutants from five source 

categories (i.e., sulfuric acid plants (acid 

mist), phosphate fertilizer plants 

(fluorides), primary aluminum plants 

(fluorides), Kraft pulp plants (total 

reduced sulfur), and municipal solid 

waste landfills (LFG)).18

F. What are the landfill emission 

guidelines and what sources would be 

affected by a review of the emission 

guidelines? 

The Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills (emission guidelines) 

are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cc. The emission guidelines cross 

reference many provisions in the 

Standards of Performance for Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills (landfills NSPS) 

(40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW), 

including control requirements, 

operational standards, monitoring 

provisions, and reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. As a result, 

many of the proposed changes to the 

standards of performance for new, 

reconstructed, and modified MSW 

landfills could affect subpart Cc. A 

detailed summary of the current 

emission guideline requirements 

appears in section IV.B.1 of this 

document. 

CAA section 111(d) calls for a 

partnership between the EPA and states, 

as described above. To recap, the EPA 

establishes source-category-specific 

emission guidelines that specify the 

minimum requirements for an 

approvable state plan, including the 

requisite level of emission reductions 

that must be achieved. Each state must 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41777 

19As discussed above, the emission guidelines 

currently rely on subpart WWW for their 

substantive requirements. As a result, any increase 

in the stringency of the emission guidelines would 

necessarily make them more stringent than the 

existing requirements in subpart WWW. 

20U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. 

Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and 

Disposal in the United States Tables and Figures for 

2010. EPA–530–F–11–005. Washington, DC: U.S. 

EPA. 

develop a state plan establishing 

standards of performance for the 

affected sources in the state based on 

the requirements of the emission 

guidelines. The state must submit its 

state plan to the EPA for approval. The 

EPA reviews the state plan to ensure 

that it meets the minimum requirements 

of the emission guidelines, and 

approves the plan if it does. If the state 

does not submit a state plan, or the state 

plan is disapproved, the EPA would 

have the authority to promulgate a 

federal plan under CAA section 

111(d)(2)(A). MSW landfills 

constructed, modified or reconstructed 

prior to proposal of the revised landfills 

NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX that 

have accepted waste since November 8, 

1987 would be considered ‘‘existing’’ 

and would be affected by any changes 

to the emission guidelines resulting 

from this review. States with designated 

facilities would be required to develop 

(or revise) and submit a state plan to the 

EPA within 9 months of promulgation 

of any revisions to the emission 

guidelines unless the EPA specifies a 

longer time frame. Any revisions to an 

existing state plan and any newly 

adopted state plan must be established 

following the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart B. Those requirements 

include making the state plan publically 

available and providing opportunity for 

public discussion. Once the EPA 

receives a complete state plan or plan 

revision and completes its review of that 

plan or plan revision, the EPA will 

propose the plan or plan revision for 

approval or disapproval and must take 

final action to approve or disapprove 

the plan or plan revision no later than 

4 months after the date the plan or plan 

revision was required to be submitted. 

The EPA will publish state plan 

approvals or disapprovals in the Federal 

Register and will include an 

explanation of its decision. The EPA 

will also revise the existing federal plan 

(40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG) to 

incorporate any changes and other 

requirements that the EPA promulgates 

as a result of its review of the emission 

guidelines. The revised federal plan will 

apply in states which have not received 

approval of any necessary revised state 

plan until such time as the revised state 

plan is approved. 

G. How would changes in applicability 

affect sources currently subject to 

subpart WWW? 

If the EPA were to revise the landfills 

emission guidelines to increase their 

stringency, then a landfill currently 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW would need to comply with the 

more stringent requirements in the 

revised state plan or federal plan 

implementing the revised emission 

guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc) 

as such sources would be existing 

sources with respect to the revised 

NSPS.19 States would have to update 

their inventory of existing landfills to 

include these landfills. Note that all 

MSW landfills that are subject to 

subpart WWW would continue to 

comply with the requirements found in 

subpart WWW unless and until they are 

covered by a more stringent state or 

federal plan implementing the amended 

emission guidelines. 

III. Why is the EPA concerned about air 

quality effects from MSW landfills? 

The EPA is concerned about LFG 

emissions because of the public health 

and welfare effects that result from these 

emissions. Landfill gas generated from 

established waste (waste that has been 

in place for at least a year) is typically 

composed of roughly 50-percent 

methane and 50-percent CO2 by volume, 

with less than 1 percent NMOC. In 

promulgating the emission guidelines in 

1996, the EPA’s concerns regarding the 

adverse effects of emissions of LFG on 

human health and welfare were focused 

primarily on the NMOC portion of LFG. 

The NMOC portion of LFG can contain 

a variety of air pollutants, including 

VOCs and various organic HAP, all of 

which have various health effects, as 

discussed in section III.D of this 

document. In light of the Methane 

Strategy, the EPA is considering changes 

to the emission guidelines that are based 

on reducing emissions of the methane 

and NMOC components of LFG. Once 

emitted into the atmosphere, methane 

contributes to warming of the 

atmosphere, which over time leads to 

increased air and ocean temperatures, 

changes in precipitation patterns, and 

sea level rise, among other impacts, as 

discussed in section III.D of this 

document. 

A. Background on the MSW Landfill 

Sector 

Section 111 of the CAA requires the 

EPA Administrator to list categories of 

stationary sources that in the 

Administrator’s judgment cause or 

contribute significantly to air pollution 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare (42 

U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A)). On March 12, 

1996 (61 FR 9905), under the authority 

of CAA section 111(b)(1)(A), the EPA 

added the MSW landfills source 

category to the priority list in 40 CFR 

60.16 because, in the judgment of the 

Administrator, the source category 

contributes significantly to air pollution 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health and welfare. In 

that same document, the EPA 

promulgated the NSPS, which apply to 

new (including modified and 

reconstructed) landfills under the 

authority of CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 

and emission guidelines, which apply to 

existing landfills, under the authority of 

CAA section 111(d). 

The EPA also defined the MSW 

landfills source category, identified 

municipal solid waste landfill emissions 

(commonly referred to as LFG) as the 

pollutant for which standards should be 

developed, and determined the 

applicability thresholds and emission 

level of the standards. 

1. Definition 

An MSW landfill is defined in the 

landfills regulations as: ‘‘An entire 

disposal facility in a contiguous 

geographical space where household 

waste is placed in or on land. An MSW 

landfill may also receive other types of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) subtitle D wastes such as 

commercial solid waste, nonhazardous 

sludge, conditionally exempt small 

quantity generator waste, and industrial 

solid waste. Portions of an MSW landfill 

may be separated by access roads. An 

MSW landfill may be publicly or 

privately owned. An MSW landfill may 

be a new MSW landfill, an existing 

MSW landfill or a lateral expansion’’ (40 

CFR 60.32c and 60.751). 

Household waste is the primary 

component of MSW, accounting for 55 

to 65 percent of total MSW generated, 

followed by the commercial and 

institutional sectors.20 Household waste 

includes solid waste from single- and 

multiple-family homes, hotels and 

motels, ranger stations, crew quarters, 

campgrounds, picnic grounds and dayuse recreation areas. 

2. Characterization of Existing Landfills 

Many changes have occurred in the 

landfill industry since the landfill 

emission guidelines were originally 

promulgated in 1996. Among the 

changes are changes in landfill 

characteristics and population (i.e., size, 

ownership, age); proliferation of LFG 

energy projects; and the introduction of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41778 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

21U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. 

‘‘Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 

Facts and Figures.’’ 

22O’Brien, Jeremy K. 2006. ‘‘Contracting out: 

Adapting local integrated waste management to 

regional private landfill ownership.’’ Waste 

Management World. 

23Solid Waste Association of North America 

(SWANA). 2007. ‘‘The Regional Privately-Owned 

Landfill Trend and Its Impact on Integrated Solid 

Waste Management Systems.’’ February 2007. 

24U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. 

‘‘Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 

Facts and Figures.’’ 

25O’Brien, Jeremy K. 2006. ‘‘Contracting out: 

Adapting local integrated waste management to 

regional private landfill ownership.’’ Waste 

Management World. 

26U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response. ‘‘Waste 

Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making.’’ 

27 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. 

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, 

R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, 

Switzerland, 104 pp. 

28Calculated using the AP–42 default factor of 

595 ppmv and 50 percent methane. U.S. EPA, AP– 

42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and 

Area Sources. 1995. 

29U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012. April 2014. See 

Annex 3.14, Table A–261. http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/ghgemissions/

usinventoryreport.html. 

new techniques for collecting, reducing, 

and monitoring LFG emissions. 

Size, Ownership, Age. The number 

and size distribution of MSW landfills 

in the United States has changed over 

the last 25 years, with a trend toward 

fewer active, but larger, landfills. Since 

1988, the number of active MSW 

landfills in the United States has 

decreased by approximately 75 percent 

(from approximately 7,900 in 1988 to 

approximately 1,900 in 2009).21 22

During this time, the overall disposal 

capacity has remained fairly constant, 

indicating a trend towards fewer, but 

larger landfills.23

The data also show a trend away from 

public ownership. The share of sites 

that are publicly owned has decreased 

from 83 percent in 1984 to 64 percent 

in 2004.24 25 Instead, large, private 

companies have used economy of scale 

for cost expenditures and own multiple 

sites, many of which have large 

capacities. To offset the cost of 

constructing and maintaining landfills, 

facility owners construct large facilities 

that attract high volumes of waste from 

a large geographic area. By maintaining 

a high volume of incoming waste, 

landfill owners have the ability to keep 

tipping fees relatively low, which 

subsequently attracts more business.26

LFG Energy Projects. The number of 

LFG energy projects has also increased 

substantially over the last two decades. 

In 1996, there were approximately 160 

operational LFG energy projects and 

approximately 700 candidate landfills 

according to data obtained by the EPA 

LMOP. According to LMOP, as of March 

2014, there are 636 operational LFG 

energy projects and 450 landfills that 

remain candidates for energy recovery. 

LMOP is a voluntary assistance program 

that helps to reduce methane emissions 

from landfills by encouraging recovery 

and beneficial use of LFG. 

Availability of More Comprehensive 

Data. In 2010, the EPA GHGRP began 

collecting information from existing 

MSW landfills that accepted waste on or 

after January 1, 1980 and generate 

methane in amounts equivalent to 

25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2e) or more per year. 

According to data collected through the 

GHGRP, approximately 1,200 landfills 

generated methane in amounts 

equivalent to 25,000 metric tons of CO2e 

or more per year, using a GWP of 25. 

(CO2e is an expression of methane in 

terms of the carbon dioxide equivalents, 

given the methane GWP of 25.27) 25,000 

metric tons of CO2e is equal to about 6.5 

megagrams (Mg) NMOC and 1,000 Mg 

methane per year.28 (A megagram is also 

known as a metric ton, which is equal 

to 1.1 U.S. short tons or about 2,205 

pounds.) Reporting includes data 

elements such as annual modeled 

methane generation and methane 

emissions from the landfill, as well as 

annual methane destruction (for 

landfills with GCCSs). Beginning with 

reporting year 2013, the GHGRP data 

includes additional data elements for 

which reporting was previously 

deferred, such as landfill open and 

closure dates, waste acceptance rates, 

flow of LFG for destruction, methane 

concentration and gas collection 

efficiency; this data will be used to 

refine the analyses discussed in 

‘‘Methodology for Estimating Cost and 

Emission Impacts of MSW Landfill 

Regulations. 2014’’ and ‘‘Summary of 

Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and 

Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfill 

Regulations. 2014,’’ both of which are 

available in the docket. The EPA plans 

to incorporate this new information into 

the proposal for the emission guidelines 

review. LMOP has collected information 

on landfills since the program’s 

inception in 1996 and maintains a 

database of over 2,000 existing landfills 

and LFG energy projects. The database 

includes landfill information provided 

to LMOP and from publically available 

sources, including the GHGRP dataset. 

In addition, the EPA conducted a 

voluntary landfill survey in 2010 and 

received information from 167 landfills. 

A dataset of approximately 2,400 

landfills resulted from the three sources 

listed above: The GHGRP, the LMOP 

database and voluntary survey of 

landfills. Of these 2,400 landfills, 

approximately 1,800 have sufficient 

data to use in the preliminary cost and 

reduction analysis as the EPA begins its 

review of the emission guidelines. The 

creation of the landfill dataset is 

detailed in the docketed memorandum, 

‘‘Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in 

the Cost and Emission Reduction 

Analysis of Landfills Regulations 2014.’’ 

Based on this dataset, several 

observations can be made. 

Location and Size. The 1,800 landfills 

are located in all 50 states and two 

territories and range widely in size from 

189 Mg to 129 million Mg of waste-inplace as of 2014. Approximately half of 

the landfills have a design capacity of at 

least 2.5 million Mg. 

Active vs. Closed. Approximately half 

of the existing landfills are still 

accepting waste as of 2014. 

Approximately 40 percent of the 

landfills stopped accepting waste prior 

to 2005. Among landfills that have a 

design capacity of at least 2.5 million 

Mg, only 16 percent of the landfills 

stopped accepting waste prior to 2005. 

Leachate Recirculation. Leachate 

recirculation is used at many landfills to 

manage on-site leachate. Concurrently, 

this operational practice accelerates 

waste decomposition and gas generation 

rates at the landfills. Under 40 CFR part 

98, subpart HH of the GHGRP, landfills 

must report whether or not they employ 

leachate recirculation and if so, the 

frequency of that recirculation. Based on 

GHGRP data from the 2012 reporting 

year, over 300 landfills accepting waste 

after 1987 indicated that leachate 

recirculation was used. Of those, over 

200 landfills indicated the leachate was 

recirculated several times per year over 

the past 10 years of operation. 

Other Liquids Addition. Since 2004, 

14 states have received program 

approval to issue permits to MSW 

landfills to add liquids other than 

leachate under the Research 

Development and Demonstration 

provisions of 40 CFR 258.4. This 

operational practice also accelerates 

waste decomposition and gas generation 

rates at the landfills. 

Other Trends. The estimated annual 

quantity of waste placed in MSW 

landfills increased 26 percent from 

approximately 205 Tg in 1990 to 284 Tg 

in 2012.29 The annual amount of waste 

generated and subsequently disposed in 

MSW landfills varies annually and 

depends on several factors (e.g., the 

economy, consumer patterns, recycling 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41779 

30 Ibid, Table 8–3. 

31 Ibid, Table 8–1. 

32California Code of Regulations, title 17, 

subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, sections 95460 

to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills. 

33See Sections II.D.2 and III.C of this document 

for a detailed discussion of the modeling database 

and estimated reductions under the current federal 

regulatory framework. 

and composting programs, inclusion in 

a waste collection service and the 

availability of other alternative options 

for disposal and their price); but the 

total amount of MSW generated is 

expected to continue to increase as the 

U.S. population continues to grow. The 

composition of materials disposed of in 

MSW landfills has also changed 

significantly since 1990. See section 

IV.C.3 of this document for additional 

details on waste composition trends. 

B. What emissions are associated with 

existing MSW landfills? 

The EPA estimates that the potential 

uncontrolled emissions from the 

approximately 1,800 landfills in its 

regulatory analysis dataset (as explained 

in section II.D.2 of this document) are 

approximately 66,400 Mg NMOC and 10 

million Mg methane (258 million Mg 

CO2e) in 2014. 

Looking beyond the modeled dataset, 

the 2012 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 

shows a growth in uncontrolled 

emissions from MSW landfills, from 

172.6 Tg CO2e in 1990 to 280.0 Tg CO2e 

in 2012.30 If controls are considered, 

emissions from landfills have decreased 

from 147.8 Tg CO2e in 1990 to 102.8 

CO2e in 2012 from both regulatory and 

voluntary programs.31

C. What emission reductions are 

currently being achieved from MSW 

landfills? 

1. Emission Reductions Due to Subparts 

Cc and WWW 

To estimate the emission reductions, 

the EPA applied the current design 

capacity and NMOC emission rate 

thresholds in the MSW landfills 

regulations, and the time allowed for 

installing, expanding and removing the 

GCCS to the modeled emission 

estimates discussed in section IV.B of 

this document. 

Table 2 of this document summarizes 

the reductions currently being achieved 

at existing landfills in 2014 as a result 

of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and 

the federal and state plans 

implementing the emission guidelines. 

This table reflects the current baseline 

level of control at existing landfills: 

Landfills greater than or equal to 2.5 

million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters 

(m3) must install a GCCS when NMOC 

emissions reach or exceed 50 

megagrams per year (Mg/yr). The table 

includes emission reductions for NMOC 

and methane. 

TABLE 2—BASELINE EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN 2014 AT EXISTING LANDFILLS

Option 

Number of 

landfills 

affected 

Number of 

landfills 

controlling 

Number of 

landfills 

reporting 

but not 

controlling 

Annual 

NMOC 

reductions 

(Mg/yr) 

Annual 

methane 

reductions 

(million Mg/yr) 

Annual 

methane 

reductions 

(million Mg 

CO2e/yr) 

Baseline ............................................. 954 559 395 49,600 7.7 193 

The emission guidelines in the 

baseline are estimated to require control 

at 559 of the 954 affected landfills in 

2014 and achieve reductions of 49,600 

Mg/yr NMOC and 7.7 million Mg/yr 

methane (193 million Mg/yr CO2e). In 

the baseline we estimate that 30 percent 

(559/1,832) of these existing landfills 

will operate emission controls in 2014 

(1,832 is the number of landfills in the 

landfills dataset that had sufficient data 

to use in the preliminary cost and 

reduction analysis). 

2. Other Programs Achieving Emission 

Reductions From Existing MSW 

Landfills 

Landfill owners and operators collect 

LFG for a variety of reasons: To control 

odor, to minimize fire and explosion 

hazards, to recover LFG to be used for 

energy recovery, to sell carbon credits, 

and to comply with local, state, or 

federal air quality standards. This 

section of this document discusses 

several non-EPA programs of which the 

EPA is aware. These reductions 

complement the reductions achieved by 

the current NSPS and emission 

guidelines framework. 

i. State and Local Ordinances 

The EPA is aware that some state or 

local ordinances require LFG 

combustion for odor or safety reasons. 

The number of landfills controlling 

under local ordinances is unknown. In 

addition, the state of California recently 

established methane regulations 32 to 

require a GCCS to be installed at all 

landfills accepting waste after January 1, 

1977, having at least 450,000 tons of 

waste-in-place, and having a gas heat 

input capacity threshold of 3.0 MMBtu/ 

hr or greater. 

ii. Market-Based Mechanisms 

LMOP maintains a voluntary national 

database of landfills and LFG energy 

projects, including information on 

which landfills have a GCCS in place. 

The EPA compared the list of landfills 

that are modeled to have installed a 

GCCS in 2014 in the NSPS/emission 

guidelines dataset to the list of landfills 

that are reported to have a GCCS 

installed in the LMOP database. While 

the NSPS/emission guidelines dataset 

estimates that approximately 550 

landfills have installed controls to meet 

the requirements of the NSPS or an 

approved state plan or federal plan 

implementing the emission guidelines, 

the LMOP database shows 

approximately 500 additional landfills 

as having installed controls, resulting in 

over 1,000 landfills estimated to have a 

GCCS installed.33 Approximately half of 

these 500 landfills exceed the design 

capacity of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 

million m3, but as of 2014, are not 

modeled to exceed the NMOC emission 

threshold that dictates when a GCCS 

must be installed. Many of these 

systems may have been installed to 

recover energy and generate revenue 

through the sale of electricity or LFG. 

The LMOP database estimates that 

almost 200 of the 500 landfills with 

voluntary systems have an energy 

recovery component. Among landfills 

with larger design capacities, 

approximately 120 of the 260 landfills 

with a voluntary GCCS have an energy 

recovery component. Some landfills 

with voluntary systems may also receive 

revenues as a result of the creation of 

carbon credits. Data from the Climate 

Action Reserve indicates that more than 

100 LFG capture projects in 36 states 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41780 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

34Climate Action Reserve. Issued List of CRTs as 

of April 17, 2014. https://thereserve2.apx.com/

myModule/rpt/myrpt.asp?r=112. 

35U.S. EPA. 2009. ‘‘Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).’’ 

EPA–600–R–08–139F. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/. 

36U.S. EPA. 2013. ‘‘Integrated Science 

Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical 

Oxidents (Final Report).’’ EPA–600–R–10–076F. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment— 

RTP Division. Available at http://www.epa.gov/

ncea/isa/. 

37U.S. EPA. 2009. ‘‘Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).’’ 

EPA–600–R–08–139F. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/. 

38U.S. EPA. 2013. ‘‘Integrated Science 

Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical 

Oxidents (Final Report).’’ EPA–600–R–10–076F. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment— 

RTP Division. Available at http://www.epa.gov/

ncea/isa/. 

39U.S. EPA. 1998. Office of Air and Radiation, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

‘‘Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 

Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area 

Sources, Chapter 2: Solid Waste Disposal, Section 

2.4: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills’’. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/

c02s04.pdf. 

40 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. 

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, 

R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, 

Switzerland, 104 pp. 

41Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.K. Plattner, L.V. 

Alexander, S.K. Allen, N.L. Bindoff, F.M. Bre ́on, 

J.A. Church, U. Cubasch, S. Emori, P. Forster, P. 

Friedlingstein, N. Gillett, J.M. Gregory, D.L. 

Hartmann, E. Jansen, B. Kirtman, R. Knutti, K. 

Krishna Kumar, P. Lemke, J. Marotzke, V. MassonDelmotte, G.A. Meehl, I.I. Mokhov, S. Piao, V. 

Ramaswamy, D.Randall, M. Rhein, M. Rojas, C. 

Sabine, D. Shindell, L.D. Talley, D.G. Vaughan and 

S.P. Xie. 2013: ‘‘Technical Summary. In: Climate 

Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change’’ [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 

Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

42U.S. EPA. 2013. ‘‘Integrated Science 

Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical 

Oxidents (Final Report).’’ EPA–600–R–10–076F. 

National Center for Environmental Assessment— 

have been issued credits known as 

Climate Reserve Tonnes (CRTs).34

D. What are the health and welfare 

effects of LFG emissions? 

1. Health Impacts of VOC and Various 

Organic HAP 

The pollutant regulated under the 

landfills NSPS is ‘‘MSW landfill 

emissions.’’ Municipal solid waste 

landfill emissions, also commonly 

referred to as LFG, are a collection of air 

pollutants, including methane and 

NMOC, some of which are toxic. LFG 

generated from established waste (waste 

that has been in place for at least a year) 

is typically composed of roughly 50- 

percent methane and 50-percent CO2 by 

volume, with less than 1 percent 

NMOC. The NMOC portion of LFG can 

contain a variety of air pollutants, 

including VOC and various organic 

HAP. VOC emissions are precursors to 

both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and 

ozone formation. Exposure to PM2.5 and 

ozone is associated with significant 

public health effects.35 36 PM2.5 is 

associated with health effects including 

premature mortality for adults and 

infants, cardiovascular morbidity such 

as heart attacks and respiratory 

morbidity such as asthma attacks, acute 

and chronic bronchitis, hospital 

admissions and emergency room visits, 

work loss days, restricted activity days 

and respiratory symptoms, as well as 

visibility impairment.37 Ozone is 

associated with health effects including 

premature mortality, lung damage, 

asthma aggravation and other 

respiratory symptoms, hospital and 

emergency department visits, and 

school loss days, as well as injury to 

vegetation and climate effects.38 Nearly 

30 organic HAP have been identified in 

uncontrolled LFG, including benzene, 

toluene, ethyl benzene and vinyl 

chloride.39

2. Climate Impacts of Methane 

Emissions 

In addition to the improvements in air 

quality and resulting benefits to human 

health and non-climate welfare effects 

discussed above, reducing emissions 

from landfills is expected to result in 

climate co-benefits due to reductions of 

the methane component of LFG. 

Methane is a potent GHG with a GWP 

25 times greater than CO2, which 

accounts for methane’s stronger 

absorption of infrared radiation per ton 

in the atmosphere but also its shorter 

lifetime (on the order of a decade 

compared to centuries or millennia for 

carbon dioxide).40 According to the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report, 

methane is the second leading longlived climate forcer after CO2 globally.41

As discussed in detail in the 2009 

Endangerment Finding, climate change 

caused by human emissions of GHGs 

threatens public health in multiple 

ways. By raising average temperatures, 

climate change increases the likelihood 

of heat waves, which are associated 

with increased deaths and illnesses. 

While climate change also increases the 

likelihood of reductions in cold-related 

mortality, evidence indicates that the 

increases in heat mortality will be larger 

than the decreases in cold mortality in 

the United States. Compared to a future 

without climate change, climate change 

is expected to increase ozone pollution 

over broad areas of the U.S., including 

in the largest metropolitan areas with 

the worst ozone problems, and thereby 

increase the risk of morbidity and 

mortality. Other public health threats 

also stem from projected increases in 

intensity or frequency of extreme 

weather associated with climate change, 

such as increased hurricane intensity, 

increased frequency of intense storms, 

and heavy precipitation. Increased 

coastal storms and storm surges due to 

rising sea levels are expected to cause 

increased drownings and other health 

impacts. Children, the elderly, and the 

poor are among the most vulnerable to 

these climate-related health effects. 

As documented in the 2009 

Endangerment Finding, climate change 

caused by human emissions of GHGs 

also threatens public welfare in multiple 

ways. Climate changes are expected to 

place large areas of the country at 

serious risk of reduced water supplies, 

increased water pollution, and 

increased occurrence of extreme events 

such as floods and droughts. Coastal 

areas are expected to face increased 

risks from storm and flooding damage to 

property, as well as adverse impacts 

from rising sea level, such as land loss 

due to inundation, erosion, wetland 

submergence and habitat loss. Climate 

change is expected to result in an 

increase in peak electricity demand, and 

extreme weather from climate change 

threatens energy, transportation, and 

water resource infrastructure. Climate 

change may exacerbate ongoing 

environmental pressures in certain 

settlements, particularly in Alaskan 

indigenous communities. Climate 

change also is very likely to 

fundamentally rearrange U.S. 

ecosystems over the 21st century. 

Though some benefits may balance 

adverse effects on agriculture and 

forestry in the next few decades, the 

body of evidence points towards 

increasing risks of net adverse impacts 

on U.S. food production, agriculture and 

forest productivity as temperature 

continues to rise. These impacts are 

global and may exacerbate problems 

outside the U.S. that raise humanitarian, 

trade, and national security issues for 

the U.S. 

Methane is also a precursor to groundlevel ozone, a health-harmful air 

pollutant. Additionally, ozone is a 

short-lived climate forcer that 

contributes to global warming. In remote 

areas, methane is a dominant precursor 

to tropospheric ozone formation.42

Approximately 50 percent of the global 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41781 

RTP Division. Available at http://www.epa.gov/

ncea/isa/. 

43Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.M. Bre ́on, W. Collins, 

J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.F. Lamarque, D. 

Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. 

Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: 

Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: 

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 

Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Pg. 680. 

44 Ibid. 

45 Ibid. 

46West, J.J., Fiore, A.M. 2005. ‘‘Management of 

tropospheric ozone by reducing methane 

emissions.’’ Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:4685–4691. 

47Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. ‘‘Intercontinental 

impacts of ozone pollution on human mortality,’’ 

Environ. Sci. & Technol. 43: 6482–6487. 

annual mean ozone increase since 

preindustrial times is believed to be due 

to anthropogenic methane.43 Projections 

of future emissions also indicate that 

methane is likely to be a key contributor 

to ozone concentrations in the future.44

Unlike NOX and VOC, which affect 

ozone concentrations regionally and at 

hourly time scales, methane emissions 

affect ozone concentrations globally and 

on decadal time scales given methane’s 

relatively long atmospheric lifetime 

compared to these other ozone 

precursors.45 Reducing methane 

emissions, therefore, may contribute to 

efforts to reduce global background 

ozone concentrations that contribute to 

the incidence of ozone-related health 

effects.46 47 These benefits are global and 

occur in both urban and rural areas. 

IV. Topics for Which the EPA Is 

Seeking Input 

The EPA is considering several 

alternative approaches for achieving 

additional LFG emission reductions 

from existing MSW landfills. The EPA 

requests data and input regarding each 

of these approaches, or other alternative 

frameworks that should be considered 

for existing landfills. The EPA is 

specifically interested in input related 

to new technologies and data on costs 

and emission reductions for each of 

these technologies or practices. The EPA 

is also interested in ideas regarding how 

these alternatives may be incorporated 

into a regulatory framework for existing 

landfills. Sections IV.A through IV.F of 

this document describe and request 

input on alternative approaches for 

achieving additional LFG reductions 

from existing landfills. 

Since the landfills regulations were 

implemented in 1996, the EPA has 

become aware of implementation issues 

for which landfill owners and operators, 

as well as regulators, need clarification. 

In this document, the EPA is also 

soliciting input on the implementation 

issues. Section IV.G of this document 

describes and requests input on these 

implementation issues. 

A. Taking Reductions in Methane 

Emissions Into Account in Reviewing 

the Emission Guidelines 

In light of the Methane Strategy 

discussed in section II of this document, 

the EPA is seeking input on the extent 

to which methane should be addressed 

under the revised emissions guidelines. 

The EPA is also requesting input on 

potential implementation issues 

associated with any adjustments that 

could be made to the current rule 

framework or any alternative regulatory 

frameworks that may achieve a larger 

fraction of methane emission reductions 

from existing landfills than the current 

performance-based standard of a welldesigned and well-operated GCCS. 

B. Potential Changes to Regulatory 

Framework for Existing Sources 

The EPA is considering potential 

changes within the current regulatory 

framework of the landfills regulations 

for existing sources that would achieve 

further emission reductions. This 

section outlines the current framework 

and identifies potential adjustments to 

that framework. The EPA is requesting 

input on these potential adjustments, 

the degree of emission reductions that 

could be achieved, corresponding cost 

and implementation. 

1. Current Framework 

The landfills regulations in 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts Cc and WWW require 

an MSW landfill with a design capacity 

of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 or 

greater to install a GCCS once the 

emissions from the landfill meet or 

exceed 50 Mg NMOC per year. The 

landfill has 30 months to install and 

begin operating the GCCS. This 30- 

month ‘‘initial lag time’’ is the time 

period between when the landfill 

exceeds the NMOC emission rate 

threshold and when controls are 

required to be installed and started up. 

A landfill must expand the GCCS as 

more waste is added to the landfill. This 

‘‘expansion lag time’’ is the amount of 

time allotted for the landfill to expand 

the GCCS into new areas of the landfill 

(5 years for active areas and 2 years for 

areas that are closed or at final grade). 

When promulgated in 1996, the best 

system of emission reduction for MSW 

landfills was determined to be a welldesigned and well-operated landfill 

GCCS with a control device capable of 

reducing NMOC by 98 percent by 

weight. Enclosed combustion devices 

have the option of either reducing 

NMOC by 98 percent by weight or 

reducing NMOC emissions to 20 parts 

per million, dry volume. NMOC was 

established as a surrogate for LFG in the 

final rule. 

Without any changes to the 

framework of the rule, over 950 landfills 

are affected, and 691 are required to 

install controls on or before 2023. These 

current requirements are estimated to 

result in NMOC emission reductions of 

55,000 Mg/yr and methane emission 

reductions of 8.5 million Mg/yr (213 

million Mg/yr CO2e), on average over 

the next 10-year period (2014–2023). 

These reductions are expected to be 

achieved at an average cost effectiveness 

of approximately $7,200 per Mg NMOC 

or $46 per Mg methane ($1.8 per Mg 

CO2e). Additional information about 

these estimates can be found in the 

docketed memo Preliminary Cost and 

Emissions Impacts Analysis for Review 

of the MSW Landfills Emission 

Guidelines 2014. 

Within the current framework of 40 

CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW, 

several parameters could be adjusted to 

potentially achieve additional emission 

reductions. Those parameters are the 

design capacity, the NMOC emissions 

threshold, and the timing of installing 

and expanding the GCCS. The EPA 

conducted a preliminary analysis as 

described below to estimate the 

emissions and cost implications of 

adjusting rule parameters. Modeling 

options that varied these parameters 

showed the following general 

incremental results as compared to the 

current regulatory framework over the 

next 10-year period (2014–2023). These 

preliminary cost-effectiveness values 

presented later in this section IV.B 

include the costs to install and operate 

GCCS as well as any revenue from 

energy recovery as discussed in further 

detail in the docketed memorandum, 

‘‘Methodology for Estimating Cost and 

Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills 

Regulations. 2014.’’ Installation, 

operation and maintenance of the GCCS 

represents over 99 percent of the annual 

costs, and although the costs presented 

here do not include testing and 

monitoring costs, those costs are 

expected to be nominal relative to the 

control costs. 

i. Reducing or Eliminating the Design 

Capacity Threshold 

Options that decrease the design 

capacity threshold would make more 

landfills subject to the rule. Such 

options also would increase the overall 

reporting burden because more landfills 

would be required to calculate and 

report their NMOC emission rates. 

Landfills that exceed any lower design 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41782 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

48The EPA conducted outreach with small 

entities, state and local officials, and representative 

organizations, hereinafter referred to as 

commenters. 

capacity threshold and become subject 

to subpart XXX would be required to 

obtain a Title V permit because sources 

subject to an NSPS must generally 

obtain a Title V permit. Only a few 

additional landfills would be required 

to install controls because landfills still 

must exceed the NMOC emission rate 

threshold before such controls are 

applied, and under the current 

threshold, about 72 percent of landfills 

over the design capacity threshold 

exceed the NMOC emissions rate. Thus, 

options that decrease the design 

capacity threshold without also 

lowering the NMOC emission threshold 

create additional reporting and 

permitting burden with minimal 

additional emission reductions. 

Modeling showed that if the EPA 

decreased the design capacity threshold 

to 2.0 million Mg or 2.0 million m3, then 

over 90 additional landfills would be 

affected by the rule and five additional 

landfills would require controls, 

resulting in NMOC reductions of 74 Mg/ 

yr and methane emission reductions of 

11,500 Mg/yr (287,000 Mg/yr CO2e). 

These reductions could be achieved at 

a cost effectiveness of approximately 

$9,900 per Mg NMOC or $64 per Mg 

methane ($2.6 per Mg CO2e). 

The EPA also explored decreasing the 

NMOC emission threshold in 

conjunction with decreasing the design 

capacity. Modeling showed that if the 

EPA decreased the design capacity 

threshold to 2.0 million Mg or 2.0 

million m3 and reduced the NMOC 

emission threshold to between 34 and 

40 Mg/yr, then approximately 90 

additional landfills would be affected by 

the rule and 80 to 160 additional 

landfills would require controls, 

resulting in additional NMOC 

reductions of 2,100 to 3,200 Mg/yr and 

methane reductions of 328,000 to 

494,000 Mg/yr (8.2 to 12.3 million Mg/ 

yr CO2e). These additional reductions 

could be achieved at an incremental 

cost effectiveness of between $16,000 

and $18,000 per Mg NMOC or $100 to 

$115 per Mg methane ($4 to $5 per Mg 

CO2e). 

In addition, if the EPA were to remove 

the design capacity threshold, then a 

significant number of additional 

landfills would be subject to the rule. 

Out of the approximately 1,800 existing 

landfills with sufficient data to include 

in the preliminary analysis for the 

review of the emission guidelines, over 

850 have a design capacity of less than 

2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3. 

Without a design capacity threshold, the 

NMOC emission rate would be the only 

criterion for installing controls. Thus, 

these landfills would be required to 

begin calculating and reporting their 

NMOC emission rate. They would also 

be required to obtain a Title V permit. 

A smaller number of additional landfills 

would be required to install controls, 

because currently only those landfills 

below the design capacity threshold that 

exceed the NMOC emission rate require 

controls. Note that as landfills continue 

to add waste and continue to calculate 

and report the annual NMOC emission 

rate, over time, more landfills would be 

required to install controls, which 

would thus achieve additional emission 

reductions. The EPA requests input on 

whether or not adjustments to the 

design capacity threshold should be 

considered. 

ii. Reducing NMOC Emission Threshold 

Decreasing the NMOC emissions 

threshold would not change the number 

of landfills subject to the rule or affect 

the overall reporting burden. However, 

a lower NMOC emissions threshold 

would require more landfills to install 

controls. Although an NMOC emission 

threshold would continue to use NMOC 

as a surrogate for LFG, additional 

methane reductions could be achieved 

as a result of lowering the NMOC 

threshold, which is consistent with the 

President’s Methane Strategy as 

described in section II of this document. 

Modeling showed that if the EPA 

decreased the NMOC threshold to 40 

Mg/yr NMOC, then approximately 80 

additional landfills would require 

controls, resulting in additional NMOC 

reductions of 1,900 Mg/yr and methane 

reductions of 303,000 Mg/yr (7.6 million 

Mg/yr CO2e) as compared to the current 

rule requirements. These additional 

reductions could be achieved at an 

incremental cost effectiveness of 

approximately $16,000 per Mg NMOC 

or $100 per Mg methane ($4 per Mg 

CO2e). The EPA’s preliminary analysis 

did not include a reduction of NMOC 

threshold below 40 Mg/yr without also 

reducing the design capacity threshold. 

The preliminary emission reduction 

impacts of reducing both of these 

parameters are presented in section 

IV.B.1 of this document. The EPA 

requests input on whether or not 

adjustments to the NMOC emission 

threshold should be considered. 

iii. Adjustments to Initial or Expansion 

Lag Times 

As mentioned above, ‘‘lag time’’ is the 

period between when the landfill 

exceeds the NMOC emission rate 

threshold and when controls are 

required to be initially installed (or 

expanded) and started up. The emission 

reductions achieved by reducing the 

initial or expansion lag time are affected 

by the size of the landfill, waste 

placement patterns and annual 

acceptance rates. For example, the size 

of the landfill and the filling cycle affect 

how much and when emission 

reductions would be achieved. Based on 

input received from commenters,48 large 

filling areas at modern landfill designs 

typically do not close before 7 years. 

Because the landfills regulations allow 

two options for expanding the GCCS (2 

years after initial waste placement in 

closed areas and 5 years after initial 

waste placement in active areas), any 

reduction to the 2-year lag time for 

closed areas would not likely achieve 

any actual additional reductions from 

larger existing landfills because the 

majority of landfills are complying with 

the 5-year deadline instead of the 2-year 

deadline. Some of the smaller landfills 

may achieve final grade in a shorter 

time period. Modeling showed that if 

the EPA decreased the initial lag time to 

2 years, then an additional NMOC 

reduction of approximately 600 Mg/yr 

and methane reductions of 88,000 Mg/ 

yr (2.2 million Mg CO2e/yr) would be 

achieved as compared to the current 

rule framework. These additional 

reductions could be achieved at an 

incremental cost effectiveness of 

approximately $4,700 per Mg NMOC or 

$30 per Mg methane ($1.2 per Mg CO2e). 

Modifying the 5-year provision may 

also have a limited effect on emission 

reductions. Many landfills in wet 

climates are already installing wells 

ahead of the 5-year schedule for odor or 

energy recovery purposes. Modeling 

showed that if the EPA decreased the 

expansion lag time to 2 years, then an 

additional NMOC reduction of nearly 

1,000 Mg/yr and methane reductions of 

152,000 Mg/yr (3.8 million Mg/yr CO2e) 

could be achieved as compared to the 

current rule framework. These 

additional reductions could be achieved 

at an incremental cost effectiveness of 

approximately $17,000 per Mg NMOC 

or $106 per Mg methane ($4.3 per Mg 

CO2e). 

The EPA received input from 

commenters expressing concern about 

the potential shortening of lag times. 

The comments indicated that wells 

located in these areas are more 

frequently damaged as a result of daily 

filling operations and the movement of 

equipment. Damaged wells must be 

repaired with well extensions and/or redrilling of wells. In addition, waste in 

active fill areas undergoes significant 

settlement. This settlement affects the 

alignment of gas header equipment, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41783 

49Barlaz et al., Controls on Landfill Gas 

Collection Efficiency: Instantaneous and Lifetime 

Performance. 59 J. Air & Waste Mgmt. Ass’n 1399, 

1402–03 (Dec. 2009). 

50SCS Engineers, Technology and Management 

Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 

Prepared for California Integrated Waste 

Management Board. 

51California Code of Regulations, title 17, 

subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, section 95467, 

Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills. 

52California Code of Regulations, title 17, 

subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, sections 95460 

to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills. 

requiring more frequent repairs, 

troubleshooting and replacement of 

equipment. These repairs can add a 

significant cost to the construction and 

operation of a GCCS that are not 

currently accounted for in the LFGcost 

model estimates and also increase the 

amount of system down time. 

In addition to the implementation 

concerns, reducing the lag times would 

require more frequent mobilization of 

drill rig equipment and purchase of 

GCCS infrastructure and system repairs, 

which could lead to higher costs. Note 

the preliminary cost effectiveness 

estimates shown above do not include 

any cost adjustments to repair wells 

damaged in active areas. We seek input 

on how to account for these costs. 

Commenters also raised several 

practical concerns with reducing the 

expansion lag time. Reducing the 

expansion lag time would result in more 

wells located in active fill areas because 

more of the face of the landfill is active 

after only 2 years of waste acceptance 

and the landfill owner or operator must 

add wells into these active areas sooner. 

In addition, active fill areas are still in 

the aerobic phase of waste 

decomposition. Installing wells in areas 

with high oxygen levels increases the 

chance of subsurface fires. It also leads 

to more frequent exceedances of the 

current wellhead monitoring standards 

for oxygen. The EPA requests input on 

the assumptions outlined above and 

whether or not adjustments to lag times 

should nonetheless be considered. 

Horizontal Collectors. Horizontal LFG 

collection wells may provide some relief 

to the implementation concerns that 

have been raised, while also allowing 

for the wells to be installed more 

quickly after the waste is placed in the 

landfill. These types of wells are used 

in active fill areas and consist of 

perforated pipe in gravel-filled trenches 

constructed within the waste mass as an 

active area is filled. The wellheads are 

installed remotely outside of the active 

fill area to allow landfill owners/

operators to monitor the wells. 

Although the horizontal collection 

infrastructure is installed as the waste is 

placed in the fill area, the collectors are 

not brought online under an active 

vacuum until a sufficient refuse layer 

has been placed on top of the collectors. 

Sufficient refuse is necessary in order to 

prevent air infiltration in the landfill. 

The time to accumulate sufficient waste 

is, however, often shorter than the time 

needed to install vertical wells, and can 

be as short as a few months after refuse 

is buried.49 As a result, the installation 

of horizontal collectors could result in 

LFG being collected sooner. 

The EPA is aware of several 

horizontal collector installations, 

including several landfills in 

California 50 and 18 different landfills in 

the voluntary data collection effort for 

this rulemaking; see ‘‘Summary of 

Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and 

Emission Reduction Analysis of 

Landfills Regulations. 2014.’’ 

The shorter length of time associated 

with bringing horizontal collectors 

online can be especially important at 

landfills employing liquids recirculation 

techniques or located in wetter climates, 

given the higher LFG generation rates at 

those sites (as discussed earlier in this 

section IV.B.1). Quickly bringing these 

collectors online has added the benefit 

of proactively addressing odor concerns 

at landfills. These systems are also 

useful in landfills that practice ‘‘overfilling,’’ where new waste is placed on 

top of a section of the landfill that was 

capped temporarily. Some 

implementation concerns with 

horizontal collectors have been 

expressed, particularly regarding their 

shorter lifetime than vertical wells and 

the need for more frequent replacement. 

The EPA requests input on the 

assumptions outlined above and 

whether adjustments to lag times should 

be considered. 

iv. Adjustments to the Length of Time 

That Control Equipment Must Remain 

Operational 

The EPA is requesting input on the 

criteria and timing for capping or 

removing the GCCS. Under 40 CFR part 

60, subpart WWW, a landfill may cap or 

remove the GCCS if the following three 

criteria are met: (1) The landfill is 

closed; (2) the GCCS has been in 

operation for 15 years; and (3) three 

successive tests for NMOC emissions are 

below the NMOC emission threshold of 

50 Mg/yr. Depending on the waste-inplace of the landfill at closure and other 

site-specific factors (e.g., waste 

composition, climate), it may take 

greater than 30 years after closure for a 

large modern landfill to emit less than 

the 50 Mg per year NMOC emission 

threshold, and in turn qualify for 

capping or removing the GCCS. 

Although some commenters 

expressed concerns about the quantity 

of emissions after landfills have closed 

and the GCCS has ceased to operate, the 

preliminary analysis the EPA conducted 

demonstrated that approximately 130 

landfills that have closed or will close 

by 2023 will require a GCCS to be 

operated for between 15 and nearly 70 

years after the landfill has stopped 

accepting waste. The exact length of the 

period after landfill closure is 

commensurate with the size and 

corresponding emissions profile of each 

affected landfill. Nonetheless, the EPA 

is requesting input on whether there are 

other ways to ensure emissions are 

minimized in the later stages of a 

landfill’s lifecycle. Specifically, the EPA 

is seeking input on whether the three 

criteria listed above are appropriate. We 

also seek input on alternative 

approaches, such as consecutive 

quarterly measurements below a surface 

emission threshold. Note that RCRA, 

specifically subpart F of part 258, also 

requires supplemental basic postclosure care to maintain cover integrity, 

which includes cover material 

requirements, design criteria for final 

cover systems, and post-closure care 

such as maintaining the integrity of the 

final cover and maintaining and 

operating a gas monitoring system. The 

California landfill methane regulation 51

requires that systems stay in place until 

the landfill has operated the equipment 

for at least 15 years and the surface 

methane concentration measurement 

(instead of the measured NMOC 

emission cutoff rate) does not exceed a 

500 parts per million (ppm) 

instantaneous reading or a 25 ppm 

integrated reading. 

v. Other Potential Adjustments 

The California landfill methane 

regulation 52 uses a combination of 

waste-in-place and gas heat input 

capacity in lieu of design capacity and 

NMOC thresholds to determine which 

landfills are subject to GCCS 

requirements. Under the California 

regulation, a GCCS must be installed at 

all landfills accepting waste after 

January 1, 1977, having at least 450,000 

tons of waste-in-place, and having a gas 

heat input capacity threshold of 3.0 

MMBtu/hr or greater. 

The Climate Action Reserve also 

incorporated waste-in-place criteria in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41784 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

53Climate Action Reserve. Landfill Project 

Protocol. Version 4.0. June 29, 2011. 

54BAAQMD. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Landfill 

Gas and Industrial, Institutional and Commercial 

Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters. Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District, prepared by 

URS Corporation. April 2008. 

55BAAQMD. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Landfill 

Gas and Industrial, Institutional and Commercial 

Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters. Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District, prepared by 

URS Corporation. April 2008. 

56Sullivan, P. The Importance of Landfill Gas 

Capture and Utilization in the U.S. April 6, 2010. 

version 4.0 of its Landfill Protocol.53

This protocol includes waste-in-place 

thresholds for landfills that recover 

energy and those thresholds vary from 

0.72 million Mg for landfills located in 

a non-arid area (receiving 25 inches or 

greater precipitation per year) to 2.17 

million Mg for landfills located in an 

arid area (receiving less than 25 inches 

of precipitation per year) to determine 

what offset projects are eligible. 

Coupling a precipitation indicator with 

a waste-in-place threshold recognizes 

that LFG emission generation rates are 

affected by the quantity of waste 

disposed as well as the moisture present 

in the landfill, either due to the local 

climate, or other liquids added to a 

landfill, as discussed earlier in this 

section IV.B.1. 

The EPA requests input on whether it 

should pursue an alternative set of 

thresholds to determine which landfills 

are subject to the revised emission 

guidelines and what criteria trigger the 

installation of a GCCS. 

vi. Potential Unique Treatment of 

Landfills Located in Wet Climates or 

Those Employing Leachate 

Recirculation or Other Liquids Addition 

The EPA also seeks input on whether 

it should consider reducing the design 

capacity thresholds or initial and 

expansion lag times for landfills that are 

located in a wet climate or that 

recirculate leachate or add other liquids 

to the landfills to accelerate 

decomposition of the waste. Wetter 

wastes decompose more quickly than 

drier wastes and as a result generate 

more LFG in the short term. Therefore, 

it may be appropriate to require these 

landfills to install and expand the gas 

collection system sooner. Similarly, 

smaller landfills in wetter climates, or 

those employing leachate recirculation 

(or other liquids addition), may also 

generate earlier spikes in LFG emissions 

that could exceed the NMOC threshold. 

Although these landfills are not affected 

by the current design capacity threshold 

of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, if 

a smaller design capacity threshold or 

an alternative waste-in-place based 

threshold were adopted for these wet 

landfills, more emission reductions may 

be achieved. 

If a separate set of thresholds and/or 

lag times were to apply to these wet 

landfills, or if an adjusted modeling 

provision were adopted (see section 

IV.E.1 of this document), the EPA 

requests input on how a wet landfill 

might be defined. For example, a wet 

landfill could be defined as a landfill 

that has precipitation of greater than 25 

inches per year and/or recirculates 

leachate or adds other liquids to the 

landfill. 

vii. Definition of Modification 

The EPA in this ANPRM is seeking 

input on options to achieve additional 

emissions reductions from existing 

landfills under CAA section 111(d). In 

light of our interest in reducing the 

methane and NMOC components of 

LFG, the EPA is also seeking input on 

whether it is reasonable to review the 

definition of modification for landfills. 

The EPA solicits input on changes that 

may be appropriate and whether these 

changes should be enacted to achieve 

additional emission reductions. 

C. Emission Reduction Techniques and 

GCCS Best Management Practices 

As mentioned previously, the EPA is 

considering potential changes within 

the current regulatory framework of the 

landfills regulations for existing sources 

that would achieve further emission 

reductions. This section discusses 

specific LFG control technologies and 

BMPs for GCCS and landfill operations 

to improve gas collection efficiencies. 

The EPA is soliciting input to 

evaluate the emission reductions 

achieved by the specific technologies 

and BMPs discussed later in this section 

to assess whether any technologies and 

practices could be applied to the 

landfills regulations for existing sources 

to achieve further reductions of LFG. 

The EPA will review the performance 

data, practical application, and cost of 

these BMPs or technologies to 

determine if and how they could be 

incorporated in conjunction with the 

current performance-based standard. 

Promotion of technologies and practices 

to achieve reductions of GHG from 

landfills complements the recently 

issued Methane Action Plan discussed 

in section II of this document. 

The EPA is also requesting input on 

other technologies or BMPs that might 

be appropriate to encourage under the 

emission guidelines, the cost and 

emission reduction potential of each of 

these alternatives, and how each of 

these other approaches might be 

incorporated into the current rule 

framework or a new alternative rule 

framework. 

1. Oxidation Technologies 

The EPA is considering whether any 

emerging technologies may achieve 

additional emission reductions for 

existing landfills. As part of its 

consideration, the EPA will evaluate the 

extent to which the technology is 

adequately demonstrated for existing 

landfills. 

The EPA is aware of several 

technologies that increase the methane 

oxidation rate, thereby reducing the 

amount of methane that could escape 

through the surface of the landfill. The 

principle of these technologies is the 

use of methanotrophic bacteria, 

commonly found in most soils and 

compost, to oxidize methane into water, 

carbon dioxide, and biomass. 

A biocover is a cover material 

designed to enhance methane oxidation 

and is typically made of two layers—a 

permeable layer that consists of gravel, 

broken glass, sand or other media to 

evenly distribute the LFG to the 

oxidation media and an oxidation layer 

that typically consists of soil, compost, 

mulch or other organic media. The 

oxidation media contains 

methanotrophic bacteria from the waste 

decomposition process. One 

disadvantage of alternative cover 

technologies is their sensitivity to 

environmental conditions because the 

productivity of methanotrophic bacteria 

is highly dependent on the bacteria’s 

surroundings. Certain conditions, 

including temperature, moisture and 

pH, must be maintained to optimize 

methane oxidation rates.54

Methane oxidation occurs to some 

degree in various types of traditional 

landfill covers, including simple soil 

covers. Some landfills use compost, 

yard waste and other organic wastes and 

materials as a type of naturally 

occurring biocover. Chipped rubber 

tires, Styrofoam and yard waste are 

other common types of waste that could 

serve as good methanotrophic media 

when mixed with soil or compost.55

The most common biocover in use at 

landfills is shredded yard waste used as 

alternative daily cover.56 Biocovers 

consisting of naturally occurring and 

often readily available materials may 

provide a cost effective method to 

increase methane oxidation, thus 

decreasing methane emissions, at the 

surface of existing landfills. The EPA is 

requesting information to characterize 

the prevalence of the practice of using 

these types of naturally occurring 

biocovers at existing U.S. landfills and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41785 

57Sullivan, P. The Importance of Landfill Gas 

Capture and Utilization in the U.S. April 6, 2010. 

58Chanton, J.; Powelson, D.; Green, R. Methane 

oxidation in landfill cover soils, is a 10% default 

value reasonable? Journal of Environmental Quality. 

38, 654–663 (2009). 

59Chanton, J.; Abichou, T.; Langford, C.; Hater, 

G.; Green, R.; Goldsmith, D.; Swan, N. Landfill 

Methane Oxidation Across Climate Types in the 

U.S. Environmental Science And Technology. 45, 

313–319 (2011). 

60Sullivan, P. The Importance of Landfill Gas 

Capture and Utilization in the U.S. April 6, 2010. 

61 If methane flux is less than 10 grams per square 

meter per day, then a 35 percent oxidation fraction 

can be used. If methane flux is between 10 to 70 

grams per square meter per day, then a 25 percent 

oxidation fraction can be used. If methane flux is 

greater than 70 grams per square meter per day, 

then a 25 percent oxidation fraction can be used. 

62U.S. EPA. Available and Emerging 

Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 

June 2011. 

63BAAQMD. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Landfill 

Gas and Industrial, Institutional and Commercial 

Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters. Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District, prepared by 

URS Corporation. April 2008. 

64BAAQMD. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Landfill 

Gas and Industrial, Institutional and Commercial 

Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters. Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District, prepared by 

URS Corporation. April 2008. 

65Abichou, T.; Chanton, J.; Powelson, D. Field 

Performance of Biocells, Biocovers, and Biofilters to 

Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills. 

Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Management, University of Florida. March 2006. 

66Morales, J.J. Mitigation of Landfill Methane 

Emissions from Passive Vents by Use of Oxidizing 

Biofilters. Fall 2006. 

67U.S. EPA. Available and Emerging 

Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 

June 2011. 

68U.S. EPA. Available and Emerging 

Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 

June 2011. 

69Abichou, T.; Chanton, J.; Powelson, D. Field 

Performance of Biocells, Biocovers, and Biofilters to 

Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills. 

Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Management, University of Florida. March 2006. 

70 Yazdani, R, and Imhoff, P. Contractor’s report 

to CalRecycle: Biocovers at Landfills for Methane 

Emissions Reduction Demonstration. October 2010. 

71SCS Engineers, Technology and Management 

Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 

Prepared for California Integrated Waste 

Management Board. Prepared by SCS Engineers. 

April 2008. 

the costs to manage and apply these 

materials. 

The MSW landfills subpart of the 

GHGRP (40 CFR part 98, subpart HH) 

had used a default value of 10 percent 

for the amount of methane oxidized 

when calculating methane emissions 

from MSW landfills. However, recent 

research studies indicate that a default 

value of 10 percent may be 

underestimating the level of oxidation 

occurring at existing landfills and the 

amount of methane oxidized may be 

considerably higher, depending on 

cover type and other site-specific 

conditions.57 A 2009 literature review 

found an average value of 35 percent for 

traditional landfill cover methane 

oxidation rates.58 A 2011 article 

documents a 4-year research study of 

over 37 seasonal sampling events at 20 

landfills across the United States with 

intermediate covers reported up to 37 

percent average oxidation for soil 

covers.59 In addition, recent research 

demonstrates that daily soil covers 

oxidize methane to a greater degree than 

many low permeability final soil covers, 

suggesting oxidation rates of 20 to 55 

percent.60 As a result, recent final 

revisions to the GHGRP published in the 

Federal Register on November 29, 2013 

(78 FR 71904), now allow for the use of 

higher oxidation values (25 percent and 

35 percent), in addition to the 10 

percent value, if methane flux through 

the soil cover is of a certain amount and 

there is 24 inches or more of soil 

cover.61 Co-oxidation of NMOC has 

been observed during use of these 

alternative landfill cover materials, 

which has the potential to reduce odors 

and toxic air pollutants.62

Biocover application costs may vary 

widely depending upon availability of 

material and the level of monitoring, 

and many materials would most likely 

be on site or easily obtained for free or 

for a nominal cost associated with 

transporting the materials from a nearby 

or co-located yard waste or compost 

facility.63

RCRA Subtitle D addresses cover and 

capping requirements for MSW 

landfills. Specific requirements address 

the frequency and type of covers 

allowed, including provisions for 

requesting the use of alternative 

materials (40 part 258, subpart C). These 

operating parameters are in place to 

control disease vectors, fires, odors, 

blowing litter and scavenging at the 

landfill, but are not covers that 

specifically promote oxidation of LFG. 

Design criteria for final cover systems 

(40 part 258, subpart F) were also 

established to minimize water 

infiltration and erosion of the landfill, 

rather than release of LFG or its 

constituents. Rules regarding the use of 

daily, intermediate and final cover are 

governed by RCRA Subtitle D; however, 

research indicates that biocovers may 

help to reduce emissions of methane, a 

primary constituent of LFG. 

Another method for increasing the 

oxidation rate is to route passively 

vented LFG through a vessel containing 

methane-oxidizing media, commonly 

referred to as a biofiltration beds or 

biofilters. Biofilter media have included 

compost or chipped yard waste mixed 

with recycled shredded tires or 

Styrofoam peanuts as well as sand and 

soil mixtures. Choosing the proper 

media with sufficient gas conductivity 

is important to reduce the possibility of 

back pressure in the landfill.64 Biofilters 

have been tested for use at landfills over 

only the past 10 to 15 years. Studies of 

passively-aerated methane biofilters 

have shown methane oxidation rates 

vary widely by type of biofilter media 

but could reach values between 19 and 

98 percent.65 66

Biofilters are likely feasible for use at 

small existing landfills or existing 

landfills with passive gas collection 

systems due to the size of the 

biofiltration bed required to treat the 

mixture of air and LFG. Due to the 

nature of passive gas collection systems, 

this technology lacks the ability to 

control and monitor the oxidation of 

methane in the LFG.67 In general, 

biofilter costs are expected to be lower 

than biocover costs due to their smaller 

scale and utilization of existing passive 

vents. 

No data exist on the long-term 

performance, effectiveness, or 

maintenance requirements of biocovers 

or biofilters.68 69 70 Therefore, the EPA is 

requesting information about 

application of these technologies to 

better understand these characteristics 

for full-scale use of biocovers and 

biofilters. The EPA is also seeking input 

on biocover parameters and their effect 

on oxidation. Such parameters may 

include depth, soil characteristics, 

measurement and their affect on percent 

oxidation. The EPA is also seeking input 

on appropriate mechanisms to monitor 

the performance of these alternatives. 

2. Best Management Practices 

The EPA is considering how certain 

BMPs that achieve additional emission 

reductions for existing landfills may be 

encouraged under a revised regulatory 

framework. The EPA seeks input on 

how to demonstrate that the BMPs are 

properly implemented and what 

additional maintenance records or other 

requirements might demonstrate that 

the BMPs can ensure the same level of 

environmental protection as the current 

framework. The EPA also invites input 

on other requirements that could be 

adjusted to encourage BMPs. 

i. LFG Collection From Leachate 

Removal Systems 

The EPA is aware of landfills that 

have connected the LFG collection 

system and leachate collection system; 

however, references suggest that 

connection of these systems is not 

common at landfills that do not employ 

leachate recirculation.71 The efficiency 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41786 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

72California Integrated Waste Management Board, 

Technologies and Management Options for 

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 

Landfills, April 2008. 

73 Kaminski, D. and M. Varljen. Increasing LFG 

Collection Rates Using Gas Well Dewatering 

Systems: Lessons Learned. 15th Annual LMOP 

Conference. January 2012. 

74California Integrated Waste Management Board, 

Technologies and Management Options for 

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 

Landfills, April 2008. 

75California Integrated Waste Management Board, 

Technologies and Management Options for 

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 

Landfills, April 2008. 

76ARCADIS. Quantifying Methane Abatement 

Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills. Prepared for U.S. EPA/ORD. January 

2012. 

77California Integrated Waste Management Board, 

Technologies and Management Options for 

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 

Landfills, April 2008. 

of capturing LFG emissions through this 

BMP depends on the efficiency of both 

the LFG collection system and the 

leachate recirculation system. Section 

60.752(b)(2)(i)(D) of subpart WWW 

recognizes that leachate collection 

components may be part of a sitespecific collection and control system 

design plan. Because the design plan is 

not prescriptive and instead contains 

design and operational standards that 

are site-specific, the design plan has the 

flexibility to include collection of LFG 

from leachate collection systems. 

The cost of each connection of GCCS 

to a leachate removal system would 

include $400 to $650 for a LFG 

wellhead and $10 to $15 per foot for a 

3- or 4-inch HDPE pipe (2008 cost 

estimates).72 However, there are 

currently no broad mandates for 

requiring gas collection from leachate 

removal systems. The EPA requests 

input on the efficacy and costs of 

enhancing gas collection systems to 

collect LFG from leachate removal or 

storage systems. The EPA also requests 

information on the types of landfills 

currently collecting gas from leachate 

removal systems and the specifics of the 

gas collection systems used in practice. 

The EPA will use this information to 

evaluate if and when the use of an 

enhanced gas collection system that 

collects LFG from the leachate removal 

system may be appropriate. 

ii. Preventing Waterlogged Wells 

The EPA also seeks input on requiring 

a gas collection system to more 

proactively prevent waterlogged wells, 

perhaps through the use of leachate 

removal pumps or alternative GCCS 

infrastructure. Leachate and condensate 

can accumulate in collection wells, 

blocking LFG capture. Because a 

flooded well cannot collect gas, fixing a 

flooded well would have a high 

emission reduction potential. 

The most practical and cost effective 

method for keeping liquid out of gas 

extraction wells is to prevent its entry 

in the first place by ensuring proper 

sealing and grading at the surface. 

Infiltration of leachate from within the 

waste mass is more difficult to control. 

Once liquid is inside the well, it often 

must be removed via pumping to restore 

the gas collection capability of the well. 

When performed in conjunction with 

effective leachate removal, it may be 

possible to dewater wells with a 

portable pump and a mobile storage 

tank that can be used to transport liquid 

removed from the well to a suitable 

leachate disposal point. Multiple 

iterations of dewatering could be 

required at each well because liquid 

often seeps back into the well after 

pumping. While labor intensive, this 

approach alleviates the need for a 

dedicated pump and piping at multiple 

wells. If liquid accumulation in wells is 

an ongoing issue, then a dedicated 

pumping system may be suitable. Long 

term costs for a dedicated pumping 

system are still high, including the 

initial cost of pumps and piping, as well 

as ongoing operation and maintenance 

costs and disposal of the leachate. A 

single well dewatering pump system 

could cost over $3,000,73 but could also 

improve LFG collection and GHG 

emission reduction. 

Another method for reducing GHG 

emissions at landfills with waterlogged 

wells is to install a surface collector. A 

surface collector usually consists of 

perforated pipes laid across the top of 

the waste mass and covered by an 

impermeable geomembrane or by final 

cover. Surface collectors can be used to 

collect gas from a wet landfill where 

traditional horizontal and vertical wells 

fail due to water infiltration. Surface 

collectors can be used with or instead of 

horizontal collector systems.74 Because 

surface collectors are installed after final 

waste acceptance, they are not effective 

in controlling LFG emissions while the 

landfill is open and accepting waste. 

Surface collectors also do not apply a 

vacuum into the waste so they are only 

effective at controlling gas that has 

escaped other collection systems. Their 

impact on emissions is therefore 

expected to be low in cases where a 

well-designed and well-operated LFG 

collection system already exists. The 

overall cost of surface collectors is 

comparatively high due to additional 

geomembrane material costs, if they are 

not already required by regulations. One 

2008 study estimates the cost of 

installing a geomembrane to be $40,000 

to $50,000 per acre of landfill surface. 

If a landfill already has a geomembrane, 

the added cost would be $25 to $35 per 

linear foot for a 6-foot deep trench and 

gravel backfill.75

Wellhead operating parameters in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW require that 

each owner or operator of an MSW 

landfill either operate the collection 

system with a negative pressure at each 

wellhead or, in areas with a 

geomembrane or synthetic cover, 

establish acceptable pressure limits in 

the design plan. These performance 

standards help identify any inoperable 

wells resulting from flooding. Surface 

emissions monitoring would also help 

identify any elevated methane levels 

resulting from an inoperable well. 

Because some of the wells at existing 

landfills may have been installed for 15 

years or more, the EPA requests input 

on whether the current combination of 

wellhead monitoring and surface 

emission monitoring is sufficient for 

identifying inoperable wells, especially 

in cases where wells have been installed 

for a significant amount of time. If the 

monitoring systems in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW are deficient for 

identifying flooded wells, the EPA also 

asks for input on whether any 

additional recordkeeping, such as 

periodic measurement of liquid levels in 

gas wells, might be useful to identify 

flooded wells that are not collecting gas. 

The EPA requests input on whether any 

more specific corrective action guidance 

should be developed, such as the need 

to dewater the well or employ 

alternative GCCS technologies such as 

surface collectors if a flooded well is 

identified. 

iii. Redundant Seals 

The EPA is also considering a BMP of 

requiring redundant seals and the use of 

enhanced sealing materials on 

wellheads. One study includes a survey 

using a forward-looking infrared camera 

suggesting that LFG wellheads and other 

surface penetrations present high 

potential for concentrated leaks of 

organic compounds.76 The use of 

advanced seals at wellheads may help to 

ensure that the well can apply sufficient 

vacuum to the landfill to facilitate gas 

extraction while preventing leaks of 

LFG to the atmosphere. The design for 

vertical wells typically includes the use 

of bentonite or bentonite soil mixtures 

near the surface as part of the well 

boring backfill to reduce the potential 

for air to be pulled into the well.77

Compacted backfill soil can also be 

considered, but may not be practicable 

and adds risk of damaging the well 

casing pipe. A well’s connecting pipes 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41787 

78 Ibid. 

79 Ibid. 

80 Goldsmith et al., Methane Emissions from 20 

Landfills Across the United States Using Vertical 

Radial Plume Mapping, Journal of the Air & Waste 

Mgmt. Association, 62:2, 183–197 (2012). 

81Barlaz et al., Controls on Landfill Gas 

Collection Efficiency: Instantaneous and Lifetime 

Performance, Journal of the Air & Waste Mgmt. 

Association, 59, 1399–1404 (2009). 

82U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Tables 

and Figures for 2012. February 2014. http://

www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_

msw_dat_tbls.pdf. 

83U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Tables 

and Figures for 2012. February 2014. http://

www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_

msw_dat_tbls.pdf. 

84Residential Food Waste Collection in the U.S. 

Biocycle. 54:3, 23, March 2013. 

85California Code of Regulations, title 14, 

division 7, chapter 9.1, article 4, subarticle 6, 

section 18835, Mandatory Commercial Recycling. 

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/ 

86 General Statutes of Connecticut, title 22a, 

chapter 446d, sections 22a–226e, Recycling of 

Source-Separated Organic Materials. http://

cga.ct.gov/2014/sup/chap_446d.htm#sec_22a-226e 

87Code of Massachusetts Regulations, title 310 

CMR 19.000. January 2014 amendments. http://

www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/service/regulations/

wbreg14.pdf 

88City of Portland Administrative Rules, Business 

Solid Waste, Recycling and Composting, ENN–2.06 

http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/?c=27430

&a=294923. 

89Administrative Code of the city of New York. 

Title 16, chapter 3, subchapter 2, section 1 (16– 

306.1). http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/Legislation

Detail.aspx?ID=1482542&GUID=DDD94082-C0E5- 

4BF9-976B-BBE0CD858F8F. 

90San Francisco Environment Code. Chapter 19, 

sections 1901–1912. Mandatory Recycling and 

Composting Ordinance. http://

www.sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/policy/

sfe_zw_sf_mandatory_recycling_composting_ord_

100-09.pdf. 

Continued 

are typically sealed using three different 

techniques: (1) Bentonite clay seal, (2) 

compacted clay seal or (3) plastic well 

bore seal. 

Because a good seal is critical for 

proper well performance, multiple seals 

are often used. Many engineers already 

require two and sometimes three seals 

in a well when preparing design plans 

for GCCS.78 However, for wells that are 

not properly sealed, their zone of 

influence is likely reduced, resulting in 

LFG between wells not being collected. 

Costs can range from $500 to $2500 per 

well based on 2008 estimates depending 

on the type of seal used.79

Because the design plan is not 

prescriptive and instead contains design 

and operational standards that are sitespecific, the design plan has the 

flexibility to determine the number or 

type of seals in order to accommodate 

the conditions and climates at different 

landfills. This site-specific approach 

also provides for continued flexibility 

for future design plans to incorporate 

new sealing materials that may be more 

efficient than those currently available. 

The design plan, coupled with wellhead 

and surface monitoring requirements, 

ensures that leaks from wells are 

minimized. The EPA is soliciting input 

on what mechanisms, if any, might be 

appropriate to further promote or 

mandate enhanced seals in this 

emission guidelines review. 

iv. Early Installation of Final Cover 

Early installation of final cover 

systems can also reduce methane 

emissions. Current rules for landfills 

under RCRA Subtitle D require 

intermediate cover (typically at least 12 

inches of native soil) to be installed in 

areas of the landfill that are no longer 

receiving waste or will not be used for 

over 12 months within 180 days of final 

waste placement (40 CFR part 258, 

subpart C). The final cover system must 

consist of an infiltration layer of at least 

18 inches of earthen material covered by 

an erosion layer of at least 6 inches of 

earthen material that is capable of 

sustaining native plant growth. An 

alternative cover design may be used as 

long as it provides equivalent protection 

against infiltration and erosion (40 CFR 

part 258, subpart F). Once a landfill has 

received its final shipment of waste, it 

must begin closure operations within 30 

days. A landfill, however, may delay 

closure for up to 1 year if additional 

capacity remains. Any further delays 

after 1 year require approval from the 

appropriate state agency. After 

beginning, all closure activities must be 

completed within 180 days. 

Despite these rules, landfill operators 

often leave intermediate cover in place 

for years or even decades and 

intermediate cover frequently is the 

only cover on the majority of the landfill 

surface. Recent studies indicate that 

installation of intermediate and final 

cover has a direct and significant effect 

on LFG emissions.80 Intermediate cover 

significantly reduces emissions 

compared to daily cover on working 

faces. Final cover has the ability to 

reduce emissions even further compared 

to intermediate cover. By installing 

these more rigorous cover systems 

sooner, significant emissions may be 

prevented from being released. 

Furthermore, final cover has been 

shown to increase LFG collection 

efficiency at landfills with a gas 

collection system.81 Early installation of 

cover should not incur any additional 

cost to the landfill as long as waste 

acceptance or placement plans do not 

change after the cover (particularly final 

cover) is installed. Early installation of 

cover could result in a cost savings due 

to the general increase in the cost of 

materials over time and the added gas 

collection realized when more rigorous 

cover systems are installed—especially 

if the gas is collected for beneficial use. 

3. Organics Diversion and Source 

Separation 

LFG is a by-product of the 

decomposition of organic material in 

MSW under anaerobic conditions in 

landfills. The amount of LFG created 

primarily depends on the quantity of 

waste and its composition and moisture 

content, as well as the design and 

management practices at the site. 

Decreasing the amount of organics 

disposed in landfills would decrease the 

generation of LFG. 

Organic materials are historically the 

largest component of materials 

discarded in the MSW stream, 

constituting nearly 49 percent of 

discarded material in 2012. Food waste 

is the largest portion of the organic 

materials, followed by paper and 

paperboard, yard trimmings and wood 

wastes.82 Material recovery, including 

composting and recycling, has been 

increasing over time for all materials, 

except rubber and leather. For example, 

the percent of paper and paperboard 

that is recovered has increased from 

16.9 percent in 1960 to 62.5 percent in 

2012. The amount of recovered yard 

trimmings has increased from negligible 

amount in 1960 to 57.7 percent in 2012. 

Recovered food waste has increased less 

significantly from negligible amounts in 

1960 to 4.8 percent in 2012.83

Although material recovery has 

increased over time, states and cities 

with vigorous recovery programs have 

proven that a greater percentage 

recovery is possible. Organic waste 

diversion regulations and zero waste 

programs are currently in effect in 

multiple U.S. states and cities, with 183 

municipalities providing separate 

curbside collection of residential food 

waste.84 For example, state programs in 

California, Connecticut, and 

Massachusetts focus on diversion from 

commercial or certain multifamily 

residential waste generators.85 86 87

Vermont’s Universal Recycling Law 

implements a phased material ban 

beginning in 2016 for leaf and yard 

debris and food waste in 2020. City 

ordinances in New York City and 

Portland, Oregon, mandate materials 

separation from commercial and 

multifamily generators.88 89 Ordinances 

in Seattle and San Francisco extend the 

separation mandate to single family 

dwellings.90 91


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41788 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

91Seattle Municipal Code. Chapters 21.40 and 

21.76. http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/

FoodYard/BldgOwnersManagers_FoodYard/

index.htm. 

92U.S. EPA, Parameters for Properly Designed 

and Operated Flares, Report for Flare Review Panel, 

April 2012. 

In the 1996 Landfills NSPS 

Background Information Document 

(page 1–25) the EPA ‘‘decided not to 

include materials separation 

requirements within the final rules 

because the EPA continues to believe 

RCRA and local regulations are the most 

appropriate vehicle to address wideranging issues associated with solid 

waste management for landfills.’’ 

Although the EPA is not requesting 

input on mandating source separation 

under the upcoming emission 

guidelines review, the EPA is soliciting 

input and ideas for encouraging organic 

waste diversion under the revised 

emission guidelines, including the 

specific mechanisms described below 

and in section IV.E of this document or 

other ideas in general. 

One method to encourage organic 

waste diversion under the revised 

emission guidelines is to provide rule 

exemptions for landfills diverting 100 

percent of organic wastes. The emission 

threshold determination provisions 

currently in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW allow non-degradable wastes to 

be excluded from the total waste mass 

when computing the NMOC emission 

rate. If only non-degradable wastes were 

accepted, then the waste inputs for the 

model would be zero, the emission 

thresholds would not be exceeded, and 

thus GCCS would not be required. The 

EPA solicits input on the methane 

emission reductions from organic and 

inorganic waste diversion and whether 

adjustments should be made to the 

annual NMOC reporting requirements 

for landfills not accepting organic 

materials. 

4. Encouraging New Technologies and 

Practices 

The EPA understands that the 

technologies, BMPs, and source 

separation practices discussed above 

can achieve reductions in emissions 

from landfills. The EPA is seeking input 

on whether the use of any of the 

technologies or practices discussed in 

this section in conjunction with a welldesigned and well-operated GCCS 

should be considered as the EPA 

reviews the emission guidelines. 

Section IV.E of this document 

discusses other mechanisms to 

encourage wider use of these 

technologies and practices such as 

emission threshold determination 

flexibilities. 

5. Gas Control System Technology 

Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 60 

currently requires all control devices 

other than enclosed combustion devices 

to demonstrate 98-percent reduction by 

weight of NMOC. Enclosed combustion 

devices have the option of reducing 

emissions to 20 ppm, dry volume of 

NMOC, as hexane. Both enclosed and 

non-enclosed flares as well as a suite of 

other energy recovery devices are used 

to meet the control requirements under 

the current regulatory framework. 

Non-enclosed flares used at landfills 

meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 60.18(b) 

are thought to have destruction 

efficiencies similar to enclosed flares 

and incinerators, and devices that burn 

LFG to recover energy, such as boilers, 

turbines and internal combustion 

engines. 

However, in April 2012 the EPA 

conducted an external peer review on 

flaring efficiency and made available to 

the public a draft technical report, 

‘‘Parameters for Properly Designed and 

Operated Flares.’’ 92 In the draft report, 

the EPA evaluated test data and 

identified a variety of parameters that 

may affect flare performance and that 

could be monitored to help assure good 

combustion efficiency. None of the flare 

performance data used in the report 

comes from flares used at MSW 

landfills, however, and the report does 

not provide any new test data on nonassisted flare types, which to our 

knowledge, are the only non-enclosed 

flare type found in this source category. 

Thus, while we have no new 

information to suggest that flares at 

MSW landfills complying with 40 CFR 

60.18(b) will not achieve at least 98- 

percent destruction, we solicit input 

and additional information on flare 

performance specifically for this source 

category. Examples of information 

requested for this source category 

include: Prevalence of flaring; number 

and types of flares used; waste gas 

characteristics such as flow rate, 

composition and heat content; use of 

flare gas recovery and other flare 

minimization practices; and existing 

flare monitoring systems. 

D. Alternative Monitoring, Reporting, 

and Other Requirements 

In addition to the technologies, BMPs, 

and other approaches discussed in 

section IV.C of this document, the EPA 

is considering whether alternative 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

would be appropriate for existing 

landfills. These alternative approaches 

address concerns that have arisen in 

implementation of subpart WWW and 

state and federal plans implementing 

subpart Cc and provide an opportunity 

to increase the effectiveness of the 

regulation. 

1. Wellhead Monitoring 

The EPA is requesting public input on 

alternative wellhead monitoring 

requirements. Commenters have 

expressed concerns about the ability to 

consistently meet these parameters. One 

alternative monitoring provision could 

be in the form of an exclusion from the 

temperature and oxygen/nitrogen 

monitoring requirements, or a reduction 

in the frequency of monitoring. For 

example, the EPA could reduce the 

frequency of wellhead monitoring for 

these three parameters (temperature and 

oxygen/nitrogen) from monthly to a 

quarterly or semi-annual schedule. 

Owners or operators would continue to 

monitor the wellhead for negative 

pressure. 

The EPA is specifically requesting 

input on whether any such adjustment 

should apply only to landfills that 

beneficially use LFG, and if so whether 

there should be a threshold for the 

quantity of LFG put to beneficial use 

above which sources would qualify for 

alternative wellhead monitoring (and 

below which they would not), or 

whether the beneficial use of any 

quantity of the recovered LFG should 

qualify for alternative wellhead 

monitoring. Alternatively, the EPA is 

requesting input on whether it would be 

more appropriate to require a certain 

percentage of the overall recovered LFG 

to be beneficially used in order to 

exempt landfills from or reduce the 

frequency of the wellhead monitoring 

requirements. 

If EPA were to limit adjusted 

monitoring to landfills that beneficially 

use LFG, these alternatives could 

encourage new landfills to beneficially 

use LFG. Both of these alternative 

options (exclusion or reduced 

monitoring frequency) would provide 

monitoring relief to these landfills. 

Landfill owners and operators must 

continue to operate their GCCS in a 

manner that collects the most LFG and 

minimizes losses of LFG through the 

surface of the landfill. In addition, 

landfills would still have to prepare and 

submit to the regulating authority a gas 

collection design plan, prepared by a 

professional engineer. 

Subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR part 

60 require landfill owners and operators 

to operate each interior wellhead in the 

collection system with a LFG 

temperature less than 55°C and with 

either a nitrogen level less than 20 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41789 

93California Code of Regulations, title 17, 

subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, sections 95460 

to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills. 

percent or an oxygen level less than 5 

percent. Compliance with these 

requirements is demonstrated through 

monthly monitoring. Instead of having 

the landfill owner or operator conduct 

monthly monitoring of temperature and 

nitrogen/oxygen at the wellheads, the 

EPA is requesting input on relying on 

landfill surface emission monitoring 

requirements in combination with 

maintenance of negative pressure at 

wellheads to indicate proper operation 

of the GCCS and minimization of 

surface emissions. The potential 

removal of the temperature and 

nitrogen/oxygen operational standards 

and associated wellhead monitoring 

requirements for these three parameters 

would be complemented by the addition 

of the surface monitoring provisions 

discussed in section IV.D.2 of this 

document. 

Given recent technological 

advancements in data storage and 

transmission, the EPA is also 

considering an alternative to automate 

the wellhead monthly monitoring 

provisions. Automation could reduce 

long-term burden on landfill owner/

operators as well as state authorities by 

allowing for more frequent, but less 

labor-intensive, data collection through 

the use of a system consisting of remote 

wellhead sensors (i.e., thermistors, 

electronic pressure transducers, oxygen 

cells) and a centralized data logger. 

The use of continuous monitoring 

would allow more immediate detection 

and repair. This would eliminate the 

time between when the exceedance of 

the parameter occurs and when it is 

detected. It could also improve 

enforceability of the rule by allowing 

inspectors to review information on the 

data logger in real time during a site 

visit. Another advantage to automating 

the monitoring is that it could provide 

flexibility for incorporating additional 

parameters into the monitoring program. 

The EPA is soliciting input on this 

alternative in general, including: (1) The 

types of parameters that are best suited 

for an automated monitoring alternative; 

(2) examples of successful automated 

monitoring programs at MSW landfills 

and their associated costs; (3) additional 

considerations for equipment 

calibration; and (4) input on any 

averaging times that might be 

appropriate to determine when one or 

more monitored parameters have been 

exceeded. 

2. Surface Emissions Monitoring 

The EPA is requesting input on 

potential alternative approaches to the 

surface emission monitoring specified 

in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. 

Subpart WWW collection and control 

requirements are intended for landfills 

to maintain a tight cover that minimizes 

any emissions of LFG through the 

surface. The surface emissions 

monitoring procedures in subpart 

WWW require quarterly surface 

emissions monitoring to demonstrate 

that the cover and gas collection system 

are working properly. The operational 

requirements in subpart WWW (40 CFR 

60.753(d)) specify that the landfill must 

‘‘. . . operate the collection system so 

that the methane concentration is less 

than 500 parts per million above 

background at the surface of the landfill. 

To determine if this level is exceeded, 

the owner or operator shall conduct 

surface testing around the perimeter of 

the collection area and along a pattern 

that traverses the landfill at 30 meter 

intervals and where visual observations 

indicate elevated concentrations of LFG, 

such as distressed vegetation and cracks 

or seeps in the cover.’’ 

Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 60 

includes provisions for increased 

monitoring and corrective procedures if 

readings above 500 ppm are detected. 

Instrumentation specifications, 

monitoring frequencies, and monitoring 

patterns are structured to provide clear 

and straightforward procedures that are 

the minimum necessary to assure 

compliance. 

We are requesting public input on 

potential alternatives to the surface 

monitoring procedures in 40 CFR part 

60, subparts Cc and WWW. Potential 

alternatives could include provisions 

such as those in the California landfill 

methane regulation 93 and include 

changing the walking pattern for 

inspecting the surface of the landfill, 

adding an integrated methane 

concentration measurement, and 

allowing sampling only when wind is 

below a certain speed. 

We are requesting input on reducing 

the interval for the walking pattern that 

traverses the landfill from 30 meters (98 

ft.) to 25 ft. We are also requesting input 

on the addition of an average methane 

concentration limit of 25 ppm as 

determined by integrated surface 

emissions monitoring. This would be in 

addition to the 500 ppm emission 

concentration as determined by 

instantaneous surface emissions 

monitoring. Integrated surface emissions 

monitoring provides an average surface 

emission concentration across a 

specified area. For integrated surface 

emissions monitoring, the specified area 

would be individually identified 50,000 

square foot grids. A tighter walking 

pattern and the addition of an integrated 

methane concentration would more 

thoroughly ensure that the collection 

system is being operated properly, that 

the landfill cover and cover material are 

adequate, and that methane emissions 

from the landfill surface are minimized. 

As part of these potential changes, the 

EPA is also requesting input on not 

allowing surface monitoring when the 

average wind speed exceeds 5 miles per 

hour or the instantaneous wind speed 

exceeds 10 miles per hour because air 

movement can affect whether the 

monitor is accurately reading the 

methane concentration during surface 

monitoring. We are considering this 

change because measurements during 

windy periods are usually not 

representative of emissions. 

We are also soliciting information and 

associated data on the cost and 

assumptions for conducting enhanced 

surface monitoring as described here. 

Several factors contribute to the cost of 

enhanced surface monitoring. 

Monitoring along a traverse with a 25 ft. 

interval would increase monitoring 

time, and, thus, the labor costs, 

compared to monitoring along a 30 

meter (98 ft.) interval. Monitoring along 

the tighter traverse pattern would take 

approximately four times as long, 

because the distance is approximately 

four times when covering a 50,000 

square foot grid. For a landfill to 

conduct the integrated surface 

emissions monitoring, the EPA assumes 

the landfill would rent a handheld 

portable vapor analyzer with a data 

logger. The data logger would be 

necessary to obtain an integrated 

reading over a single 50,000 square foot 

grid. However, the EPA does not expect 

that requiring an integrated methane 

concentration would add significant 

cost because landfills could use the 

same instrument that they currently use 

for the instantaneous readings. These 

instruments can be programmed to 

provide an integrated value as well as 

an instantaneous value. 

The EPA recognizes that while these 

provisions could minimize surface 

emissions, the actual reduction in 

emissions is difficult to quantify. 

Surface monitoring is a labor intensive 

process and tightening the grid pattern 

would increase costs. Thus, the EPA is 

soliciting input on techniques and data 

to estimate the reductions associated 

with enhanced surface monitoring. 

The EPA is also requesting input on 

allowing the use of alternative remote 

measurement and monitoring 

techniques for landfills that exceed the 

surface monitoring concentrations in 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cc. The EPA 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41790 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

94McAllister, Lesley K., Third-Party Programs to 

Assess Regulatory Compliance, Presented at the 

Administrative Conference of the United States, 

October 22, 2012. 

95Esther Duflo, et al., Truth-Telling By ThirdParty Auditors and the Response of Polluting Firms: 

Experimental Evidence From India, 128 Quarterly 

Journal of Economics 4 at 1499–1545 (2013). 

96First Annual Oversight Report of the 

Decentralized Gateway Vehicle Inspection Program, 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the 

Missouri State Highway Patrol, 2008. http://

www.dnr.mo.gov/gatewayvip/docs/

enforcementrpt.pdf. 

97Renewable Fuel Standard program. http://

www.epa.gov/OTAQ/fuels/renewablefuels/. 

98Wood Heater Compliance Monitoring Program. 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/

programs/caa/woodheaters.html. 

99Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Reporting, California Environmental Protection 

Agency. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghgrep/ghg-rep.htm. 

100Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection, Third-Party Underground Storage Tank 

would like information to determine 

whether to allow these alternative 

techniques to be used to demonstrate 

that surface emissions are below the 

specified methane surface 

concentrations. Alternative remote 

measurement and monitoring 

techniques may include radial plume 

mapping (RPM), optical remote sensing, 

Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) 

spectroscopy, cavity ringdown 

spectroscopy (CRDS), tunable diode 

laser (TDL), tracer correlation, 

micrometeorological eddy-covariance, 

static flux chamber or differential 

absorption. The EPA is also seeking 

input on the frequency of testing and 

the format of the standard if we allow 

the use of these technologies as an 

alternative to average surface 

concentrations as measured by Method 

21. Incorporation of these technologies 

would require a change in format of the 

standard to be consistent with the 

technology. 

3. Alternative Monitoring Provisions for 

LFG Treatment 

The EPA is requesting input on 

defining treatment system as a system 

that filters, dewaters and compresses 

LFG. This alternative approach would 

be consistent with public commenters 

on previous landfills documents (67 FR 

36475, May 23, 2002; 71 FR 53271, 

September 8, 2006). It is also consistent 

with input from participants in 

governmental outreach, who stated that 

the extent of filtration, de-watering and 

compression can be site dependent, and 

that different sites require different 

levels of gas treatment to protect the 

combustion devices that use treated LFG 

as a fuel and ensure good combustion. 

The alternative definition of treatment 

system would allow the level of 

treatment to be tailored to the type and 

design of the specific combustion 

equipment in which the LFG is used. If 

treatment system was defined in this 

manner, owners/operators would need 

to identify monitoring parameters and 

keep records that demonstrate that such 

parameters effectively monitor filtration, 

de-watering or compression system 

performance necessary for the end use 

of the treated LFG. 

Owners/operators would also need to 

develop a site-specific treatment system 

monitoring plan that would not only 

accommodate site-specific and end-use 

specific treatment requirements for 

different energy recovery technologies, 

but would also ensure environmental 

protection. Preparing the monitoring 

plan would document procedures that 

landfills are likely already following to 

ensure that the LFG has been adequately 

treated for its intended use. 

The plan would be required to 

include monitoring parameters 

addressing all three elements of 

treatment (filtration, de-watering, and 

compression) to ensure the treatment 

system is operating properly for the 

intended end use of the treated LFG. 

The plan would be required to include 

monitoring methods, frequencies and 

operating ranges for each monitored 

operating parameter based on 

manufacturer’s recommendations or 

engineering analysis for the intended 

end use of the treated LFG. 

Documentation of the monitoring 

methods and ranges, along with 

justification for their use, would need to 

be included in the site-specific 

monitoring plan. In the plan, the owner/ 

operator would also need to identify 

who is responsible (by job title) for data 

collection, explain the processes and 

methods used to collect the necessary 

data, and describe the procedures and 

methods that are used for quality 

assurance, maintenance, and repair of 

all continuous monitoring systems. 

The owner or operator would be 

required to revise the monitoring plan to 

reflect changes in processes, monitoring 

instrumentation and quality assurance 

procedures; or to improve procedures 

for the maintenance and repair of 

monitoring systems to reduce the 

frequency of monitoring equipment 

downtime. The EPA requests input on 

the definition of treatment system and 

the creation of site-specific treatment 

system monitoring plans. 

4. Monitoring and Reporting Flexibility 

Regulatory agencies and landfill 

owners and operators have expressed 

concerns about the burden and response 

time of agencies responsible for 

reviewing and approving design plans, 

Alternative Compliance Timeline (ACT) 

requests, alternative remedies and 

higher operating value (HOV) requests. 

One way to minimize the need for 

such reviews would be to provide more 

flexibility in wellhead monitoring 

provisions, as described in section 

IV.D.1 of this document. 

The EPA also solicits input on other 

ways to streamline the monitoring, 

reporting and notification provisions as 

part of its review of the emission 

guidelines. For example, currently the 

subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR part 

60 require site-specific design plan 

review and approval procedures, 

recognizing the unique site-specific 

topography, climate and other factors 

affecting the design of a GCCS. 

However, the EPA solicits input on 

ways to streamline the design plan 

submission and approval procedures as 

part of its review of the emissions 

guidelines. Examples of streamlining 

may include the potential development 

of a process by which approved 

alternative operating parameters could 

be automatically linked to updates of 

design plans or development of a 

process by which alternative operating 

parameters and updated design plans 

could be approved on a similar 

schedule. 

The EPA is also seeking input on the 

possibility of establishing a third-party 

design plan certification program. The 

third-party program would supplement 

or replace the current approach of 

requiring the EPA or state review and 

approval of site-specific design plans 

and plan revisions with a program by 

which independent third parties would 

review the design plans, determine 

whether they conform to applicable 

regulatory criteria, and report their 

findings to the approved state programs 

or the EPA (for states without approved 

programs). The program would be 

designed to ensure that the third-party 

reviewers are competent, independent, 

and accredited, apply clear and 

objective criteria to their design plan 

reviews, and report appropriate 

information to regulators. Additionally, 

there would need to be mechanisms to 

ensure regular and effective oversight of 

third-party reviewers by the EPA and/or 

states that may include public 

disclosure of information concerning 

the third parties and their performance 

and determinations. Utilizing a thirdparty certification program could help 

to standardize and expedite design plan 

reviews, and reduce the burden on state 

regulators. The EPA is considering a 

broad range of possible design features 

for such a program. Such features 

include those discussed or included in 

several articles,94 95 96 rules 97 98 99 and 

programs.100 101


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41791 

Inspection Program. http://www.mass.gov/eea/

agencies/massdep/toxics/ust/third-party-ustinspection-program.html. 

101Massachusetts Licensed Hazardous Waste Site 

Cleanup Professional Program, http://

www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/cleanup/

licensed-site-professionals.html. 

102Stege, Alex. The Effects of Organic Waste 

Diversion on LFG Generation and Recovery from 

U.S. Landfills. SWANA’s 37th Annual Landfill Gas 

Symposium. 2014. 

103 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC), IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories. Volume 5 (Waste), Chapter 3 (Solid 

Waste Disposal). 2006. 

104California Code of Regulations, title 17, 

subchapter 10, article 4, subarticle 6, section 95463, 

Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills. 

We are considering the possibility of 

requiring sources to make design plans 

(including revisions) available online 

and easily accessible to the public as 

well as any impediment to doing so. We 

are also seeking input on what 

constitutes a reasonable time period for 

sources to make the design plans 

available online. 

In addition to electronic storage of 

design plans, the EPA also plans to 

include electronic reporting in the 

forthcoming proposal that could amend 

subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR part 

60 as a result of this review. 

E. Alternative Emission Threshold 

Determination Techniques 

The EPA is considering adjusting the 

emission threshold determinations that 

dictate when a GCCS must be installed, 

including variations in the modeling 

parameters as well as adding sitespecific emission threshold 

determination. These alternatives may 

provide additional reporting and 

compliance flexibilities for owners and 

operators of affected landfills, including 

those that use new technologies to 

increase oxidation of emissions, employ 

BMPs to increase the effectiveness of 

GCCS, or increase organics diversion 

and source separation practices. 

1. Modeling Adjustments 

An affected landfill currently has 

three different options (tiers) for 

estimating whether the landfill exceeds 

the NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg 

per year. The simplest of these, the Tier 

1 calculation method, uses default 

values for the potential methane 

generation capacity (L0) and methane 

generation rate (k) to determine when 

the landfill exceeds the 50 Mg NMOC 

per year emission threshold. The default 

L0 is 170 m3 per Mg of waste (equal to 

5,458 cubic feet methane per ton of 

waste) and the k values are 0.05 per year 

for areas receiving 25 inches or more of 

rainfall per year and 0.02 per year for 

areas receiving less than 25 inches of 

rainfall. The Tier 1 default NMOC 

concentration is 4,000 parts per million 

by volume (ppmv) as hexane. If the Tier 

1 calculated NMOC exceeds 50 Mg per 

year, the landfill must install controls or 

demonstrate, using more complex Tier 2 

or 3 procedures, that NMOC emissions 

are less than 50 Mg per year. 

A revised rule could allow for 

alternative Tier 1 default values and 

modeling techniques based on the 

amount of organics in the waste. For 

example, the L0 is a function of the 

moisture content and organic content of 

the waste and L0 decreases as the 

amount of organic matter decreases. 

Recent studies have shown that average 

U.S. landfill L0 values have decreased 

22 percent between 1990 and 2012 

(from 102.6 m3 per Mg of waste to 79.8 

m3 per Mg of waste) due to increased 

recovery of organic materials.102 A 

revised rule could allow for landfillspecific L0 values to be calculated based 

on the amount of degradable organic 

carbon (DOC), similar to components of 

Equation HH–1 in the GHGRP for MSW 

landfills (40 CFR part 98, subpart HH). 

Subpart HH of the GHGRP also 

provides separate k-values for different 

types of materials, which could be used 

as alternate Tier 1 default values in 

revised emission guidelines. Sewage 

sludge and food waste have the highest 

k values, followed by garden waste, 

diapers, paper, textiles and wood and 

straw.11

The IPCC model employs a modeling 

method to accommodate separate k and 

DOC modeling parameters as well as 

separate calculations for six different 

categories of organic wastes.103

If the EPA pursues incorporating 

alternative Tier 1 modeling values in 

any revised emission guidelines, the 

EPA would also need to allow for an 

alternative first-order decay model 

structure to compute a total methane 

generation rate for the landfill based on 

the sum of the methane generated from 

each separate waste stream. This 

alternative model may incorporate 

material-specific k and L0 values, 

instead of a single pair of k and L0

values applied to bulk MSW. The EPA 

requests input on whether the 

alternative modeling parameters and 

model structure in subpart HH of 40 

CFR part 98, or other default parameters 

or modeling procedures would be 

appropriate to use for emission 

threshold determinations in revised 

emission guidelines. 

The EPA also requests input on 

whether such an alternative modeling 

procedure would be limited to only 

those landfills that are employing 

organic diversion or source separation. 

2. Site-Specific Measurements 

As indicated above, under the current 

emission guidelines, there are three 

different tiers available to an affected 

landfill to estimate whether the landfill 

exceeds the NMOC emission threshold 

of 50 Mg/yr. If an affected landfill fails 

a Tier 2 test (i.e., the calculated NMOC 

emissions are greater than 50 Mg/yr), 

then the landfill must conduct Tier 3 

testing or install and operate an active 

GCCS. 

The EPA received input 

recommending the addition of a new 

Tier 4 surface emission monitoring 

(SEM) demonstration to allow increased 

flexibility for landfills that exceed 

modeled NMOC emission rates if they 

can demonstrate that site-specific 

methane emissions are actually low. 

This SEM demonstration would be 

conducted using procedures similar to 

those currently in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW (see 40 CFR 60.755(d)). 

If the monitoring finds that methane 

emissions are below a level that the EPA 

adopts in the revised emission 

guidelines, then installation of a GCCS 

could be delayed. 

As an example, the California Air 

Resources Board (ARB) adopted the 

Methane Emissions from MSW Landfills 

regulation in 2009.104 Under this rule, if 

a landfill exceeds the waste-in-place 

and heat input thresholds, the landfill 

may conduct an SEM demonstration 

prior to being required to install a 

GCCS. If the measured surface methane 

emissions exceed 200 ppm, the landfill 

must install a GCCS. This SEM 

demonstration is similar to the Tier 4 

option being considered by EPA. 

The EPA is soliciting input about this 

new Tier 4 option or other ideas for 

more flexible emission threshold 

determination ‘‘Tiers’’ and what 

implementation procedures may be 

appropriate for each determination. As 

the EPA takes this new Tier 4 option 

under consideration, there are some 

implementation procedures that would 

need to be established. The EPA 

requests input on all aspects of 

implementing a new Tier 4 option, 

including the following specific items: 

(1) Which areas of the landfill would be 

subject to SEM requirements because 

these areas would no longer be limited 

to areas with GCCS installed; (2) what 

number of exceedances over a specified 

time period would require GCCS 

installation (40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW specifies a new well must be 

installed at three or more exceedances 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
41792 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

105See Docketed Memorandum ‘‘Summary of 

Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission 

Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014.’’ 

in a quarter); (3) what frequency of SEM 

demonstration (e.g., quarterly 

monitoring for landfills accepting waste, 

annual monitoring for closed landfills) 

is appropriate; (4) what exceedance 

level is appropriate for determining if a 

GCCS must be installed (200 ppm or 

some other level); and (5) whether the 

Tier 4 option would apply to all 

landfills that could demonstrate surface 

emissions less than the determined 

exceedance level, regardless of how this 

level was achieved; or, whether this 

option would be made available to only 

those landfills employing and 

maintaining oxidative cover practices, 

utilizing biofiltration cells, or 

implementing other established best 

practices or organics diversion programs 

as discussed later in this section. 

F. Considerations for Implementation at 

Closed vs. Active Landfills 

The landfills included as part of this 

review include landfills that have 

accepted waste since November 8, 1987, 

and that commenced construction, 

reconstruction or modification before 

July 17, 2014. Table 3 of this document 

summarizes the closure patterns of the 

approximately 1,800 landfills 

potentially affected by 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts Cc and WWW.105

TABLE 3—AGE DISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING LANDFILLS

When did landfill stop accepting waste? 

All landfills Landfills 

with design 

capacity of 

2.5 million Mg 

or greater Number of 

landfills 

Cumulative 

waste-in-place 

(tons) in 2014 Number of 

landfills 

Cumulative 

waste-in-place 

(tons) in 2014 

Before 1990 a ........................................................................................... 33 84,300,000 10 63,200,000 

Between 1990 and 1995 ......................................................................... 335 662,300,000 62 465,500,000 

Between 1995 and 2000 ......................................................................... 242 583,300,000 56 429,500,000 

Between 2000 and 2005 ......................................................................... 97 402,300,000 29 343,000,000 

Between 2005 and 2010 ......................................................................... 82 310,900,000 27 250,500,000 

Between 2010 and 2013 ......................................................................... 77 469,800,000 31 408,400,000 

N/A. Active as of 2014 b ........................................................................... 966 6,695,300,000 739 6,493,000,000 

Total .................................................................................................. 1,832 9,208,200,000 954 8,453,100,000 

aBut accepted waste after November 8, 1987. 

bExcludes model landfills that began operating in 2014 and are expected to be subject to the proposed subpart XXX NSPS for MSW Landfills. 

The EPA recognizes that existing 

landfills represent a wide range of 

points in the life cycle of a typical 

landfill. Approximately 39 percent of 

the existing landfills (707/1,832) closed 

prior to 2005 and those landfills 

collectively account for approximately 

19 percent of the total waste disposed 

through 2014. Because these wastes 

were disposed of between 10 and 25 

years ago, the LFG emission rates from 

these older sites are decreasing and have 

a significantly smaller contribution to 

emissions from this source category. 

Given the wide range of points within 

a lifecycle that are represented by 

potentially affected existing landfills, 

and recognizing that some of the 

affected sites have not disposed of waste 

in over 25 years, the EPA believes that 

the implementation of any adjustments 

to the current framework or 

incorporation of alternative control 

frameworks or monitoring requirements 

may affect active landfills differently 

than inactive landfills. Therefore, the 

EPA requests input on how adjusting 

the current framework, selecting an 

alternative framework or modifying the 

monitoring requirements should be 

evaluated in terms of practicality, cost 

and emission reductions as these 

adjustments affect landfills of various 

ages and activity levels. 

G. Implementation Issues 

Since the landfills emission 

guidelines were promulgated in 1996, 

the EPA has become aware of a number 

of implementation issues for which 

landfill owners and operators, as well as 

regulators, need clarification. This 

section presents those issues and 

requests input on those clarifications 

and potential resolutions. 

1. LFG Treatment 

In this document, the EPA is 

soliciting input on what constitutes 

sufficient LFG treatment. In the Federal 

Register document proposing a new 

subpart resulting from its review of the 

landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart 

XXX), the EPA refined a numeric 

definition of LFG treatment and 

solicited input on a non-numeric 

definition that required compression, 

dewatering, and filtration of LFG, as 

well as the creation of a site-specific 

monitoring plan. The EPA requests 

input on whether a non-numeric or 

numeric treatment requirement is 

appropriate for landfills subject to the 

emission guidelines. Further, the EPA 

requests input on whether previously 

proposed definitions of LFG treatment 

should be adopted or if other 

approaches to LFG treatment should be 

explored. We are also requesting input 

on expanding the use of treated LFG 

fuel for a stationary combustion device, 

as some people have previously 

interpreted this compliance option, but 

also include other uses such as the 

production of vehicle fuel, production 

of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, or 

use as a raw material in a chemical 

manufacturing process. 

2. Closed Areas 

To determine whether NMOC 

emissions from nonproductive areas of 

a landfill are less than 1 percent of the 

total landfill NMOC emissions (and 

hence controls are not required), the 

landfills regulations (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts Cc and WWW) rely on 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41793 

modeled NMOC rates. To refine the 

measurements of these nonproductive 

areas, the EPA is requesting input on 

allowing landfill owners or operators to 

use either the measured or modeled 

flow of LFG to determine if an area is 

nonproductive. The EPA is also 

requesting input on what criteria and 

procedures would be considered 

acceptable for making these estimates. 

The provisions would apply to 

physically separated, closed areas of 

landfills. 

3. Submitting Corrective Action 

Timeline Requests 

If a landfill exceeds a wellhead 

operating parameter, the landfill owner 

or operator must initiate corrective 

action within 5 days and follow the 

timeline in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

WWW for correcting the exceedance. 

During implementation of subpart 

WWW, the question has been raised 

whether a landfill needs agency 

approval of corrective action timelines 

that exceed 15 calendar days but are less 

than the 120 days allowed for installing 

a GCCS. 

The EPA is seeking input on whether 

a specific schedule for submitting these 

requests for alternative corrective action 

timelines is appropriate because 

investigating and determining the 

appropriate corrective action, as well as 

the schedule for implementing the 

corrective action, will be site specific 

and depend on the reason for the 

exceedance. We also solicit input on 

whether any clarifications should be 

included in the revised emission 

guidelines to expedite the submission of 

any alternative time line requests (i.e., 

as soon as they know that they would 

not be able to correct the exceedance in 

15 days or expand the system in 120 

days) to avoid being in violation of the 

rule. 

To address implementation concerns 

associated with the time allowed for 

corrective action, the EPA requests 

input on an approach that extends the 

requirement for notification from 15 

days to as soon as practicable, but no 

later than 60 days. Many requests for an 

alternative compliance timeline express 

the need for additional time to make 

necessary repairs to a well that requires 

significant construction activities. 

Extending the time period to as soon as 

practicable but no later than 60 days 

may reduce the burden and ensure 

sufficient time for correction. If the EPA 

were to extend the time period, then the 

EPA also would consider removing the 

requirement to submit an alternative 

timeline for correcting the exceedance. 

Thus, by no later than day 60, the 

landfill would have to either have 

completed the adjustments and repairs 

necessary to correct the exceedance, or 

be prepared to have the system 

expansion completed by day 120. The 

EPA is also requesting input on whether 

60 days is the appropriate amount of 

time that would allow owners or 

operators to make the necessary a 

repairs. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, titled 

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

the action raises novel legal or policy 

issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted 

this action to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and any changes 

made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. Because this action does not 

propose or impose any requirements, 

other statutory and Executive Order 

reviews that apply to rulemaking do not 

apply. Should the EPA subsequently 

determine to pursue a rulemaking, the 

EPA will address the statues and 

Executive Orders as applicable to that 

rulemaking. 

Nevertheless, the EPA welcomes 

input and/or information that would 

help the EPA to assess any of the 

following: The potential impact of a rule 

on small entities pursuant to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); potential impacts on 

federal, state, or local governments 

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act ((UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538); federalism implications pursuant 

to Executive Order 13132, titled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, November 2, 

1999); availability of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113; tribal 

implications pursuant to Executive 

Order 13175, titled Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 

6, 2000); environmental health or safety 

effects on children pursuant to 

Executive Order 13045, titled Protection 

of Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997); energy effects pursuant 

to Executive Order 13211, titled Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22,2001); paperwork burdens pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. § 3501); or human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations pursuant to 

Executive Order 12898, titled Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). The EPA will 

consider such comments during the 

development of any subsequent 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 30, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16404 Filed 7–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3